International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Effect of sample disturbance on cyclic shear

strength of normally to lightly OC clays

Shaoli Yang, Knut H. Andersen, Tom Lunne & Gulin Yetginer

To cite this article: Shaoli Yang, Knut H. Andersen, Tom Lunne & Gulin Yetginer (2018): Effect of
sample disturbance on cyclic shear strength of normally to lightly OC clays, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1418801

Published online: 05 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [Norges Geotekniske Institute] Date: 05 January 2018, At: 01:10
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1418801

Effect of sample disturbance on cyclic shear strength of normally to lightly OC clays

Shaoli Yanga, Knut H. Andersena, Tom Lunnea and Gulin Yetginerb
a
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Oslo, Norway; bStatoil, Stavanger, Norway

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Tests on Onsøy clay (Ip = 24–27%) were performed to study the effect of sample disturbance on undrained Received 27 October 2017
static and cyclic shear strength. Samples with different degree of disturbance from sampling were used Accepted 11 December 2017
and parallel sets of monotonic and cyclic undrained laboratory tests were performed on block and 54 mm
KEYWORDS
composite piston samples. A silty Drammen clay (Ip = 19%) which was studied earlier was included in the Plasticity; static and cyclic
study. Test results indicated that there are significant effects of sample disturbance on both static and shear strengths; clay, sample
cyclic undrained shear strengths for both Onsøy and silty Drammen clays.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

disturbance; Onsøy clay;

silty Drammen clay; dilatant,
contractive

Introduction Onsøy and silty Drammen clay properties

The influence of sample disturbance on undrained static shear
strength is well documented (e.g. Lunne et al. 2006). The influ-
ence on undrained cyclic strength has to date received less
attention. Zapata-Medina, Finno, and Vega-Posada (2014)
studied sampling disturbance effects on cyclic response of
overconsolidated Bootlegger Cove clays, and samples that
experienced a larger load reversal show stiffer response and
a larger range of elastic response to the first cycle of compres-
sive load. Mohajeri and Ghafghzi (2012) performed cyclic
direct simple shear tests on low plasticity clays and observed
that maximum excess pore water pressure experienced by the
sample has a direct correlation with volumetric strains accu-
mulated during the post-cyclic consolidation phase. Dahl et
al. (2010) studied a silty clay (Ip = 12–24%) and a clayey sand
(Ip = 4–13%), and their test results suggested that the cyclic
strength from tube samples reconsolidated to their in situ
stresses in the DSS device would significantly underestimate
the in situ cyclic shear strengths for the clayey sand. Some
results for low plastic Drammen clay presented in the contour
diagram framework (e.g. Andersen, Kleven, and Heien 1988)
indicate that the effect of sample disturbance can be different
for cyclic and static strengths (Lunne and Andersen 2007). It
was considered that the effect of sample disturbance on static
and cyclic shear strengths could be more comparable for more
plastic clays. Consequently, one could determine a corrected
cyclic shear strength using a cyclic contour diagram established
from disturbed samples, and de-normalise with a corrected
static shear strength. A series of tests were therefore performed
on samples of the more plastic Onsøy clay with different degree
of disturbance from sampling, and sample disturbance on static
and cyclic strength of clays are investigated and discussed in
this study.
Onsøy has been used by NGI as a test site for soft marine clay
for more than 50 years. The clay is not mechanically overcon-
solidated but has some apparent preconsolidation stress due to
ageing. The site is close to the Seut river, and the water table is
less than 0.5 m below ground level. A detailed description of
the Onsøy site is given by Lunne, Long, and Forsberg (2003).
The Onsøy clay used in this study had a plasticity index of
Ip~24–27%. The samples were normally consolidated with an
apparent overconsolidation ratio of OCR~1.3–1.5 due to ageing.
The water content is between 41 and 46%, the clay content is
around 60%, and the sensitivity as measured by the fall cone
is between 4 and 9. The silty Drammen clay has a plasticity
index of Ip~19% and a clay content of about 35–40% (Lunne
and Andersen 2007). The samples were normally consolidated
with an apparent overconsolidation ratio of OCR~1.2. The OCR
values are based on preconsolidation stress determined in CRSC
oedometer tests.
Sampling methods
The Sherbrooke block sampler was developed at the University
of Sherbrooke, Quebeck (Lefebvre and Poulin 1979). The block
sampler carves out a cylindrical block of diameter 250 mm and
height 350 mm at desired depth below the ground level. The sam-
pler has been used for several R&D projects at NGI, e.g. Lunne
et al. (2006). NGI believes this sampler still gives the highest
quality samples achievable.
NGI 54 mm composite piston sampler was developed at NGI
at the end of the 1970s. The sampler uses plastic inner cylinders
resulting in a high area ratio 44%, and is known to give highly
disturbed samples. The displacement method is used wherein the
sampler (with the piston in front of the sample tube) is pushed

CONTACT  Shaoli Yang  shaoli.yang@ngi.no

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   S. YANG ET AL.

down to the desired sampling depth without pre-auguring. For anisotropically consolidated undrained triaxial compression and
details of both samplers see Lunne et al. (2006). extension tests, respectively. DSS test is a consolidated constant
volume shear test. All these tests were performed at the NGI
laboratory in Oslo.
Test program and procedures
The test program included monotonic CAUC, CAUE and DSS
Onsøy clay
tests and cyclic CAU and DSS tests. CAUC and CAUE tests are
A parallel set of monotonic and cyclic undrained laboratory
Table 1. Void ratio change when consolidating to in situ stresses (average values,
all monotonic and cyclic tests). Onsøy clay. tests was performed on block and 54 mm samples of Onsøy
clay, containing one pair of monotonic CAUC, CAUE, DSS
Test type Triaxial DSS
tests, five pairs of cyclic CAU tests and two pairs of cyclic DSS
Sample type Block 54 mm Block 54 mm tests.
Δe/e0 0.018 0.058 0.044 0.083 Both triaxial and DSS tests were consolidated to the best esti-
Initial water content 43.2% 42.9% 45.9% 45.3%
Water content after consolidation 42.4% 40.4% 43.9% 41.5% mate of in situ effective stresses and sheared under undrained
conditions. Triaxial specimens are consolidated to in situ verti-
cal and horizontal stresses. DSS specimens are consolidated to
effective vertical in situ stresses and the horizontal stresses are
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

not known. The average shear stress applied after consolidation

in some of the cyclic tests was applied for about 1–2 h under
undrained conditions before cycling was started. The cyclic tests
were performed with a load period of 10 s. The DSS specimens
had a cross sectional area of 20 cm2 for tube samples and 50 cm2
for block samples and a height of 16 mm. The rate of DSS shear-
ing was approximately 5% shear strain/hour. The triaxial speci-
mens had a diameter of 54 mm. Since the Onsøy clay at the tested
site is lightly overconsolidated, a K0 = 0.6 was used to determine
the horizontal consolidation stresses applied in the triaxial tests
(Lunne, Long, and Forsberg 2003). The rate of triaxial shearing
was approximately 1.4% axial strain/hour.

Drammen clay
A series of parallel cyclic tests were run on high-quality block
samples and 54 mm piston tube samples in order to study the
effect of sample quality on cyclic behaviour, as reported by Lunne
and Andersen (2007) for Onsøy clay. Pairs of CAUC, DSS and
Figure 1. Monotonic DSS stress–strain curves for Onsøy clay.

Figure 2. Monotonic DSS stress paths for Onsøy clay.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3

Table 2. Summary of monotonic tests.

Sam-
Type of pling Depth σhc’ Sample
Clay test method (m) wi (%) wc (%) Δw (%) σvc’ (kPa) (kPa) ε vol (%) su (kPa) εf (%) su/σvc’ Δe/ei quality
Onsøy CAUC Block 10.24 43.6 43.0 0.6 65.7 39.5 0.71 28.5 0.6 0.43 0.013 1
Onsøy CAUC Tube 10.6 41.1 38.9 2.2 68.2 41.0 2.92 26.1 1.8 0.38 0.055 2
Onsøy CAUE Block 10.24 41.6 40.8 0.8 65.8 39.5 1.16 11.6 −1.8 0.18 0.022 1
Onsøy CAUE Tube 10.48 42.3 40.5 1.8 67.5 40.5 2.3 16.0 −10.0 0.24 0.043 2

Onsøy DSS Block 12.22 46.0 45.4 0.6 80.2 23.8 1.6 0.30 0.041 2
Onsøy DSS Tube 12.44 45.3 43.9 1.4 81.8 22.0 2.5 0.27 0.097 3

Drammen CAUC Block 16.17 34.2 32.8 1.4 126.5 69.6 1.97 39.6 0.3 0.31 0.041 1–2
Drammen CAUC Block 16.57 35.5 34.5 1.0 129.6 71.2 1.45 40.9 0.3 0.32 0.029 1
Drammen CAUC Tube 16.35 33.0 29.4 3.6 127.7 70.3 5.42 49.6 10.0 0.39 0.114 3
Drammen CAUC Tube 17.35 21.0 18.1 2.9 135.4 74.5 5.24 52.4 10.0 0.39 0.143 4
Drammen CAUE Block 16.17 34.1 32.5 1.6 126.6 69.6 2.36 17.5 −10.0 0.14 0.049 2
Drammen CAUE Block 16.57 35.5 34.0 1.5 129.6 71.3 2.09 16.3 −9.6 0.13 0.042 1–2
Drammen CAUE Tube 16.45 32.5 29.2 3.3 127.7 70.3 5.00 28.9 −10.0 0.23 0.106 3

Drammen DSS Tube 16.51 33.6 29.2 4.4 128.9 31.5 9.2 0.24 0.112 3
Drammen DSS Tube 17.58 27.9 23.8 4.1 137.4 43.1 8.3 0.31 0.158 4
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

Drammen DSS Tube 17.85 27.5 24.3 3.2 139.4 39.9 9.3 0.29 0.111 3
Drammen DSS Block 16.14 35.1 32.8 2.3 125.9 27.7 1.8 0.22 0.071 2–3
Drammen DSS Block 16.54 34.9 31.7 3.2 129.0 31.1 6.9 0.24 0.083 3

Notes: wi Inittial water content.

wc Water content after consolidation.
Δw Difference between initial water content and water content after consolidation.
εvol Volumetric strain after consolidation.
σvc’ Vertical effective stress.
σhc’ Horizontal effective stress.
εf Axial strain at failure.

Results from monotonic tests

Figure 3. Monotonic CAUC stress–strain curves for Onsøy clay.
CAUE monotonic tests and pairs of cyclic triaxial and cyclic DSS
tests consolidated to the in situ effective stresses were run with
various combinations of average and cyclic shear stresses. The
DSS specimens discussed in this study had a cross sectional area
of 20 cm2 for both tube samples and block samples and a height
of 16 mm. Equipment and procedures used are the same as for
Onsøy clay in this study.
Monotonic tests on Onsøy clay
The block samples were of higher quality than the 54 mm sam-
ples, as indicated by the change in void ratio when the samples
were consolidated back to the in situ stresses (Table 1). This con-
firmed previous results reported by Lunne et al. (2006).
According to the sample disturbance criteria by Lunne, Berre
and Strandvik (1997), the triaxial block samples are Quality
Classes ‘1 – Very good to excellent’. The triaxial tube samples
are in Quality Class ‘2 – Good to fair’. The DSS block samples
are Quality Classes ‘2 – good to fair’. The DSS tube samples are
in Quality Class ‘2 – Good to fair’ or ‘3 – poor’. The triaxial tests
were of better quality than the DSS tests for a given sample type.
This may have to do with the sample preparation and mounting
procedures being more gentle for triaxial than for DSS specimens.
The monotonic DSS tests on tube and block samples are com-
pared in Figures 1 and 2 and Table 2. The plot indicates that the
sampling method has an effect on the static undrained shear
strength and the monotonic stress–strain behaviour of Onsøy
clay. There is a distinct peak in the undrained stress–strain curve
from the block sample, while the peak is less significant in the
tube sample. The static shear strength, suD/σvc’, is 0.30 for the
block sample and 0.27 for the tube sample. Both tests show con-
tractive behaviour.
Comparison of the monotonic CAUC tests on tube and block
samples is shown in Figures 3 and 4 and Table 2. The plots also
indicate that the sampling method has an effect on the static
undrained compression shear strength and the monotonic
stress–strain behaviour of Onsøy clay. There is a distinct peak in
 4   S. YANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018
Figure 4. Monotonic CAUC stress paths for Onsøy clay.
Figure 5. Monotonic CAUE stress–strain curves for Onsøy clay.
the undrained stress–strain curve from the block sample, while
the peak is less significant in the tube sample. The static shear
strength, suC/σvc’, is 0.43 for the block sample and 0.38 for the
tube sample. Both tests show contractive behaviour, and they
seem to follow the same failure line in the effective stress path
plot in Figure 4.
Comparison of the monotonic CAUE tests on tube and block
samples is shown in Figures 5 and 6 and Table 2. The plots also
indicate that the sampling method has an effect on the static
undrained extension shear strength and the monotonic stress–
strain behaviour of Onsøy clay. There is some tendency for a peak
in the undrained stress–strain curve from the block sample, but
not in the tube sample. The static shear strength is actually higher
in the tube sample than in the block sample, with suE/σvc’, equal
to 0.18 for the block sample at failure axial strain of −1.8% and
0.20 to 0.23 for the tube sample at failure axial strain of −10%.
Both tests show contractive behaviour, but they do not seem to
follow the same failure line (Figure 6). The block sample follows
the same failure envelope as the compression tests, but the tube
sample crosses this failure envelope. The reason for the different
behaviour of the tube sample is not known in this study, and the
triaxial extension shear strength is therefore given as a range
for the tube sample. This could be due to anisotropic effect or
duplicate tests are needed in order to guarantee the quality of
the results.
In summary, the block samples give higher peak shear
strength than the 54 mm tube samples for CAUC tests (+13%)
and DSS tests (+11%), but lower shear strength for CAUE tests
(−10 to −20%). The shear stress at 10% axial strain, however,
is lower in block samples than in the 54 mm tube samples in
both CAUC (−30%), DSS (−5%) and CAUE (−45%) tests. These
observations are in line with results of other clays reported by
Lunne et al. (2006).
The reason for the difference in peak shear strength is that the
sample disturbance in the 54 mm tube samples partly destroys
the shear-induced structure in the clay. The shear-induced struc-
ture is most pronounced in the CAUC test and is not important
in CAUE tests where the shear stresses are applied in the direc-
tion opposite to the shear stress during consolidation.
The reason for the difference in the shear stress at large shear
strain is that the disturbed 54 mm samples get larger volumet-
ric strain during consolidation and end up with a lower water
content after consolidation than the block samples. This water
content is governing for the shear stress at large strains.
Monotonic tests on silty Drammen clay
The block samples were of higher quality than the 54 mm sam-
ples, as indicated by the change in void ratio when the samples
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

Figure 6. Monotonic CAUE stress paths for Onsøy clay.

According to the sample disturbance criteria by Lunne et al.

Table 3. Void ratio change when consolidating to in situ stresses (average values,
all monotonic and cyclic tests). Silty Drammen clay. (1997), the triaxial block samples are between Quality Classes
‘1 – Very good to excellent’ and ‘2 – Good to fair’. The other
Test type Triaxial DSS
samples are in Quality Class ‘3 – Poor’. Table 2 shows that the
Sample type Block 54 mm Block 54 mm triaxial tests were of better quality than the DSS tests for a given
Δe/e0 0.041 0.107 0.087 0.120 sample type.
Initial water content 33.3 33.1 34.7 28.9
Water content after consolidation 31.9% 29.6% 31.7% 25.4% In the tests on block samples, the monotonic triaxial tests
after consolidationa show contractant behaviour and a well defined peak shear stress,
a
Only water contents from similar depth were included here. giving normalised undrained shear strengths of suC/σvc′ = 0.31 for
triaxial compression. The 54 mm samples were more disturbed
and experienced more volume reduction than the block sam-
ples during consolidation, as shown in Table 2. The monotonic
tests on the 54 mm samples show no clear peak shear stress and
mobilise higher shear stresses than the block samples at large
shear strains. The results from the monotonic tests are shown in
Figures 7 and 8 and Table 2.
Contrary to the monotonic tests on Onsøy clay, the mono-
tonic tests on silty Drammen clay do not show a reduction in
the peak shear strength at small shear strains due to sample dis-
turbance. Further, the effective stress paths show that the tube
samples exhibit dilatant behaviour and the block samples show
contractive behaviour when they are sheared to larger shear
strains. The reason for the difference is that the disturbed tube
samples suffer more volumetric strains and a greater reduction
in water content than the higher quality block samples, as for
Onsøy clay. The consequence is different from Onsøy clay, how-
ever, since disturbance can give an increased shear strength (at
large shear strains) for the silty Drammen clay.
Results from monotonic tests on Onsøy and Drammen clays
are summarised in Table 2.
Figure 8. Monotonic DSS stress–strain curves for silty Drammen clay.
Results from cyclic tests
were consolidated back to the in situ stresses (Table 3). Details Some key parameters from the cyclic tests on Onsøy and
can be found at Lunne et al. (2006). Drammen clay are shown in Table 4.
 6   S. YANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018
Figure 7. Monotonic CAU stress–strain curves and stress paths for silty Drammen clay.
Cyclic tests on Onsøy clay
The cyclic tests were performed as pairs of tests on 54 mm sam-
ples and block samples with the same τa/su and τcy/su. The static
shear strength is the maximum shear stress for shear strains equal
to or less than 15%. The su used for cyclic strength normalisation
is for specimen from tube and block samples, respectively.
The aim was to see whether the sample disturbance would
have the same effect on cyclic and static shear strengths. If that
should be the case, the cyclic contour diagrams would be the
same for disturbed and high-quality samples. Sample disturbance
in cyclic strength on poor quality samples could be corrected for
by denormalising the axes in the contour diagram with the static
shear strength from high-quality samples or static shear strength
corrected for sample disturbance by for instance the correction
procedure proposed by Berre et al. (2007).
The test results are plotted in contour type diagrams in Figure
9 for DSS tests and in Figure 10 for triaxial tests, some key param-
eters are listed in Table 4. The results are plotted according to the
applied average and cyclic shear stresses, normalised with the
 Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

Table 4. Summary of cyclic tests.

Type of Sampling Depth τa/suC or Sample

Clay test method (m) wi (%) wc (%) Δw (%) σvc’ σhc’ εac suDSS τcy/suC N γa γp γcy Δe/ei quality
Onsøy CAUcy Tube 10.23 42.3 40.2 2.1 65.7 39.4 1.91 −0.10 0.32 388 −15.0 −12.5 7.4 0.051 2
Onsøy CAUcy Block 10.24 41.9 41.3 0.6 65.8 39.5 0.49 −0.10 0.32 272 −15.0 −11.0 8.5 0.017 1
Onsøy CAUcy Tube 12.13 43.0 41.1 1.9 79.4 47.6 1.55 0.22 0.56 41 15.0 19.0 13.0 0.045 2
Onsøy CAUcy Block 10.24 42.2 41.7 0.5 65.7 39.5 0.54 0.22 0.55 75 15.0 12.0 12.4 0.013 1
Onsøy CAUcy Tube 10.11 45.6 40.9 4.7 64.8 38.9 3.81 0.23 0.52 120 15.0 17.0 7.0 0.107 3
Onsøy CAUcy Block 10.24 43.5 43.1 0.4 65.7 39.5 0.58 0.22 0.52 96 15.0 15.5 8.5 0.011 1
Onsøy CAUcy Tube 12.25 44.4 42.3 2.1 80.2 48.2 1.42 0.22 0.31 6695 15.0 17.0 3.7 0.047 2
Onsøy CAUcy Block 10.24 45.5 43.8 1.7 65.7 39.6 1.04 0.22 0.31 1076 15.0 15.6 2.3 0.038 1
Onsøy CAUcy Tube 10.34 41.4 39.1 2.3 66.3 39.9 1.68 0.71 0.32 306 15.0 15.0 0.2 0.056 2
Onsøy CAUcy Block 10.24 44.2 43.8 0.4 65.7 39.5 0.69 0.71 0.32 87 15.0 18.0 6.0 0.010 1

Onsøy DSScy Tube 12.38 45.2 44.3 0.9 81.4 3.46 0.00 0.80 34.0 −2.2 −15.0 15.0 0.062 2
Onsøy DSScy Block 12.32 45.3 44.6 0.7 80.9 2.45 0.00 0.81 39.0 0.1 −13.0 15.0 0.044 2
Onsøy DSScy Tube 12.34 45.4 44.1 1.3 81.2 4.91 0.75 0.45 36.0 15.0 15.0 0.9 0.088 3
Onsøy DSScy Block 12.27 46.3 45.6 0.7 80.6 2.65 0.76 0.46 11.0 15.0 17.0 2.2 0.047 2

Drammen CAUcy Tube 15.35 29.4 26.3 3.1 120.1 66.1 4.74 0.58 0.25 819 15 NA 0.08 0.106 3
Drammen CAUcy Block 16.17 33.2 32.0 1.2 126.2 69.6 1.83 0.72 0.30 118 15.2 NA 0.09 0.038 1
Drammen CAUcy Tube 15.50 35.7 32.1 3.5 121.1 66.6 5.11 0.16 0.40 42 11.5 NA 15.1 0.103 3
Drammen CAUcy Block 16.30 32.8 31.2 1.6 127.4 70.1 2.46 0.21 0.50 32 7.8 NA 15.1 0.052 2
Drammen CAUcy Tube 15.64 34.8 31.3 3.5 122.1 67.2 5.17 −0.08 0.25 46 −15.1 NA 12.4 0.106 3
Drammen CAUcy Block 16.30 29.9 29.0 0.9 127.4 70.2 1.41 −0.11 0.30 75 −15.9 NA 14.3 0.031 1

Drammen DSScy Tube 17.75 30.0 25.1 4.9 138.2 5.24 0.01 0.58 20 −2.8 NA 16.9 0.116 3
Drammen DSScy Block 16.14 34.0 28.9 5.1 127.5 4.38 0.02 0.74 44 −4.8 NA 16.3 0.091 3
Drammen DSScy Tube 17.80 25.7 21.1 4.6 138.5 5.41 0.40 0.42 21 15.4 NA 0.9 0.131 3
Drammen DSScy Block 16.18 34.8 31.2 3.6 125.9 4.80 0.58 0.61 29 15.09 NA 0.96 0.098 3
Notes: CAUcy Cyclic triaxial test.
DSScy Cyclic DSS test.
wi Inittial water content.
wc Water content after consolidation.
Δw Difference between initial water content and water content after consolidation.
εac Axial strain after consolidation.
σvc’ Vertical effective stress.
σhc’ Horizontal effective stress.
εf Axial strain at failure.
Ν Number of cycles to 15% cyclic or average shear strain.
γa Average shear strain.
γcy Cyclic shear strain.
γp Permanent shear strain.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 
 7
 8   S. YANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

Figure 9. Cyclic DSS tests on Onsøy clay, normalised by static undrained shear strength.

Figure 10. Cyclic CAU tests on Onsøy clay, normalised by static undrained shear strength.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018

Figure 11. Typical DSS cyclic results.

Figure 12. Cyclic DSS tests on silty Drammen clay, normalised by stress static undrained shear strength.
 10   S. YANG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018
Figure 13. Cyclic CAU tests on silty Drammen clay, normalised by static undrained shear strength.
undrained shear strength. The measured number of cycles to
failure, Nf, and the average, cyclic and permanent shear strains at
failure, γa/γcy/γp, are indicated for each of the tests. The contour
diagrams in the background of the figures in the above are for
normally consolidated plastic Drammen clay (Andersen 2004),
which has a plasticity index of about 27% and OCR = 1.
The comparison of the tests results show that, with one excep-
tion, the cyclic shear strength from the 54 mm samples is higher
or close to the cyclic shear strength from the block samples when
they are compared at the same τa/su and τcy/su ratios, both for
DSS and CAU cyclic tests. This means that sample disturbance
gives less reduction in cyclic shear strength than in static shear
strength. This implies that the cyclic strength would be over-
estimated if we use contour diagrams from disturbed samples
and denormalise by static shear strength corrected by sample
disturbance.
Two typical DSS cyclic test results are shown in Figure 11 in
stress–strain plots.
Cyclic tests on silty Drammen clay
The effect of sample disturbance on cyclic shear strength of silty
Drammen clay was presented in Lunne and Andersen (2007).
The results from the cyclic tests on silty Drammen clay are shown
in Figures 12 and 13 where the tests are plotted according to
the applied average and cyclic shear stresses, normalised with
the undrained shear strength. Some important parameters from
cyclic tests are shown in Table 4. The measured number of cycles
to failure, Nf, and the average and cyclic shear strains at failure,
γa/γcy, are indicated for each of the tests. The failure envelopes
for plastic Drammen Clay (Ip~27%) are included for reference.
When the shear stresses are normalised to the undrained
static shear strength of 54  mm or block samples, the data in
Figure 12 and 13 show that, in general, the cyclic shear strength
from the block samples is higher or close to the cyclic shear
strength from the 54  mm samples. The data are compared at
the same τa/su andτcy/su ratios, for both DSS and CAU cyclic
tests. This is the opposite of what was found for Onsøy clay and
means that sample disturbance gives more reduction in cyclic
shear strength than in static shear strength. This implies that the
cyclic strength may be underestimated using contour diagrams
from disturbed samples and denormalise by static shear strength
corrected by sample disturbance.
One conclusion that one can draw from these results on silty
Drammen clay is that for normally consolidated silty clay that
dilates under monotonic loading due to sample disturbance is

that the cyclic shear strength based on disturbed samples may be
on the low side when determined through cyclic diagrams based
on shear stresses normalised to su. This is because the static shear
strength of undisturbed samples may be lower than for disturbed
samples for silty Drammen clay. One exception is the cyclic shear
strengths for failure modes with essentially cyclic average shear
strains and very small cyclic shear strains where the cyclic shear
strength can be overestimated.
Discussion on influence of sample disturbance on
shear strength of Onsøy and silty Drammen clays
The plasticity index for the tested Onsøy clay in this study is
23.6% at depth of about 12 m, and 26.6% at depth of about 10 m.
The OCR is around 1.3–1.5 (NGI 2016). The silty Drammen clay
has a plasticity index of 19%, and the OCR is around 1.2 (Lunne
and Andersen 2007). The contour diagrams in the background
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018
of the figures in the above are for normally consolidated plastic
Drammen clay (Andersen 2004), which has a plasticity index of
about 27% and OCR = 1.
The difference between the Onsøy clay and the silty Drammen
clay can be seen by comparing the results described for the two
clays in the preceding sections.
For monotonic shearing, Figures 1–8 show that tests on Onsøy
clay and tests on block samples of silty Drammen clay do not
dilate under monotonic shearing, while tests on 54 mm samples
of silty Drammen clay do dilate. Cyclic data has not been availa-
ble for more plastic clays, but high plastic clays are not expected
to dilate due to sample disturbance of the magnitude discussed
herein. Clays with higher plasticity are therefore expected to have
less tendency to overestimate the cyclic shear strength for the case
of large cyclic average shear strains than silty clays.
Testing results from silty Drammen clay were used in this
study to compare with the results from Onsøy clay. Whether
silty Drammen clay is representative of other silty clays are not
known. This has to be considered for other general applications.
Conclusion
There are significant effects of sample disturbance on both static
and cyclic shear strengths for both Onsøy and silty Drammen
clays. The difference in plasticity is believed to be the main reason
for this difference.
Sample disturbance causes a reduction in peak static shear
strength of Onsøy clay. This reduction is not seen in the peak
shear stress at small strain in the less plastic silty Drammen clay.
Both clays show that disturbance gives an increase in the shear
stress at higher shear strains. In the silty Drammen clay, the dis-
turbance reduces the water content so much that the clay dilates
and gives a shear stress at large shear strains that is higher than
the small strain peak shear strength.
For the plastic Onsøy clay (Ip = 24–27%), cyclic contour dia-
grams from disturbed samples normalised to undrained static
shear strength may overestimate the cyclic shear strength if it is
used together with a static strength that is corrected for sample
disturbance. This is because the contours tend to plot higher for
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   11
disturbed than for block samples and the static shear strength
of undisturbed samples is higher than for disturbed samples for
Onsøy clay.
For the silty Drammen clay (Ip  =  19%), the cyclic shear
strength will be underestimated by contour diagrams from dis-
turbed samples normalised by the undrained shear strength if
used together with a static shear strength that is corrected for
sample disturbance. An exception is that this silty clay may
dilate and overestimate the cyclic shear strength if the failure
mode is large average shear strain and very small cyclic shear
strains.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the Norwegian
Deepwater Programme – Seabed Project, as represented by Statoil.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by Norwegian Deepwater Programme – Seabed
Project.
Contributors
SY guided the experimental work, analysed the data and wrote the article
in part. KHA designed the study and wrote the article in part. TLu analysed
the data and revised the article. GY obtained funding for the study, revised
the article.
References
Andersen, K. H., A. Kleven and D. Heien. 1988. Cyclic Soil Data for Design
of Gravity Structures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 114 (GT5):
517–539.
Andersen, K. H. 2004. Cyclic Clay Data for Foundation Design of Structures
Subjected to Wave Loading. Invited General Lecture; Proceeding,
International Conference on Cyclic Behaviour of Soils and Liquefaction
Phenomena, CBS04, Bochum, Germany, 31.3–2.4, 2004. 371–387, A.A.
Balkema Publishers, Ed Th. Triantafyllidis.
Berre, T., T. Lunne, K. H. Andersen, S. Strandvik, and M. Sjursen. 2007.
“Procedure to Estimate Effect of Sample Disturbance on Strength of Soft
Marine Norwegian Clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44: 696–716.
Dahl, K. R., R. W. Boulanger, J. T. DeJong, and M. W. Driller. 2010. “Effects
of Sample Disturbance and Consolidation Procedures on Cyclic
Strengths of Intermediate Soils.” International conference on recent
advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics.
Paper No. OSP1.
Lefebvre, G., and C. Poulin. 1979. “A New Method of Sampling in Sensitive
Clay.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 16 (1): 226–233.
Lunne, T., T. Berre, and S. Strandvik. 1997. “Sample Disturbance Effects in
Soft Low Plastic Norwegian Clay.” International Symposium on Recent
Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, Rio de Janeiro 1997.
Proceedings, 81–102.
Lunne, T., M. Long, and C. F. Forsberg. 2003. “Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Onsøy Clay.” In Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, edited by T. S. Tan et al, Vol.
1, 395–427. Balkema 2003. Proceedings of the International Workshop,
Singapore 2002.
 12   S. YANG ET AL.
Lunne, T., T. Berre, K. H. Andersen, S. Strandvik, and S. Sjursen. 2006.
“Effects of Sample Disturbance and Consolidation Procedures on
Measured Shear Strength of Soft Marine Norwegian Clays.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 43: 726–750.
Lunne, T., K. H. Andersen. 2007. “Soft Clay Shear Strength Parameters
for Deepwater Geotechnical Design.” Key Note Lecture, International
Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference, 6. London
2007. Proceedings, 151–176.
Downloaded by [Norges Geotekniske Institute] at 01:10 05 January 2018
Mohajeri, M., and M. Ghafghzi. 2012. Ground Sampling and Laboratory
Testing on Low Plasticity Clays. 15 WCEE, Lisboa.
NGI. 2016. Effect of Sample Disturbance on Cyclic Shear Strength of Clay.
Report No. 20160386. Dated 15. September, 2016.
Zapata-Medina, D., B. J. Finno, and C. A. Vega-Posada. 2014. “Stress
History and Sampling Disturbance Effects on Monotonic and Cyclic
Response of Overconsolidated Bootlegger Cove Clays.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 51: 599–609.