187

The 2003 R.M. Hardy Lecture: Soil parameters for

numerical analysis in clay1
J. Graham

Abstract: Engineers in geotechnical practice work on increasingly complex problems with increasingly powerful nu-
merical tools. Effective solutions to design problems need good information about the site and parameters (or func-
tions) that describe how the soil will behave under the proposed loadings. These loadings can include heating, drying
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

or wetting, time effects, and chemical changes as well as the more common structural loads. This paper outlines issues
that need to be considered when laboratory tests are used to produce soil properties for use in numerical analyses. The
focus is on soft to moderately stiff saturated clays. Similar considerations for in situ tests, stiff clays, and sands are not
considered.
Key words: clay, testing, characterization, properties, constitutive modeling.
Résumé : Les ingénieurs en pratique géotechnique travaillent sur des problèmes de plus en plus complexes avec des
outils numériques de plus en plus puissants. Les solutions efficaces aux problèmes de conception nécessitent aussi une
information adéquate au sujet du site ainsi que des paramètres (ou fonctions) qui décrivent comment le sol se compor-
tera sous les charges anticipées. Ces charges peuvent inclure le chauffage, séchage ou l’augmentation de teneur en eau,
les effets du temps et les changements chimiques ainsi que les charges structurales plus courantes. Cet article décrit
des questions qui doivent être considérées quand les essais en laboratoire sont employés pour produire les propriétés
des sols pour l’utilisation en analyse numérique. Les argiles saturées molles à modérément raides sont visées par cet
For personal use only.

article. Des considérations semblables pour des essais in situ, des argiles raides et des sables, seront discutées une pro-
chaine fois.
Mots clés : argile, essais, caractérisation, propriétés, modélisation du comportement.

Graham 209

Introduction
Measuring soil properties in the laboratory is a necessary
complement to numerical analysis. There is little point in
doing refined analysis if the material properties cannot be
identified clearly. Conversely, extensive laboratory testing is
unwarranted if the problem in not amenable to analysis.
Costs of testing have to be recovered in terms of increased
confidence during design. Together, the testing costs and in-
creased design confidence should result in savings during
construction and (or) improved performance.
Recent efforts in improving numerical modeling may have
outstripped abilities to characterize soils at reasonable cost
and in reasonable time. While computing has limitations
(Krahn 2003), competent computer programs are readily
available for problems such as stress-deformation analysis,
seepage, slope stability, and contaminant transport, among
others (Cleall et al. 2002). Increasingly, doctoral, masters,
and now bachelors graduates can “drive” computer applica-
Received 6 May 2004. Accepted 15 November 2005.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cgj.nrc.ca on 1 February 2006.
J. Graham. Department of Civil Engineering, 342
Engineering Building, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
MB R3T 5V6, Canada. (e-mail: cgs@cc.umanitoba.ca).
1
Presented as the R.M. Hardy Address at the 56th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Winnipeg, Man., September 2003.
tions and analyse problems that were research problems only
a few years ago. Guidance is needed if the “driving” is to
draw on past experience and reach useful outcomes.
In contrast, and with exceptions, there seems to be less
confidence in assessing material properties effectively. The
gap between practice and research may now be higher in this
area than in numerical modeling. At times, also, there ap-
pears to be a lack of communication (almost a lack of com-
prehension) between the testing laboratory and the computer
desk. Laboratory engineers find it difficult to express what
they see in the laboratory in terms that can be used by ana-
lysts. In turn, analysts sometimes appear to have idealized
views of the complex behaviour of real soils.
The two groups (laboratory engineers and analysts) may
benefit from the following observations.
“Sit down before the facts as a little child; be prepared to
give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly to what-
ever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”
Thomas Huxley
“Let us not say ‘Let us begin by inventing principles
whereby we may be able to explain everything’: rather we
must say ‘Let us make an exact analysis of the matter, and
then we shall try to see, with much diffidence, if it fits any
principle’.” Voltaire.
In the present context, Huxley brings to mind the need for
a sound understanding of the nature of the site as reflected,
for example in its geology, hydrogeology, and material prop-
erties. Voltaire recalls the need for good analysis accompa-

Can. Geotech. J. 43: 187–209 (2006) doi:10.1139/T05-098 © 2006 NRC Canada

 188
nied by a critical examination of its validity. Together, they
direct attention to the inherent interdependence of good data
and good modeling. Well-known papers by Peck (1980) and
Burland (1987) discuss the importance of geology and
judgement, and these issues also need to be included in good
geotechnical design. It is hoped that this paper on selecting
soil parameters will be seen as a complement to the paper by
Krahn (2003) on the thoughtful use of computer applica-
tions.
For reasons of length, this paper deals mainly with inter-
preting laboratory tests for characterizing the behaviour of
soft to medium-stiff saturated clays. The purpose of such
laboratory tests is to produce calibrations of constitutive
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
models that can be used for design of geotechnical projects.
The paper does not deal with the many important issues that
arise in stiff clays, in sands, and in cyclic loading.
The framework
Soil properties are needed when computer applications are
used for predicting how natural or engineered loadings will
affect the performance of a proposed construction. They are
also needed for modifications to existing structures or for
remediation of failed structures. The loading is commonly
mechanical– stresses in the soil are produced by changes in
For personal use only.
geometry or applied loading. In many cases, such as ordi-
nary foundations and retaining walls, loads and resulting de-
formations are dealt with separately, even though modern
computing codes and soil behaviour models permit them to
be handled together.
Geotechnical engineers are now being frequently asked to
deal with other forms of loadings. Temperatures may change
because of heating or cooling, and there may be phase
changes in the water component. The soil may be unsatu-
rated and the effects of suctions may be significant. The pro-
ject may involve changes in pore fluid chemistry. All of
these topics are gaining increased attention (for example,
Barbour and Yang 1993; Zhou et al. 1998; Thomas and
Missoum 1999; Fredlund 2000). For these, we need to con-
sider behaviour that is more complex than the load-
deformation behaviour of saturated clays.
Onofrei and Gray (1993) suggested that developing reli-
able mathematical modeling requires a four-step process of
verification, calibration, validation, and prediction. In chal-
lenging projects where new technologies are being devel-
oped, and where a reliable base of experience is not
available, a fifth step is frequently included– observation.
The approach, best described by Peck (1980), assumes that
if measured performance during construction agrees well
with predictions, it is unlikely there will be major discrepan-
cies under working loads. A recent example is the use of
large scale in-ground experiments by Atomic Energy of Can-
ada Limited to guide the development of safe underground
disposal of nuclear fuel waste (Dixon et al. 2003).
The following sections adopt the sequence used in many
projects, starting with field work, whether sampling or in
situ testing; and then proceeding to the stage of developing
the soil parameters needed by the numerical analysts. The
paper reviews relationships between laboratory testing and
in situ results; sampling, trimming and testing; interpretation
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
of test results; and some elements of the influence of tem-
perature, viscosity, incomplete saturation, and chemistry.
Sampling–testing and in situ tests
In a broad sense, there are two separate, but often comple-
mentary, components of site characterization. One compo-
nent involves taking samples from the site, transporting them
to the laboratory, storing them until needed for testing, trim-
ming test specimens to size, and then testing the specimens
under controlled conditions. The second component inserts
test probes into the ground, applies force, pressure, deforma-
tions, or energy, and records the resulting response of the
soil. More detailed discussion of this topic can be found in
Jamiolkowski et al. (1985).
Site characterization produces an overview of soil proper-
ties that include the stratigraphy, particle sizes, water con-
tents, and Atterberg limits, such as those shown in Fig. 1. It
also produces information about strength and compressibil-
ity, such as fall cone, field vane, triaxial, and oedometer
data. After initially comparing these two approaches, the pa-
per deals mostly with sampling and testing. This does not,
however, discount the importance of in situ tests.
Sampling, trimming, and testing
This approach produces parameters for compressibility,
strength, hydraulic conductivity, etc., that are obtained using
relatively well-controlled stress and deformation conditions.
In principle, these parameters can be used directly in com-
puter modeling. Laboratory engineers and designers still
have to pick appropriate values of the parameters, but they
do so without having to resort to mathematical models to in-
terpret the laboratory data. Disturbance is always an issue
and raises questions about the relationship between the pa-
rameters measured in the laboratory and those that will oper-
ate in the field. Disturbance is discussed in more detail in
the following section.
While sampling can be continuous, testing of specimens is
only possible at discrete depths in the profile that have to be
taken as representing the mass of the material or the particu-
lar project being undertaken. Selection of specimens for test-
ing requires care and skill. For example, in remediation of
failed slopes, it is specimens from the failure surface that tell
the most important story. They may be the least representa-
tive of the soil profile as a whole, but they are the most im-
portant for remedial works. Similarly, in fissured clays, it is
difficult to prepare specimens containing fissures. Labora-
tory technologists tend to focus selectively on specimens
that can be trimmed from intact clay between fissures. This
will not represent the mass properties of the material (Rowe
1972). Although considerable research has been done with
hollow cylinder tests (Zdravkoviƒ and Jardine 2001) and this
is finding its way into advanced soil characterization, most
common tests are unable to allow rotation of principal
stresses and cannot model the effects of different intermedi-
ate principal stresses. Stress levels and anisotropic consoli-
dation also need to be considered (Sivakumar et al. 2002).
In sum, sampling and testing can produce parameters that
can be used immediately in analysis, but concern always ex-
ists about how well the results represent the properties of the
clay.
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham
Fig. 1. Borehole log, Berthierville, Quebec (Kim and Leroueil 2001).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
For personal use only.
In situ testing
The advantages of in situ testing include the following:
(i) an expectation that the volume of soil being tested by the
device may be relatively large and fairly representative of
the soil mass, (ii) disturbance is often less than in sampling
and testing, though it is still an issue that must be consid-
ered, and (iii) results can be viewed in real time and used to
modify field testing programs in progress.
While most in situ tools involve readings at discrete
depths, the various cone penetrometer tools produce continu-
ous readings. They are therefore useful as profiling tools.
Even here however, because of the size of the failure zone
around the cone, there is “smoothing” of results in layered
soils. Nevertheless the CPTU does indicate variability of soil
deposits with depth more easily than other tools.
Inserting in situ tools into the ground inevitably causes
disturbance of the surrounding soil (Whittle and Aubeny
1993). For the cone penetrometer, for example, measure-
ments of tip resistance and excess pore-water pressures dur-
ing penetration reflect stress changes induced in the soil by
installation. Similarly, disturbance can be expected from
other “displacement” penetrometers, including earth pres-
sure cells, field vanes, the dilatometer, and the pressure-
meter. (The self-boring pressuremeter reduces but does not
totally overcome disturbance difficulties.) While this distur-
bance may be less than that associated with sampling, trim-
ming, and testing, nevertheless it is present and should not
be ignored.
In principle, the biggest difficulty with in situ tools is that
they do not produce engineering parameters directly. For ex-
ample, the field vane measures torque and rotation, not un-
drained shear strength. To obtain parameters needed for
analysis, measurements of force, torque, and displacements
must be converted to stresses and strains, and then to
189
strengths, compressibilities, etc. This requires suitable
algorithms (or models) to undertake the conversions, or em-
pirical relationships with other parameters. Examples in-
clude (from just one conference), Been and Jefferies (1993)
on CPT interpretation; Clarke (1993) and Robertson and
Ferreira (1993) on the pressuremeter; and Yu et al. (1993)
on the dilatometer. Ongoing publication of new models for
interpreting in situ measurements suggests that the problem
remains important. Interpretations of soil properties are af-
fected by the quality of the model that is used. This can sub-
sequently affect the quality of predictions that are made
using these soil properties, particularly if strain fields round
the in situ probe differ from those in the project.
Issues of disturbance, destructuring, and
reconstitution
Disturbance is caused by inserting a sampling tube into
the soil, transportation, relaxation of stresses, drying, and
temperature changes during storage, and further disturbance
during trimming and installation into the test cells (Baligh et
al. 1987; Sivakumar et al. 2002; Ladd and Degroot 2003).
The issue is important because, increasingly, modelers re-
quire information on stiffness, which can change markedly
when disturbance (including sampling disturbance, but also
wetting–drying effects in expansive clay and freezing–
thawing) alters the in situ structure of clay (Fig. 2). The re-
sulting differences may be sufficient to require the use of un-
necessarily costly foundation systems. Figure 3 shows large
differences that can arise in unconfined compression
strengths (here 30%) between specimens cut from a care-
fully handled block sample and 51 mm diameter tube sam-
ples. Important contributions to the effects of the size and
quality of sampling were made by Bjerrum (1967) and Rowe
© 2006 NRC Canada
 190 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Fig. 2. Effect of sampling disturbance on oedometer results: Fig. 3. Reduction of unconfined compression strengths due to
(a) schematic, (b) disturbance due to sampling, softening, and sampling disturbance (modified from Terzaghi et al. 1996). (Un-
freezing–thawing (Graham and Au 1985). confined compression strength = 2 × undrained shear strength Suo.)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

Fig. 4. Water content redistributions produced by inserting sam-

pling tube: (a) normally consolidated clay, (b) overconsolidated
clay (modified from Vaughan et al. 1993).
For personal use only.

(1972). Our ability to obtain good block samples of soft and

sensitive clays has been enhanced by the development of in-
ternationally recognized samplers, for example at
Sherbrooke University (Lefebvre and Poulin 1979).
During tube sampling, the bevelled section just behind the
leading edge and the wall of the tube cause shear straining
during pushing (Baligh et al. 1987; Clayton and Siddique
1999; Cummings et al. 2003). Soil to be sampled com-
presses vertically while the tube is above it, but expands ver-
tically once it enters the sample tube (Vaughan et al. 1993).
This straining may cause significant changes in the soil
properties, particularly when the clay is cemented or sensi-
tive. Further straining is likely during sample extrusion.
Shear failure and destructuration of the particle structure
of the clay must occur in the strained region just inside the
tube wall if a sample is to enter (and later leave) the sam-
pling tube (Leroueil and Vaughan 1990; Clayton et al. 1992;
Vaughan et al. 1993). In normally consolidated and lightly disturbed annulus expands, resulting in compression of the
overconsolidated samples, this shear failure will be initially central core and decreased water content.
associated with higher pore-water pressures and a tendency While the thickness of the heavily sheared zone may be
for the sheared annulus to compress inside the tube. This al- small, its effects can be considerable. For example, if struc-
lows lateral expansion of the central part of the sample and ture is destroyed completely in an annulus 5 mm thick on
increased water content (Fig. 4a). The converse is true in the sides of a 100 mm diameter sample, then it represents
heavily overconsolidated clays (Fig. 4b), where the outer 20% of the area of the sample. If a specimen is prepared for

© 2006 NRC Canada

 Graham 191

Fig. 5. Isotropic compression, 1D compression, and critical state Fig. 6. Postyield oedometer compression in natural clay speci-
lines for natural and reconstituted Winnipeg plastic clay (modi- mens: (a) Winnipeg clay (modified from Graham and Li 1985),
fied from Graham and Li 1985). (b) Bothkennar clay (modified from Burland 1990).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

testing without trimming to a smaller diameter, about 20%

of its cross sectional area will have properties different from
the field material. If the 5 mm thick disturbed zone is pro-
For personal use only.

duced on the sides of a 50 mm sample, then 36% of the sam-

ple’s structure will have been changed.
Guidance on good-quality sampling can be summarized as
follows:
(i) choose a sampler with as large a diameter as possible
(Rowe 1972);
(ii) use thin-wall sample tubes with sharpened ends, appro-
priate bevels and inside clearance (Clayton and
Siddique 1999);
(iii) undertake continuous sampling in existing slide
masses;
(iv) consider piston sampling or block sampling in soft clay
(Lefebvre and Poulin 1979);
(v) careful waxing, transportation and cool (not cold or
hot) storage are important;
(vi) perform natural water content tests and Atterberg limit
tests on all samples; ing reconstituted clay (Leroueil and Vaughan 1990; Burland
(vii) be especially careful with trimming techniques in the 1990; Leroueil 2001). For example, Fig. 5 shows results for
laboratory (Landva 1964); natural and reconstituted specimens of lightly cemented and
(viii) examine the macrostructure of all samples– split, don’t structured plastic Lake Agassiz clay (Graham and Li 1985).
cut; and The 1D consolidation line for natural specimens in Fig. 5 is
(ix) consider the use of radiography to check for variations the locus of preconsolidation pressures from different depths
in soil type, layering, intrusions, fissures, shear planes and represents the sedimentation compression line (SCL) of
and for disturbance of laminations, effects of de- Burland (1990). The reconstituted specimens were made
gassing, etc. (ASTM 2002). with distilled water at approximately two times the liquid
Care should be taken to minimize shear disturbance of limit, so there are differences in pore fluid chemistry and ag-
specimens during trimming and installation into test cells. ing between the natural and reconstituted specimens. The re-
With very soft samples, it is helpful to support the top of the constituted 1D test results represent Burland’s intrinsic
specimen at all times (Landva 1964). compression line (ICL). Figure 6 shows 1D compression
curves from Winnipeg and Bothkennar clay (Graham and Li
Destructuring and intrinsic consolidation 1985; Burland 1990). As seen also in Scandinavian and
When results from carefully sampled natural clay are Champlain Sea clays (Clausen et al. 1984; Clayton et al.
compared with results from comparable tests on reconsti- 1992; Leroueil 2001), once the preconsolidation pressure
tuted specimens of the same clay, it is common to find that was exceeded in natural specimens in Fig. 6a, the
the natural clay has higher voids ratios than the correspond- microstructure of the clay began to change significantly, and

© 2006 NRC Canada

 192
the stress-deformation curve moved below the SCL and ap-
proached the ICL.
Preserving the in situ structure of the clay can have signif-
icant implications for field applications. Good sampling and
trimming will often identify greater regions of stiff (elastic)
behaviour that can be used for higher foundation or embank-
ment loadings. However, if the yield stress (or preconsolida-
tion pressure) is exceeded, then the settlements (and possible
pore-water pressure increases) associated with destructuring
will be larger than would be predicted from partially dis-
turbed specimens and safety factors against shear failure
may be lower.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
Localized and global parameters
Soil properties may be localized at specific depths and
plan positions, or may represent more fundamental behav-
iour of the deposit on a more global basis. Relatively simple
and cheap tests can examine the variability of the materials
at a large number of positions at the site, that is, the local-
ized properties of the materials. In a given stratum with con-
stant mineralogy, localized properties like water contents,
undrained shear strengths, preconsolidation pressures, and
hydraulic conductivities vary with depth, while global prop-
erties like effective friction angle and compression index are
constant.
For personal use only.
In many proglacial clays in Canada, mineralogy and parti-
cle sizes, as represented for example by the plasticity index,
vary systematically with depth, depending on proximity to
the parent ice at the time of deposition. In this case, global
soil properties may also have a local component. In Fig. 1,
for example, water contents, liquid and plastic limits, and
their reduced parameters (plasticity index and liquidity in-
dex) give rapid, easy, and inexpensive information about the
variation of localized soil properties with depth. Additional
localized information may include particle size distributions,
CPT data, overburden pressures, ground water pressures, hy-
draulic conductivities, undrained shear strengths from field
vane or UU tests, and preconsolidation pressures from
oedometer tests. While these tests are simple and low-cost,
they provide valuable insights into how the geology of the
site developed. Multiple borings and insertions of in situ
tools are needed to examine the variation of soil properties
in the horizontal direction. Table 1 reviews the usefulness of
a variety of identification, in situ, and laboratory tests for
evaluating shear strength.
Numerical analysis requires the use of overall or global
properties in the various natural depositional layers in the
soil profile, or in layers that can be assumed substantially
homogeneous by the analyst. Examples of these global prop-
erties (in layers that are naturally homogeneous or are as-
sumed homogeneous) include the unload–reload coefficient
Cr (or κ), the compression index Cc (or λ), the normally con-
solidated or critical state strength envelope φ ′nc (Mcs), and the
residual strength envelope φ ′r . (All of these vary with clay
chemistry and pore fluid chemistry, as expressed for exam-
ple by the plasticity index.) Peak strengths from triaxial tests
depend on preconsolidation pressure (and on the chosen lab-
oratory consolidation pressure) and are therefore local in na-
2
A.T.Q. Stewart. The Shape of Irish History. Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 2001.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
Table 1. Tools for measuring shear strength.
Total Effective
Equipment stress stress
Thumb, heel No No
Pocket penetrometer, lab vane, torvane No No
Field vane (FV) Yes No
Piezocone (CPTU) Yes Perhaps
Pressuremeter (PMT) Yes Perhaps
Direct shear (DS) No Yes*
UU triaxial Yes No
CIU, CK0U triaxial No Yes
*The stress state in direct shear tests is indeterminate. Friction angles
can be used successfully only in limit equilibrium analysis of slopes.
ture. In many cases, overconsolidated clays are fissured.
Plastic straining at the tips of the fissures strains the clay to
post-peak or normally consolidated strengths, especially
when the clay is plastic. In these cases, peak strength enve-
lopes cannot be used for design (Peterson et al. 1960;
Skempton and Hutchinson; 1969; Lo 1970; Rivard and Lu
1978; Thorne 1984).
Interpretation of laboratory data
Concepts of how clay behaves influence the ways in
which laboratory engineers interpret test data and convey
this information to analysts. After some years, when numeri-
cal modeling has received considerable attention, it may be
time to give increased attention to the importance of careful
testing and interpretation of test data. In a different context,
an author recently said:
“Historians, it seems, do not merely discover new things
about the past, but forget what they already knew.”2
Conceptual models
Sometimes, the results of laboratory tests do not fit pre-
conceptions of how the soil should behave, nor do they pro-
duce values needed to make simulations agree with
measured performance. It is tempting, then, to (i) blame
sampling, transportation, storage, trimming, or testing proce-
dures; (ii) discount the test results; and (iii) retreat to history
matching. Yet for many advanced projects where there is lit-
tle previous experience, it is important to ensure good sam-
pling and testing, and pay close attention to the results.
Understanding the reasons for observed behaviour can come
from reviewing what others have observed, though gaining
adequate confidence in this way can be time-consuming and
frustrating.
Strong conceptual models of soil behaviour are the first
step in preparing test data for use by numerical modelers.
Even simplified conceptual models can be helpful. Once a
conceptual model has been established, it is relatively easy
to move forward to using corresponding constitutive models
in finite element computing codes. As an example, critical
state soil mechanics can provide a qualitative framework for
anticipating the effects of overconsolidation and drainage
conditions. There are other relatively simple, related models
that provide assistance with strain rate, temperature, pore
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham
fluid chemistry, and the effects of incomplete saturation.
Using conceptual ideas allows for better planning of testing
programs and for a better understanding of the results, which
now fit an expected framework. If they do not, then it is nec-
essary to look for faulty test procedures or unusual features
of the soil behaviour that are not included in the model be-
ing used. In either case, the engineer is in a stronger position
than simply doubting the data and resorting to assumed pa-
rameters.
In determining soil parameters for a given project, there
should be dialogue between the laboratory engineer and the
computer modeler so that each knows the limitations of the
testing and modeling programs. Constitutive models should
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
be selected that capture the behaviour of the soils that will
be affected by the proposed project, but they should be as
simple as possible. Obviously, if the application is isother-
mal, the selected model need not include temperature ef-
fects.
Before the model can be selected, it is necessary to de-
velop at least a qualitative understanding of the loadings that
will be generated and how the soil will behave. Once a suit-
able constitutive model has been identified, a laboratory pro-
gram can then be designed that will produce the soil
parameters needed for the numerical modeling. For example,
modelers might want values of hydraulic conductivity in the
field under low hydraulic gradients and low stress incre-
For personal use only.
ments. These cannot be reliably found from oedometer tests
(Yuen et al. 1998). Similarly, common triaxial testing gives
little useful information about stiffnesses, especially at small
strains (Tatsuoka et al. 1999; Clayton and Heymann 2001)
unless high quality in-cell deformation transducers are fitted
directly to the specimens.
We will now look briefly at several ideas that are based on
simple conceptual models and can help with interpreting
laboratory data.
“Nonlinear” or “discontinuous behaviour”?
Figure 7 shows some imaginary stress–strain data; the
type of test is unimportant. The figure shows two models.
One fits the data with a hyperbola, the curve-fitting approach
proposed for example by Duncan and Chang (1970) and
used quite widely for sands and granular soils. The second
approximates the data with two straight lines, representing,
for example, a change in stiffness at a yield point. (This fig-
ure, by itself gives no evidence of elasticity or plasticity. Ad-
ditional information would be needed about reversibility
along the two straight fitted lines.) Neither model is exact;
both deviate locally from the data. Which is better?
If the testing was done with specimens that were fully
representative of field conditions (density, voids ratio, over-
consolidation ratio, in situ stresses, nature of the applied
stress increment tensor, isothermal and constant chemistry
conditions, etc.), then either modeling will produce good an-
swers. Calibration of the hyperbolic model is relatively
straightforward. Mostly, however, clay profiles exhibit dif-
ferent preconsolidation pressures with depth (Fig. 1), differ-
ent overconsolidation ratios, and therefore different stress–
strain relationships. Hyperbolic calibrations of stress–strain
behaviour like the one in Fig. 6 apply only to the elevation
from which the specimen was taken. That is, the calibration
is local in nature. Applying hyperbolic modeling to other el-
193
Fig. 7. Alternative curve-fittings of laboratory data.
DISCONTINUOUS
BILINEAR
'ELASTIC-PLASTIC'
STRESS,
NONLINEAR
HYPERBOLIC
evations in the profile where the overconsolidation ratio is
different requires repeated calibration testing for each depth.
Separate calibration is required for loading and unloading
(Yin et al. 1990; Schanz and Vermeer 1998).
In contrast, assume that the bilinear modeling in Fig. 7
can be extended into an elastic-plastic framework in which
(with the benefit of an additional unload–reload cycle), the
first linear section represents fully recoverable straining,
while the second represents straining that is only partly re-
coverable. Elastic-plastic models require more testing than
simple hypoelastic models to determine calibration parame-
ters for elasticity, yielding, volumetric hardening, failure,
and plastic flow, all of which are essentially global. Once
the global parameters (and the local preconsolidation pres-
sure) have been established, the calibration can then be used
at all depths (and preconsolidation pressures) in a deposit
that is uniform. Further calibration is unnecessary.
Oedometer tests
Some ways of presenting data from soil tests seem more
traditional than logical. For example, commonly used semi-
logarithmic bilinear models for 1D clay compressibility rely
on straight unload–reload (Cr) lines and normal consolida-
tion (Cc) lines. However laboratory data are often curved and
most foundations avoid stressing clay beyond its preconsoli-
dation pressure. Semilogarithmic plotting seems to come
from an early preoccupation with first-time consolidation of
reconstituted slurries in which the compression behaviour is
exponential. Many lightly overconsolidated natural clays
show structured behaviour that is broadly linearly elastic in
the range of working stresses up to yielding at the pre-
consolidation pressure (Fig. 6). The behaviour is then
broadly linear again during further stress increases associ-
ated with destructuring and convergence to Burland’s ICL.
Figure 8 shows results from anisotropic consolidation in a
triaxial cell on a natural (undisturbed) specimen of Lake
Agassiz clay. (Mean effective stress p′ = (σ 1′ + 2σ ′3)/3.) In
the arithmetic plotting in Fig. 8a, linear preyield compres-
sion AB1 is followed by approximately linear postyield
destructuring B1B2, and then by exponential hardening B2C.
© 2006 NRC Canada
 194
Fig. 8. Plotting of triaxial compression data from natural (struc-
tured) Winnipeg clay: (a) p′ vs. volume strain ν, (b) log p′ vs.
volume strain ν (modified from Graham et al. 1988).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
The data map into semilogarithmic space in Fig. 8b as
downward curving sections AB1 and B1B2 and a relatively
For personal use only.
straight section B2C. The yield point (preconsolidation pres-
sure) at B1, which is relatively clearly marked in the arith-
metic plotting, marks the transition between the two upper
curved sections in Fig. 8b, and corresponds to maximum
curvature in e – log p′ space. This suggests that the
Casagrande construction for σ ′zc , which is usually presented
simply as an empirical construction, may have a grounding
in the behaviour of natural clays. A second feature of Fig. 8
is that straight modeling of preyield behaviour (with slope
Cr) in e – log p′ space, is incompatible with the linear (arith-
metic) elasticity that is often seen in the 1D or triaxial com-
pressibility of natural clays. One of the Journal’s reviewers
has commented that it also implies the anomalous result that
looser samples have higher stiffness at the same effective
stress.
Yielding of natural clays
In more general p′–q stresses, yielding in soft to medium
clays is usually expressed as yield loci that separate broadly
recoverable (elastic) and partially recoverable (elastic-
plastic) straining. A typical example of this kind of work is
shown in Fig. 9 (Bell 1977). Separate depths produce sepa-
rate yield loci (Fig. 9a) that can be normalized in Fig. 9b by
the local 1D preconsolidation pressure σ ′zc . In this approach,
preyield strains are generally considered to be of the order
100, rather than the very small strains 10–2 to 10–1 that can
be important in stiffer clays in soil–structure interaction
problems (for example, Al Tabaa and Wood 1989; Jardine et
al. 2004). In such clays, multiple boundaries may be used to
separate fully elastic behaviour at very small strains from
more nonlinear behaviour before yielding is fully developed
(Jardine 1992). In the remainder of this paper, we will con-
sider the preyield behaviour to be broadly linear and “elas-
tic.”
Evidence for linear behaviour in structured natural clays
comes from a variety of stress paths on different clays. Ex-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
Fig. 9. Yielding of Kinnegar clay from different depths (modi-
fied from Bell 1977).
amples were shown by Graham et al. (1982, 1983) who ex-
amined whether estimates of yield stresses are an artifact of
how laboratory data are manipulated, or whether they reflect
a fundamental feature of the behaviour of natural clays. The
authors plotted a variety of stress–stress, stress–strain, and
strain–strain relationships for individual tests and showed
they all gave consistent estimates of the respective “states”
at which yielding occurred. They also examined whether the
rate at which specimens absorbed energy, which is a scalar
quantity, could be used to indicate yielding. An example is
shown in Fig. 10c. In this case, the authors plotted absorbed
energy against the “length of the stress vector” (LSSV)
in kPa, which they took to be independent of the direction of
the stress path in p′–q space. Figure 10 shows some selected
examples from different stress paths on different clays. The
clay in Fig. 10a is an organic, marine silty clay. In Fig. 10b
the clay is soft, highly sensitive, lean clay from proglacial
Lake Iroquois in Eastern Ontario. The Mastemyr clay in
Fig. 10c is highly sensitive marine silty clay. In Fig. 10d the
specimen is reconstituted plastic Lake Agassiz clay recon-
solidated with gypsum-saturated pore fluid. Of note in
Fig. 10, is clear evidence of yielding in terms of energy
absorbtion (Fig. 10c) and changes in Poisson’s ratio at yield-
ing implied by Fig. 10d.
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham
Fig. 10. Typical yield curves showing preyield linearity: (a) Belfast, Northern Ireland (T1604), (b) Lyndhurst, Ontario (T106),
(c) Mastemyr, Norway (T101), and (d) reconstituted gypsum-rich Agassiz clay from Seven Sisters, Manitoba (AMRI-T10, CID).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
For personal use only.
Linearity is more readily apparent when ∆q/∆p′ is small.
In general, when ∆q/∆p′ is larger, linearity may be less ap-
parent, though there is often still an early linear section in q
versus εs plots, supporting the idea of several stages of elas-
ticity before true yield is reached (Jardine 1992). There is
also evidence of preyield linearity in some of the full-scale
loading tests that were a feature of field research in the
1960s (for example Höeg et al. 1969; Clausen et al. 1984). It
should be said that most of the work has been done with
monotonically increasing stresses, so evidence of reversibil-
ity, which is a prerequisite of elasticity, is sparse. Unload–re-
load cycles in 1D compression and triaxial shear produce
some hysteresis. However in well-sampled structured or ce-
mented clays, the hysteresis tends to be small. Unloading of
test fills tends to produce rapid recovery of pore-water pres-
sures. Thus, for monotonic loading or unloading, pseudo-
elastic solutions may be acceptable for monotonically
changing preyield stress states. The validity of assuming
preyield elasticity in soft to firm natural clays merits further
attention.
195
Returning to the yield loci in Fig. 9, it is common to say
they are symmetric about the Ko-line in p′–q space. However
this depends on the plotting that is used (Graham et al.
1988). Figure 11a from tests on Lake Agassiz clay from
Winnipeg provides further insight into yielding by introduc-
ing specific volumes at yield and defining p′–q–V yield
“states.” Here, behaviour inside the 3D yield surface is
small-strain (100) and “elastic.” Larger stress states on the
state boundary surface involve larger nonrecoverable (plas-
tic) straining. It is interesting to note in Fig. 11b that the
state boundary surface in the Winnipeg clay, and a small
number of other natural clays that have been examined in
this way, is approximately symmetric about the p′–V plane.
In this figure (Fig. 11b), results have been normalized by the
“equivalent pressure” p e′ , the pressure on the NCL at the
same specific volume as the yield state. This behaviour is
seen in Fig. 11a as the bold lines in constant-V planes.
One of the best known of the elastic-plastic models is
modified Cam clay (Roscoe and Burland 1968), which is
probably most easily accessed through Wood (1990)
© 2006 NRC Canada
 196
Fig. 11. (a) State boundary surface in p′–q–V space for natural
Winnipeg clay. (b) Symmetry of normalized state boundary
surace for anisotropic natural Winnipeg clay in qy/ p e′ vs. p y′ / p e′
(modified from Graham et al. 1988).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
For personal use only.
(Fig. 12a). (Wood calls this model Cam clay, distinguishing
it from original Cam clay as originally presented. Wood’s
simpler naming will be adopted here.) Cam clay assumes
(i) isotropic semilogarithmic elasticity (slope κ); (ii) ellipti-
cal yield loci; (iii) semilogarithmic plastic hardening (slope
λ), which leads to a straight critical state failure line in p′–q
plots (slope M) and e – ln p′ plots (slope λ); and (iv) associ-
ated flow. Cam clay has received less attention in N. Amer-
ica than in Europe, in part because its elliptical yield loci
differ from the more complex shapes found in natural clays
as seen, for example, in Figs. 9 and 11. Graham et al. (1989)
showed that yield loci like those of natural clays can be gen-
erated in both q–p′ and V – ln p′ spaces if all the assump-
tions of Cam clay are adopted, except that the elasticity is
assumed to be anisotropic (Fig. 12b). This may have impli-
cations for analysts. Considerable attention has been given
to modifying Cam clay to take into account the assumed
symmetry about the Ko line. It would be valuable to investi-
gate the mechanics of anisotropic elasticity limited by sym-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
metric state boundary surfaces. Further discussion of aniso-
tropy can be found in a later section.
Normalization of localized data to produce global
parameters
Figures 9b and 11b used the idea of normalization to ra-
tionalize localized test data from different depths to a global-
ized equivalent. (This requires the material to be essentially
homogeneous with depth, having for example, essentially
constant plasticity index.) Quite often, for practical reasons,
laboratory engineers are faced with developing effective
strength parameters from specimens from different depths in
the same deposit. Common sampling practices (and costs)
usually preclude obtaining sufficient samples from a given
depth to be sure of determining representative values for φ′.
Because of weathering and other effects, preconsolidation
pressures generally vary with depth (Fig. 1). This causes dif-
ferences in stress–strain behaviour, pore-water pressures,
and peak strengths that are difficult to handle in numerical
analysis.
For these reasons, the strength envelope is often quite dif-
ficult to determine from CIU triaxial tests when specimens
come from the same deposit but from different depths. Con-
ceptual modeling and normalization can assist in analyzing
test data, providing oedometer tests have also been per-
formed and have produced estimates of preconsolidation
pressure σ ′zc decreasing with depth.
Figure 13a shows some idealized peak strength data as
solid symbols for five specimens from a uniform deposit. A
first, and superficial, approach might be to put a regression
line through the data and inform the computer analyst of the
resulting c′ and φ ′. However, this does not take into account
the systematic natural variability of the deposit, particularly
its variation with depth. Figure 13b adds post-peak shearing
resistances as open symbols and also indicates the depths of
the specimens. A simple approach, shown in Fig. 13b, would
be to fit separate envelopes with different c′ and φ′ for each
depth. This would imply changes in φ ′oc with depth. This
conflicts with a widely accepted conceptual model that gives
overconsolidated specimens constant values of φ ′oc and val-
ues of c ′oc that vary with preconsolidation pressure. That
model is strongly supported by laboratory testing. Are the
data in Fig. 13 wrong; is the conceptual model wrong, or is
our understanding of the physics wrong?
Figures 14a, 14b show additional information in the form
of q–ε1; ∆u–ε1; and p′–q graphs for these five specimens.
Specimens 1, 2, and 3 were dilatant and showed linear,
anisotropic behaviour. Specimens 4 and 5 were compressive
and showed nonlinear p′–q behaviour from the beginning of
shearing. Working from ideas inherent in critical state mod-
eling, specimen 1 is quite strongly overconsolidated; speci-
mens 2 and 3, although coming from different depths (with
different preconsolidation pressures), are lightly overconsoli-
dated; while specimens 4 and 5 are normally consolidated,
with closely similar peak and post-peak strengths. The pres-
ence of overconsolidation and anisotropy must be considered
in the modeling.
The conceptual model says that overconsolidated speci-
mens from the same depth will have the same micro-
structure, the same preconsolidation pressure, and the same
peak (overconsolidated) strength envelope c ′oc , φ ′oc (Fig. 15a).
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham
Fig. 12. Volumetric hardening elastic-plastic models: (a) Cam clay for isotropic elasticity, (b) anisotropic elasticity.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
If the conceptual model is correct, peak strength data nor-
For personal use only.
malized by the preconsolidation pressure will lie on a single
envelope, and the post-peak and normally consolidated data
will cluster round a point that represents post-peak or critical
states (Fig. 15b). We can therefore draw the peak strength
envelope for 5 m through specimens 2 and 4 in Fig. 15a, and
a parallel (lower) peak strength envelope through specimen
3. The post-peak (critical state) strengths should lie close to
the envelope c′ ≈ 0, φ ′nc through the normally consolidated
specimens 4 and 5. With its low confining pressure, speci-
men 1 moved close to the “no tension” envelope σ 3′ = 0 and
failed at lower stresses than would otherwise be expected.
The “no tension” condition causes the results for specimen 1
to lie below the overconsolidated envelopes. This can be im-
portant in shallow slope failures, especially in unsaturated or
residual soils.
The artificial data in Figs. 13–15 have been arranged to
demonstrate the usefulness of normalization and qualitative
conceptual modeling. More scatter can be expected with real
data, but the model will often be found useful for sorting out
confusing laboratory data from different depths. This ap-
proach is similar in some ways to the procedures proposed
by Ladd and Foott (1974). However their consolidation pro-
cedures inhibit the “de-structuring” that happens in many
aged (and perhaps cemented) natural clays when they have
been consolidated past their preconsolidation pressure.
Figure 16 shows normalized results of an extensive re-
search investigation that studied natural and reconstituted
specimens of Lake Agassiz clay from depths of 5 m to 10 m
(Graham and Li 1985). Here, the “low stress” envelope lies
somewhat to the right of the locus of σ 3′ = 0, with a slope of
approximately 2Mcs), and the peak strength envelope appears
to be curved, not straight, as in the simple (Hvorslev) con-
ceptual model used in Figs. 12–14. Broadly similar results
have been shown by Lefebvre (1981), and others, for struc-
tured Champlain Sea clay. This observation of curved enve-
197
lopes does not negate the value of the simpler conceptual
modeling for synthesizing complex and confusing data.
Once strength envelopes have been produced, decisions
must be made concerning whether the peak strength c ′oc –φ ′oc
envelopes can in fact be used for design. Generally, in fis-
sured clays, the peak strength envelope should not be used
(Lo 1970; Rivard and Lu 1978). Experience in Canada, par-
ticularly in western Canada, where proglacial clays are usu-
ally plastic and quite deeply weathered, suggests that most
lightly overconsolidated, firm clays are fissured and may
even be slickensided. Field and laboratory engineers carry
considerable responsibility for assessing if fissures are pres-
ent, and therefore for the selection of appropriate strength
parameters for slope stability problems.
Anisotropy of natural clays
Most of the tests that strongly influence our understanding
of clay behaviour were done on isotropically consolidated
reconstituted specimens. “Aged” natural clays seem to be
initially stiffer, linear, and anisotropic than these “young” re-
constituted clays. This was seen in the small linear settle-
ments observed in the various test fills constructed in the
late 1960s and 1970s on sensitive marine clays in Scandina-
via (for example Höeg et al. 1969; Clausen et al. 1984). It
has also been seen in anisotropically consolidated laboratory
tests on samples of many soft, lightly overconsolidated natu-
ral clays taken by piston sampler or block sampler. Results
show that well-sampled natural clays are much stiffer and
more linear (Fig. 10) than would be expected from test re-
sults on reconstituted specimens of the same clays.
Linear isotropic elasticity can be expressed by
⎧ p& ′⎫ ⎡K 0 ⎤ ⎧ε& v ⎫
[1a] ⎨ ⎬= ⎢ 0 3G ⎥ ⎨ ⎬
⎩q ⎭ ⎣ ⎦ ⎩ε& s ⎭
© 2006 NRC Canada
 198 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Fig. 13. Schematic diagram interpreting idealized results from or orthotropic. In natural clays, changes in principal stress
triaxial compression tests: (a) strength data, (b) possible curve- produce nonuniform straining, and therefore shear strains.
fitting for effects of depth. Similarly, changes in shear stress produce volumetric strains
(positive or negative dilatancy).
(a) By making what is probably a reasonable approximation,
Graham and Houlsby (1983) reduced the five parameters of
5 transverse anisotropic elasticity (Ez, Ex = Ey, νzx, νxx, and
4 Gzx) to three: a bulk modulus K*, a shear modulus G* and a
third modulus J that describes the coupling of shear strain
DEVIATOR STRESS

2 with changes in p′ and the coupling of volume strain with

changes in q.

3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

⎧ p& ′⎫ ⎡K * J ⎤ ⎧ε& v ⎫
[1b] ⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬
1 ⎩ q ⎭ ⎣ J 3G ⎦ ⎩ε& s ⎭

Now, changes in mean effective stress on an anisotropic

specimen produce coupled shear strains, and changes in de-
viator stress produce volume strains. In CIU tests at constant
volume, ∆p′ is no longer decoupled from ∆εs, so ∆p′ ≠ 0 and
MEAN EFFECTIVE STRESS m = ∆u/∆p ≠ 1.0. Measured values of ∆p′/∆q and m in CIU
tests are therefore good indicators of isotropy–anisotropy.
(b) Figure 17 shows preyield pore-water pressures in CIU
tests responding linearly, but with m = ∆u/∆p > 1.0 to
5 changes in mean total stress p in both normally consolidated
4
For personal use only.

and overconsolidated specimens. According to our elastic-

plastic conceptual model, this requires that the specimens
5m
were anisotropic, not isotropic. (Again, elasticity is assumed
DEVIATOR STRESS

from the linear behaviour.) This contrasts with commonly

2 understood behaviour, particularly for the normally consoli-
10 m 3 dated specimens (Wood and Graham 1990). After yielding,
1 sures. Overconsolidated specimens (open circles) expand
POST-PEAK/
CRITICAL STATE/
NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED
STRENGTH ENVELOPE
MEAN EFFECTIVE STRESS
where K is a bulk modulus and G a shear modulus. The sub-
scripts “v” and “s” represent “volume” and “shear,”, respec-
tively. The K and G moduli will generally vary with voids
ratio and can be normalized by the preconsolidation pres-
sure. Equation [1a] implies that changes in mean effective
stress in an isotropic elastic material produce no shear
strains. Similarly, changes in shear stress produce no volume
changes. That is, the mean effective stress is decoupled from
shear strains, and deviator stress is decoupled from volume
strains. As a result, in undrained CIU tests (at constant vol-
ume) on saturated, isotropically elastic material, ∆p′ is de-
coupled from ∆εs, so ∆p′ = 0 and m = ∆u/∆p = 1.0.
Because clays form in still water, properties like stiffness,
strength, and hydraulic conductivity are different in the hori-
zontal and vertical directions. However, they tend to be
much more uniform in all horizontal directions. Such materi-
als are said to be transversely anisotropic, cross anisotropic,
the normally consolidated specimens (closed circles) com-
press plastically and produce increasing pore-water pres-
plastically and produce decreasing pore-water pressures.
Linear pore-water pressure responses are seen in both recon-
stituted and natural clays. It can therefore be related to ani-
sotropy, not aging.
Equations [1a] and [1b] indicate that anisotropic elasticity
can be easily identified in q–p′ plots of undrained triaxial
test data. Stress paths are inclined (∆p′ ≠ 0), with the direc-
tion being controlled by the ratio Ez /Ex. In this way, the
anisotropic elastic model supports the observation in Fig. 17
that linear sections of ∆u–∆p plots have m ≠ ∆u/∆p ≠ 1.0
(Fig. 17).
Anisotropy has a major impact on the applicability of
models such as Cam clay to natural clays (Fig. 12). As men-
tioned earlier, Cam clay assumes isotropic elasticity with its
associated decoupling of shear stress and volume strain. It
therefore models elastic behaviour inside p′–q ellipses as
straight lines in ln p′–V plots. These are commonly known
as “vertical elastic walls” in 3D p′–q–V space (Fig. 12a).
When the anisotropy of natural clays is introduced, coupling
produces volume changes associated with shear stresses.
Elastic regions for given preconsolidation pressures now
produce inclined or sloping elastic walls represented by
curved (or “hooked”) traces in ln p′–V plots (Fig. 12b) and
the asymmetric non-elliptical yield loci in p′–q plots that are
obtained from many natural clays, (Graham et al. 1983;
Leroueil and Vaughan 1990; Cummings et al. 2003).

© 2006 NRC Canada

 Graham
Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of (a) q and ∆u vs. ε1, and (b) q vs. p′ stress paths.
(a)
PEAK FAILURE
DEVIATOR STRESS
POST-PEAK3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
AXIAL STRAIN
(b)
PEAK STRENGTH
For personal use only.
DEVIATOR STRESS
2
3 POST-PEAK
1
1 DEPTH PEAK POST-PEAK
5m
10 m
MEAN EFFECTIVE STRESS
Constitutive models
Relationships between loading, in its widest sense, and re-
sulting deformations are known as “constitutive equations.”
Relatively simple loadings should lead to the choice of sim-
ple constitutive models. Even in cases that do not involve
time, temperature, incomplete saturation, or chemical effects,
equations for stress–strain deformations of the soil skeleton
can be quite complex, requiring sophisticated testing proce-
dures. It is important to choose constitutive equations that
capture only the behaviour that will be encountered in the
problem being examined. This leads to easier calibration and
reduced equipment demands, duration, and cost.
In problems that involve a wider range of loadings than
simply gravitational and construction loading, much more
information is needed for design. Heat, fluids, electricity,
and solutes flow from high potentials (measured by tempera-
ture, hydraulic potential, electrical potential, and ionic con-
centration, respectively) to low potentials at rates that
depend on the spatial gradients of the potentials and the
199
5
5
PORE - WATER PRESSURE
4
4
2
2
3
1
1
AXIAL STRAIN
5
4
3
thermal, hydraulic, electrical, and ionic conductivities of the
soil. These relationships are shown in the leading diagonal
cells in Table 2. In each case, the conductivities or diffusion
coefficients are generally not constant, but depend on the na-
ture of the material. For example, in clay soils, hydraulic
conductivity decreases with increasing density and stress
level, and ionic diffusivity depends on clay mineralogy and
cation exchange capacity.
In addition to these direct relationships, other couplings
may cause fluxes to develop. For example, a temperature
gradient causes water to move from high temperature to low
temperature through thermo-osmosis; a hydraulic gradient
will produce isothermal heat transfer that generates small
temperature increase; and a gradient of electrical potential
can cause water movement through electro-osmosis. These
coupled fluxes are indicated by the remaining cells in Ta-
ble 2.
If there are no gradients of electrical potential or chemical
concentration, but heating is still producing temperature gra-
dients, then the relationships in Table 2 simplify to the so-
© 2006 NRC Canada
 200
Fig. 15. (a) Peak strength envelopes for different depths.
(b) Normalized strength envelope in plot of q/σ′zc vs. p′/σ′zc. The
normalizing stress σ′zc is the vertical 1D preconsolidation pres-
sure.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
For personal use only.
called Philip and deVries (1957) equations. Water will move
down the temperature gradient from a warmer boundary to a
colder boundary and energy lost in hydraulic mass transport
will produce a small amount of heating. The latter is small
and is frequently ignored. Water movements induced by
temperature gradients have other effects that can be signifi-
cant. Drying and wetting cause volume and density changes
that alter the thermal, advective fluid flow and suction prop-
erties of the soil. These in turn affect the thermal environ-
ment and thus influence temperatures, causing further
changes to moisture distribution. Under undrained condi-
tions, heating can cause increased pore-water pressures, in-
creased values of q/p′, decreased stability, and localized
failure (Graham et al. 2001). Also involved of course, are
mechanical changes to the soil structure resulting from these
loadings. They can involve volume strains, shear strains, re-
organization of the microstructure of the clay, and changes
in strength.
Where loadings are more complex (and usually coupled),
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
Fig. 16. Normalized peak strength and critical state data for nat-
ural and reconstituted Winnipeg clay (modified from Graham and
Li 1985).
field equations can be developed from the physics of a vari-
ety of processes that can involve equilibrium of forces, mass
balance for liquid water, mass balance for vapour, mass bal-
ance for dry air, and heat energy balance. The soils may be
unsaturated. Examples of solutions of this type with differ-
ent levels of coupling are given by Detournay and Cheng
(1993), Thomas and Sansom (1995), Zhou et al. (1998),
Cleall et al. (2002), and Murray (2002). These so-called
thermo-hygro-mechanical (THM) models allow for thermo-
dynamically coupled fluid and heat flow, changing material
properties, compressibility and thermal expansion of constit-
uents, substantial temperature changes, and convective heat
flow. Models of this type are now being developed for heat
transfer problems, for example in the safe disposal of nu-
clear fuel waste.
Many of the effects dealt with in the equations cited in
Table 2 are quite strongly coupled and the parameters de-
scribing the relationships are multivariate functionals. The
question is how to calibrate the equations before moving to
validation and prediction. In most cases, tests for calibration
information will themselves include coupled processes. So-
lutions for the various calibration parameters depend on the
algorithms that are used by the laboratory engineer to ana-
lyse the behaviour of the specimens. Evaluation of the pa-
rameters is therefore not unique but is intimately related to
the same equations that will be used later for analysis or pre-
diction of the design problem. If the equations are incom-
plete, or not applicable to the new problem, then the quality
of the calibration will be inadequate.
Similar comments can be made about the influence of
changes in pore fluid chemistry. These are known to produce
strong changes in compressibility, strength, and hydraulic
conductivity, often through modifications to the extent and
magnitude of potential fields in diffuse double layers
(DDLs) (Barbour and Yang 1993; Graham et al. 2005). Less
work has been done on chemical-hygro-mechanical (CHM)
modeling and to the further complication of combined ther-
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham 201

Fig. 17. Linearity of ∆u vs. ∆p relationships for anisotropic clays (modified from Graham et al. 1989): (a) Winnipeg natural clay,
(b) 1D reconstituted illite, and (c) 1D compacted sand–bentonite.

(a) (b) (c)

0.6 0.6 0.12 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.08 0.4

T735 T761
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

0.2 0.2 0.04 0.2

1 1
1 1 1
T735
1 T761 T952
T402
T408 0.03 0.06 T455
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.30
For personal use only.

Table 2. Coupled processes in clay soils (modified from Mitchell 1993).

Potential gradient
Flux Temperature Hydraulic Electrical Chemical
Heat Thermal conduction Isothermal heat transfer Peltier effect Dufour effect
(Fourier’s Law)
Fluids Thermo-osmosis Hydraulic conduction Electro-osmosis Normal osmosis
(Darcy’s Law)
Current Thermo-electricity Streaming current Electrical conduction Diffusion and membrane
(Ohm’s Law) potentials
Ions Soret effect Streaming current Electrophoresis Diffusion (Fick’s Law)

mal and chemical changes. Interested readers can refer to re-
search presented by Loret et al. (2002).
Determining calibration functions requires carefully de-
signed testing programs. These tend to be somewhat simpler
and more direct for semi-empirical constitutive models than
for physics-based models. As a result, elastic-plastic models
have been developed that can handle temperature (Graham et
al. 2001), creep (Zhu et al. 2001), and incomplete saturation
(Blatz and Graham 2003).
Difficulties with designing and interpreting suitable cali-
bration programs have led to the idea of “history matching.”
Here, computer modeling is done with material properties
selected to lie within likely ranges for the application. Com-
puted values of displacements, pore-water pressures, temper-
atures, etc. from a similar preceding project are then
compared with measurements. The range of parameters that
give the best agreement with the observations is chosen for
predicting the behaviour of the new full-scale project. For
example, remedial design of failed slopes is sometimes done
using a series of values of c′, φ′, and pore-water pressure pa-
rameters that give safety factors of unity and good agree-
ment with observed pore-water pressure distributions. This
approach is suited to large projects where time and money
may be available for prototype testing. An example would
be dam construction, where an agency may have used simi-
lar materials, sites, and construction practices previously,
and where good measurements were taken during construc-
tion (Paré et al. 1984). Unless the analogues are closely sim-
ilar, some doubt must be expressed about the uniqueness of
history matching and therefore its ability to predict future
behaviour. The method should only be used in conjunction
with field instrumentation and the observational method
(Peck 1969).
Consolidation and settlements: time and
strain-rate effects
Calculating the magnitudes and durations of settlements
was central in defining the discipline of soil mechanics. This
central position may produce a perception that available so-
lutions are uniquely correct and no further work is neces-
sary. This is untrue. Predicting the magnitudes and times of

© 2006 NRC Canada

 202 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Fig. 18. Common interpretation of Cα varying with vertical Fig. 19. Variation of Cα/Cc with σ′z: (a) Winnipeg, (b) Belfast
stress (modified from Crooks and Graham 1976). (modified from Graham and Yin 2001).
10-1

10-2

10-3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

10-4
10 100 1000
VERTICAL STRESS (kPa)

settlements and the associated pore-water pressure distribu-

tions remains challenging. An earlier section considered
compression and yielding (Fig. 8). This section considers
strain-rate effects, creep, and viscous behaviour. It also
draws attention to the more fundamental question of the
inter-relationship between the definition of material parame-
ters and analysis. Constitutive modeling of time-dependent
stress–strain behaviour of the skeleton of a viscous clay soil
is needed if fully coupled numerical analysis of consolida-
For personal use only.

tion is to be implemented successfully.

It is commonly understood that the coefficient of second-
ary compression (or creep coefficient) Cα , varies with the re-
lationship between applied pressure σ ′z and preconsolidation
pressure σ ′zc (Fig. 18). It is also commonly understood that
the ratio Cα /Cc is constant for a given soil, with values lying
between about 0.04 and 0.08 (Mesri and Castro 1987). In
contrast, Fig. 19 plots Cα /Cc against σ ′z /σ ′zc from oedo-
how creep settlements are currently calculated and whether
meter tests on clays from Winnipeg and Belfast. The figure
viscous behaviour is more prevalent in clays soils than is
shows Cα /Cc varying with stress level.
commonly understood.
Most clays, particularly organic or highly sensitive clays,
Bjerrum (1967) proposed that “delayed compression,” a
exhibit ongoing deformations under constant effective stress.
creep mechanism, produces an “apparent preconsolidation
Creep of clay soils is mainly due to (i) viscous, non-
pressure” in materials that have never experienced higher
recoverable rearrangement and deformation of clay particles,
loading. Related effects are seen (Fig. 20) in 1D compres-
(ii) slow migration of water from the cells of organic mate-
sion tests run at constant rates of strain (Sällfors 1975).
rial, and (iii) viscous expulsion of adsorbed water from “dif-
Here, stress–strain behaviour, including preconsolidation
fuse double layers” round active clay particles such as
pressure, depends on strain rate. (The results are similar to
smectites. When effective stresses increase, adsorbed water
what is seen in thermo-elastic-plastic modeling (Graham et
moves out slowly until a new equilibrium is established
al. 2001), indicating the close similarity between the effects
among particle arrangement, electrochemical interaction
of temperature and time on material properties.) Understand-
(unit) forces, and external loading. This results in deforma-
ing these relationships led to the σ, ε, ε& conceptual model
tion or compression of the soil, which can take place slowly
introduced by Leroueil et al. (1985), and the more general
over extended periods of time. Creep is independent of the & ε, ε& models presented by Kim and Leroueil (2001) and
σ, σ,
“free” pore water in the voids between particles, and there-
by Yin and his colleagues (for example Yin and Graham
fore of the consolidation process. Research on time-
1999; Zhu et al. 2001) that deal with the mathematics of pre-
dependency has received added attention in recent years be-
dicting settlements using elastic-viscoplastic modeling.
cause of a large number of construction projects on soft
Yin’s model separates the total vertical strain rate ε& z for
ground on-shore, near-shore, and offshore. Examples include
1D straining into a vertical elastic strain rate ε& ez and a verti-
Lefebvre and Leboeuf (1987), Yin and Graham (1999), Kim
cal viscoplastic strain rate ε& vp
z , where
and Leroueil (2001), and Zhu et al. (2001).
It seems therefore, in contrast with the conceptual model [2] ε& z = ε& ez + ε& vp
z
of creep behaviour in Fig. 18, that viscous behaviour should
be a fundamental soil property for a given mineralogy and Based on the separation of strain increments in eq. [2] and
pore fluid chemistry, and should not vary with stress level or the concept of “equivalent time,” a powerful and flexible 1D
overconsolidation ratio. This questions the mathematics of & ε, ε& model can be written
elastic viscoplastic (EVP) σ, σ,

© 2006 NRC Canada

 Graham
Fig. 20. Influence of strain rate on compression curves and pre-
consolidation pressures, Bäckebol (modified from Sällfors 1975).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
λ/ ψ
κ σ& ′z ψ ⎛ V ⎞ ⎛σ′ ⎞
[3] ε& z = + exp ⎜⎜ − ε z ⎟⎟ ⎜ z ⎟
ψ ⎠ ⎜ σ ′o ⎟
For personal use only.
V σ ′z Vto ⎝ withstand external forces. The DDL thickness depends on
⎝ ⎠
In this model, κ and λ are, respectively, the unload–reload
and normally consolidated compression indices expressed as
natural logarithmic (ln) functions (equivalent to Cr and Cc in
log10 functions), and V is specific volume. Unlike the Cα pa-
rameter in Fig. 18, ψ represents a constant creep function in
ln (equivalent time) and so becomes a global soil property
like M, κ, and λ (or more commonly, φ ′nc , Cc, and Cr).
Methods for determining the various soil parameters in
eq. [3] were described by Yin and Graham (1999). Equation
[3] is general for 1D problems and has been extended by Yin
and his colleagues to include axial symmetry and shear.
They incorporated eq. [3] into Biot-consolidation finite ele-
ment solutions for incremental loading, relaxation, creep,
constant rate of loading, and constant rate of straining.
Equation [3] assumes that creep occurs during the whole of
the compression process, both during and after “primary”
consolidation. The mathematical expression in eq. [3] de-
pends on an improved interpretation of the creep process and
definition of the new, constant creep parameter ψ. It is being
used in a number of countries for calculating settlements,
times of settlements, and pore-water pressure distributions.
Figure 21 shows calculated and measured settlements of a
test embankment at the Chek Lap Kok international airport
at Hong Kong (Zhu et al. 2001). Simulations were done us-
ing, for the most part, results from the original laboratory
testing and site investigation report prepared before the test
fill was constructed. The hydraulic conductivity was defined
as varying with log (pressure). Good results were obtained
for predictions of settlement magnitudes (Fig. 21a). Discrep-
ancies were encountered in modeling pore-water pressures
(Fig. 21b), and these require further attention, possibly in
terms of the variation of hydraulic conductivity with effec-
tive stress, especially after large compressions.
203
Chemical changes
Compressibility, strength, and hydraulic conductivity of
clays are controlled by mineralogy, interparticle forces, soil
structure, geological and climatic history, and physico-
chemical interactions between adjacent clay particles
(Barbour and Yang 1993). Changes in pore fluid chemistry
can influence the overall geotechnical behaviour of the soil
and may therefore affect the parameters that are needed for
modeling.
Some dyke instabilities in eastern Manitoba have been re-
lated to changes in pore fluid chemistry (Man et al. 2003;
Garinger et al. 2004). The plastic postglacial lake clays that
are common in western Canada are often highly compress-
ible on loading or drying, and are expansive on unloading or
wetting. Their expansive–compressive nature comes from
montmorillonitic particles eroded from Cretaceous clay
shales that contain bentonitic beds derived from volcanic
eruptions in the Cordillera. Negatively charged surfaces of
the clay particles attract cations and repel anions dissolved
in the pore fluid.
The combination of the charged surface and the distrib-
uted charge in the liquid phase is known as the diffuse dou-
ble layer (DDL) (Mitchell 1993). The thickness of the DDL
influences forces between two facing particles due to over-
lapping DDLs and therefore the ability of the material to
the concentration and valence of anions in the pore fluid, the
temperature, and the dielectric constant (Yong et al. 1992).
Thicker DDLs result in higher repulsive forces for a given
particle spacing. Concurrently, an attractive force will exist
between the particles because of van der Waals forces. The
repulsive and attractive forces can be integrated over a num-
ber of particles to get the net long-range repulsive stress |R –
A| on a unit section of the material. Net long-range repulsive
stresses contribute to the combined effective stress in a clay
soil (eq. [4]) and therefore to its compressibility and strength
(Graham et al. 1992; Mitchell 1993 reporting earlier work
from 1962):
[4] {σ′} = σ* + *R – A*{I}
where σ′ is the effective stress, σ* is the stress transferred
between physical contacts, including friction and cementa-
tion bonds, and {I} is the unit tensor. Repulsion, which is
largely controlled by pore fluid chemistry, plays an impor-
tant role in controlling volume changes, shear strength, and
hydraulic conductivity of active clay soils.
During operation of one of its generating stations, Mani-
toba Hydro encountered a series of instabilities in some rela-
tively low (6–8 m high) water retention dykes. Some
instabilities were observed during heightening of the dykes
in the late 1940s, and others occurred at irregular intervals,
always on the dry side opposite the reservoir. On no occa-
sion was the integrity of the dyke system threatened and
there was never loss of water from the reservoir. Manitoba
Hydro has been proactive in addressing the reasons for fail-
ure and in preventing further instabilities.
Triaxial testing (Fig. 22) showed that clay from an unsta-
ble section of the dyke is more brittle and more anisotropic
than clay from a comparable stable section. Both are notice-
ably more brittle and anisotropic than clay from a back-
© 2006 NRC Canada
 204 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Fig. 21. Elastic viscoplastic (EVP) modelling of settlements and pore-water pressures at Chek Lap Kok International Airport (Zhu et
al. 2001).
(a) 3.5
POINTS - MEASURED
3.0 LINES - CALCULATED
SETTLEMENT (m ) 2.5 1

2.0

1.5
2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
CONTRACT DAYS
(b) 10
POINTS - MEASURED
E - WATER PRESSURE

8 LINES - CALCULATED
For personal use only.

6
P35
4

2
PORE

0
0 2
CONTRACT DAYS
ground section that has not experienced dyke loading or
slow seepage beneath the dyke. The clay has very low peak,
post-peak, and residual friction angles (Table 3). Traditional
stability analyses for steady-state seepage show that if post-
peak strengths were operating, both the stable and unstable
sections should have been stable with safety factors of 1.15–
1.22 (Garinger et al. 2004). If residual strengths were operat-
ing, both sections should have been unstable. Some other
mechanism must have been operating to influence the rate at
which strengths could deteriorate from post-peak to residual
values.
Finite element analysis showed that the reductions in
strength could have come from shear strains associated with
addition of extra fill to the initial dykes. More likely, how-
ever, are changes in clay properties brought about by natural
slow seepage through the foundation soil from the reservoir.
The seepage is the normal response of water to differences
in hydraulic potential and is not associated with any “leak-
age” problem.
Chemical analyses of pore fluid showed significant
changes in concentrations of Ca2+ and SO42– (gypsum) be-
P41
4 6 8 10
neath the dykes (Table 4). Through weathering of the parent
shale, calcium and sulphate ions were likely present in the
sediment load brought into Lake Agassiz at the time of de-
position. The ion activity product (IAP) was calculated using
the law of mass action with the equilibrium equation for
gypsum dissolution
[5] [Ca2+] [SO42–] = IAP
The results in Fig. 23 for the background section show
that the local clay is super-saturated with gypsum, probably
in the form of cementation bonding. The cementation con-
tributes to the brittleness of the material seen in Fig. 22.
Gypsum concentrations increase with depth at all three sec-
tions shown in Table 4, but are noticeably lower at the unsta-
ble and stable sections beneath the dykes than at the
background section. Undersaturated conditions are noted
throughout the entire unstable and stable sections with re-
spect to gypsum, with the unstable section apparently having
lost rather more gypsum than the stable section.
Most glacio-lacustrine clays contain irregular, and often
discontinuous, sand and silt partings. Nonuniform seepage

© 2006 NRC Canada

 Graham 205

Fig. 22. Undrained triaxial compression stress paths in q–p′ Table 3. Strength parameters for dyke project, eastern Manitoba.
space for (a) background, (b) stable, and (c) unstable locations at
water retention dykes in eastern Manitoba (modified from Man Peak Post-peak Residual
et al. 2003). Section strength (°) strength (°) strength (°)
(a) 300 Unstable 15 13 10
Stable 15 14 11
Background 15 13 11
200
q (kPa)

Table 4. Pore fluid chemistry, foundation soils below dykes in

100 eastern Manitoba.
Elevation Calcium Sulphate Gypsum
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

Section (m) Ca2+ (mg/L) SO42– (mg/L) SI

0
Unstable 267.7 30 243 –1.70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
266.7 112 720 –0.86
p' (kPa)
266.4 113 708 –0.85
(b) 300 266.0 172 972 –0.61
Stable 267.8 28 153 –1.87
267.0 97 609 –0.96
200
q(kPa)

266.5 164 2016 –0.46

266.0 220 1122 –0.49
Background 267.8 125 870 –0.78
100
266.8 554 3360 0.06
266.6 680 3750 0.16
266.2 680 3660 0.15
For personal use only.

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Note: SI, saturation index.
p' (kPa)

(c) 300 jects. Testing programs and the resulting soil models should
match the numerical analysis that will be used and the needs
of the project. This paper has provided an overview of some
200 conceptual and constitutive models that can be useful in
q (kPa)

problems that include the effects of temperature, time, vis-

100
0 In the context of the Hardy Lecture, for which this paper
0 100 200 300 400
p' (kPa)
through these partings provides a time-dependent means of
removing gypsum cementation from the clay and progres-
sive transition towards less stable dykes. Additional studies
are investigating the effects of gypsum and leaching on the
compressibility, yielding, and strength of the clay (Graham
et al. 2005).
Concluding comments
Geotechnical engineers are increasingly being asked to
predict the performance of projects under conditions for
which only limited experience exists. This means greater un-
certainty and greater liability. In turn, however, more power-
ful tools are also available. Considerable attention has been
directed towards analytical capabilities; computer codes are
more accessible, more powerful, and more reliable. This
stronger computing power has not always been balanced by
corresponding improvements in testing, reviewing, and un-
derstanding the properties of the soils affected by the pro-
cosity, and changes in pore fluid chemistry. Major efforts
are also being undertaken to provide better modeling of un-
saturated soils (Fredlund 2000; Blatz and Graham 2003), but
for reasons of length, this work has not been included here.
500 600 was originally prepared, it may be helpful to list some gen-
eral guidelines for the selection of material parameters for
relatively straightforward projects. Little of this is new, but
represents what the author believes to be a compendium of
common current practice.
(1) Use φu = 0 with local values of undrained strength su
for total stress analyses. Care must be taken to choose
undrained shear strengths from laboratory or in situ
tests that are relevant to the particular project. Total
stresses are still often used for shallow and deep foot-
ing designs but are now rarely used for slope analysis,
with the exception of short-term excavations. There is
an increasing tendency to use effective stress parame-
ters also in foundations, particularly in piled founda-
tions in soft clays where there may be negative skin
friction.
(2) Use effective stress parameters c′, φ′ for effective stress
analysis, particularly in intact slopes, noting however,
that care must be taken to select carefully among
“peak,” “post-peak,” and “residual” parameters. Worst-
case pore-water pressures are needed. These are not
easily determined, especially in semi-arid regions

© 2006 NRC Canada

 206
Fig. 23. Ion activity product (IAP) with depth at dyke on Lake
Agassiz clay in eastern Manitoba (modified from Man et al.
2003).
268.0
267.5
Elevation (m)
267.0
266.5
266.0
265.5
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
2 4 6 8 10
-log IAP
Background Forebay water
Unstable Gypsum saturation
Stable
where there are often large ranges of temperature;
where an underlying aquifer can produce upwards or
downwards hydraulic gradients at different times;
where prolonged heavy rainfall may degrade stabiliz-
ing suction pressures; or where strain-softening may
occur.
For personal use only.
(3) Overconsolidated parameters c ′oc , φ ′oc should only be
used in intact clays for first-time slides.
(4) In some regions where weathering is extreme, plastic
clays, in particular, appear to be almost always fis-
sured. Deciding if a deposit is intact or fissured re-
quires close attention. When the clay is fissured and
(or) expansive, the normally consolidated parameters
c ′nc , φ ′nc should be used for first-time slides.
(5) In remediation of failed slopes, whether of geological
age or recent, residual strength parameters c ′, r φ ′r are
needed. A small residual cohesion c ′r of perhaps 3–
7 kPa may assist in modeling the residual failure enve-
lope for relatively shallow slides in plastic clays. In nu-
merical analysis, it also helps to drop the failure
surface into the deposit in a way that can be a better re-
flection of actual failures.
(6) Increasingly, soil stiffnesses (in both compression and
shear) are needed for calculating deformations under
working stress conditions. Additional care is needed
during sampling, trimming, and testing if adequate val-
ues are to be measured. Better values are found using
on-specimen instrumentation. These parameters are not
constants for a given soil, but vary with stress level,
strain level, and stress history. Stiffnesses are not nec-
essarily better if measured by in situ tests (or inferred
from empirical relationships).
(7) Parameters recommended for analysis should come
from tests on specimens with “worst case” pore fluid
chemistry.
(8) In important projects, it is wise to incorporate both lab-
oratory and in situ tests.
Geotechnical engineers are essential to the successful
completion of most civil engineering projects. This is simply
another way of saying that the levels of expertise and experi-
ence that have been built up in site characterization, selec-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
tion of material properties, and numerical analysis generally
produce acceptable predictions of project performance under
working loadings at a reasonable cost and in an acceptable
time frame. The ongoing existence of consulting companies
and their undertaking of new topic areas reflect well on their
ability to produce valuable recommendations.
Industry responds to new types of projects as they arise.
Over the past 20 years, these have included large offshore
structures, geoenvironmental remediation and management,
disposal of nuclear fuel waste, and operation of large tailings
ponds, among others. In these cases, there was little past ex-
perience to draw on, at least without significant extrapola-
tion. Particular care is needed to develop the confidence to
proceed with such projects. This care will often use the “ob-
servational method” (Peck 1969), which involves perfor-
mance monitoring to compare how well predictions are
being matched during the course of construction. This re-
quires close collaboration and cooperation among (i) manag-
ers of well designed and executed laboratory programs,
including good sampling, storage, trimming, and testing
techniques; (ii) field engineers who can assess site condi-
tions with insight and perform in situ tests; (iii) numerical
analysts who concentrate on developing modeling skills
while still understanding the mathematics of the solutions
they use; and (iv) instrumentation engineers who will install
appropriate instrumentation, collect data during construction
and afterwards, review the data, and compare the results
with predicted performance.
We have seen in recent years a valuable and rewarding
move from computer analysis (coding) to design by com-
puter (modeling) that is now a widely used part of modern
geotechnical practice. These strengths in modeling require a
similar effort in developing procedures for acquiring the ma-
terial properties needed for predicting project performance.
Acknowledgements
This paper reflects the personal, and doubtless biased
views of the author. Many of them come from time spent
with Laurits Bjerrum in Oslo and with Peter Wroth in Ox-
ford. They have been influenced by ongoing collaborations
with Malcolm Gray and David Dixon at Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited (AECL); and by Gordon Stuart, Gregg
Doran, and V. Sivakumar in Queen’s University, Belfast. The
Journal’s reviewers provided useful comments that have
been incorporated in a revised version of the original paper.
The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), AECL, and
Manitoba Hydro. It was possible through the diligent and
supportive efforts of the many graduate students who are
recognized in the text as co-authors. Conversations with col-
leagues James Blatz and Marolo Alfaro helped form the
structure of the paper. Technical support was provided by
Narong Piamsalee and Kerry Lynch. Kendall Thiessen and
Greg Siemens prepared the figures.
References
Al Tabaa, A., and Wood, D.M. 1989. An experimentally based
“bubble” model for clay. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics (NUMOG
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham
III), Niagara Falls, Ont., May 1989. Elsevier Applied Science,
New York. pp. 91–99.
ASTM. 2002. Annual book of standards. Vol. 4.08, Soil and rock
(I): D420–D5779, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Barbour, S.L., and Yang, N. 1993. A review of the influence of
clay–brine interactions on the geotechnical properties of Ca–
montmorillonitic clayey soils from Western Canada. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 30: 920–934.
Baligh, M.M., Azzouz, A.S., and Chin, C.T. 1987. Disturbances
due to ideal tube sampling. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 113: 739–757.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1993. Towards systematic CPT inter-
pretation. In Predictive Soil Mechanics: Proceedings of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, 27–29 July 1992. Edited
by G.T. Houlsby and A.N. Schofield. Thomas Telford Ltd., Lon-
don, UK. pp. 121–134.
Bell, A.L. 1977. Geotechnical investigation of post glacial
estuarine deposits at Kinnegar, Belfast Lough. Ph.D. thesis, The
Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Bjerrum, L. 1967. Engineering geology of normally-consolidated
marine clays as related to the settlements of buildings.
Géotechnique, 17: 81–118.
Blatz, J.A., and Graham, J. 2003. Elastic-plastic modelling of un-
saturated soil using results from a new triaxial test with con-
trolled suction. Géotechnique, 53: 113–122.
Burland, J.B. 1987. The teaching of soil mechanics– a personal
view. The Nash Lecture. In Proceedings of the 9th European
For personal use only.
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Dublin, Ireland. Vol. 3, pp. 1427–1441.
Burland, J.B. 1990. On the compressibility and shear strength of
natural clays. Géotechnique, 40: 327–378.
Clarke, B.G. 1993. The interpretation pf self-boring pressuremeter
tests to produce design parameters. In Predictive Soil Me-
chanics: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium, Ox-
ford, 27–29 July 1992. Edited by G.T. Houlsby and A.N.
Schofield. Thomas Telford Ltd., London UK. pp. 156–172.
Clausen, C.-J.F., Graham, J., and Wood, D.M. 1984. Yielding of
soft clay at Mastemyr, Norway. Géotechnique, 34: 581–600.
Clayton, C.R.I., and Heymann, G. 2001. Stiffness of geomaterials
at very small strains. Géotechnique, 51: 245–255.
Clayton, C.R.I., and Siddique, A. 1999. Tube sampling distur-
bance– forgotten truths and new perspectives. Proceedings of
ICE, Geotechnical Engineering, 143: 31–42.
Clayton, C.R.I., Hight, D.W., and Hopper, R.J. 1992. Progressive
destructuring of Bothkennar clay: implications for sampling and
reconsolidation procedures. Géotechnique, 42: 219–239.
Cleall, P.J., Thomas, H.R., Melhuish, R.A., and Owen D.H. 2002.
Simulation of the behaviour of deep geological repositories–
some computational challenges. In Proceedings of the 8th Inter-
national Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics
(NUMOG VIII), Rome, Italy. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands. pp. 235–240.
Crooks, J.H.A., and Graham, J. 1976. Geotechnical properties of
the Belfast estuarine deposits. Géotechnique, 26: 293–315.
Cummings, S.J., Sivakumar, V., Doran, I.G., and Graham, J. 2003.
Deep sampling and testing in soft stratified clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 40: 575–586.
Detournay, E., and Cheng, A.H.-D. 1993. Fundamentals of
poroelasticity. In Comprehensive rock engineering: Principles,
practice and projects– 2. Analysis and design method. Edited by
C. Fairhurst. Pergamon Press, Inc., Tarrytown, N.Y. pp. 112–
170.
Dixon. D., Chandler, N., Graham, J., and Gray, M.N. 2003. Two
large-scale sealing tests conducted at Atomic Energy of Can-
207
ada’s underground research laboratory: the buffer-container ex-
periment and the isothermal test. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 39: 503–518.
Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C.-Y. 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress
and strain in soils. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 96: 1629–1653.
Fredlund, D.G. 2000. The 1999 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The imple-
mentation of unsaturated soil mechanics into geotechnical engi-
neering. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37: 963–986.
Garinger, B., Alfaro, M., Graham, J., Dubois, D., and Man, A.
2004. Instability of dykes at Seven Sisters Generating Station.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41: 959–971.
Graham, J., and Au, V.C.S. 1985. Influence of freeze–thaw and
softening effects on stress–strain behaviour of natural clay at
low stresses. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22: 69–78.
Graham, J., and Houlsby, G.T. 1983. Anisotropic elasticity of a
natural clay. Géotechnique, 33: 165–180.
Graham, J., and Li, E.C.-C. 1985. Comparison of natural and
remolded plastic clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
ASCE, 111: 865–881.
Graham, J., and Yin, J.-H. 2001. On the time-dependent stress-
strain behaviour of soft soils. Keynote Address. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering,
Hong Kong, 6–8 December 2001. Edited by C.F.Lee, C.K. Lau,
C.W.W. Ng, A.K.L. Kwong, P.L.R. Pang, J.-H. Yin and Z.Q.
Yue. A.A. Balkema, Lisse. pp. 13–24.
Graham, J., Pinkney, R.B., Lew, K.V., and Trainor, P.G.S. 1982.
Curve-fitting and laboratory data. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 19: 201–205.
Graham, J., Noonan, M.L., and Lew, K.V. 1983. Yield states and
stress–strain relationships in a natural plastic clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 20: 502–516.
Graham, J., Crooks, J.H.A., and Lau, S.L.-K. 1988. Yield enve-
lopes: identification and geometric properties. Géotechnique,
38: 125–134.
Graham, J., Wood, D.M., Yin, J.-H., and Azizi, F. 1989 Predictions
of triaxial stress-strain behaviour of Winnipeg clay using an
anisotropic elastic-plastic model. In Proceedings of the 42nd
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Winnipeg, Man., 23–25 Oc-
tober 1989. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Alliston, Ont.
pp. 280–288.
Graham, J., Oswell, J.M., and Gray, M.N. 1992. The effective
stress concept in saturated sand–clay buffer. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 29: 1033–1043.
Graham, J., Tanaka, N., Crilly, T., and Alfaro. M. 2001. Modified
Cam-Clay modelling of temperature effects in clays. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38: 608–621.
Graham, J., Man, A., Alfaro, M., Blatz, J.A., and Van Gulck, J.
2005. Gypsum cementation and yielding in plastic clay. In
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 12–
16 September 2005. Millpress Science Publishers, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 507–512.
Höeg, K., Andersland, O.B., and Rolfsen, E.N. 1969. Undrained
behaviour of quick clay under load tests at Äsrum.
Géotechnique, 19: 101–115.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., and Lancellotta, R.
1985. New development in field and laboratory testing of soils.
Theme lecture. In Proceedings of the 11th International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., 12–16 August 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 57–153.
Jardine, R.J. 1992. Some observations on the kinematic nature of
soil stiffness. Soils and Foundations, 32: 111–124.
© 2006 NRC Canada
 208
Jardine, R.J., Gens, A., Hight, D.W., and Coop, M.R. 2004. Devel-
opments in understanding soil behaviour. Keynote Address. In
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. Proceedings of the
Skempton Memorial Conference, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
pp. 103–207.
Kim, Y.T., and Leroueil, S. 2001. Modeling the viscoplastic behav-
iour of clays during consolidation: application to Berthierville
clay in both laboratory and field conditions. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38: 484–497.
Krahn, J. 2003. The 2001 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The limits of limit
equilibrium analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40: 643–
660.
Ladd, C.C., and Degroot, D.J. 2003. Recommended practice for
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
soft soil characterization. Arthur Casagrande Lecture. In Pro-
ceedings of the 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Boston, Mass., June
2003. Edited by P.J. Culligan, H.H. Einstein, and A.J. Whittle.
Verlag Gluckauf, Essen, Germany. Vol. 1, pp. 3–58.
Ladd, C.C., and Foott, R. 1974. New design procedure for stability
of soft clays. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Di-
vision, 100: 763–786.
Landva, A. 1964. Equipment for cutting and mounting undisturbed
specimens of clay in testing devices. Publication No.56. Norwe-
gian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo. pp. 1–5.
Lefebvre, G. 1981. Strength and slope stability in Canadian soft
clay deposits. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18: 420–442.
Lefebvre, G., and Leboeuf, D. 1987. Rate effects and cyclic load-
For personal use only.
ing of sensitive clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
ASCE, 113: 476–489.
Lefebvre, G., and Poulin, C. 1979. A new method of sampling in
sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16: 226–233.
Leroueil, S. 2001. Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure
mechanisms. 39th Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique, 51: 195–243.
Leroueil, S., and Vaughan, P.R. 1990. The general and congruent
effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks.
Géotechnique, 40: 467–488.
Leroueil, S., Kabbaj, M., Tavenas, F., and Bouchard, R. 1985.
Stress-strain-strain rate relation for the compressibility of sensi-
tive natural clays. Géotechnique, 35: 159–180.
Lo, K.Y. 1970. The operational strength of fissured clays.
Géotechnique, 20: 57–74.
Loret, B., Hueckel, T., and Gajo, A. 2002. Chemo-mechanical cou-
pling in saturated porous media: elasto-plastic behaviour of
homoionic expansive clays. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 39: 2773–2806.
Man, A., Graham, J., Alfaro, M., and Goh, T.B. 2003. Changes in
clay behaviour produced by seepage under a water retention
dyke. In Proceedings of the 56th Canadian Geotechnical Confer-
ence, Winnipeg, Man., 29 September – 1 October 2003. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Society, Alliston, Ont. Vol. 2, pp. 770–777.
Mesri, G., and Castro, A. 1987. The Cα/Cc concept and Ko during
secondary compression. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 119: 230–247.
Mitchell, J.K. 1993. Fundamentals of soil behaviour. 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Murray, E.J. 2002. An equation of state for unsaturated soils. Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 125–140.
Onofrei, C., and Gray, M.N. 1993. Testing models of the perfor-
mance of clay barriers in a nuclear waste repository system. In
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Thermo-
Mechanics of Clays and Clay Barriers. ISMES Spa., Bergamo,
Italy, October 1993.
Paré, J.J., Verma, N.S., Keira, H.M.S., and McConnell, A.D. 1984.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
Stress-deformation predictions for LG 4 main dam. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 21: 213–222.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observational
method in applied soil mechanics. Géotechnique, 19: 171–187.
Peck, R.B. 1980. Where has all the judgment gone? Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 17: 584–590.
Peterson, R., Jaspar, J.L., Rivard., P.J., and Iverson, N.L. 1960.
Limitations of laboratory shear strength in evaluating stability of
highly plastic clays. In Proceedings of the ASCE Research Con-
ference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, Colo. 15–
16 June 1960. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
pp. 765–791.
Philip, J.R., and deVries, D.A. 1957. Moisture movement in porous
materials under temperature gradients. Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, 38: 222–232.
Rivard, P.J., and Lu, Y. 1978. Shear strength of soft fissured clay.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15: 382–390.
Robertson, P.K., and Ferreira, R.S. 1993. Seismic and
pressuremeter testing to determine soil modulus. In Predictive
Soil Mechanics: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Sympo-
sium. Edited by G.T. Houlsby and A.N. Schofield. Thomas Tel-
ford Ltd., London, UK. pp. 562–580.
Roscoe, K.H., and Burland, J.B. 1968. On the generalized stress-
strain behaviour of “wet” clay. In Engineering plasticity. Edited
by J. Heyman and F.A. Leckie. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England. pp. 535–609.
Rowe, P.W. 1972. The relevance of soil fabric to site investigation
practice. Géotechnique, 22: 195–300.
Sällfors, G. 1975. Preconsolidation pressure of soft, high-plastic
clays. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Schanz, T., and Vermeer, P.A. 1998. On the stiffness of sands.
Géotechnique, Special issue on Pre-failure Behaviour of
Geomaterials, 48: 383–387.
Sivakumar, V., Doran, I.G., Graham, J., and Navaneethan, T. 2002.
Relationship between K0 and overconsolidation ratio: a theoreti-
cal approach. Géotechnique, 52: 225–230.
Skempton, A.W., and Hutchinson, J. 1969. Stability of natural
slopes and embankment foundations. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, Mexico City, Mexico. State-of-the-Art Report. Au-
gust 1969. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Vol. 2,
pp. 291–335.
Tatsuoka, F., Jardine, R.J., Lo Presti, D., Di Benedetto, H., and
Kodaka, T. 1999. Characterising the prefailure behaviour of
geomaterials. Theme lecture. In Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering (ICSMFE), Hamburg, Germany, September 1997.
Edited by Publications Committee of XIV ICSMFE. Vol. 4,
pp. 2129–2164.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. 1996. Soil mechanics in
engineering practice. 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
Thomas, H.R., and Missoum, H. 1999. Three dimensional coupled
heat, moisture and air transfer in a deformable unsaturated soil.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 44:
919–943.
Thomas, H.R., and Sansom, M.R. 1995. Fully coupled analysis of
heat, moisture, and air transfer in unsaturated soil. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 121: 392–405.
Thorne, C.P. 1984. Strength assessment and stability analyses for
fissured clays. Géotechnique, 34: 305–322.
Vaughan, P.R., Chandler, R.J., Apted, J.P., Maguire, W.M., and
Sandroni, S.S. 1993. Sampling disturbance– with particular ref-
© 2006 NRC Canada
 Graham 209

erence to its effect on stiff clays. In Predictive Soil Mechanics:
Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium. Edited by G.T.
Houlsby and A.N. Schofield. Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
UK. pp. 685–708.
Whittle, A.J., and Aubeny, C.P. 1993. The effects of installation
disturbance on interpretation of in situ tests in clay. In Predictive
Soil Mechanics: Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Sympo-
sium. Edited by G.T. Houlsby and A.N. Schofield. Thomas Tel-
ford Ltd., London, UK. pp. 742–767.
Wood, D.M. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Wood, D.M., and Graham, J. 1990. Anisotropic elasticity and
yielding of a natural plastic clay. International Journal of Plas-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14
Cr, Cc, Cα unload–reload, “normal,” and secondary
compression coefficients (log base 10)
DDL diffuse double layer
Ex, Ez, Gzx, parameters of transverse anisotropic elas-
νzx, νxx ticity
e, V voids ratio, specific volume (1 + e)
IAP ion activity product
ICL, NCL, SCL intrinsic, normal, and sedimentation com-
pression lines
{I} unit tensor
K*, G*, J bulk, shear, coupled moduli
Ko coefficient of earth pressure “at rest”
m pore-water pressure coefficient, ∆ u / ∆p

ticity, 6: 377–388.
M slope of strength envelope in p′–q space
Yin, J.-H., and Graham, J. 1999. Elastic viscoplastic modeling of
Mcs slope of strength envelope at critical state
the time-dependent stress–strain behavior of soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 36: 736–745. p′,q mean effective stress (σ ′1 + 2σ ′3)/3, deviator
Yin, J.-H., Saadat, F., and Graham, J. 1990. constitutive modeling stress (σ ′1 – σ ′3)
of a compacted sand–bentonite mixture using three-modulus pe′ equivalent pressure
hypoelasticity. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27: 365–372. *R – A* net unit repulsive and attractive (unit) force
Yong, R.N., Mohamed, A.M.O., and Warkentin, B.P. 1992. Princi- between particles
ples of contaminant transport in soils. Elsevier, Amsterdam. su undrained shear strength
Yu, H.S., Carter, J.P., and Booker, J.R. 1993. Analysis of the ε, σ′, σ* strain, effective stess, contact stress between
dilatometer test in undrained clay. In Predictive Soil Mechanics: particles
Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium. Edited by G.T. κ, λ, ψ unload–reload, “normal,” and secondary
Houlsby and A.N. Schofield. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK. compression coefficients (ln base e)
pp. 783–795. ν Poisson’s ratio
For personal use only.

Yuen, K., Graham, J., and Janzen, P. 1998. Weathering-induced fis- φ′ angle of shearing resistance (effective stresses)
suring and hydraulic conductivity in a natural plastic clay. Cana- φu angle of undrained shearing resistance, equal
dian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 1101–1108. to zero if saturated
Zdravkoviƒ, L., and Jardine, R.J. 2001. The effect on anisotropy of ∆u change in pore-water pressure
rotating the principal stress axes during consolidation.
Géotechnique, 51: 69–83.
Zhou, Y., Rajapakse, R.K.N.D., and Graham, J. 1998. Coupled
heat-moisture air transfer in deformable unsaturated media.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124: 1090–1099.
Zhu, G., Yin, J.-H., and Graham, J. 2001. Consolidation modeling Subscripts and superscripts:
of soils under the test embankment at Chek Lap Kok Interna-
tional Airport in Hong Kong using a simplified finite element v, s volumetric, shear
method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38: 349–363. nc, oc, r normally consolidated, overconsolidated,
residual
z, zc, 1, 3 vertical, vertical preconsolidation, major,
List of symbols minor
c′ cohesion intercept (effective stresses) e, vp elastic, viscoplastic

© 2006 NRC Canada

 This article has been cited by:

1. Zapata-Medina David G., Finno Richard J., Vega-Posada Carlos A.. Stress history and sampling disturbance effects on monotonic
and cyclic responses of overconsolidated Bootlegger Cove clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, ahead of print599-609. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
2. Martin D. Liu, Ziling Zhuang, Suksun Horpibulsuk. 2013. Estimation of the compression behaviour of reconstituted clays.
Engineering Geology . [CrossRef]
3. J. Suzanne Powell, Greg Siemens, W. Andy Take, Vicki Remenda. 2012. Influence of Specimen Geometry on Sample Disturbance
Observed in Oedometric Testing of Clay Shales. Geotechnical Testing Journal 35:5, 104172. [CrossRef]
4. Rafał F. Obrzud, Laurent Vulliet, Andrzej Truty. 2009. A combined neural network/gradient-based approach for the identification
of constitutive model parameters using self-boring pressuremeter tests. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics 33:6, 817-849. [CrossRef]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Merced (UCM) on 05/06/14

5. Rafał F. Obrzud, Laurent Vulliet, Andrzej Truty. 2009. Optimization framework for calibration of constitutive models enhanced
by neural networks. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 33:1, 71-94. [CrossRef]
For personal use only.