See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239410734

The Measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus

Article  in  Géotechnique · January 1984

DOI: 10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.323

CITATIONS READS
215 4,327

3 authors, including:

Richard Jardine John Boscawen Burland

Imperial College London Imperial College London
141 PUBLICATIONS   3,750 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   5,913 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mechanical properties of London Clay at Heathrow T5 View project

PISA Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Jardine on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JARDINE,R. J., SYMES,M. J. & BURLAND,J. B. (1984). Giotechnique 34, No. 3, 323-340

The measurement of soil stiffness in the

triaxial apparatus

R. J. JARDINE.* M. J. SYMES* and J. B. BURLAND*

This Paper describes a simple technique for accurately Bien que beaucoup de travail expCrimenta1
measuring the mean local axial strains of triaxial sam- suppltmentaire soit nCcessaire afin de pouvoir tirer
ples over a central gauge length. The technique makes des conclusions g&&ales au sujet du comportement
use of an axial displacement gauge which is a develop- des sols sous des d&formations mineures, les r&hats
ment of one devised by Burland & Symes (1982) p&en& fournillent des observations importantes
which makes use of electrolytic levels. The device can concernant la rigidit dans 1’Ctat non-drain&, la
resolve to less than 1 cm over a range of 15 mm, is IinearitC et I’Ccoulement des sols sous des
simple to mount on the specimen and is not damaged d&formations mineures.
when the sample is taken to failure. The results of
undrained triaxial tests are presented for a wide spec- NOTATION
trum of soil types ranging from sands through intact,
C compliance of loading system =
reconstituted and remoulded low plasticity till, undis-
turbed London clay to intact unweathered chalk. The (A,_+ 4&F
test results show that conventional external measure- C” undrained shear strength
ments of displacement contain errors which are fre- El undrained stiffness E,co.ol,-E, at 0.01%
quently so large that their use in the determination of strain, etc.
soil stiffness at working levels of stress is invalid. The F deviator force on sample
errors mainly result from tilting of the sample, bedding KO u~‘/u,’ at rest
at the end platens and the effects of compliance in the L E,(,,.l,/E,(o.o,, an index of linearity
apparatus. Although much more experimental work is
Lo length of sample
required before general conclusions can be drawn
LI liquidity index
about the small strain behaviour of soils the results
presented lead to some important observations on the P’ (a,’ + 2a,‘)/3 the mean effective stress
undrained stiffness, linearity and yielding behaviour of PO’ p’ at the start of the undrained test
soils at small strains. RI3 relative density
T (0,, - &&(& + &) tilt ratio
Cet article d&it une technique t&s simple pour mes- 6 sample rotation
urer de faGon prCcise les dkformations locales moyen- A, A,, AT, A,,, As, ARB, A,,, components of
nes d’tchantillons triaxiaux sur une jauge centrale. La
measured deflexions (see Fig. 1)
technique emploie une jauge de d&placement axial qui
corrected overall axial strain
reprksente une amelioration de celle invent&e par
Burland et Symes (1982) et qui utilise des niveaux larger local axial strain
tlectrolytiques. L’appareil est sensible 2 moins de smaller local axial strain
1 pm sur une longueur de 15 mm. I1 est facile B mean local axial strain
monter sur l’tchantillon et reste intact m&me si larger incremental rotation of electrolevel
I’Cchantillon est dCtruit. Les rCsultats des tests triax- (see Fig. 2(c))
iaux non-drain& sont prCsentCs pour une large gamme smaller incremental rotation of electrolevel
de types de sol, commenqant par des sables, suivis de (see Fig. 2(c))
moraines intactes de faible plasticitt reconstitukes et
vertical effective stresses
remaniCes et de l’argile de Londres intacte jusqu’8 la
radial effective stress
craie intacte non-altCrte par les intempkries. Les
rtsultats des tests montrent que les mesures conven-
tionnelles du d&placement cOrnportent des erreurs qui INTRODUCTION
sont souvent si considerables que les mesures sont ma1
Accurate determination of soil stiffness is
adapt&es pour la d&termination de la rigidit du sol g
difficult to achieve in routine laboratory testing.
des niveaux operationnels de la contrainte. Les erreurs
proviennent principalement du basculement de Conventionally, the determination of the axial
l’Cchantillon, de la liaison imparfaite au niveau des stiffness of a triaxial sample is based on external
plateaux terminaux et des effects du d&placement de measurements of displacement which include a
l’appareil. number of extraneous movements. For example,
the true soil strains developed in triaxial tests
Discussion on this Paper closes on 1 January 1985. can be masked by deflexions which originate in
For further details see inside back cover. the compliances of the loading system and load
* Imperial College of Science and Technology. measuring system. Such equipment compliance

323
324 JARDINE, SYMFS
errors add to a variety of sample bedding effects
to give a poor definition of the stress-strain
behaviour of the material under test, particularly
over the small strain range. Most triaxial tests
therefore tend to give apparent soil stiffnesses
far lower than those inferred from field be-
haviour.
The importance of such errors has long been
recognized and many diverse techniques have
been employed in attempts to improve strain
measurements. One solution has been to meas-
ure relative displacement between two reference
footings over a central length of a sample using
displacement transducers (e.g. Yuen, Lo, Palmer
& Leonards, 1978; Daramola, 1978; Brown,
Austin & Overy, 1980; Costa Filho, 1980).
Strictly these techniques are suitable only for
very small strain levels, since bulging of the
sample will cause the footings to rotate in later
stages of the test. Although important results
have been obtained with such techniques, they
are cumbersome and can suffer from jamming
and damage at large strains.
X-ray and optical methods have also been
used to follow reference points within the sam-
ple or on its membrane (Roscoe, Schofield &
Thurairajah, 1963; Arthur & Phillips, 1975).
However, the accuracy of these methods is
limited.
The resonant column apparatus offers a differ-
ent approach for the determination of the
dynamic stiffness of soils. The technique in-
volves the application of periodic small strain
perturbations to a sample as described by
Richart, Woods & Hall (1970). However, the
technique does not provide direct measurements
of the elemental behaviour of the soil under test,
since the states of stress and strain vary continu-
ously both with time and in their distributions
within the sample.
In summary present methods of soil strain
measurement have a number of serious limita-
tions. There is an urgent need for a simple but
precise method for the routine measurement of
the stress-strain behaviour of soil specimens
under controlled stress or strain paths, particu-
larly where the soil exhibits high stiffness at
small strains.
In this Paper a simple technique for accurately
measuring the mean local axial strains during
triaxial testing is described. Local axial strains
are taken as those developing over a central
gauge length of the sample. The origins of some
of the more significant strain measurement er-
rors which develop in standard testing are ex-
amined and their magnitudes assessed using the
new techniques. Results of experiments per-
formed on a wide range of material are pre-
AND BURLAND
sented, and it is shown that, as expected, routine
tests which employ external measurements of
strain lead to apparent soil stiffnesses which are
much too low. For the purposes of this Paper
only undrained behaviour is considered, since
the no-volume change condition obviates the
need to measure radial strains. However, in tests
designed to investigate more general effective
stress behaviour the local measurement of radial
and axial strains is equally important. Symes &
Burland (1984) describe the use of proximity
transducers for radial strain determination and
Maswoswe (1984) describes the use of a high
accuracy, submersible, linear variable differen-
tial transformer (LVDT) for the same purpose
on 38 mm dia. triaxial samples.
AXIAL STRAIN ERRORS IN TRIAXIAL TESTS
In a conventional triaxial test there are several
sources of movement that develop during shear
testing which may give rise to an overestimate of
the axial strain. One such source is the com-
pliance of the loading system itself. For exam-
ple, the construction of a Bishop & Wesley
(1975) cell is such that the lower reference point
for the vertical displacement transducer is at-
tached to the ram while the upper reference
point is located on top of the cell, so that small
but nevertheless significant deflexions accumu-
late from the straining of the rolling Bellofram
diaphragms. For present purposes the sum of
such loading system deflexions will be termed
A,,. An internal load cell will also produce a
significant deflexion, which is termed A,.
The more important sources of error are il-
lustrated in Fig. 1. Some of the deflexions shown
in this figure may be quantified by careful calib-
ration, but large unaccountable errors remain
due to
(a) the difficulty of trimming a sample so that
the end faces are perpendicular to the verti-
cal axis of symmetry
(b) play in the connection between the load cell
and the sample top cap, and
(c) the inevitable ‘bedding down’ at the ends of
the sample, due to local surface ir-
regularities or voids.
In the testing of rock samples the importance
of such errors has long been recognized, and the
careful grinding of sample ends combined with
the use of ground cylindrical seated platens is
commonly specified (e.g. Vogler & Kovari,
1978). The observation that many rocks fail in a
brittle fashion at axial strains of O-l% or less
has led to the specification of flatness limits of
+O.Ol mm and parallelism requirements of
 MEASUREMENT
around 3 minutes of arc for high quality sample
preparation. The preparation techniques em-
ployed for rock testing are unsuitable for most
soils, and it is probably not possible to approach
the same standards of sample regularity.
Recent work has demonstrated the rather
surprising finding that soils can be equally as
brittle as rocks and that an understanding of
their behaviour at levels of shear strain below
0.05% is very important (see Gens, 1982;
Simpson, O’Riordan & Croft, 1979). Indeed, it
is shown in this Paper that K. normally consoli-
dated clays may reach peak strength in the
triaxial apparatus at axial strains as low as
0.1%. Moreover, even when the behaviour is
not brittle, the strains prior to yield are usually
very small.
Measures can be taken to reduce the errors
implicit in external strain measurement. The
results obtained from tests carried out on soil
which has been an&tropically consolidated to a
high level of mean effective stress suggest that
these procedures considerably reduce sample
bedding and tilting errors (see Gens, 1982). The
SHANSEP methods of testing soft clays can also
be expected to lead to significant improvements
in strain measurement. However, where swelling
stages are included in such tests tilting and other
errors may redevelop (Daramola, 1978).
Moreover, it is often desirable to obtain accu-
rate strain measurements in tests which have not
involved anisotropic consolidation.
A more satisfactory approach is to make use
of local instrumentation which can be attached
to a central gauge length of a sample. Symes &
Burland (1984) have given a description of the
design of instruments which employ electrolytic
levels to measure combined horizontal shear
strain and axial strain in a hollow cylinder ap-
paratus. The same principles have been adapted
to develop a vertical displacement measuring
system for use in a 100 mm dia. triaxial ap-
paratus (see Burland & Symes, 1982). This
Paper describes a further development and im-
provement of the earier devices which enables
mean axial strains to be determined to within a
range of +0.002% in triaxial stress path cells
designed for the testing of 38 mm dia. samples.
DESCRIBIION OF THE ELECIROLEVEL
GAUGES
Cooke & Price (1974) describe the use of
electrolytic liquid levels for the local measure-
ments of ground strains around test piles. Their
reliability, simplicity and accuracy make these
transducers attractive in a wide variety of appli-
cations, and by mounting the capsules in simple
mechanisms it is possible to develop a range of
OF SOIL STIFFNESS 325
reorientation
Sample
compression
Fig. 1. Sources of emx in external strain measure-
ments (+, is the larger of the two shins;
FL= (ELI + E&3
devices to measure axial, radial and shear strains
in laboratory tests (Symes & Burland, 1984).
The liquid level transducers consist of an
electrolyte sealed in a glass capsule. In the simp-
lest devices three coplanar electrodes protrude
into the capsule and are partially immersed in
the electrolyte. The impedance between the cen-
tral electrode and the outer ones varies as the
capsule is tilted. A variety of levels with differ-
ent sensitivities are commercially available.
The transducers employed in the triaxial
strain measurements were supplied by IF0 In-
ternational Ltd and have a working range of
*lo”. The system was excited using a 5 V a.c.
power supply of 4 kHz frequency. The gains
were adjusted to give a *3 V full scale output
which was monitored to *O-l mV with typical
scatters of *0.2 mV. The levels are sensitive to
temperature and vibration and should be oper-
ated in still conditions which are temperature
controlled to within *3”C. Under such condi-
tions the gauges can be stable over periods of
weeks.
The principles of the new axial strain measur-
ing systems are essentially similar to those of the
earlier devices in that a hinged arrangement
converts displacements between two footings
mounted on the sample into a rotation of the
capsule, as shown in Fig. 2(a).
326 JARDINE, SYMES AND BURLAND

The major difference between the instruments

described in this Paper and the earlier designs
lies in the geometrical configuration which per-
mits their use on 38 mm dia. samples. Fig. 2(b)
shows the construction of the new devices. In
addition to geometrical changes, the hinge
mechanisms have been improved by replacing
the original brass pivots with polylluorotet-
raethylene (PFTE) and by simplifying the con-
struction of the hinges themselves. The capsule
which protects the electrolytic level from the
action of pressure and water is constructed from
stainless steel, as are the tubular arms BC and
AC. The gauges are fully submersible and have
been tested at pressures of up to 1500 kPa. The
Stanless steel tubing electrolevels are mounted in diametrically oppo-
site pairs on a sample using a rapidly curing
contact adhesive which bonds the brass footings
to the membrane. The gauges rely on the radial
effective stresses to anchor the footings to the
sample under test.
It should be noted that if the sample tilts
when loaded the output from each gauge is
made up of a strain component and a tilt com-
ponent, as shown in Fig. 2(c). Provided the
sample is homogeneous the mean axial strain is
given by half the sum of the outputs of a pair of
two diametrically opposed gauges and the tilt is
given by half the difference of the outputs. The
ability to detect sample tilt is a valuable feature
of the gauge.
Jardine & Brooks (1984) have carried out
Hinges A and B Hinge C simultaneous measurements of surface strains
(bl
for chalk specimens using foil strain gauges
bonded to the sample and electrolevel gauges
mounted on the membrane. The experiments
showed that, over the considered strain range of
0.15 %, any relative movement between the
membrane and the sample could be neglected.
Moreover, Gens (1982) used an optical tech-
nique to demonstrate that the membrane only
moves in relation to the sample when large
strains are developed.
The resolution and range of the gauge have
been determined by a two-part procedure.
Firstly, routine calibrations were performed over
a displacement range of 15 mm by mounting two
opposing gauges on a micrometer winding frame
graduated to 0.01 mm. A typical displacement
voltage characteristic is presented in Fig. 3. A
third order polynomial regression analysis can
then be used to model the characteristic (with a
typical correlation coefficient of 0.999 99) within
IO
the limits shown. To determine the resolution a
second stage of calibration was carried out by
Fig. 2. (a) Conversion of axfal strain to rotation of mounting a high resolution, small travel, LVDT
electrolevel capsule; (b) constructfon of electrolevel on the central axis of the winding frame so that
gauges; (c) effects of tilting the changes in output could be determined for
 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STIFFNESS 329

Table 1.

Name Material Sample Consolidation OCR PO

preparation details before (initial):
shearing kPa

Rl North Sea clay Reconstituted K,, (see Fig. 6) 1.0 267

R1.4 North Sea clay Reconstituted K, (see Fig. 6) 1.4 206
R2 North Sea clav Reconstituted K, (see Fig. 6) 2.05 158
R4 North Sea cla; Reconstituted K, (see Fig. 6) 3.73 106
R8 North Sea clay Reconstituted K,, (see Fig. 6) 7.4 65
11 North Sea clay Intact Lightly overconsolidated -1.1 474
in situ, then sampled
I2 North Sea clay Intact As above, reconsolidated El.1 508
‘field stresses’
13 North Sea clay Intact Heavily overconsolidated >50 46
in field. Swelled back
after sampling
RMl North Sea clay Remoulded Not consolidated - 10
LI=O.18
RM2 North Sea clay Remoulded Not consolidated 43
LI=O.O9
HRSl Ham river sand Pluviated Isotropically 4 132
R, = 0.149 consolidated
HRS2 Ham river sand Pluviated Isotropically 1 404
R, = 0.848 consolidated
LCl London clay intact Overconsolidated in situ - 226
then sampled
LC2 London clay intact As above - 199
Cl Upper Chalk 1intact Cut from quarry face - 345
isotropically consolidated
c2 Upper Chalk Intact As above - 363

types. Unbonded low plasticity clays are materi-
als which may be expected to demonstrate many
of the features incorporated into critical state
descriptions of soil behaviour (Schofield &
Wroth, 1968) where stiffness would be princi-
pally conditioned by the initial stresses and pre-
consolidation stress level. The London clay sam-
ples were considered to be typical of weathered
lower London clay, which is a weakly bonded
material that can develop a reorientated fabric
on thin shear bands after failure, and thus, when
tested, often displays a number of characteristics
which diverge from the predictions of critical
state soil models (see Lupini, Skinner & Vau-
ghan, 1981). The Ham river sand is a uniformly
graded, angular sand in which stiffness could be
expected to be mainly related to its mode of
deposition, initial stress and density. In contrast
the intact, unfissured, chalk used for tests Cl
and C2 was a strongly cemented material in
which bond type and strength might be expected
to dominate the stress-strain behaviour.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Reconstituted samples of low plasticity clay
The effective stress paths followed by the
reconstituted samples Rl, R1.4, R2, R4 and R8
during undrained shear are presented in Fig. 6,
together with the deduced contours of de-
veloped axial strain (the strain shown in this
figure is the average strain from diametrically
opposite pairs of electrolevels). From Fig. 6 two
important observations can be made.
First, the effective stress paths followed by the
tests were initially both nearly vertical and
straight. However, in each case there was a
certain stress level where the paths sharply de-
viated and then travelled on to failure. The
latter portions of the effective stress paths were
taken as representing the post-yield portion of
each test. In every test yield was approached
after the development of only very small strains.
Test Rl reached peak deviator stress at an axial
strain of O.l%, and tests R1.4, R2, R4 and R8
all demonstrated sharp changes in stress path
direction at axial strains of less than 0.2%. It is
important to appreciate that for many practical
problems the working stresses will lie on the
vertical portions of the stress paths where the
strains are very small.
Second, the stress path for the normally con-
solidated sample Rl shows brittle behaviour
with a marked reduction in strength beyond
0.1% strain. Tests carried out by Gens (1980)
on another low plasticity clay showed similar
330 JARDINE,
125-
(- -contours of axialStrain%I
loo-
150
-251
Fig. 6. North Sea day stress paths for tests Rl, R2, R4. R8
behaviour. Small loops are apparent in the stress
paths for samples R1.4 and R2 close to failure.
If, instead of measuring pore pressures at the
base, a central piezometer probe had been used
(Hight, 1983) it is probable that these loops
would not have been observed.
Figure 7(a) shows the stress-strain charac-
teristics of the reconstituted samples of low plas-
ticity clay. Again it can be seen that the strains
over the initial range of stresses are exceedingly
small. In order to allow a meaningful analysis of
the initial stiff zone the strains have been replot-
ted to a logarithmic scale in Fig. 7(b). The latter
figure shows a remarkably consistent trend, with
the strain required to achieve peak strength
steadily increasing with OCR. The scatter in the
early stages of test R2 was caused by vibrations
from a nearby motor and demonstrates that the
new gauges perform best in a still environment.
In Fig. 7(c) the stiffness characteristics of the
samples are examined by plotting the nor-
malized secant modulus EJc, up to and includ-
ing peak deviator using the same strain axes.
The use of the secant modulus E, is not meant
to imply that the soil behaviour is strictly elastic,
and has merely been taken as a convenient
measure of soil stiffness.
It is apparent that the initial stiffnesses ob-
tained using local instrumentation are very much
higher than the values commonly measured in
routine soil triaxial testing. The stress-strain be-
SYMES AND BURLAND
200 250 300
(IT,'+03')/2,kPa
haviour is non-linear and at strain levels above
1.0% the ratio of E,/c, can be seen to fall to
more familiar levels. While the existence of high
initial stiffnesses has been postulated to explain
anomalies between observed and predicted field
behaviour (see Simpson et al., 1979) the results
given in Figs 6 and 7 demonstrate that labora-
tory tests are capable of revealing both the high
stiffness and the detailed nature of pre-yield
behaviour. The characteristic variation of stiff-
ness with strain is similar in all tests, but the
results from tests R1.4 and R2 demonstrate that
lightly overconsolidated clay shows a particularly
high normalized stiffness at low strain. The data
from tests Rl, R1.4, R2, R4 and R8 are sum-
marized in Table 2. The column giving the times
to reach El = 0.1% strain gives a measure of
the differences between local and external strain
rates. In each case the local rate slowly in-
creased until, at large strains, it equalled 4.5%
per day. As discussed later, normal anisotropic
consolidation reduced many of the potential er-
rors in external strain measurement.
Intact samples of tow plasticity clay
The stress paths for tests 11, 12 and I3 are
given in Fig. 8(a) where the initial, post-
sampling, effective mean stress for sample I1 is
represented by point A and the reconsolidation
effective stress path for sample 12 is given by the
broken line BC. The initial applied effective
 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STIFFNESS 331

stress for sample 13 is represented by point D.

The axial strains which developed during shear
are indicated in the same figure, and details
of the sample’s initial conditions are given in
Table 1.
The observed errors in conventional overall i a$
measurements of strain are discussed in a later
section. However, it is of interest to compare the R4
externally and locally measured strains for test asa
0 1 2 3 4
11 since this test is typical of routine high quality
(a)
testing of intact samples. The comparison is
shown in Fig. 8(b). It is apparent that the strains
deduced from external measurements of deflex-
ion, even though corrected for load cell and
apparatus compliance, give much larger strains
than the values measured locally on the sample.
Indeed the conventional measurements com-
pletely mask the initial stiff behaviour of the
intact material. These errors are discussed more
fully later.
(‘4
Referring again to Fig. 8(a), as was the case
for the reconstituted tests, all three intact sam-
ples demonstrate yield with a sharp deviation in 3200
the effective stress path. The post-yield effective
stress path for the anisotropically consolidated
sample 12 differs markedly from that for the
comparable reconstituted sample Rl (see Fig. 6)
whereas the path followed by the heavily over-
consolidated sample 13 is similar to those fol-
lowed by R4 and R8. Ageing, bonding, sampl-
ing, or macrofabric features could all be respon-
sible for such differences. With regard to the
strains, samples I2 and 13, like the reconstituted
samples, yielded at axial strains of 0.1% to
0.2%. In contrast, sample 11, which was tested
unconsolidated undrained, showed a less stiff Fig. 7. Tests Rl, R1.4, R2, R4 and R8: (a)
behaviour between the attainment of 0.1% stress-sti data; (b) stiessstraia data; (c) StsIwss
axial strain and the peak deviator condition. characteristics
The detailed stress-strain characteristics for
tests 11,12 and 13 are shown in Fig. 9 as plots of had not been preloaded, the shapes of the stress
(or’-u3’)/2 and EJc, against strain on semi- paths and the pattern of strains are similar to
logarithmic axes. A comparison between the those given by the overconsolidated samples of
stress-strain response of samples 11 and 12 intact and reconstituted clay. The detailed
shows that reconsolidation of 12 produced only a stress-strain and stiffness plots are given in Fig.
slight change in stiffness. The values of EJc, for 9 and may be seen to fall in the range extrapo-
11 and 12 fall within the limits of the stiffnesses lated for overconsolidated intact or reconsti-
found from the reconstituted tests (see Fig. tuted samples. Summary parameters for tests
7(b)). The EJc, curve for sample I3 can be seen RMl and RM2 are given in Table 2.
to lie below the band of stiffness values deter-
mined for 8 2 OCR 3 1.0 with reconstituted ma- Tests on London clay, Ham river sand and
terial, but within a range that might be extrapo- chalk
lated for highly overconsolidated samples. The intial conditions for the tests LCl and
Parameters from tests 11, 12 and 13 are given in LC2 (London clay), HRSl and HRS2 (Ham
Table 2. river sand) and the two chalk tests Cl and C2
The stress paths for the two experiments on are given in Table 1.
the remoulded samples RMl and RM2 are The stress paths followed during tests HRSl,
shown in Fig. 8(a), as are the strain levels at HRS2 and Cl and C2 are given in Fig. 10(a),
various stages of the tests. Although the samples which also shows the strain levels at appropriate
332 JARLXNE, SYMES AND BURLAND

Table 2. summaryof test results

Test E, @ 0.01 %: I:(“.I)t:

c,:
kPa kPa
5 @Jo.01 % 3 @O.Ol % min
c,

Rl 122 2.22 x lo5 1820 830 0.185 38

R1.4 122 4.50 x lo5 3690 2 180 0.270 49
R2 108 359 x lo5 3320 2 270 0.353 52
R4 94 2.26 x 10’ 2400 2 130 0.386 65
R8 67 1.13x lo5 1690 1740 0.407 105
11 255 5.10x lo5 2000 1080 0.333 100
I2 275 7.43 x lo5 2700 1460 0.187 59
13 173 9.4 x lo4 540 2 030 0.340 126
RMl 39.5 2.6 x lo4 660 2 430 0.331 156
RM2 85.0 9.3 x lo4 1090 2 180 0.278 72
HRSl 1085 2.9 x 10’ 270 2 200 0.518 90
HRS2 1142 4.9 x lo5 430 1210 0.503 59
LCl 123 1.24x lo5 1010 550 0.371 55
LC2 100 1.20 x lo5 1200 600 0.387 65
Cl 1350 5.7 x lo6 4220 15 500 0.723* 510
c2 1600 4.0 x lo6 2500 11000 0.854* 587

* Since both samples failed at +<O.Ol L was taken here as E,~,.,,,IE,~O.OO,~.

7 r(c.r) corresponds to the time taken to develop E,=O.l % in each test. For a rate of strain of
4.5 % per day tcO.i)would be 32 min.

intervals. The sand experiments showed a stiff
response to loading over the initial portions of
each test but the samples rapidly lost stiffness as
the stress paths approached the dilatant part of
their state boundary surface. After yield the
stress paths curved to the right and climbed the
state boundary surface until, at large strains,
peak strengths were developed. In both tests
failure was initiated by cavitation of the pore-
water, and neither sample achieved an un-
drained critical state condition.
The stress paths of the chalk tests Cl and C2
are compared in the same figure. The samples
showed stiff behaviour up to brittle failure at
a,’ - 03’ equal to 1331 kPa and 1620 kPa respec-
tively. The failure strains for tests Cl and C2
were both around 0.075%. The post-failure
behaviour can be seen to be characterized by a

@’ = 30”
300-

(Anal strams mdlcaled in %)

600
(9’ + n3’)/2. kPa
RM2
(31

Fig. 8(a). Intact and remoulded stress paths for tests 11, I2, W, RMl and RM2
 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STIFFNESS 333

300

Ultlmatec = 255 kPa

1
__u __-

Local measurements IELI

Overall corrected measurements (~2

Comparison of tuIcu calculaled from ~~ and E

E /c E/C '.
100 FL,
% f&l FL Ir& ,”
c
Apparent linear elasrlc modulus 0 005 2353
Eu = 4.8 X 10’ kPa, Eufcu = 188 0.01 2000
0.1 667 172
1.0 147 140

Fig. 8(b). Stress-strain data for test I1

progressive weakening with the effective stresses

roughly following unloading paths.
The stress paths for tests LCl and LC2 are
shown in Fig. 10(b). Both samples showed an
initially stiff response to loading which persisted
up to axial strains of around 0.1%. The stress
paths both deviated to the right after the attain-
ment of 1.0% axial strain until peak strengths
were mobilized at strains of 4.5% and 3.5%
respectively. Both tests showed a steep post-
(al peak loss of strength, and examination of the
samples after testing showed that polished shear
surfaces had formed within the specimens. The
stress-strain and stiffness characteristics for the
\ tests described in this section are summarized in
\ Only test 12 athned
2400 \ peak devtator at an Fig. 11 together with Fig. 12, which summarizes
\
axial strain below 5%
\ the results of all the tests reported in this Paper.
The plots demonstrate the following main
points.

(a) The chalk samples showed brittle behaviour

with failure occurring at ~~2 0.075%. In
contrast, the London clay and sand samples
failed only after developing large strains.
(b) The chalk tests Cl and C2 gave the highest
Awal strain EC % normalized stiffnesses, which equalled those
(b) of the low plasticity clay at low strains but
Fig. 9. (a) Stress-stain data for tests 11,12,13, RMl exceeded them at strains above 0.0 1% . The
and RM2, (a) stiffness characteristics for tests 11, I2, chalk samples also showed the most linear
13, RMl, RM2 and R2 behaviour.
334 JARDINE, SYMES AND BURLAND

1600

1200

$ 8OC
a"
I
-g

4oc

(0,’ + 03’)/2 kPa

(4

20 /fA 50
80
1OU

‘t

K
m LC2 120
.’ O
% . 150

N,
c
o_eLCl
6 10
50
0.7 i:
&y 04
o-4

0.2 02

01 0.1
007
0 05
0.02z
002
0~0040.01
0.002
i n /,1
” “,

175 200 250 300

(cl’ + 0,‘)/2: kPa

@I

Fig. 10. (a) Tests on chalk and Ham river sand: stress paths for HRSl, HRs2, Cl and C2; (b) stress pati for
tests LCl and LC2 (axfaf strains: %)
 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STIF’F’NESS 335

500 O-

400 O-

300 O-

"=
'1
UJ

200 O-!

300. 100 O-

O-
CI.01

Fig. 12. Summary of normafhd s_eS

(c) The London clay tests showed stiffness

characteristics which were similar to that of
heavily overconsolidated or remoulded, low
0 01 01 10 10
plasticity clay.
(b)
(d) The normalized stiffness characteristics for
the Ham river sand, experiments HRSl and
HRS2, form a lower bound to all the results,
continuing the trend demonstrated by the
dilatant samples of low plasticity clay in tests
RMl, RM2, 13 and R8.
The test results from all the experiments are
further summarized in Table 2.

INTERPRETATION
Axial strain q: % In the past most laboratory studies of the
stress-strain characteristics of soils have been
hampered by the errors that are inherent in
conventional triaxial testing, particularly for
overconsolidated soils, and comprehensive
studies of soil stiffness at low strains are rare.
The test programme on the low plasticity clay
provides a body of data which can be used for
evaluating the small strain undrained stress-
strain properties of that material. These proper-
ties may then be compared with the limited
number of results from the tests on the London
clay, the chalk and the Ham river sand in order
to highlight some of the factors influencing soil
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 stiffness. More detailed discussions of the small
Ax,alStrainEL %
strain behaviour of London clay and Ham river
WI
sand are given by Costa Filho (1980) and
Fig. 11. (a) Stressstraio data for tests Cl and C2;
(b) stres+stmfn data for tests HRSl and HRS2; (c)
Daramola (1978).
stress-strafn data for tests LCl and LC2; (d) stitbws It is recognized that much more experimental
characteristicsfor tests Cl, C2, HRSl, HRS2, LCl work is required using the new techniques be-
andLC2 fore general conclusions can be drawn.
336 JARDINE, SYMES
12.
10.
8. unconsohdated
Mean axialstrain
EL:%
Fig. 13. Tests on low pldkfty clay: comparison of
internal and external corrected strain measurements
Nevertheiess, the results obtained are suffi-
ciently encouraging to warrant a preliminary
discussion since a number of important observa-
tions can be made from the data presented in
the previous sections. To develop these points
the discussion is divided into three main parts
(a) an analysis of the strain errors implicit in
conventional triaxial testing, which will be
based on comparisons between observed
differences between the external and inter-
nal measurements of strain
(b) general features of the observed soil be-
haviour at small strains
(c) a discussion of the choice of parameters for
the comparison and normalization of the
experimental data.
Errors in conventional stiffness measurements
Figure 1 shows that the overall measured
deflexion in a triaxial test is given by
A=AL+AT+ABT+AS+AeB+A,,,
(1)
Calibration of the load cell and ram characteris-
tics for the apparatus used in this testing pro-
gramme showed that their combined compliance
c could be taken, approximately, as c =
5.4 x 10e4, where c = (A,+ A,,,)/F mm/N and
F is the deviator force in newtons. Clearly such
deflexions are most important for strong ma-
terials, so that in tests Cl and C2, for example,
c was around SO times larger than the com-
pliance of the samples themselves.
The significance of the remaining terms in
equation (1) may be assessed from Fig. 13 in
which the local measurements of axial strain, Ed,
are plotted against the ratio E,/E~ for all the
tests on the low plasticity clay (E, is the external
strain corrected for the compliance of the load
AND RURLAND
cell and ram). Four main conclusions can be
drawn as follows.
(a) For normally, anisotropically, consolidated
samples the corrected strain, E,, is close in
magnitude to the mean local strain.
(b) For overconsolidated samples (e.g. R2, R4,
R8) the agreement between local and over-
all corrected measurements is far less satis-
factory.
(cl The difficulties in obtaining accurate load
cell stiffness calibrations can lead to overes-
timates of the stiffness and thus produce
values of FJQ_ less than unity.
(4 For unconsolidated tests on intact or re-
moulded samples the disagreement between
local and external corrected measurements
is most severe, and E, can be an order of
magnitude greater than Ed..
The last observation is emphasized in Fig. 8(b)
(referred to previously) in which the locally and
externally measured strains are plotted against
shear stress for test Il. The bedding and other
errors implicit in the corrected strain E, give the
illusion of nearly linear straining up to about
0.6% axial strain, while the central portion of
the sample was behaving in a much stiffer and
less linear way. The initial slope of the apparent
stress-strain line corresponds to E,/c,- 190,
which is more than 12 times smaller than the
maximum secant EJc, deduced from the local
strain measurements at 0.05% strain.
In general the strains measured by each pair
of electrolevels during a test were dissimilar
until the average local strain exceeded 0.1%.
This can be explained by non-parallelism of the
sample ends, differential bedding and top cap
movements. It should be noted that if the non-
parallelism of the ends were to cause the sample
to tilt when loaded, then the apparent strains
measured by the electrolevel gauges would
equally overestimate the larger local strain .sr.,
and underestimate the smaller strain E~.~.Al-
though a number of dual axis gauges would be
required to describe fully the tilt experienced by
a sample the mean axial strain can be computed
from the data given by a pair of gauges as
cc = (E,., + ~&/2. A measure of tilt in relation to
axial strain is given by the ratio (or., - &,)/(e,, +
f&) = T the tilt ratio. The maximum values ob-
served for this ratio at various mean strains are
summarized in Table 3. The results show that
the tilting action can be considerable and that
the use of paired local displacement gauges is
essential if the stress-strain behaviour below
e,_ = 0.1% is to be observed. For the remoulded
samples a ball seating was used and this accen-
tuated tilting, particularly at large strains.
 MEASUREhJENT OF SOIL STIFFNESS 337

Table 3. Maximum tilt ratios observed for tests on low plasticity day

Mean axial strain eL: % Tilt ratio T for intact Tilt ratio
and reconstituted samples* T for remoulded
samples*

0.005 2.0 2.1

0.01 1.5 1.7
0.05 0.9 2.6
0.1 0.4 2.8
1.0 0.1 0.9

T = (on - H&I(HL, + 0L2).

* For parallel straining f3r1= or and T = 0, and if 19r_~
Summarizing, it is found that even the most
careful calibration of the load cell and ram
deflexions is not sufficient to allow external
measurements to be used to define the stress-
strain characteristics of a soil accurately. Fea-
tures such as bedding of the end platens and
tilting of the sample can lead to serious under-
estimation of soil stiffness. The electrolevel de-
vices described earlier in this Paper offer a sim-
ple means of circumventing the errors which
invalidate the measurement of soil stiffness in
conventional triaxial tests.
Small srrain behaviour
It has been shown that the region of stress
space within which the tested soils exhibit very
stiff undrained behaviour is generally bounded
by the 0.1% axial strain contour. Such a low
strain region is shown in Fig. 14 for a number of
samples which have all been consolidated, under
K. conditions, to the same maximum stresses
before unloading to various overconsolidation
ratios prior to undrained compression (see also
Fig. 6). The 0.1% contour coincides with the
yield point for OCR= 1 but lies below it for
OCR>l. The 0.1% strain contour shown in
Fig. 14 is not strictly a yield locus since drained
effective stress paths parallel to, but beneath, it
(e.g. along the swelling line) could involve yield
and large strains. Specimens undergoing differ-
is negative T can exceed unity.
ent stress history and/or modes of deposition
prior to undrained testing will usually have
different low strain regions. For example, for
specimen 11, which was sampled and tested un-
consolidated undrained, the small strain region
lies well below the region observed by shearing
from the K0 swelling line (see Figs 6 and 8).
However, it is evident from Figs 6 and 14 that
the small strain region for undrained compres-
sion can be extensive and the stress paths for
many engineering problems will be within this
region.
For ease of comparison and presentation, the
initial undrained stress-strain characteristics
may be represented by the following two in-
dexes relating to stiffness and linearity.
(a) Stiffness is given by the undrained secant
modulus at 0.01% axial strain, E,o.o,,. It
may be expressed non-dimensionally as
(E,/c,)~.,,,, (E,lp~)o.ol, etc., as discussed in
the next section.
(b) An index of linearity is defined as L =
E,(,,.,JE,(,,.,,,, where EUo.,, is the undrained
secant modulus at 0.1% strain. Straight line
behaviour then gives L = 1.0, and if the
modulus decreases with strain L < 1.0.
Values of L are given in Table 2 and it can be
seen that every test departed from straight line
behaviour over its small strain range. In general,

Undrained
stress path
for OCR = 1.0

Undrained

Fig. 14. Schematic drawiog of upper bound to small strain range for
reconstftuted low plasticity day
338 JARDINE, SYMFS
Rl-4
R2
3000
Reconstituted
MLC2
c RM2
-
- LCl
RMl
HRS2 HRSl I3-.
. a single clay. The undrained stiffness clearly
OCR
Fig. 15. summary
of au tests
the values of L increased with overconsolidation
ratios, and test Rl (OCR= 1.0) showed the
smallest L value of 0.185. The two chalk speci-
mens showed almost linear behaviour.
Choice of parameter for normalizing E,
It is not, at present, common to carry out
triaxial tests to determine undrained stiffness for
purposes of practical design and analysis. Most
engineers rely on correlations between stiffness
and a related, but more readily obtained,
parameter. For example, Ladd, Foot, Ishihara,
Schlosser & Poulos (1977) presented stiffness
data from SHANSEP tests which are normalized
by c, plotted against OCR. In their plots E, was
determined over given proportions of shear
stress increment rather than the fixed strain
increments used in this work.
The stiffness data given here in Figs 7(b), 9(b),
11(c) and 12 have also been normalized with
respect to the peak undrained shear strength.
Fig. 15 shows the curve of EJc, at 0.01% axial
strain against OCR for the reconstituted low
plasticity clay. Results from the other tests re-
ported here are shown as single points. The
stiffness of the normally consolidated sample Rl
is perhaps misleading as the initial behaviour is
probably controlled by the amount of time per-
mitted for secondary consolidation. However,
the data show that (EU/c,)o.Ol quickly increased
from the value at OCR = 1 to a maximum at an
OCR of about 1.4, and then steadily reduced
with increasing overconsolidation. Although the
stiffness given by the intact samples of the same
AND BUFUAND
clay can be seen to follow approximately the
same relationship, the remoulded tests RMl and
RM2 give values which only correspond to the
most heavily overconsolidated reconstituted
samples. The ratio (EJc,),.,,, ranged between
540 and 3700 for the low plasticity clay and the
normally consolidated tests Rl, I1 and I2 gave
values between 1800 and 2700.
The data for the comparative soils are also
given in Fig. 15 and show that the (E,/c,)~.~,
values for the chalk were similar to the max-
imum given by the North Sea clay. The London
clay results fell roughly in the mid-range but the
Ham river sand tests gave the smallest
(EJcJ,.,, values of all.
The data from the triaxial tests show that even
with fixed rate of displacement compression
tests there is a wide range in the ratio EJc, for
depends on strain level, stress history, method of
formation and, probably, strain rate. With other
soils mineralogy, grading, macrofabric and
cementation could produce different characteris-
tics. It has, for example, been suggested by Ladd
et al. (1977) that, in comparable tests, the ratio
EJc, is higher in ‘lean’ clays than in more
plastic soils.
Although it is convenient to use the ratio
EJc, to compare different soil types and initial
conditions, the parameter cannot be considered
to be fundamental since the undrained shear
strength also depends on rate, total stress path,
sample disturbance and soil macrofabric. In par-
ticular, the use of c, can be confusing in soils
which develop orientated, residual, structures in
thin shear zones.
The initial mean effective stress po’ acting in a
sample has been used as an alternative parame-
ter with which to normalize stiffness measure-
ments (see Atkinson, 1973; Wroth, 1971).
While the undrained shear strength depends on
the conditions of testing, pO’can be measured in
the laboratory without ambiguity. In the field,
however, po’ will depend on KO and cannot be
calculated with such certainty.
Figure 16 shows the same data as Fig. 15, but
with the stiffness EUo.,,, normalized by pO’ in
place of c,. The pattern demonstrated by the
reconstituted low plasticity clay is familiar. The
normally consolidated tests again showed rela-
tively low normalized stiffnesses but the other
reconstituted, intact and remoulded results fall
within a far narrower scatter than the c, nor-
malized result, with (EJp,‘),,.,, lying between
1700 and 2400.
The results for the Ham river sand, perhaps
fortuitously, plot close to the curve for the re-
constituted North Sea clay, but the London clay
 MEASUREMENT
results fall distinctly below the full line. The
chalk tests produced very high (E,/p,‘),.,,, values
but since their stiffnesses are probably control-
led by bonding, rather than effective stress,
these values may be arbitrary.
From the experiments described in this Paper
normalization by p,,’ would appear to be prefer-
able for uncemented soils. The ratio Eu/po’ is
seen to be less dependent on method of forma-
tion and stress history than E,/c,, and an effec-
tive stress approach is likely to be more useful
when the small strain laboratory techniques are
applied to drained behaviour.
The work described here deals only with un-
drained stiffness in triaxial compression. It is
evident that investigations are required into the
more general behaviour of soils in the small
strain range, where accurate radial strain meas-
urements would be required, and that the in-
fluence of many parameters (including rate and
ageing effects) must also be assessed.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A new technique is described for the accurate
measurement of local axial strains on soil speci-
mens in the triaxial apparatus. The strains are
measured using an electrolytic level device
which is simple to use, resolves relative displace-
ments to less than 1 urn over a range of 15 mm
and is not damaged when the sample is taken to
failure.
The new technique was employed in a pro-
gramme of tests principally on a low plasticity
clay from the North Sea with additional com-
parative tests being conducted on Ham river
sand, London clay and intact chalk, thus cover-
ing a wide spectrum of soil types.
The test results show that conventional exter-
nal measurements of displacement contain er-
rors which frequently mask the initial stress-
strain characteristics of the soil and invalidate
their use in the determination of soil stiffness.
The errors in the external measurement of dis-
placement mainly result from tilting of the sam-
ple, bedding on the end platens and the effects
of compliance in the apparatus.
In every test the low plasticity clay showed
highly non-linear, but very stiff, initial be-
haviour. The attainment of 0.1% axial strain
generally coincided with a marked loss of stiff-
ness and could be taken as the limit to the small
strain range. Correlation with the undrained
effective stress paths shows that such a range
extends over the main part of stress space in
which soil would usually be considered elastic.
Such stiff initial behaviour is therefore likely to
be important in the analysis of many practical
problems.
OF SOIL STIFFNESS 339
3000r
c RMl
RMZ
13 +
01
1 2 4 6 810 20 40 100
OCR
Fig. 16. Summary of all tests
The stiffness ratio (E,/c,)~.~~~ was shown to be
strongly dependent on OCR for the intact and
reconstituted samples. Lightly overconsolidated
conditions produced the highest values of the
ratio, and heavily overconsolidated and re-
moulded samples showed the lowest. The alter-
native non-dimensional ratio (E,/p,,‘),.,, was less
sensitive to OCR and method of formation.
Normally consolidated samples of intact and
reconstituted samples of the low plasticity clay
showed the least linear initial behaviour, and
gave values of L = (= Euo.,,/E,~,.,,,,) which were
lower than 0.2. Although linearity steadily in-
creased with overconsolidation ratio the largest
value of L recorded for the clay was 0.407.
The limited number of comparative tests on
other materials shows that the small strain
characteristics of the low plasticity clay are not
unique. The values of (E,/c,)~.~,~ and (Eu/p,,‘)o.cll
for specimens of chalk, sand and London clay
exceeded the results obtained in conventional
tests, and in each case the small strain behaviour
was non linear. The cemented chalk samples
showed both the highest normalized stiffness
and the nearest approximation to linear stress-
strain behaviour.
In summary, the techniques described in this
Paper make it possible to detect, simply and
reliably, mean local axial strains in triaxial tests
with a resolution of approximately 0.001%. In
the first programme of tests using the new
equipment observations have been made of the
undrained stress-strain characteristics of soils
which, without local strain measurements, could
only be inferred from field measurements. Al-
though more research is required into the fac-
tors controlling the stiffness of soils, finite ele-
ment analyses have been carried out using con-
stitutive models based on the experimental data,
as described by Jardine, Potts, Fourie & Burland
340 JARDINE, SYMES
(1984), which demonstrate that the initial small
strain characteristics of a soil are of great impor-
tance in the analysis of engineering problems
and the interpretation of in situ tests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The samples of low plasticity clay from the
North Sea were provided by BP International
Ltd and the Authors are grateful to h4r W. J.
Rigden for his interest in the work and his per-
mission to publish the results. Thanks are also due
to Dr J. H. Atkinson for his helpful comments.
The Authors wish to acknowledge the impor-
tance of the contribution to this topic of Dr P.
R. Vaughan, who supervised the first small
strain studies conducted by Dr L. C. Costa Filho
and Dr 0. B. Daramola at Imperial College, and
also to thank their colleagues who have gener-
ously donated time and practical help to the
work described. Mr P. Smith and Mr N. Brooks
both provided particularly valuable contribu-
tions to the work, which was funded by the
Marine Technology Directorate of the Science
and Engineering Research Council.
REFERENCES
Arthur, J. R. F. & Phillips, A. B. (1975). Homogene-
ous and layered sand in triaxial compression.
Giotechnique 25, No. 4, 799-1815.
Atkinson, J. H. (1973). The deformation of undisturbed
London clay. PhD thesis, University of London.
Bishop, A. W. & Wesley, L. D. (1975). A hydraulic
triaxial apparatus for controlled stress path testing.
Gt?oorech&ue 25, No. 4, 657-670.
Brown. S. F.. Austin. G. & Overv. R. (19801. An
instrumented triaxial cell for cyc& loading of clay.
ASK%4 Geotech. Test. J. 3, No. 4, 145-152.
Brooks, N. J. (1983). The settlement of foundations on
chalk. MSc thesis, University of London.
Burland, J. B. & Symes, M. (1982). A simple axial
displacement gauge for use in the triaxial ap-
paratus. Giotechnique 32, 1, 62-65.
Cooke, R. W. & Price G. (1974). Horizontal in-
clinometers for the measurement of vertical dis-
placement in the soil around experimental founda-
tions. Field instrumentation in georechnical en-
gineering, pp 112-125. Butterworths: London.
Costa Filho, L. M. (1980). A laboratory inuestigation
of the small strain behaviour of London clay. PhD
thesis, University of London.
Daramola, 0. (1978). The influence of stress history on
the deformation of sand. PhD thesis, University of
London.
View publication stats
AND BUFUAND
Gens, A. (1980). Discussion: Design parameters for
soft clays. F’roc. 7th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech., Brigh-
ton, 1979 4, 25-26.
Gens, A. (1982). Stress-strain and strength characteris-
tics of a low plasticity clay. PhD thesis, University
of London.
Hight, D. W. (1983). Simple piezometer probe for the
routine measurement of pore water pressure in
triaxial tests on saturated soils. Gkotechnique 32,4,
315-322.
Jardine, R. J. & Brooks, N. J. (1984). The use of a
new axial displacement gauge for the determina-
tion of rock stiffness. In preparation.
Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. & Burland, J.
B. (1984). The importance of small strain be-
haviour in the analysis of soil structure interaction.
In preparation.
Ladd, C. C., Foot, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F. &
Poulos, H. G. (1977). Stress deformation and
strength characteristics. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech., Tokyo 3, 293-305.
Lupini, J. F., Skinner, A. E. & Vaughan, P. R. (1981).
The drained residual strength of cohesive soils.
GPotechnique 31, No. 2, 181-213.
Maswoswe, J. (1984). PhD thesis, University of Lon-
don. In preparation.
Richart, F. E., Woods, J. D. & Hall, J. R. 1970.
Vibrations of soils and foundations. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N. & Thurairajah, A.
(1963). An evaluation of test data for selecting a
yield criterion for soils. Prcc. Symp. Laboratory
Shear Testing, ASTM STP 361, 111-128.
Schofield, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state
soil mechanics. London: McGraw Hill.
Simpson, B., O’Riordan, N. J. & Croft, 0. D. (1979).
A computer model for the analysis of ground
movements in London clay. Gkotechnique 29, No.
2, 149-175.
Symes, M. J. & Burland, J. B. (1984). The determina-
tion of local displacements on soil samples. ASTM
Geotech. Test. J. In press.
Vogler, U. W. & Kovari, K. (1978). Suggested
methods for determining the strength of rock ma-
terials in triaxial compression. Int. J. Rock Me&
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15,No. 2, 47-51.
Wroth, C. P. (1971). Some aspects of the elastic
behaviour of over-consolidated clay. Stress-strain
behaviour of soils. Proceedings of the Roscoe
Memorial Symposium, 347-361. Cambridge:
Foulis.
Yuen, C. M. K., Lo, K. Y., Palmer, J. H. L. &
Leonards, G. A. (1978). A new apparatus for
measuring the principal strains in anisotropic clays.
ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 1,No. 1.24-34.