EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT AND SENSITIVE CLAY FOUNDATION

Evidence is quoted to show why it is theoretically wrong and dangerous to substitue total stress shear strength parameters onto what is really an effective stress failure surface. The error is obvious if the total stress undrained shear strength parameter, C, is substituted onto the observed failure surface in the compression test to calculate the unconfined compresive strength. Although not strictly theoretically correct, it would not be too much in error if effective shear strength parameters c' and phi' were substituted onto the actual failure surface - but certainly not total shear strength parameters. The true phi=0 analysis safety factor described by the authors must therefore be in the range from 1.7 - 1.21 and not 1.27 - 1.36.

• Corporate Authors:

  eet

  Sacramento California 95814
  ,   United States 
• Discussers:
  • Cox, J B
• Publication Date: 1975-11

Media Info

• Features: Appendices; References;
• Pagination: p. 1173-74
• Serial:
  • California Business and Transportation Agency
  • Volume: 101
  • Issue Number: GT11
  • Publisher: eet

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Compression tests; Effective stress; Embankment foundations; Failure; Safety factors; Shear strength; Soft clays; Stresses; Surfaces; Undrained shear strength
• Uncontrolled Terms: Total stress
• Old TRIS Terms: Compressive strength tests; Failure surfaces; Unconfined compression tests
• Subject Areas: Geotechnology; Highways; Safety and Human Factors;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00131542
• Record Type: Publication
• Report/Paper Numbers: ASCE #11674 Proceeding
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: May 14 1976 12:00AM