Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 2023; 45(s1); 350–361

Special Issue 19th KKMGiIG Open Access

Małgorzata Wdowska*, Mirosław J. Lipiński

Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress

History Parameters in Soils
[Link]
received March 13, 2023; accepted August 18, 2023.
that takes place during shearing of a dense soil. The
parameter reflecting stress history is derived from pore
Abstract: Stress history acquired by any cohesive soil pressure response and is based on characteristic values
influences, to a large extent, three groups of fundamental of Skempton’s parameter A record. Consistency of data
properties indispensable in geotechnical design i.e. state of concerning stress history parameters profile obtained for
soil, shear strength, and stiffness characteristics. The basic deep subsoil on the basis of various methods is shown for
stress history parameter (from which other parameters comparison.
are derived) determined directly from laboratory tests
is a preconsolidation stress σ’p. Since the first method Keywords: cohesive soils, stress history,
proposed by Casagrande in 1936, value σ’p is determined in preconsolidation stress, lab methods
the oedometer test as a border between overconsolidated
(OC) and normally consolidated (NC) zones. Approach
based on division between predominantly elastic, 1 Introduction
(recoverable) strain, and plastic (irrecoverable) strain is
a main principle of several methods of σ’p determination, Characterization of soil strata in geology requires some
which have been proposed over the past eighty-six years. data related to lithology and stratigraphy of material
Accumulated experiences have revealed that any under consideration. This approach is based rather
laboratory procedure based on the oedometer test does on qualitative description. Such physical properties as
not provide realistic value of preconsolidation stress, color, texture, grain size, and composition usually do
especially in heavy preconsolidated soils. The major not have numerical representation. Quite different point
reason for that results from the fact that the mechanism of view is represented by geotechnical and structural
responsible for natural overconsolidation is more engineers. Proper site characterization for geotechnical
complicated than mechanical preloading. Therefore, purposes requires information concerning soil properties
there is a necessity to reevaluate effectiveness of standard of investigated area in the form of representative
methods and look for another solution of evaluation yield material properties expressed in numbers. Besides index
stress σ’Y in natural soils. properties, most desirable for engineers are mechanical
This article presents the comparison between σ’Y characteristics that describes shear strength and stress–
determined for various soils with use of standard methods strain characteristics of soil, which are indispensable for
based on conventional oedometer test and yield stress proper prediction of soil response to complex loading.
determined on the basis of alternative procedures. The Unlike other construction material such as steel or
latter are represented by various approaches as e.g. concrete, granular materials are sensitive to the history of
based on SHANSEP procedure or initial shear modulus loading. It can be said that soil memorizes maximum load
and others. The most promising among these alternative experienced in the past. This load, converted into stress,
methods is a new concept based on dilatancy phenomenon correlates very well with the most important three groups
of mechanical parameters i.e. initial state variables, shear
strength, and stiffness of soil. Correct determination of
these parameters decides the accuracy of predictions
*Corresponding author: Małgorzata Wdowska, Warsaw University of Life concerning safe performance of any structure, which
Sciences-WULS, Institute of Civil Engineering, Nowoursynowska Str. 159,
includes ultimate and serviceability limit states. This is
02-776 Warsaw, Poland, E-mail: malgorzata_wdowska@[Link]
Mirosław J. Lipiński, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-WULS,
schematically shown in Fig. 1. As depicted in the scheme,
Institute of Civil Engineering, Nowoursynowska Str. 159, 02-776 stress history parameters have an epicenter position in
Warsaw, Poland the formation of value of major soil properties. Therefore,

Open Access. © 2023 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution alone 4.0 License.
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 351

Figure 1: Significance of stress history of soil for key geotechnical

parameters.

accurate determination of stress history parameters is Figure 2: Common approach to determine preconsolidation stress of
one of the most important tasks in engineering geology or soil on the basis of oedometer test.
geotechnical engineering issues.
In areas of Poland that experienced a few glaciations,
majority of soil were overloaded with ice sheet. Reliable The concept of yield stress determination visualized
knowledge of this period could have been a premise to in Fig. 2 was proposed by Casagrande in 1936. Originally,
evaluate stress history parameters. Unfortunately, up-to-date he named it preconsolidation load. Since that time the
research of geologists is focused on evaluation of the extent name of this parameter changed. At the beginning (and
of glaciations (Marks, 2005). There is no reliable quantitative later up to the 1980s) it was referred to as preconsolidation
information concerning the map of thickness of ice sheet in pressure, often marked with symbol σʹp. Later, in order to
areas of Poland. Therefore, data concerning stress history of distinguish between vertical and horizontal components,
soil must be collected in another, indirect way. engineers started to use the term preconsolidation stress.
As mentioned, granular materials are capable of To make the difference between preconsolidation stress σʹp
memorizing the biggest load ever experienced. This is due caused by simple preloading and stress history acquired
to the elastoplastic nature of stress–strain characteristic. not only mechanically but also by other mechanisms (e.g.
Elastic strain is recoverable but plastic is not. Range desiccation, cementation, and creep), Burland (1990)
of elastic strain in soil is very small, especially with proposed the term yield stress marked with symbol σʹY,
regard to soft soils. Therefore, an achievement of plastic which is commonly accepted. Previously, Casagrande
strain during the first loading leaves a trace in the form proposed yield stress to be a criterion to distinguish
of yielding on the stress–strain curve. Such a test can be between normally consolidated (NC; first time loaded)
carried out in the laboratory using oedometer apparatus. and overconsolidated (OC; already acquired loading–
Oedometer ring confines soil sample, so with respect to unloading cycle) soils. It is just a commonly accepted
strain state the test is one-dimensional. For this reason, nomenclature that the soil is normally consolidated when
it is convenient to present stress–strain characteristic in the yield stress σʹY just equals the existing effective vertical
the form of compressibility curve where axis of strain is overburden pressure σ’V0 (i.e. σʹY = σ’V0). If one considers
represented by void ratio and vertical effective stress is in the soil in which yield stress is greater than the existing
log scale. Example of such a chart is shown in Fig. 2. At the overburden effective stress (that is, σʹY > σ’V0), then we
point that corresponds to the largest stress experienced say the soil is overconsolidated (or preconsolidated).
by tested soil in the field, there is a breakdown observed. Having these two values of stress the overconsolidation
When stress applied in the laboratory exceeds the highest ratio (OCR) (or yield stress ratio YSR) is defined, as the
stress that the soil acquired in situ, then compressibility ratio of the yield stress to the existing vertical effective
of soil increases. overburden stress. Thus, in order to describe stress history
352 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński

in soil, usually both values are used: yield stress σʹY and,
resulting from it, OCR (YSR). virgin compression curve

Void ratio e
This article presents a critical review of the common
approach for determination of stress history in cohesive horizontal line
soils. Evolution of view on factors affecting the value of
A bisect line
yield stress is presented. Weak points of assumption of the α
α
general method are indicated and exemplified by various
test results. Constraints of standard methods are depicted. tangent
Some alternative approaches for determination of yield line
stress are presented. Comparison of the effectiveness of
various approaches is shown with the use of material
sampled from deep subsoil.

2 Methods for determination of overconsolidated

(OC)
normally consolidated
(NC)
yield stress σ’p σv’, log scale
scale
Casagrande, who defined the preconsolidation pressure as
Figure 3: Casagrande’s procedure (1936) for determination of
“the largest overburden beneath which the soil had once preconsolidation stress in soils.
been consolidated,” also proposed the first laboratory
procedure based on oedometer test to determine this
Table 1: Examples of methods for determination of preconsolidation
parameter in cohesive soils. Data from incremental one- stress.
dimensional consolidation test carried out on undisturbed
samples are presented in the form of compressibility line METHOD PROCEDURE HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
where void ratio is shown against vertical effective stress AXIS AXIS
in log scale (Fig. 3). Casagrande (1936) Graphical log s’ e
Casagrande’s procedure is the graphical one. The
Van Zelst (1948) Graphical log s’ e
first step is to choose by eye the point of minimum radius
(i.e. maximum curvature) of compressibility curve. This Burmister (1951) Graphical log s’ e
is represented by point A in Fig. 3. Next, from this point Schmertmann (1955) Graphical log s’ e
two lines are drawn, a horizontal one and a tangent to the
Pacheco Silva (1970) Graphical log s’ e
compressibility curve. Then, one should bisect the angle
Sällfors (1975) Graphical logs’ e
created by these two lines. Intersection of the angle bisector
line with extended straight-line portion of the virgin part Becker et al. (1987) Graphical s’ W-Energy
of compressibility curve represents preconsolidation Work
stress. Although Casagrande’s procedure is probably the Jose et al. (1989) Graphical log s’ loge
most popular, many methods have been proposed since
Şenol, Seglamer (2000) Graphical log s’ s’e
that time. Some of the methods proposed in the previous
Janbu (1969) Direct s’ e,M
century is presented in Tab. 1. All of them are based on
oedometer test. Janbu, Senneset (1979) Direct s’ e, M,Cv
For the sake of better description of the methods, Tavenas et al. (1979) Direct s’ s’∙e
vertical and horizontal axes of compressibility chart
Butterfield (1979) Direct log p’ lnV =[
are specified in Tab. 1. Majority of these methods are ln(1+e)]
graphical ones, which means that they require some
kind of geometric procedure. There are also some direct
methods in which yield stress can be directly read from graphical and two direct methods. Representation of the
the chart without any graphical procedure. Graphical graphical one is Sällfors method (1975), which is adjusted
representation of three methods from the examples to results carried out in consolidometer, in which a soil
presented in Tab. 1 are shown in Fig. 4. There are one sample is loaded continuously with constant rate of
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 353

Figure 4: Examples of methods for determination of preconsolidation stress: a) Sällfors (1975), b) Tavenas (1979), and c) Janbu (1969).

strain (CRS). Since it is strain-controlled method, a test the case of the first group, it is convenient to assume
is relatively fast and is intended for soft soils. Another (for simplicity) that horizontally layered deposits are
method shown in Fig. 4 was proposed by Janbu (1969). considered. In such case, one can focus on the actual
It represents direct methods, and it is also intended causes of preconsolidation. The first one is associated
for soft soils. In this method, the scale of effective with a nature of the phenomenon i.e. acquired stress
vertical stress axis is linear and yield stress corresponds history caused by vertical preloading existing in the past
to irregularity of curvature on the compressibility curve overburden (e.g. glacier). In the case of the latter, reliable
and apparent dropdown in distribution of constrained knowledge concerning the thickness of ice sheet would be
modulus is shown against vertical effective stress. The very useful, but this kind of data is usually not available
third method shown in Fig. 4 is the Tavenas method in in geological text books or articles. The second factor
which strain energy is represented along the vertical contributing to the actual value of yield stress are all
axis. In the case of all methods presented in Tab. 1, with postdiagenesis processes, which can considerably change
emphasis put on graphical ones, the kernel part is to find the compressibility characteristic of soil. Characterization
the point of maximum curvature of compressibility line. of major mechanisms that determine the actual stress
This issue will be addressed in the following paragraphs. history profile was given by Jamiolkowski et al. (1985). The
essence of these information is presented in Tab. 2.
From the results shown in the table, a value

3 Factors affecting determined of preconsolidation pressure, which is an effect of

mechanical overburden, can be changed by many
value of yield stress σʹY postdepositional processes like secondary compressibility
due to aging, cementation, drying, and others. Problems
Regarding the factors affecting yield stress, two groups with quantitative description of preconsolidation
(i.e. inherent and epistemic) can be distinguished. In phenomenon created premises for making a certain
354 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński

Table 2: Characterization of mechanisms contributing to distribution of yield stress in a soil profile (on the basis on Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)).

Category Description Stress History Profile

A) Mechanical One-Dimensional 1) Changes in total vertical stress (overburden, glaciers, etc.) Uniform with constant
2) Changes in pore pressure (water table, seepage conditions, etc.) s’p-s’v0 (except with seepage)

B) Desiccation 1) Drying due to evaporation vegetation, etc. Often highly erratic

2) Drying due to freezing

C) Drained Creep (Aging) 1) Long-term secondary compression Uniform with constant s’p/s’v0

D) Physicochemical 1) Natural cementation due to carbonates, silica, etc. Not uniform

2) Other causes of bonding due to ion exchange, thixotropy,
“weathering,” etc.

axial strain, % b) y =σ130-230 2

kN/m kPa
zakres σ'y rangeσ'of ’Y= 130-230
0

∆σv < 1 pierwotna konsolidacja

σ'v
10
1 dzień

1 tydzień
∆σv = 1
σ'v 20

∆σv > 1 30
σ'v

50 100 200 500 1000 2000

σ’v, log scale

Figure 5. Influence of a test procedure on determination of value of preconsolidation stress (a-Das, 1983, b-Crawford, 1964).

semantic order in nomenclature. Burland (1990) proposed doubled. If load increment ratio (LIR) is less than 1, thus
that the term “preconsolidation pressure” should be used obtained compressibility curves move to the right side,
for situations in which the magnitude of overburden might which results in bigger value of determined yield stress.
be established by geological means. Similarly the term When LIR is bigger than 1, the time required to do the test
“overconsolidation ratio” (OCR) should be reserved for is smaller, compressibility curve moves to the left, thus
describing a known stress history. In the case of natural yield stress is underestimated.
soils, where cumulative effect of mechanical preloading The second aspect regarding loading refers to the
and other postdepositional phenomena is unknown, the duration of each loading step (Fig. 5b, Crawford 1964).
relevant term for stress corresponding to breakdown in The reference time of loading corresponds to the end
the stress–strain curve is yield stress σ’Y. In this case, OCR of primary (EOP) consolidation. Depending on the
should be substituted by YSR (yield stress ratio) (Burland, permeability of tested cohesive soil, it can be from several
1990, Boone, 2010, Grønbech et. al, 2015, Kootahi and minutes to couple of days. For this reason, in many
Mayne, 2018). laboratories, standard time for each loading is 24 hours
The second group of factors affecting the determined (one day). In general, the longer the duration of loading,
value of yield stress are of epistemic nature. The most the smaller the value of determined yield stress. So, it can
important of them refer to test procedure. As an example, be summarized, that loading conditions can significantly
two aspects regarding incremental loading during change a determined value of yield stress.
oedometer test can be recalled here. They are illustrated Besides the procedure of loading conditions, there is
in Fig. 5. The first one (Fig. 5a, Das 1983) refers to load another issue that considerably diminish the reliability of
increment ratio ΔP/P. In standard procedure this value is determined value of σ’Y. It refers to sample disturbance.
equal to unity, which means that in each stage a load is This phenomenon is inevitable during sampling procedure
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 355

in the range -0.18÷0.28. Yield stress value for each sample

was determined by three methods (i.e. Casagrande, 1936,
Tavenas et al., 1979, and Şenol et al., 2005). As depicted in
the presented histograms, the differences are significant
and in some cases exceed 100%. This does not seem to
be accepted. Therefore, it is necessary to look carefully on
the effectiveness of methods for determination of stress
history parameters in oedometer test.
At first, it is worth to look on the graphical procedure
for σ’Y determination. As it results from the description
in Table 1, majority of methods assume that the axis of
effective vertical stress should be plotted in log scale. This
requirement might be a source of certain ambiguity. To
prove this, a simple example is presented in Fig. 8. Straight
line, which represents hypothetical compressibility,
is shown in two charts where effective vertical stress
is plotted in linear and log scale. As depicted in the
charts plotted with log scale, if one uses Casagrande
graphical procedure, yield stress around 330 kPa can be
determined. However, in the light of what is seen on the
Figure 6: Influence of sample disturbance on shape of previous chart, this determined value doesn’t seem to be
compressibility curves of soil (on the basis of Ladd (1977)).
true. This provides an argument for the statement that
graphical procedures based on oedometer test introduce
and since it can’t be avoided one can only minimize its some ambiguity in determination of σ’Y value. Therefore, it
consequences. More severe sample disturbance, the is interesting to know if this is the only drawback of these
bigger change in the shape of compressibility curve methods or there are other causes that might objectively
compared to in situ conditions. Fig. 6 shows an example influence the final results. Since all of the methods for
of sampling effect on the compressibility curve. Besides determination of yield stress are dedicated to all cohesive
the hypothetical curve representing field condition, there soils, which covers very wide range of materials, perhaps
are two curves corresponding to low and high sample these methods are not so universal and cannot be applied
disturbance. It is worth noticing that sample disturbance automatically to all kinds of soil. The best way to check
changes the curvature of compressibility characteristic, this is to examine the behavior of cohesive soils of various
which is a kernel point in majority of methods for plasticity. In order to do that, one should consider various
determination of yield stress. Therefore, the bad quality of soils of different stress history. At first, soil kind with
a sample is a severe source of error in determination of the known stress history should be considered. Fig. 9 shows
true value of yield stress. the comparison of compressibility curves of low- and
high-plasticity clays obtained from tests on reconstituted
material that have acquired known stress history.

4 Problems with determination of This represents mechanical source of preconsolidation.

As results from the charts, the obtained characteristics
yield stress σʹY in oedometer test are considerably different. In the case of low plasticity
clay (Fig. 9a) there is a distinct border between virgin
As exemplified in Tab. 1, there are numerous methods loading (line segment BC), representing NC soil, and
proposed for determination of yield stress in cohesive reloading curves (line segments DB) corresponding to
soils. It can be sarcastically commented that the existence OC soil. In point B, which represents preloading stress
of large number of methods proves that none of them is of 400 kPa, there is very clear change in the direction
perfect. Every day practice provides arguments for that. of compressibility curve, which allows to determine the
When one compares results of yield stress determination yield stress without graphical procedure. In the case of
by various methods, the results are usually different. Fig. high-plasticity clays (Fig. 9b), the situation is different.
7 shows such comparison carried out on five samples of In point B, there is no breakdown or visible sharp change
preconsolidated low plasticity clay with liquidity index IL in the curvature of compressibility line. Additionally, it
356 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński

1000
Casagrande (1936)
900
Tavenas et al. (1979)
800
preconsolidation pressure σ'Y, kPa

Senol et al. (2005)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
IL= 0.23 IL= 0.28 IL= 0.19 IL= 0.1 IL= -0.18

Figure 7: Comparison of yield stress determined by various methods (Wdowska, 2010).

1
σ'Y ? stress. If it is so, in a simple case as mechanical preloading
mechanism, it is probably less efficient in the case of soil
0.8 with unknown stress history where tests are carried out on
undisturbed material. Analogous charts to these shown in
void ratio e, -

0.6
Fig. 9 presenting compressibility curves for reconstituted
0.4
materials are shown in Fig. 10 for undisturbed samples.
0.2 Both characteristics, for low (Fig. 10a) and high (Fig.
10b) plasticity clays are very obscure with respect to
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
searching the point of maximum curvature. In both cases,
compressibility curves are less “susceptible” to successful
σ', linear scale
interpretation than in the case of characteristic shown in
Fig. 9b. This statement can be supported by many working
1
examples of yield stress determination for low- and high-
σ'Y?
0.8 plasticity clays.
void ratio e, -

In Fig. 11a, stress history parameter is determined

0.6 by two methods on low plasticity clay of known stress
history which in this case was 400 kPa of vertical stress.
0.4
Since the mechanism of preconsolidation is a simple
0.2
preloading of the relevant symbol for preconsolidation
stress is σʹP. As it results from charts shown in Fig. 11a,
0 the Casagrande method appeared to be very accurate
1 10 100 1000 because it delivered exact value. With the use of the Şenol
σ', log scale method the obtained value was 450 kPa, which results
in overprediction, slightly higher than 10%. In practice,
Figure 8: Schematic diagrams of compressibility curves in linear and both results would be considered acceptable. Entirely
logarithmic scale of vertical stress. different prediction results in the case of undisturbed
samples of high-plasticity clays. In this case, yield stress
is worth noticing the difference in shape of the reloading σ’Y was determined by the same methods. Although the
curves DB for both materials. Two charts explicitly prove soil was extruded from the same sampling cylinder, the
that plasticity of soil influences the efficiency of the results are quite different (Fig. 11b). The difference in the
oedometer-based methods for determination of yield obtained results (i.e. values of 470 kPa predicted by the
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 357

a) 0.5 b) 1.3
A Ip=10.8%, IL=0.91
0.48 A Ip=49.6%, IL=0.42
1.2
0.46
1.1
0.44 D D
void ratio e, -

void ratio e, -
0.42 B 1
0.4 0.9 B
0.38
0.8 `
0.36
0.7
0.34 C
C
0.32 0.6
0.3 0.5
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
vertical effective stress σ'v, kPa vertical effective stress σ'v, kPa

Figure 9: Compressibility curves for reconstituted samples: a) low-plasticity clay, b) high-plasticity clay.

a) 0.45 b) 0.9
Ip=10.8%, IL=0.28 Ip=40.1%, IL=-0.18
0.85
0.4
0.8
void ratio e, -

void ratio e, -

0.35 0.75

0.7
0.3 0.65

0.6
0.25
0.55

0.2 0.5
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
vertical effective stress σ'v, kPa vertical effective stress σ'v, kPa

Figure 10: Compressibility curves for undisturbed samples: a) low-plasticity clay, b) high-plasticity clay.

Figure 11: Examples of determination of preconsolidation stress on reconstituted material of low (a) and high (b) plasticity clays (Wdowska,
2010).
358 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński

0.8 compared, we will refer to this method as IL MOC/MNC or

0.7 CRL MOC/MNC, depending on the mode of loading.
0.6 There are also approaches that enable to determine
void ratio e, -

0.5 yield stress but not on the basis of one-dimensional

0.4 (oedometric) compression test. One of them is based on
0.3 initial stiffness represented by shear modulus G0. Range
0.2 of strain assigned to this parameter is very small (around
reconstituted sample, Ip=26.2%, IL= 0.61
0.1 10-4%), which means that the behavior of material is fully
undisturbed sample, Ip=26.2%, IL=-0.01
0
elastic (recoverable). Initial stiffness is often determined
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
on the basis of shear wave velocity, which mainly depends
vertical effective stress σ'v, kPa
on void ratio and state of stress and therefore G0 can be
considered as a measure of state, which is strictly related
Figure 12: Comparison of compressibility curves of reconstituted
to preconsolidation stress. The approach based on shear
and undisturbed material (Ip = 26.2%).
wave velocity has an additional advantage consisting the
possibility of realizing measurement in laboratory and in
Casagrande method compared to 1100 kPa obtained by field as well. Large popularity of lab and in situ seismic
the Şenol method), are neither satisfactory nor acceptable. techniques in recent years brings about increasing data
Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative solution for base, especially as in situ technique is concerned. Large
more efficient determination of stress history parameter in number of documented case histories was collected by
natural soils. Mayne (2007) who proposed generalized formula for
intact geomaterials in the following form:

′0.420
𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝′ = 0.101 ∙ 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
0.102 0.478
∙ 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∙ 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0
5 Alternative approaches to (1)

determination of yield stress σʹY where σʹV and σʹatm are respectively vertical effective stress
(in MPa) and atmospheric (reference) pressure.
The first step in looking for a different approach than It should be emphasized that the above formula was
the standard one based on division between recoverable set on the basis of data collected for wide range of soils i.e.
and irrecoverable strains might refer to the concept of sands, silts, and clays.
mechanical preconsolidation. Since preconsolidation Another approach, which is seemingly very much
stress is defined as the biggest stress experienced by soil alike the one based on initial stiffness, uses unloading–
at given depth, it is conceivable that if a soil sample is reloading deformation modulus Eur with the resulting
loaded to stress considerably higher than predicted value formula in the following form (Józsa, 2016):
of σʹp, then compressibility line will be much alike the
′0.059
compressibility curve for reconstituted material. It might 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝′ = 0.325 ∙ 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
0.506 0.435
∙ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 ∙ 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0 (2)
be that for some reasons (e.g. due to a sample disturbance)
the two characteristics will not be collinear. In such a In spite of the fact that Eur is as G0 (in MPa), also a measure
case, we can assume that at the point on vertical effective of stiffness, it should be emphasized that both moduli refer
stress where they become parallel, both compressibility to different strain range. The process of unloading and
characteristics are intrinsic ones and thus determine reloading has nothing in common with initial state (very
preconsolidation stress. Example of such comparison of initial part of the first loading). This poses a question if
compressibility characteristics for medium-plasticity clay stiffness at second cycle of loading can characterize state
(Ip = 26%) and with liquidity indices, respectively IL = -0.01 prior the first loading. On the other hand, existence of
and IL = 0.61, is shown in Fig. 12. This approach is associated empirical relation between Eur and E50 justify this proposal
with some difficulties among which the most important to some degree; however, it can’t be treated as an approach
seems to refer to the selection of criterion, which could be derived on the basis of initial stiffness.
accepted for sufficient alignment of two compressibility Another possibility of the derivation of stress history
curves. This method can be used for data obtained on parameters is indirect method based on the comparison of
the basis of incremental loading (IL) oedometer test and normalized parameters of soil. SHANSEP method proposed
also in test carried out in consolidometer with constant by Ladd & Foot (1974) links normalized parameters of OC
rate of loading (CRL). Since two constrained moduli are soil and NC with OCR. Although SHANSEP method applies
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 359

to various kinds of parameters, it is most often used for Symbol ΔAE denotes the difference between extreme (max
undrained shear strength SU. In this case, the formula Ap and min As) value of A while ΔAEN means normalized
takes the following form: differential pore pressure parameter. Owing to the fact
that the defined parameter refers to an advanced part of
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 shearing, it overcomes problems of sample disturbance to
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
� ′𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 � a large extent.
𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (3) (3)
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
� ′𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 �
𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0

6 Reliability of stress history

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
where: �𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆′𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 � -– normalized undrained shear strength for
𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
parameters profile
overconsolidated soil; �𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣0′𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 � - normalized undrained shear
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

strength for normally consolidated soil (OCR = 1); m - Apart from drawbacks and advantages of each method of
empirical exponent. yield stress determination, the real check of effectiveness
Such form is convenient to plot data in log–log of each approach is the coherence of stress history
axes, which gives essentially a straight line. It should parameters profile. In Fig. 13, profile of yield stress
be emphasized that SHANSEP was developed for determined by various methods is shown. From among
mechanically OC soil. The test conditions are also important the methods based on one-dimensional compression
as imposed anisotropy during consolidation prior to (oedometer) tests in which evaluation of yield stress
shearing and kind of shearing (triaxial compression, is derived from the shape of a compressibility curve,
triaxial extension, or simple shear). However, if one has Casagrande, Janbu, and Senolʼs methods were selected.
in hand the characteristics for various stress levels for OC Other methods are those that were referred to in the
and NC materials, it is possible (with certain assumption) preceded paragraph as the alternative approaches to
to determine OCR and then calculate preconsolidation determine yield stress, i.e.:
stress. In the light of previous explanation concerning – convergence of constrained NC/OC moduli,
mechanical and actual overconsolidation, the resulting • incremental loading test (IL MOC/MNC),
obtained parameters would be YSR and yield stress σ’Y. • constant rate of loading (CRL MOC/MNC),
There is another recently developed approach to yield – initial shear modulus G0,
stress determination based on data from shearing of soil – unloading–reloading deformation modulus Eur,
sample in standard triaxial test (Lipiński , Wdowska, – derivation σʹY from SHANSEP method,
2017). It rests on the tendency for dilation in OC soil. Test – dilatancy method.
procedure is based on triaxial consolidated undrained
tests. Pore pressure is measured with mid-height suction For reference, vertical component of effective stress
probe, which considerably enhances precision of resulting from gravitational forces is also shown in the
measurement. A new parameter reflecting stress history is chart. The profile down to around 70 m consist of OC (by
derived from Skempton΄s parameter A. However, it doesn’t glacier in the past) cohesive soil of various plasticity index
refer to its value Af during failure, as usually encountered IP, ranging from medium (16%) to high-plasticity (57%)
in the geotechnical literature. The proposed parameter clays. In general, tested soils are stiff or firm. Liquidity
is based on the whole pore pressure response during index for medium-plasticity materials is slightly above
shearing. Consolidation is isotropic in order to magnify zero while for high-plasticity clay is around zero or slightly
pore pressure response. The parameter is based on that negative.
part of shearing characteristics when specimen dilates; As it results from the chart, there is considerably
therefore, the actual parameter reflecting stress history scatter of data not only among methods but also within
ΔAEN is the ratio of Skempton’s pore pressure parameter A the same method. Points that delivered values smaller
change during dilation phase (Ap-As) to the change of this than geostatic stress at the same depth should certainly
parameter during prefailure stage (Ap-A0): be neglected. Even at first glance, it is quite clear from
the chart that alternative methods give higher values of
yield stress. Taking into account that the sampling area
Ap − As ∆AE
∆AEN = = (4) was subjected to Plejstocen
(4) glaciation (Mindel and Riss),
Ap − A0 Ap − A0 the higher values are more probable. Since accurate
values of preconsolidation stress is unknown, important
360 Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński

σ'p; σ'Y, kPa DAE_triaxial

∆A tests
EN- triaxial tests

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 SHANSEP

0
IL Moc/Mnc

10 CRS Moc/Mnc

IL_Casagrande
20
depth, m

Mayne

30 Józsa

SHANSEP, smaller than vertical

40 effective stress
IL-Casagrande- smaller than
vertical effective stress
50 vertical effective stress

OED-Casagrande
60 OED-Janbu

OED-Silva
70

Figure 13: Comparison of determined preconsolidation (yield) stress with various methods.

criterion for evaluating reliability of a given method is the preconsolidated medium plasticity soil, was proved to be
coherence of distribution of σʹY within one procedure. As of small effectiveness in soils of higher plasticity and more
it results from the chart, the best consistency of results complex stress history record. The examples supporting
is obtained for dilatancy method (Lipiński & Wdowska this hypothesis were presented in this article. The reasons
2017). One of the possible explanations for that consist in of poor quality of prediction of preconsolidation stress
the fact that this approach uses characteristics consisting have inherent and epistemic nature as well. Various
of several points and not a single point. Besides, it rests on alternative approaches to determine yield stress, which
the response of soil at various stresses at phase when soil were briefly characterized in this article, appeared to
dilates during shearing; thus, the method seems to be less deliver more reliable stress history profile than standard
sensitive to sample disturbance. methods. Especially dilatancy method, which is based on
pore pressure response during undrained shearing, gives
repeatable results and consistent stress history profile.

7 Conclusions
The key geotechnical properties of soil as shear strength, References
stiffness, and initial state variables, to a large extent,
depend on stress history parameters. Therefore, accurate [1] Becker, D.B., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., & Jefferies M.G. (1987).
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
determination of yield stress is of utmost importance for
clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24 (4), 549–564.
quality of analysis and safe performance of engineering
[2] Boone, S. J. (2010). A critical reappraisal of ‘‘preconsolidation
structures. Standard methods for determination of pressure’’ interpretations using the oedometer test. Canadian
preconsolidation (yield) stress are based on oedometer Geotechnical Journal, 47, 281 - 296.
tests. Numerous methods using compressibility curve [3] Burland, J.B. (1990). On the compressibility and shear strength
and graphical procedures have been developed for of natural clays. Gèotechnique, Vol. 40 (3), 329-378.
[4] Burmister D.M. (1951). The application of controlled test
more than eighty-six years. Unfortunately, approach
methods in consolidation testing. Consolidation Testing of
based on division between recoverable and plastic Soils. American Society for Testing Materials,126, 83-91.
strains, which works correctly for slightly mechanically
 Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils 361

[5] Butterfield, R. (1979). A natural compression law for soils (an [21] Pacheco Silva, F. (1970). A new graphical construction for
advance on e-logp′). Géotechnique, Vol. 24 (4), 469–479. determination of the pre-consolidation stress of a soil sample.
[6] Casagrande, A. (1936). Determination of the Pre-consolidation Proceedings of the 4th Brazilian Conference on Soil Mechanics
load and its practical significance. Proceedings, 1st and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil., Vol. 2 (1),
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation 225-232.
Engineering, Cambridge, Vol. 3, 60-64 [22] Sällfors, G. (1975). Preconsolidation pressure of soft high
[7] Crawford, C.B. (1964). Interpretation of Consolidation Tests. plastic clays. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geotechnical
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. Engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden.
90, SM 5. [23] Schmertmann, J.H. (1955). The undisturbed consolidation
[8] Das, B.M. (1983). Advanced Soil Mechanics, Hemisphere behavior of clay. Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Publishing Corporation, Washington. Engineers, 120, 1201-1233.
[9] Grønbech, G.L., Ibsen, L., B., & Nielsen, B.N.(2015). [24] Şenol A., Seglamer A. (2000) Determination of Pre-
Preconsolidation of Søvind Marl - a highly fissured Eocene clay. consolidation Pressure with a New “Strain Energy –Log Stress”
ASTM Geotechnical testing Journal, Vol.38, No.4, 501-510. Method. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1-11.
[10] Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., & Lancellotta, [25] Şenol, A., Hatipoglu, M. & Ozudogru, T.Y. (2005). The
R. (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing evaluation of pre-consolidation pressure results of “CL”
of soils. 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and subgrades. GeoProb 2005 – International Conference on
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 57–154. Problematic Soils, Famagusta, TRN Cyprus.
[11] Janbu, N. (1969). The resistance concept applied to [26] Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C. & Bourges, F. (1979). Lateral
deformation of soils. Proceedings of the 7th International displacements in clay foundations under embankments.
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16 (3), 532-550.
Mexico City, 25–29 August 1969. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the [27] Van Zelst, T.W. (1948). An Investigation of the Factors
Netherlands. Vol. 1, 191–196. Affecting Laboratory Consolidation of Clay. Proceedings, 2nd
[12] Janbu, N., & Senneset, K. (1979). Interpretation Procedures for International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Rotterdam, Vol. 7,
Obtaining Soil Deformation Parameters, Proceedings of the 7th 52-61.
ESCMFE, Brighton, Vol. 1, 185–188. [28] Wdowska, M., (2010). Influence of stress history on
[13] Jose, B.T., Sridharan, A., & Abraham, B.M. (1989). Log-log deformation parameters of cohesive soils. PhD thesis (in
method for determination of preconsolidation pressure. Polish). Warsaw University of Life Sciences. Warsaw.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 12, 230-237.
[14] Józsa, V., (2016) Estimation and Separation of Preconsolidation
Stress Using Triaxial, and Oedometer Test in Kiscelli Clay.
Periodica Polytechnica of Civil Engineering, 60(2), pp.
297–304.
[15] Kootahi, K. & Mayne, P.W. (2018). A two-fold empirical
approach for estimating the preconsolidation stress in clay
deposits. Proceedings, 4th GeoShanghai International
Conference.
[16] Ladd, C.C. & Foott, R. (1974). New design procedure for stability
of soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 100 (7),
763-786.
[17] Ladd,C.C., Foott,R., Ishihara,K., Schlosser,F., & Poulos,H.
(1977): Stress-deformation ana strength characteristics.
Proceedings. 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundatien Engineering, Tokyo. Vol,2, State of-the-Art
Report, 421-494.
[18] Lipiński. M. J. & Wdowska, M. (2017). A new method for
evaluation of yield stress in cohesive soils. 19th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering:
Sep. 17 -22, 2017, Coex, Seoul, Koreae : proceedings. - Seoul :
Korea Geotechnical Society, 435-438.
[19] Marks, L. (2005). Pleistocene glacial limits in the territory of
Poland. Przegląd Geologiczny, Vol. 53, nr 10/2, 988-993
[20] Mayne, P.W. (2007). In-situ test calibrations for evaluating
soil parameters, characterization & engineering properties of
natural soils. Proc. Singapore 2006, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, v. 3, 1602-1652.