Effects of Sampling on Soil Properties

Presented by : Ahmed Bayoumi

Outline
!
!
!
!
!
!

Introduction
Disturbance Sources
Disturbance Definition
Disturbance Effect on Soil Properties
Disturbance Associated with Samplers
Recommendations: Minimization of
Disturbance

Introduction
!

Sampling
Perfect samples
sample which has not been disturbed by the boring, sampling,
and trimming but has experienced stress release - (Ladd &
Lambe, 1963)
! In-situ stresses: no true undisturbed sample
! Cohesive soils
! Cohesionless soils
!

Disturbance
!
!

Cohesive soils
Cohesionless soils

Sampling Apparatus for Undisturbed Samples

!

Push-tube samplers: open tube and piston (free, fixed, and

retractable)
Core-barrel samplers: single, double, and triple-tube core barrel
(e.g. pitcher and denison)
Sand samplers (thin-walled fixed piston, open tube, in-situ
freezing)

Introduction Contd
!

Validity of investigations carried out in laboratory tests rests solely on

the quality of the samples and on how far they are representative of
the stratum from which they are take (Cooling, 1949)
Economy
sampling cost (sample diameter)2

!
!

!
!

Soft clay & sensitive clay undisturbed samples required

Cyclic loading on highly overconsolidated clay or liquefaction potential
of sand high quality undisturbed samples (Broms, 1980)
Disturbance effect is higher for undrained tests
Number of samples = f(site uniformity, cost)

Disturbance Sources
!
!
!
!
!
!

During borehole drilling: water level in borehole

During sampling: friction cutting shoe
Sample brought to the surface: reduction of pore pressure
During transportation: shocking & vibrations
During storage
During preparation and testing of the samples

Disturbance Definitions
!

Several Definitions:

p
s
Okumura, 1971
Disturbance = p - s
p - s
Disturbance =
Nelson et al, 1971
s
residual effective stress of sample
Ladd & Lambe, 1963

Disturbance =

s
p residual effective stress of prefect sample

"
"

Major Deficiency: p depends on Ko and pore pressure coef. Au

Other Definitions:
Disturbance = volume change when sample is reconsolidated in the
laboratory at the same stress conditions as those in situ (Berre & Bjerrum, 1973)

Drnevich & Massarsch, 1978 and Tokimatsu and Hosaka, 1986

Hvorslev, 1949:

Recover ratio Lr

Lr =

Disturbance =

Glab
Gfield

actual length of recovered sample

Theoretical length of recovered sample

Disturbance Soil Properties

!

Strength

Non-uniform axial stress distribution disturbed zone at the perimeter has

a large effect on stress distribution (Gerrard & Wardle, 1971)
Migration of pore water reduces effective stress and hence reduction in
shear strength (about 15%) (Jakobson, 1954 and others)
Reduction in undrained shear strength is typically 20-50% (Ladd & Lambe,
1963)
Undrained shear strength is reduced by 15% and 30% for soils with
plasticity index of 50 and 30 respectively (Kimura and Saitoh, 1982)
Disturbance has largest effect on soil fabric and defects. Sample size wrt
seams/defects location and spacing (Rowe, 1970)

Disturbance Soil Properties (contd)

!

Shear modulus

Youngs modulus

Larger effect on brittle and sensitive soils (Broms, 1980)

Dynamic Properties

Effect of sample disturbance is not always clear (Broms, 1980). Usually decrease
with disturbance. Trends depend upon soil type and sampler. E(block) = 5E(tube)

Stress-strain relationship

Shear velocity in sandy silt and clayey silt determined from resonant column are
20-30% less than that from field tests (Stokoe & Richard, 1973)
In-situ freezing of sand : Glab= 0.8-1.0 Gfield (Case study Shibuya et al., 1995)
Clay sampled by fixed piston thin wall: Glab= 0.40 Gfield (Case study Shibuya et
al., 1995)

Undrained cyclic shear strength is adversely affected by disturbance (Tokimatsu

and Hosaka, 1986)

Liquefaction

Disturbance has substantial effect on relative density and thus liquefaction

potential is better estimated using field tests

Disturbance Soil Properties (contd)

!

Consolidation Parameters and permeability

Reconsolidation stress and compression index of disturbed soils are

about 70% and 50%, respectively, of those of the undisturbed soil.
(Shogaki and Kaneko, 1994)

For normally consolidated region, cv, mv, and K of remolded samples

are about 70%, 40%, and 80% smaller than those of the undisturbed
soil
(Shogaki and Kaneko, 1994)
Settlement estimated for undisturbed samples is about 4-8 times the
measured settlement field tests better
(Broms, 1980)

Disturbance Sampling Device

!

Two Canadian Sensitive Clays Sampling (Shelby, Piston, and Block)

(Milovic, 1970)

Shelby and Piston: Do=7.302 cm Di=6.909 cm area ratio = 12%

Cubic blocks 30 cm on each side

Result compared with plate load test

Strength, moduli (elastic and bulk), and effective stress parameters

obtained on Shelby and Piston specimens are consistently lower than that
of the Block specimens
mv for both Shelby and Piston specimens is larger than that of the block
specimen
Modulus of elasticity of laboratory test (even for block) is smaller that of the
plate test.
In-situ state of stress may not be realized in the laboratory (disturbance
effects)

Disturbance Sampling Device

(contd)
!

Cemented Champlain Clays Sampling (fixed piston thin wall, Block)

(La Rochelle and Lefebure, 1970)

Unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity on fixed piston

samples are 50 - 60% lower than that of the block samples
Piston samples are highly affected by the area ratio (10%)
Block samples are not affected appreciably by the stress release
Preconsolidation stress is not highly affected by sampling method. However,
recompression index obtained on the fixed piston (disturbed) is almost
twice that of samples obtained by the block for stresses smaller than the
preconsolidation stress.

Disturbance Sampling Device

(contd)
!

Sands
(Tokimatsu and Hosaka, 1986): undrained
cyclic shear strength of sand on tube sample is
considerably lower than that of the sample by
freezing

Disturbance Sampling Device

(contd)
!

Numerical Analysis Tubes in Clayey Soil

(Budhu and Wu, 1992): soft clay axisymmetric FE Cam clay model
" Disturbance locations: central core of sample is subjected to 3 stages
compression(irrecoverable) -extension-recompression. Disturbance
concentrated at the top of the sample and near soil-sampler interface.
" Frictionless sampler: degree of disturbance is constant after a
penetration of 75% of the tube diameter
" Frictional sampler: degree of disturbance increases as the penetration
proceeds. Long samples not favorable.
" Tube Thickness: Thicker tubes causes more disturbance
" Penetration rate: Large rates causes less disturbance, yet very large
rate could yield larger failure zone (Hvorslev penetration rate of 20 mm/s
excellent compromise)
" Tube cutting angle: Should be large enough to cause separation
" Sampling Method: sample compression for piston sampler is much
larger than the open tube. Choice depends on soil type and loading
history

Disturbance Sampling Device

(contd)
!

Numerical Analysis Sampler Design in Clayey Soil

(Clayton et al., 1998): axisymmetric FE effect of sampler parametric study
" Design parameters:

R 22 - R 12
AR (area ratio) =
R1
ICR (inside clearance ratio) =

R 2 - R1
R1

ICA(inside cutting - edge angle) = = tan 1

R 2 - R1
H1

OCA (outside cutting - edge angle) = = tan 1

R - R1
H2

" AR: increasing AR causes significant increase in the peak compressive strain
" ICR: increasing ICR causes an increase in the peak extension strain and slight
decrease in the peak compression strain
" ICA: no effect on the peak compression stain but influence the peak extension
strain
" OCA: increasing OCA causes appreciable increase in the peak compression strain
and to a lesser extent an increase in the peak extension strain

Disturbance Sampling Device

Developments (contd)
!

Experimental New Large Diameter Sampler

for Sensitive Soils

(La Rochelle et al., 1980): Laval sampler 200 mm

" Design:
No inside clearance
Angle of cutting is very sharp
Piston eliminated
No suction during sampling
Large diameter to reduce relative amount of
disturbed annuls around the internal core
" Quality: good sample quality very close to block
sampling

Rock Samplers
!
!
!
!

Basically rotary core-barrels

High area ratio: possible disturbance
Washing and erosion of sample by drilling fluid is possible
Recovering intact fractures and shear zones is almost impossible
(Fang, 1975)

During coring: friction is low as long as the core is unbroken. Friction is

triggered when core is broken and rock fragments become wedged
between the core and the barrel
(ASCE, 1949)
Integral coring method recommended to minimize disturbance and to
retrieve intact samples including their discontinuities
(Fang, 1975)

Sampling Recommendations
!
!
!
!
!

!
!

!
!
!

For consolidation: Dsampler Dring + 12 mm

(Bowles, 1988)
Type of advancement: pushing sampling tube with fast, continuous, uniform motion (ASCE,

1999)

Rate of penetration: moderate

(FE and Hvorslev,1949)
Tubes: area ratio 10%-15%
(Bowles, 1988 and ASCE, 1999)
Taper Angle: if area ratio is increased from 5 to 20% the taper angle should be decreased
from 15 to 9 degrees

(ASCE, 1999)

Inside clearance ratio = 0.5-1.0%

(Broms, 1980)
Inside Clearance ratio = 0-1.0% for very short samples, 0.5-3.0% for medium length

samples (Hvorslev, 1949). Suggested 0.75-1.5% for L/D=6-8 + soil condition (ASCE, 1999)
Outside clearance ratio < 2-3% for cohesive soil and 0% for sand
(ASCE, 1999)
L/D ratio: 5-10 for cohesionless soil and 10-20 for cohesive soils
(ASCE, 1999)

Inside diameter of the sampling tube must be > the inside diameter of the cutting
edge
(Broms, 1980)

Sampling Recommendations Contd

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Pistons soft and sensitive clays

(Das, 1990, and Broms, 1980)
Retractable inner tubes
Recover samples ASAP and minimize storage
(Broms, 1980)
Influence of structural defects (e.g. fissures) decreases with confining stress
Organic soils (e.g. peat) stationary piston samplers and sharp cutting edge
Cohesionless soils: freezing - questionable for deformation properties!!
Cohesionless soils: Swedish foil sampler + seismic/plate load/penetrometer
Cohesive soils: reduce disturbance by trimming and testing ASAP and by
reconsolidation under in-situ (anisotropic) stress conditions

Sampling Recommendations Contd

!

Sampling tube: smooth, clean

Undisturbed sample:

do not test top and bottom portions (2Dsample)

! Length/Diameter:
! Clay (S > 30), 20
t
! Clay (S = 5-30), 12
t
! Clay (S < 5), 10
t
! Loose frictional soil, 12
! Medium frictional soil, 6
In case of dissolved air: recompress sample before testing for 12 h.
Dissolved air reduces strength and modulus.
(Broms, 1980)
!

(Broms, 1980 and ASCE, 1999)

Sampling Recommendations Contd

!

!
!

Stiff and hard clay are difficult to sample. Block samples are normally
required
(Broms, 1980 and several researchers)
Open-tube samplers are generally not recommended for undisturbed
operations
(ASCE, 1999)
Retractable-piston and foil samplers are not recommended for
undisturbed
Stabilization of borehole: drilling mud/steel casing
(ASCE, 1999)
Thin-walled tubes with compressed air for sand sampling are not
recommended
(ASCE, 1999)
Hand trimming and freezing are generally considered the highest
quality techniques for sampling cohesionless soils
(ASCE, 1999)
Preliminary guide for selecting sampler for obtaining high quality
undisturbed samples
(table 2-3, ASCE, 1999)

References
!

!
!

La Rochelle and Guy Lefebure (1970). Sampling disturbance in Champlain Clay, ASTM sp. tech. Publ. 483. Symp.
Seventy-third annual meeting ASTM, Toronto, Canada.
Rowe, P.W. (1970). Representative sampling in location, quality, and size, ASTM sp. tech. Publ. 483. Symp. Seventythird annual meeting ASTM, Toronto, Canada.
Broms, B. (1980). Soil sampling in Europe: state-of-the-art,J. of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, (106) (GT1), p 65-97
Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T., and Tanaka, H. (1995). Effects of sample disturbance on Gmax of soils A case study,
Earthquake Geotech. Engrb., Ishihara, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Budhu, M., and Wu, C.(1992).Numerical analysis of sampling disturbances in clay soils, Int. j. for numerical and
analytical methods in geomechanics, vol. 16, p 467-492.
Kimura, T., and Saitoh, K(1982).The influence of disturbance due to sample preparation on the undrained strength of
saturated cohesive soil, Soils and Foundations, vol.22, No. 4, p 109-120.
Shogaki, T., and Kaneko, M. (1994).Effects of sample disturbance on strength and consolidation parameters of soft clay,
Soils and Foundations, vol.34, No. 3, p 1-10.
Tokimatsu, K., and Hosaka, Y.(1986).Effects of sample disturbance on dynamic properties of sand, Soils and
Foundations, vol.26, No. 1, p 53-64.
Clayton, C., Siddique, A, and Hopper, R. (1998). Effects of sampler design on tube disturbance -numerical and analytical
investigation, Geotechnique 48, No. 6, p 847-867.
Larochelle, P, Sarrailh, J., Tavenas, F., Roy, M, and Leroueil, S. (1980). Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a
new sampler for sensitive soils, Canadian Geotech. journal, vol. 18, no. , p 52-66.
ASCE (1999). Soil sampling,Technical engineering and design guides as adapted from the US army corps of engineers,
no. 30, 214.

Recommended References
!

Idel, K., Muhs, H., and von Soos, P (1969). Proposal for quality-classes in soil sampling in
relation to boring methods and sampling equipment, 7th int. conf. on soil mech. And found.
Engrg., proceed. Of the specialty session no. 1, Mexico, p 11-14.
Jakobson, B. (1954). Influence of sampler type and testing method on shear strength of
clay samples, Proceed. of the Swedish Geotech. Inst., No. 8, Stockholm, 59 p.
Okumura, T. (1971). The variation of mechanical properties of clay samples depending on
its degree of disturbance, 4th Asian Conf., Int. Soc. For soil mechanics and foundation
engrg, p 73-81.