Total Stress Analysis (TSA)

Effective Stress Analysis (ESA)

Undrained Strength Analysis (USA)
Shansep

Series #01

Endra Susila, Ph.D.

Department of Civil Engineering
FTSL-ITB

1
 Objectives

- To better understand:

1. Total Stress Analysis (TSA).

2. Effective Stress Analysis (ESA).

3. Undrained Strength Analysis (USA).

4. Shansep (Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering

Properties).

2
 References

1. Ladd (1991), “Stability Evaluation During Staged

Construction – The Twenty Second Karl Terzaghi Lecture.”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol 117,
N0. 4, April (1991).

2. Ladd and Foott (1974), “New Design Procedure for

Stability of Soft Clays,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol 100, N0. GT7, July (1974), on page
763-786.

3. Ladd and DeGroot (2004), “Recommended Practice for …”

3
 DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

1. Never use ctot and

ftot to compute SF !
2. Lowest SF is Long
Term

4
 TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS (TSA)
1. Most frequently utilized for foundation analysis on Saturated
Clays.

2. Do not care excess pore water pressure. Just compute total

stress increase and then compare with the bearing capacity
{f(Su)}

3. Example: Computation of FoS of Shallow foundation and deep

foundation on saturated clays, but modeled as there is no ground
water table.

4. Based on UU, FV, etc. to obtain the Su (undrained strength)

5. Shortcomings: Could not compute gain strength due to

consolidation (could not be utilized for stage construction)

5
 TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS (TSA)

1. Skempton, A. W. (1948) “The f=0 Analysis of Stability and

Theoretical Basis,” Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 1, Rotterdam,
Netherlands 1948, pp. 72-78.

2. D

6
DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

7
 EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS (ESA)

1. Was developed: (a) to analyze more comprehensively, (b) for

computing gain strength due to consolidation.

2. Should know excess pore water pressure for each and all steps.
It relies on “A and B values” and/or “records/piezometers”

3. Effective Strength Parameters were obtained from CD or CU

Triaxial tests.

4. Shortcomings:
- Conventional ESA could potentially obtain “too high” safety
factor.
- Difficult to obtain reliable effective parameters.

8
DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

1. Computed SF=
Sd/tm
2. Real SF=
Su/tm

9
DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

10
 UNDRAINED STRENGTH ANALYSIS (USA)

1. Was developed to correct the shortcomings of the Conventional

TSA and ESA methods by COMBINING both.

2. Does not differ much from ESA, but could be very critical /
musth different FoS.

3. Could compute gain strength more accurately.

4. Required both total and effective parameters, usually from CU

tests.

5. The same as TSA, f=0, c=cu (to distinguish with Su on TSA).

11
DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

12
DEFINITION OF FoS
(Ladd, 1991)

13
Comparison of FoS for ESA and USA
(Ladd, 1991)

14
Comparison of FoS for ESA and USA
(Ladd, 1991)

15
Comparison of FoS for ESA and USA
(Ladd, 1991)

16
 SHANSEP
(Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering Properties)

17
 Objectives

1. To normalize the undrained shear strength as a function of

depth/overburden pressure (svo’) and OCR.
- obtain (plots) function from available data and apply to a
wide range of insitu stress conditions.
- Normalized: Su/svo’ (c/p), Eu/Su, Ko, and pore pressure (u)

2. To reduce effects disturbances on selection of undrained shear

strength (‘perfect’ samples, ‘ideal’ samples).

18
Objective of SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)
c/p’ = ????

Soil Conditions at Portsmouth, N.H., Test Embankment

19
SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

20
21
SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

22
23
24
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

Example of Normalized Behavior Using Idealized Triaxial Compression Test Data for Homogeneous Clay

25
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

a a

Normalized Direct-Simple Shear Test Data for Normally Consolidated Maine Organic Clay

26
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

A large variation as
a function of OCR

Requires accurate
measurement of
OCR

Normalized CKoU Direct Simple Shear Test Data for Overconsolidated Boston Blue Clay

27
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

Variation of Normalized CKoU DSS Strength Parameter with OCR for Five Clays

28
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

Line a:
Overconsolidated
Eff. Stress is reduced
swelling

Line b:
reconsolidated
Back to virgin line

Line 1 to 2:
Release stress of
“undisturbed sample”
(overconsolidated)

Idealized Plot Showing Effect of Sample Disturbance

29
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

PROCEDURE

30
31
32
 SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

Soil Conditions at Portsmouth, N.H., Test Embankment

33
SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

34
SHANSEP
(Ladd and Foott, 1974)

35
MOST FREQUENT MISTAKES – FOR ANALYSIS
1. Gained Strength should be computed based on ctot and ftot from
CU triaxial tests, not based on c’ and f’. The reason is they
represent the undrained shear strength due to consolidation by s3.
In effective shear strength parameters s3 during failure is not the
s3 for consolidating, because it has still be deducted by pore
pressure.

2. Calculation of Safety factor value should not use ctot and ftot
from CU triaxial tests, because the shear plane (circle) could pass
below the embankment. If we input ftot from CU triaxial tests, the
shear strength will be computed based on sv’ from top of
embankment.

3. Calculation of SF should be based on c’ and f’ from triaxial (Type

A in Plaxis Analysis) or should be based on Su with f = 0 deg (Type B).

36
Next Lecture:

Series # 02

Stages of
CONSTRUCTION

37
Thank
you

38