AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 390-411. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.390

Case report Special Issues

Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Geotechnical characteristics of sensitive Leda clay at Canada test site in Gloucester, Ontario

Paul W. Mayne, Ethan Cargill, Bruce Miller

1 Geosystems Group, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 USA
2 ConeTec Group, Charles City, VA 23030 USA
3 ConeTec Group, Chicago, IL USA

Received: , Accepted: , Published:

Special Issues: Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils used for geotesting

Abstract    Full Text(HTML)    Figure/Table    Related pages

In 1954, the Canadian Geotechnical Research Site No. 1 was established as a testing and experimentation site for the soft and highly sensitive Leda clays that were deposited within the now-drained Champlain Sea. The Gloucester test site has a shallow groundwater table taken as hydrostatic at 0.8 m and is underlain by a sequence of leached marine sediments that make-up the Leda clays and extend about 22 m below grade. Below that are dense glacial tills and limestone bedrock. Previous research studies at the site have included full-scale construction, monitoring, and instrumentation of shallow foundations, embankments, drilled shafts, and driven pilings. Recently, a series of in-situ tests in 2012 and 2014 included type 1 and 2 piezocone soundings, porewater dissipations, and both conventional downhole tests and continuous-interval shear wave velocity measurements have been undertaken. Selected results obtained from laboratory, in-situ testing, and geophysical tests over the past six decades are presented.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. Brooks GR (2014) Prehistoric sensitive clay landslides and paleoseismicity in the Ottawa valley, Canada. Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Springer, London, 119–131.

2. Demers D, Robitailler D, Locat P, et al. (2014) Inventory of large landslides in sensitive clay in the province of Quebec. Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Springer, London, 77–90.

3. McRostie GC, Crawford CB (2001) Canadian Geotechnical Research Site No. 1 at Gloucester. Can Geotech J 38: 1134–1141.    

4. Bozozuk M (1972) The Gloucester test fill. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Layfayette, IN, 184.

5. Bozozuk M, Leonards GA (1972) The Gloucester test fill. Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Part 1 (Proc. Spec. Conf. Purdue Univ.), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1: 299–317.

6. Yafrate NJ, DeJong JT (2006) Interpretation of sensitivity and remolded undrained shear strength with full-flow penetrometers. Proceedings International Society for Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE-06, San Francisco), 572–577.

7. Leroueil S, Samson L, Bozozuk M (1983) Laboratory and field determination of preconsolidation pressures at Gloucester. Can Geotech J 20: 477–490.    

8. Landon ME (2007) Development of a non-destructive sample quality assessment method for soft clays, PhD Dissertation, University Massachusetts Amherst, Department Civil & Environmental Engineering, 647.

9. Perrier D (2016) Email communication and data transmission from Geological Survey of Canada, Quebec City (26 March 2016).

10. Konrad JM (1987) Piezo-friction-cone penetrometer testing in soft clays. Can Geotech J 24: 645–652.    

11. Agaiby SS, Mayne PW (2018) Interpretation of piezocone penetration and dissipation tests in sensitive Leda Clay at Gloucester Test Site. Can Geotech J 55: 1781–1794.    

12. Nader A, Hache R, Fall M (2013) Cone and ball penetration tests in Ottawa's sensitive marine clays. Proceedings GeoMontreal 2013, 66th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, 519.

13. McQueen W, Miller B, Mayne PW, et al. (2015) Piezocone dissipation tests at the Canadian Test Site No. 1, Gloucester, Ontario. Can Geotech J 53: 884–888.

14. Styler MA, Mayne PW (2013) Site investigation using continuous shear wave velocity measurements during cone penetration testing at Gloucester, Ontario. Proceedings, GeoMontreal: 66th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 345.

15. Bechai M, Law KT, Craig CBH, et al. (1986) In-situ testing of marine clay for towerline foundations. Proceedings 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, 115–122.

16. Lutenegger AJ, Timian DA (1986) Flat plate penetrometer tests in marine clays. Proceedings 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, 301–309.

17. Lutenegger AJ (2015) Dilatometer tests in sensitive Champlain Sea clay: stress history and shear strength. Proceedings 3rd International Conference on the Flat Dilatometer, Rome.

18. Yafrate NJ, DeJong JT (2007) Influence of penetration rate on measured resistance with full flow penetrometers in soft clay. Proceedings GeoDenver, ASCE GSP, Reston, VA.

19. Nader A, Fall M, Hache R (2015) Characterization of sensitive marine clays by using cone and ball penetrometers: example of clays in Eastern Canada. Geotech Geol Eng 33: 841–864.    

20. Eden WJ, Law KT (1980) Comparison of Undrained shear strength results obtained by different test methods in soft clays. Can Geotech J 17: 369–381.    

21. Mayne PW, Peuchen J (2012) Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays. Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London, 1: 903–910.

22. Mayne PW, Peuchen J (2018) Evaluation of CPTU Nkt cone factor for undrained strength of clays. Proceedings 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (Technical Univ. Delft), CRC Press/Balkema, 423–430.

23. Agaiby SSW (2018) Advancements in the interpretation of seismic piezocone tests in clays and other geomaterials. PhD dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA: 923.

24. Mayne PW, Robertson PK, Lunne T (1998) Clay stress history evaluated from seismic piezocone tests. Geotech Site Charact (Proc. ISC-1, Atlanta), Balkema, Rotterdam, 2: 1113–1118.

25. Mayne PW (2007) NCHRP Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetration Test. Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 118.

26. Burns SE, Mayne PW (2002) Analytical cavity expansion-critical state model for piezocone dissipation in fine-grained soils. Soils Found 42: 131–137.

27. Law KT (1975) Analysis of embankments on sensitive clays. PhD Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario, 521.

28. Lo KY, Bozozuk M, Law KT (1976) Settlement analysis of the Gloucester test fill. Can Geotech J 13: 339–354.    

29. Hinchberger SD, Rowe RK (1998) Modelling the rate-sensitive characteristics of the Gloucester foundation soil. Can Geotech J 35: 769–789.    

30. Radharkrishna HS, Cragg CBH, Tsang R, et al. (1986) Uplift and compression behavior of drilled piers in Leda clay. Proceedings 39th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, 123–130.

31. Hosseini MA, Rayhani MT (2015) Evolution of pile shaft capacity over time in soft clays: Case study: Leda clay. Proceedings GeoQuebec: 68th Canadian Geot Conference, Paper ID 793.

32. Parez L, Faureil R (1988) Le piézocone. Améliorations apportées ála reconnsaissance de soils. Rev Fr Géotech 44: 13–27.

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved