Appendix GDR 00.

1-001-C
May 2011

Geotechnical properties
for Glacial deposits

Geotechnical properties for Glacial deposits

May 2011
Appendix GDR 00.1-001-C
Femern A/S
Vester Sgade 10
1601 Kbenhavn V
Tel.: +45 3341 6300
Fax.: +45 3341 6301
www.fehmarnlink.com
CVR no. 28 98 65 64

Prepared by
Rambll Arup Joint Venture
c/o
Rambll Danmark A/S
Hannemanns All 53
DK-2300 Copenhagen S
Danmark
Phone +45 51611000
Rambll Arup Joint Venture
Danish reg. no: CVR-NR 31749077
Member of FRI

This report appendix is based on the geological/geotechnical knowledge,

gathered by Femern A/S until May 2011.
As the investigations have not been completed,
an update of this report appendix is planned for end 2012.

Prepared

DJ/CH

2011-05-01

Checked

NLSM

2011-05-01

Approved

JRF

2011-05-01

Table of contents
1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 6

2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7

CLASSIFICATION PROPERTIES ................................................................. 8

General .............................................................................................................. 8
Water content and unit weight .......................................................................... 9
Specific gravity of solids and void ratio ........................................................... 9
Consistency limits........................................................................................... 10
Grain size analyses ......................................................................................... 10
Content of CaCO3 and organic matter ............................................................ 11
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 12

3.
3.1
3.2
3.3

CPTU .............................................................................................................. 13
Introduction..................................................................................................... 13
Cone resistance ............................................................................................... 13
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 14

4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4
4.5
4.6

STRESS AND STRESS HISTORY ............................................................... 16

General ............................................................................................................ 16
In-situ vertical effective stress, 'vo ................................................................ 16
Pre-consolidation pressure, 'pc ...................................................................... 16
Introduction..................................................................................................... 16
Principal evaluation of the methods requested ............................................... 16
Over-consolidation ratio, OCR ....................................................................... 21
Earth pressure at rest, K0 ................................................................................ 22
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 22

5.
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
5.3
5.4

CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES ............................................................... 24

General ............................................................................................................ 24
Laboratory measurements ............................................................................... 24
Constrained oedometer modulus (reloading).................................................. 24
Constrained oedometer modulus (unloading) ................................................. 25
Coefficient of consolidation (loading/unloading) ........................................... 26
Compression ratio (loading) ........................................................................... 27
Creep properties (reloading) ........................................................................... 28
Swelling properties (unloading) ..................................................................... 28
Permeability .................................................................................................... 28
Large scale testing .......................................................................................... 28
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 29

6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

STATIC SHEAR STRENGTH ...................................................................... 30

Introduction..................................................................................................... 30
Undrained shear strength, in-situ stress .......................................................... 30
Undrained shear strength, SHANSEP ............................................................ 34
Undrained shear strength, stresses lower than in-situ ..................................... 35
Effective shear strength, in-situ ...................................................................... 35

6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9

Anisotropy factors .......................................................................................... 36

Rate effects ..................................................................................................... 37
Large scale testing .......................................................................................... 37
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 37

7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4

SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS AND DAMPING ......................................... 39

Introduction..................................................................................................... 39
Small strain stiffness ....................................................................................... 39
Damping ratios................................................................................................ 44
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 44

8.
8.1
8.2
8.3

CYCLIC UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH ............................................. 46

Introduction..................................................................................................... 46
Cyclic undrained direct simple shear strength ................................................ 46
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 47

9.

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 48

LIST OF ENCLOSURES
Enclosure C-01: water content against depth for Glacial units
Enclosure C-02: plasticity index against depth for Glacial units
Enclosure C-03a: water content and Atterberg Limits for Upper till
Enclosure C-03b: water content and Atterberg Limits for Glacial Meltwater silt/clay
Enclosure C-03c: water content and Atterberg Limits for Chalk till
Enclosure C-03d: water content and Atterberg Limits for Lower till
Enclosure C-03e: water content and Atterberg Limits for Lowermost till
Enclosure C-04: liquidity index against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-05: plasticity chart for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-06: unit weight against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-07: void ratio against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-08: clay content against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-09: activity against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-10: carbonate content against depth for Glacial deposits
Enclosure C-11: tri-plot of clay mineralogy (smectite content, illite content,
kaolinite/chlorite content) for Glacial deposits

Enclosure C-12: water content against depth for Glacial Meltwater sand unit
Enclosure C-13: unit weight against depth for Glacial Meltwater sand unit
Enclosure C-14: void ratio against depth for Glacial Meltwater sand unit
Enclosure C-15: net cone resistance against depth for Glacial deposits
(differentiated between B-boring)
Enclosure C-16: net cone resistance against depth for Upper till
Enclosure C-17: net cone resistance against depth for Glacial Meltwater deposits
Enclosure C-18: net cone resistance against depth for Chalk till
Enclosure C-19: net cone resistance against depth for Lower till
Enclosure C-20: net cone resistance against depth for Lowermost till
Enclosure C-21: net cone resistance against depth for Upper till within all CPTUs adjacent to A-borings
Enclosure C-22: net cone resistance against depth for Lower, Chalk and Lowermost tills
within all CPTUs adjacent to A-borings
Enclosure C-23: effective stress paths for Upper till
Enclosure C-24: effective stress paths for Glacial Meltwater sand unit
Enclosure C-25: effective stress paths for Chalk till
Enclosure C-26: effective stress paths for Lower till
Enclosure C-27: effective stress paths for Lowermost till
Enclosure C-28: Gmax from bender element testing
Enclosure C-29: G0 from vsp logging

1.

INTRODUCTION

The Glacial deposits are comprised of six geological units. These units, listed in the
geological sequence typically encountered, are:

Upper till
Meltwater Silt/Clay
Meltwater Sand
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

The geotechnical properties of the geological strata have been investigated through:

Classification testing by Fugro of samples from the type A-borings /1/ and /2/.
In situ testing (CPTU) by Fugro in the type B-borings /1/ and /2/.
In situ testing (CPTU) by Fugro in the type C-borings (seabed CPTUs) /3/.
Classification testing by GEO of selected samples extracted from the type A-borings
for advanced laboratory testing /4/.
Advanced geotechnical testing by GEO of selected samples extracted from the type
A-borings /4/.

Additionally, the geophysical properties have been investigated through the geophysical
borehole logging by Rambll Arup JV (RA). The results from these tests are summarised
in Section 11.5 of the Ground Investigation Report, but are also considered in section 7.2
of the present appendix.
Test specimens that were used for strength testing were consolidated in the laboratory
prior to testing. Specimens of Lower till were generally consolidated to in-situ stress
levels and then sheared. The Upper till specimens were pre-consolidated to a high stress
level approaching the estimated pre-consolidation stress before unloading to the in-situ
stress and succeeding shearing. The undrained shear strength, as found in-situ, has therefore been mapped and correlated with the CPTU results.
The undrained shear strength testing has been supplemented with testing to identify deformation properties of the soil during loading and unloading; together with correlation
with the CPTU results.
During the laboratory testing programme the stress states applied have been defined by
RA.
The geotechnical background material and data is available within the Femerns Geo
Information System /5/.
For abbreviations and definitions not defined in this appendix, reference is made to
Femerns Geo Nomenclature /6/.

The geotechnical properties are elaborated in the succeeding sections.

The advanced laboratory tests performed on the meltwater deposits are all conducted on
one and the same core from borehole 09.A.018. This core was the only core found with
sufficient recovery. The grain size curve from this core shows that the soil is classified as
silt.
This appendix presents the overall derivation of laboratory data and field measurements
as established by RA. This overall derivation may deviate from the evaluation of laboratory results as presented in /4/. In case of conflict between the two different documents,
the RA interpretation takes precedence.

2.

CLASSIFICATION PROPERTIES

2.1

General

In order to determine the classification properties of the Glacial deposits, a series of

geotechnical laboratory classification tests were undertaken on selected soil samples
retrieved from the 2009 and 2010 ground investigations.
The test results noting the basic classification properties (w, wP, wL, IP, IL, ) are plotted
against depth below seabed/ground level in Enclosures C-01 to C-06. Similarly, the statistical results of these tests are presented below in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Basic geotechnical classification properties of Glacial deposits
C-04
C-06
Enclosure C-01 C-03(1) C-03(1) C-02
Glacial Unit
w
wL
wP
IP
IL

Arithmetic mean
9.6%
20.4% 11.5%
8.9%
-0.28
23.0 kN/m3
Upper till
Standard dev.
1.6%
3.5%
1.6%
3.0%
0.23
1.1 kN/m3
(2)
Number of tests
467
123
123
123
39
421
Arithmetic mean
22.4% 38.7% 18.6% 20.1%
0.10
20.7 kN/m3
Meltwater
Standard dev.
7.8%
18.0%
8.6%
11.0%
0.02
1.3 kN/m3
Silt/Clay
Number of tests
40
12
12
12
2
25
Arithmetic mean
18.4%
21.1 kN/m3
Meltwater
Standard dev.
5.6%
1.8 kN/m3
Sand
Number of tests
78
44
Arithmetic mean
11.9% 22.3% 13.7%
8.6%
-0.36
22.4 kN/m3
Chalk till
Standard dev.
4.6%
2.7%
1.9%
2.9%
0.23
1.2 kN/m3
Number of tests
74
33
33
33
12
63
Arithmetic mean
11.5% 28.1% 12.3% 15.8%
-0.05
22.6 kN/m3
Lower till
Standard dev.
3.2%
9.4%
2.4%
7.8%
0.15
1.0 kN/m3
Number of tests
629
185
185
185
63
609
17.7% 58.3% 18.7% 39.6%
-0.04
21.4 kN/m3
Arithmetic mean
Lowermost
Standard dev.
5.9%
22.7%
5.0%
18.9%
0.15
1.4 kN/m3
till
Number of tests
264
94
94
94
18
200
(1)
Enclosure illustrating results of each Glacial unit
(2)
30 measurements have been omitted because they were performed on thin sand layers in
the till.

Other laboratory classification tests were undertaken to determine the properties of the
Glacial deposits. Geotechnical parameters determined from these tests includes; the initial
void ratio (e), specific gravity of solids (ds), clay content (Clay T) and calcium carbonate
content. The statistical results of these measured properties are presented in Table 2-2;
with the test results presented with depth below seabed/ground level in Enclosures C-07
to C-10. It should be noted that the unit Meltwater sand includes thin layers of clay tills
and very silty meltwater sands.

Table 2-2: Additional geotechnical classification properties of Glacial deposits

C-07
C-08
C-09
C-10
Enclosure
Glacial Unit
ds
Clay T
Activity
CaCO3
e
Arithmetic mean
0.27
2.65
14.6%
0.61
26.0%
Upper till
Standard dev.
0.10
0.04
7.0%
0.27
8.4%
Number of tests
117
75
224
79
9
Arithmetic mean
0.58
2.68
20.9%
0.92
Meltwater
Standard dev.
0.11
0.04
11.9%
0.42
Silt/Clay
Number of tests
12
7
25
9
Arithmetic mean
0.49
2.64
11.9%
30.8%
Meltwater
Standard dev.
0.17
0.04
13.0%
Sand
Number of tests
23
16
51
1
Arithmetic mean
0.31
2.68
27.3%
0.44
57.3%
Chalk till
Standard dev.
0.04
0.04
7.6%
0.38
9.3%
Number of tests
26
17
36
21
7
Arithmetic mean
0.30
2.66
20.2%
0.75
22.3%
Lower till
Standard dev.
0.07
0.04
7.8%
0.28
10.1%
Number of tests
235
98
258
123
29
Arithmetic mean
0.46
2.66
29.7%
1.38
21.7%
Lowermost
Standard dev.
0.21
0.03
11.4%
0.67
6.6%
till
Number of tests
58
35
136
62
6

2.2

Water content and unit weight

As shown in Table 2-1, the water content of the Glacial deposits is shown to vary between Glacial units. The results suggest that the water content of the Chalk till and Lower
till are generally comparable; with average water contents of 11.9 % and 11.5 %, respectively, while the Upper till has a slightly lower water content (9.6 %) Further review of
Enclosure C-01 indicates that the water content of these units is generally consistent with
depth.
Ranges of water content within the Meltwater silt/clay unit, Meltwater sand unit and the
Lowermost Glacial units was generally recorded higher than the other Glacial units. This
is illustrated in Enclosures C-01 and C-12, and is apparent on review of the average water
content values of these units; 22.4 %, 18.4 % and 17.7 %, respectively.
The measured unit weights of the Glacial deposits show little variation between Glacial
units. The average value of unit weight varies between 20.7 kN/m3 for the Meltwater
silt/clay and 23.0 kN/m3 for the Upper till. The unit weight results are plotted with depth
for the till units in Enclosure C-06 and for the Meltwater units in Enclosure C-13.

2.3

Specific gravity of solids and void ratio

The measured values of specific gravity are shown to be consistent between Glacial units;
with the average values of specific gravity varying between 2.64 and 2.68.
The initial void ratio of the Glacial deposits is shown to vary between Glacial units. The
statistical values of the void ratio values are presented in Table 2-1 and are plotted with
depth in Enclosure C-07 for the till units and Enclosure C-14 for the Meltwater units.

2.4

Consistency limits

A total of 447 No Atterberg Limits tests were undertaken on samples of Glacial deposits.
The statistical results of these tests are presented in Table 2-1.
Review of the plasticity index results in Table 2-1 note a marked difference in the arithmetic mean between Glacial units. For example, the arithmetic mean of the plasticity index for the Upper till is 8.9 %, changing to 20.1 % for the underlying Glacial Meltwater
silt/clay, to 8.6 % for the Chalk till, 15.8 % for the Lower till and to 39.6 % for the Lowermost till. Consequently, on a plot of the plasticity index against depth below top of
borehole level is shown in Enclosure C-02, the Glacial units are clearly defined.
Given the significant number of Atterberg Limits tests undertaken, the liquid and plastic
limits have been plotted with depth for each Glacial unit, and are presented in Enclosures
C-03a to C-03e. In-situ water contents are also shown on these enclosures. These plots
show that for the Upper till, Chalk till and Lower till, the range of plastic and liquid limits
within that particular unit is relatively consistent; with the exception of occasional elevated liquid limit values. Few tests were undertaken on samples of the Meltwater silt/clay;
with the results indicating inconsistent ranges of plastic and liquid range. The results of
Atterberg Limits tests undertaken on samples of the Lowermost till reveal a significant
range between the liquid and plastic limits which appear variable with depth. With the
exception of the Meltwater silt/clay, the measured water contents are generally close to,
or below, the plastic limit; as illustrated by the liquidity index values shown in Enclosure
C-04. However, a number of tests within the Lowermost till and the Lower till recorded
water content values in excess of the plastic limit resulting in a positive liquidity index.
The Casagrande plasticity chart is shown in Enclosure C-05, with the results of all of the
Glacial units shown for comparison. The chart shows that the plasticity of each of the
Glacial units is dissimilar and can generally be separated into groupings parallel to the Aline. For instance, the Upper till results are clustered within the CL-ML and CL categories. The Meltwater silt/clay results typically lie between the CL to CM categories; with
one result plotting below the A-line within the OH/MH classification. The results of the
Chalk till are shown to be clustered in the same area of the chart as the Upper till in the
CL-ML and CL regions. The results of the Lower till are varied, although mostly lie in
the CL and CM classifications; with a number of results in CH and one in CV region. The
plasticity of the Lowermost till is shown to be higher than any of the other units, with the
results located within the CM to CV classifications. Six of the 94 Atterberg Limits on
samples of the Lowermost till are plotted below the A-line; with three results in the
OL/ML region and three results in the OH/MH region.

2.5

Grain size analyses

A number of particle size distribution analyses were undertaken on samples of the Glacial
deposits. The statistical results of these tests, showing the clay content (Clay T) for each
Glacial unit is shown in Table 2-2. The results are presented with depth below top of
borehole in Enclosure C-08.

10

A plot showing the clay mineralogy, in relation to the composition of kaolinite/chlorite,

smectite and illite measured from the X-ray diffraction, is presented in Enclosure C-11.
Comparison of the clay content and the plasticity index results for each of the Glacial
units provide an indication of the soil classification. When considering the average values
(arithmetic mean) of the clay content and plasticity indices, the Glacial units can be classified; as noted in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Classification of Glacial units based on average clay content and plasticity index
Average
Average
Glacial Unit
Soil Classification
Clay T [%]
Ip [%]
14.6
8.9
Upper till
Very silty/sandy clay till
20.9
20.1
Meltwater Silt/Clay
Medium plasticity clay
Meltwater Sand

11.9

Chalk till

27.3

15.8

Medium plasticity clay till

Lower till

20.2

15.8

Medium plasticity clay till

Lowermost till

29.7

39.6

High plasticity clay till

Generally granular

It should be noted that only the average clay content and plasticity indices have been used
to determine the soil classifications noted in Table 2-3. Given the variability of the soil,
as highlighted in the standard deviation values and review of the enclosures, the geotechnical properties of the soil within the Glacial units may vary; hence the classification.
The statistical results of the activity (Ip/Clay T) of each Glacial unit are presented in Table 2-2 and are illustrated with depth in Enclosure C-09. Given that the values of activity
in the Upper till, Meltwater clay/silt and Chalk till units are typically below 0.75, these
units can generally be classified as inactive and are not considered to exhibit volume
changes with changes in water content. The range of activity in the Lower till is typically
between 0.40 and 1.00, suggesting that the unit is inactive to normal. The range of activity values within the Lowermost till typically range between 0.90 and 2.00 indicating
that the soil classification is both normal and active. Given this, the Lowermost till
may be prone to swelling and shrinkage with variations in water content.

2.6

Content of CaCO3 and organic matter

The CaCO3 content of the Glacial deposits is shown in Table 2-2 and is illustrated with
depth below seabed in Enclosure C-10. Review of this data shows that the Lower and
Lowermost tills typically have the lowest CaCO3 content. The highest CaCO3 content was
recorded within the Chalk till; with an average content of 57.3 % and a standard deviation
of 9.3 %.
No organic content or loss on ignition tests was undertaken on samples of the Glacial deposits.

11

2.7

Conclusions

Review of the results of the laboratory classification testing, undertaken on samples of

Glacial deposits confirm the presence of individual Glacial units. These units are particularly well defined on review of the plasticity chart, plasticity index and clay content test
results; where the units fall into groupings or are evident through stepped variations of
geotechnical parameters.
Assessment of the plasticity test results reveals a significant variance of plasticity between Glacial units. The test results indicate that the Upper and Chalk till are typically of low
plasticity, whilst the Meltwater silt/clay and the Lower till are of low to medium plasticity. The plastic properties of the Lowermost till are noted to be highly variable, and range
from medium to very high plasticity.
The plastic and liquid limit results within the Upper till, Chalk till and Lower till are
shown to be relatively consistent within each of unit; with the exception of occasional
elevated liquid limit results. Few tests were undertaken on samples of the Meltwater
silt/clay; with the results indicating irregular ranges of plastic and liquid range. The results of Atterberg Limits tests undertaken on samples of the Lowermost till reveal a significant range between the liquid and plastic limits which appear variable with depth.
With the exception of the Lowermost till, the typical values of activity within the Glacial
units are less than 1.25, and thus, the soil can be classified as in-active or normal.
However, the range of activity values within the Lowermost till typically range between
0.90 and 2.00 indicating proportions of the unit are active. Given this, the Lowermost
till may be prone to swelling and/or shrinkage with changes in water content.

12

3.

CPTU

3.1

Introduction

A number of down-the-hole CPTUs (B-borings) and seabed CPTUs (C-borings) penetrated into the Glacial deposits. The results of these CPTUs are presented in /1/ and /2/.
For correlation purposes, most CPTUs were undertaken generally within 5m of type Aborings. By doing so, parallels between the known geology within the A-boring and the
CPTU profiles could be made. In addition, the results of the laboratory testing from samples recovered from the A-borings were correlated with the CPTU cone penetration data.
However, it should be noted that when comparing and correlating geotechnical properties
from soil strata encountered in a type A-borings with the CPTU-values in the adjacent
type B-boring there is typically 5 m horizontal distance between the two borings. Even
within this relatively short distance, variations in the ground conditions and geotechnical
properties of the soil occur. The piezocone in the B-borings may react on stones and silt
layers that may not be found in corresponding cores from the A-borings at the same
depth, and this must also be considered when comparing boring and CPTU data.

3.2

Cone resistance

The full set of results from the cone penetration test type B-borings and type C-borings,
reported for each borehole, are contained within/1/ and /2/. In total, 19 No CPTUs were
undertaken adjacent to A-borings which had samples of Glacial deposits subject to laboratory testing. The geology within the CPTU profiles was concluded from the adjacent Aborings and the cone resistance profiles for the each Glacial unit isolated and reviewed.
For CPTUs undertaken adjacent to A-borings with samples of Glacial deposits subject to
laboratory testing, net cone resistance, qnet, profiles against depth, distinguishing between
boreholes, are shown in Enclosure C-15. Plots of net cone resistance against depth for
each of the Glacial units are presented in Enclosures C-16 to C-20. It should be noted that
the plots do not take into consideration CPTU refusals, and as a result, areas of the Glacial deposits may prove to exhibit a higher strength than shown.
A plot showing the qnet results with depth for all CPTUs adjacent to A-borings within the
Upper till is illustrated in Enclosure C-21. Similarly, a plot showing the qnet results with
depth for all CPTUs adjacent to A-borings within the Lower, Chalk and Lowermost tills
is illustrated in Enclosure C-22.
Review of the cone resistance profiles of the Glacial deposits revealed that the CPTUs
had on a number of occasions met refusal. This occurred when the maximum limit of the
CPTU equipment was reached (60 MPa), or when excessive and sustained measurements
of cone resistance, qc, where recorded and the CPTU operator believed the piezocone to
be on hard strata or obstruction. When refusal was met, the piezocone was withdrawn and
the use of drilling equipment was employed to drill out the area of the refusal; with a subsequent gap within the CPTU data profile.

13

Although CPTU tests encountered refusal in most of the Glacial units, it was most prevalent in the Upper till and Chalk till. Table 3-1 summarises the extent of CPTU refusals
within the Upper till in B-borings that were adjacent to the A-borings which had samples
subject to laboratory testing. As shown, typically 40 % to 70 % of CPTU pushes undertaken within the Upper till encountered obstructions or soil with a strength greater than
the limits of the cone penetration test equipment.
Table 3-1: Review of CPTU refusals within Upper till
No. CPTU
CPTU No.
CPTU Depth [m]
Pushes
09.B.007
2.40 12.75
7
09.B.008
3.90 15.86
5
09.B.013
2.01 39.20
24
09.B.018
0.30 11.70
8
10.B.056
11.20 12.88
2
10.B.057
12.04 16.83
4
10.B.060
12.10 19.78
7
10.B.061
9.10 17.04
6
10.B.064
0.10 22.35
16
10.B.064
27.00 32.18
4
10.B.065
0.80 10.59
7
10.B.065
18.80 26.18
5

No. CPTU
Refusals
5
3
14
3
2
2
4
3
11
3
3
4

CPTU Push
Refusals [%]
71
60
58
38
0
50
57
50
69
75
43
80

As shown in Encl. C-18, an accurate profile of cone resistance could not be determined
within the Chalk till as the piezocone repeatedly met refusal. Of the 13 CPTUs undertaken adjacent to borings, which had samples of Glacial deposits subject to laboratory
testing, ten met refusal. As a result, a limited number of qnet values were obtained and are
not representative of the in-situ strength of the Chalk till.

3.3

Conclusions

In order to identify the geology within cone penetration test profiles, and to allow comparisons between laboratory test results with cone resistance profiles, a number of CPTUs
were undertaken adjacent to A-borings. Consequently, the following typical ranges of net
cone resistance, qnet, have been determined for each of the following Glacial units:

Upper till typically between 5 MN/m2 and 40 MN/m2 (see following text)
Meltwater silt/clay typically between 12 MN/m2 and 55 MN/m2
Meltwater sand typically between 3 MN/m2 and 40 MN/m2
Lower till typically between 2 MN/m2 and 20 MN/m2
Lowermost till typically between 2 MN/m2 and 10 MN/m2

14

It should be noted that a significant number of CPTUs undertaken within the Upper till
met refusal. Review of cone resistance profiles suggest that between 40 % and 70 % of
CPTU pushes typically met refusal in the Upper till. Given that the area where the piezocone met refusal was drilled out, it is unknown whether these refusals were a result of the
piezocone encountering cobbles/boulder obstructions or whether the soil strength exceeds
the limit of the test equipment. As a result, the reported Upper limit of the typical range
of the Upper till should be adopted with caution.
An accurate profile of cone resistance could not be determined within the Chalk till as
that the piezocone repeatedly met refusal. As a result, a limited number of net cone resistance values were obtained and are not representative of the strata strength.

15

4.

STRESS AND STRESS HISTORY

4.1 General
As an integrated part of understanding the investigated soil, this section describes the
background and the results obtained, covering the effective in-situ stress state.

4.2

In-situ vertical effective stress, 'vo

The vertical effective in-situ stress has been established using the effective unit weight of
the soil. A hydrostatic pore pressure distribution has been assumed.

4.3

Pre-consolidation pressure, 'pc

4.3.1

Introduction

The pre-consolidation pressure is an important property in order to understand the soil behaviour. Terzaghi et al. (1996) /7/ identified the pre-consolidation pressure as: the effective vertical stress at which major changes in the natural soil structure begins to take
place.
In order to identify the pre-consolidation pressure, 'pc, the following types of oedometer
testing were carried out on samples of the Glacial deposits:

Incremental loading (IL). The load is applied stepwise and the specimen is allowed to
reach end of primary consolidation (EOP) before the next load step is applied. Pore
pressure measurements are not performed.
Constant rate of strain (CRS). A constant strain rate is used, allowing the measurement of pore pressures at the bottom of the specimen to vary.
Constant rate of pore pressure (CPR). A constant pore pressure ratio is obtained by
varying the strain rate.

The methods requested to be used for deriving 'pc was as follows:

Becker et al. (1987) /8/

Casagrande (1936) /9/
Janbu (1969) /10/
Akai (1960) /11/

4.3.2

Principal evaluation of the methods requested

The pre-consolidation stress values determined from samples of the Glacial deposits in
/4/ are presented in Table 4-1. In addition to the values reported in Table 4-1, the Janbu
method of analysis was used on a sample recovered from boring 09.A.003 at 13.88m
depth. This analysis recorded a pc of 200 kPa. It should also be noted that the Becker
analysis results in Table 4-1 report the maximum derived values of pc. However, the
minimum pc values were reported for two samples; from borings 10.A.060 at 60.62 m
depth and 10.A.610 at 13.79 m depth. These analyses determined pc values of 800 kPa
and 750 kPa, respectively.

16

It should be noted that the results of the IL tests undertaken to determine the coefficient
of earth pressure at rest were not used in the evaluation of pre-consolidation stress given
that the stresses were not taken sufficiently high to accurate determine pc.
Table 4-1: Comparison of pre-consolidation values, pc , derived in /4/.
Method and Derived pc [kPa]
Depth Test
'vo
Boring
Glacial Unit
[m]
Type
[kPa] Casagrande Becker
Akai
09.A.008
7.85 CRS Upper till
80
2000
1733
09.A.008
7.93
IL
Upper till
80
400
550
09.A.008
7.99 CRS Upper till
80
906
09.A.008
8.11 CRS Upper till
80
1500
3600
09.A.008
10.97
IL
Upper till
130
1100
1800
1000
09.A.012
11.21
IL
Upper till
135
> 4000
09.A.012
11.25
IL
Upper till
135
2000
2100
1200
09.A.013
11.21
IL
Upper till
140
1200
1500
1200
09.A.013
20.06
IL
Upper till
260
1600
09.A.013
30.11
IL
Upper till
395
1000
2500
09.A.008
19.04
IL
Chalk till
235
> 2000
2550
2500
09.A.009
14.98
IL
Chalk till
170
3500
3500
09.A.003
13.88 CRS Lower till
110
700
1462
09.A.003
13.93
IL
Lower till
110
1100
1800
3500
09.A.003
13.98 CRS Lower till
110
1600
1686
09.A.003
14.16
IL
Lower till
110
300
320
09.A.003
15.68
IL
Lower till
150
700
1500
800
09.A.003
16.74
IL
Lower till
160
800
1600
1500
09.A.012
20.59
IL
Lower till
260
1400
1550
> 4000
09.A.012
20.71
IL
Lower till
260
1100
2000
2000
09.A.012
30.44
IL
Lower till
395
1950
1500
> 3000
09.A.012
30.49
IL
Lower till
395
1200
1750
1600
09.A.013
41.75
IL
Lower till
540
1700
1200
1200
09.A.013
52.11
IL
Lower till
690
1100
1150
1200
09.A.605
15.65
IL
Lower till
180
1000
1350
09.A.605
17.51
IL
Lower till
200
1000
950
10.A.610
13.79 CPR Lower till
170
800
950
10.A.060
60.62
IL
Lowermost till
780
1300
950
-

To compare the pre-consolidation pressures in /4/ from each of the methods, and to
investigate any possible relationship between pc and Glacial unit, plots of pc versus
depth below seabed were completed and are presented in Figure 4-1. With the exception
of the Akai method producing several comparatively higher values, the determined pc
values using each of the derivation methods were found to be generally similar; with
results typically ranging between 300 kPa and 3000 kPa.

17

Figure 4-1: Pre-consolidation pressure against depth, distinguishing between derivation

method, left, and Glacial unit, right.

Review of the above plots show no consistent relationship between pre-consolidation

pressure, Glacial unit and depth. Although the horizons of Glacial units are clearly
defined when distinguishing by unit, the pc values are highly variable and cannot be defined for individual units. To further investigate the derived pc values, plots of pre-consolidation pressure against net cone resistance were graphed; shown in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Pre-consolidation pressure against net cone resistance, distinguishing between
derivation method, left, and Glacial unit, right.

18

Review of Figure 4-2 reveals no clear relationship between qnet and pc. The graph distinguishing between pc derivation method shows a wide scatter of results when either
one of the Casagrande, Becker or Akai methods are used. Evaluation of the graph distinguishing between Glacial unit shows a division between soil types, however, with distinguishing parameter being qnet and not the pc/qnet ratio.
Given that there are no apparent relationships from the pc values reported in /4/, RA
undertook an independent assessment of pc based on the laboratory results provided in
/4/. The results of the RA derived pc values are presented in Table 4-2 and presented
against depth below seabed in Figure 4-3.
Table 4-2: Comparison of pc values derived by RA
'vo
Depth Test
Boring
Glacial Unit
[m]
Type
[kPa]
09.A.008
CRS
Upper till
7.85
80
09.A.008
IL
Upper till
7.93
80
09.A.008
CRS
Upper till
7.99
80
09.A.008
CRS
Upper till
8.11
80
09.A.008
IL
Upper till
10.97
130
09.A.012
IL
Upper
till
11.21
135
09.A.012
IL
Upper
till
11.25
135
09.A.008
IL
Chalk
till
18.05
220
09.A.008
IL
Chalk
till
19.04
235
09.A.003
CRS
Lower
till
13.88
110
09.A.003
Lower
till
13.98
CRS
110
09.A.003
Lower till
14.16
IL
110
09.A.009
IL
Lower till
14.98
170
09.A.605
IL
Lower till
15.65
180
09.A.003
Lower till
16.74
IL
160
09.A.605
IL
Lower till
17.51
200
09.A.012
IL
Lower till
20.59
260
09.A.012
IL
Lower
till
20.71
260
09.A.012
IL
Lower
till
30.44
395
09.A.012
IL
Lower till
30.49
395
09.A.013
IL
Lower till
41.75
540
09.A.013
IL
Lower till
52.11
690
10.A.060
IL
Lowermost till
60.62
780
(1)
Very difficult to extract pre-consolidation pressure.

19

winit
[%]
9.7
8.1
8.1
9.4
9.8
10.9
9.6
13.5
6.8
6.8
10.4
10.4
10.2
10.5
16.9

'pc
[kPa]
2000
450
1000
900
900
320
1000
800
1000
1500
2000
1500
2000
2000
1300

Method
Casagrande
Casagrande
N/P (1)
Casagrande
Casagrande
N/P (1)
N/P (1)
N/P (1)
N/P(1)
N/P (1)
Casagrande
Casagrande
N/P (1)
Casagrande
Casagrande
Casagrande
Casagrande
N/P (1)
Casagrande
Casagrande
Casagrande
Casagrande
Casagrande

Pre-consolidation Pressure, ' pc [kPa]

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Upper Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

2500

0
10

Depth [m]

20
30
40
50
60
70

Figure 4-3: RA derived pc values versus depth

The plot of pre-consolidation pressure against depth, Figure 4-3, shows no apparent trend
in the results with depth for the Upper till. However, it is apparent that the pc of the Lower till increases with increasing depth. In order to examine this relationship further, the
derived values of pc were correlated with the adjacent CPTU net cone resistance values.
The results of these correlations are illustrated in Figure 4-4.
14000
12000

qnet [kPa]

10000
8000
'pc = 0.3qnet

6000
4000
2000
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Pre-consolidation Pressure, 'pc [kPa]

Upper Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 4-4: RA derived pc values versus qnet

As shown on review of Figure 4-4, there is no apparent correlation between pc and qnet
for the Upper till. However, it is illustrated that, with regards to the Lower till, an estimate of the pre-consolidation pressure may be found using the correlation: pc = 0.3qnet.
This correlation may be used for all the clay till formations provided that the net cone resistance does not exceed 8000 kPa. For qnet > 8000 kPa, use qnet = 8000 kPa.

20

4.4

Over-consolidation ratio, OCR

As previously discussed within Section 4.3.2 of this report, given the high strength of the
Glacial units, it has proved difficult to accurately define values of pre-consolidation pressure. As a result, RA have re-interpreted the laboratory test results in /4/ and concluded
alternative pre-consolidation pressures; as defined in Table 4-2.
As the over consolidation ratio, OCR, is defined as the ratio between the pre-consolidation pressure and the in-situ stress (pc/vo), meaningful OCR values cannot be determined without reliable values of pc. Given that the RA derived pc values are considered to be more appropriate, these shall be used to assess the OCR of the Glacial units.
Consequently, plots of vo against pc for Upper till and Lower and Lowermost tills are
presented in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6, respectively.

Figure 4-5: Pre-consolidation pressure against in-situ stress for Upper till

Figure 4-6: Pre-consolidation pressure against in-situ stress for Lower and Lowermost till

As shown from the above plots, the OCR for the Upper till is shown to be highly
variable; with values ranging between 5.0 and 25.0. The OCR for the Lower till is shown
to typically vary between 2.5 and 13.0.

21

To examine the relationship of OCR with depth, a plot of log(OCR) against depth below
seabed/ground level for every derived value of pre-consolidation pressure, distinguishing
between individual Glacial units, is shown in Figure 4-7.
OCR
1

10

100

0
10
Depth [m]

20
30
40
50
60
70
Upper Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 4-7: Over consolidation ratio against depth below seabed

As shown from the above plot, with the exception of the Upper till, the value of OCR is
shown to typically reduce with increasing depth. The OCR for the Lower till appears to
decrease linearly with depth on a log plot, with an OCR of approximately 8.0 at 12 m
depth decreasing to 2.9 at 52 m depth. The scatter of OCR values within the Upper till is
likely to be associated with the difficulty of establishing reliable pc values for this unit.

4.5

Earth pressure at rest, K0

Four incremental loading oedometer tests for the determination of K0 were undertaken
(IL,K0); with three tests undertaken on Lower till and one on Chalk till. The results of
these tests are presented in /4/.
The IL,K0 results reported values of K0 varying between 0.43 and 1.25 for the Lower till
with varying ratios of OCR (max/unloading). Similarly, K0 values between 0.44 and 5.10
were reported for the Chalk till. The results of the IL,K0 tests, showing OCR against the
corresponding calculated values of K0, are plotted within /4/ and equations that fit the upper and lower bound test results from both Upper and Chalk till have been derived. These
equations are as follows:

4.6

Upper bound value: K0 0.42 OCR0.40

Lower bound value: K0 0.42 OCR0.28

Conclusions

In order to identify the stress history, a number of oedometer tests were carried out on
samples of the Glacial till deposits.

22

It has been attempted to correlate the net cone resistance and the estimated pre-consolidation pressure for the Glacial till units. Two main challenges are:

The soil is generally very hard implying that a distinct break down of the structure is
not easy to identify. A possible explanation for this is that trimming the oedometer
specimens in stiff soils will always imply an irregular perimeter. Once loading is ongoing, the specimen will gradually try to establish contact with the oedometer ring
and the higher load the better the contact. In this way the breakdown of the soil is
shaded.
The net cone resistance carries a large scatter with jumps, reflecting stones and variability within the soil formation.

In light of this, no correlation between pre-consolidation and net cone resistance can be
established for the Upper till. However, with regards to the Lower till, an estimate of the
pre-consolidation pressure may be found using the correlation: pc = 0.3qnet. This correlation may be used for all the clay till formations provided that the net cone resistance
does not exceed 8000 kPa.
As reliable values of pre-consolidation pressure are necessary to establish the over-consolidation ratio of the soils, it was difficult to establish meaningful OCRs for the Upper
Glacial till; given the issues previously discussed. However, using the RA derived pc
values, OCRs were found to range between 5.0 and 25.0 for the Upper till and between
2.5 and 13.0 for the Lower till.
To establish a coefficient of earth pressure, incremental loading oedometer tests with
measurements of horizontal stress have been used. Equations to fit the upper and lower
bound test results for both the Upper and the Chalk till are provided in /4/. For the upper
bound results, K0 is approximately 0.42 OCR0.40 and for the lower bound results, K0 is
approximately 0.42 OCR0.28.

23

5.

CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES

5.1

General

A total of 38 No. incremental loading oedometer tests were performed on samples of

Glacial units; comprising of 8 No. tests on samples of Upper till, 5 No. tests on samples
of Chalk till, 20 No. tests on samples of Lower till and 5 No. tests on samples of Lowermost till. These tests were undertaken to determine the following geotechnical parameters:

The constrained oedometer secant modulus, Eoed,sec

The coefficient of consolidation, ck
The compression ratio, Q
The rate of secondary consolidation, C
The rate of secondary swell, Csw

For detailed laboratory procedures and test results for each of the above parameters, see
/12/ and /4/, respectively.

5.2

Laboratory measurements

5.2.1

Constrained oedometer modulus (reloading)

Incremental loading oedometer testing has been carried out on samples of the Glacial
deposits in order to determine reloading values of secant oedometric modulus, Eoed,sec.
The measured secant values of the constrained oedometer modulus are noted in /4/.
A plot of derived values of secant oedometric modulus for samples where the pressure
after unloading is comparable to the in-situ effective stress is presented with depth in
Figure 5-1. For each of the tests shown, the applied vertical stress does not exceed the insitu stress plus 500 kPa.
Eoed,sec [MPa]
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0
10

Depth [m]

20
30
40
50
60
70
Upper Till

Chalk Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 5-1: Oedometric secant modulus against depth below seabed

24

1400

It is apparent from Figure 5-1 that the individual Glacial units can be distinguished from
oedometer secant modulus; which is also shown to increase with depth for each Glacial
unit. Given that the Eoed,sec values vary with increased depth, a summary noting the minimum derived values of Eoed,sec for each Glacial unit, with a stress increase not exceeding
500 kPa from the in-situ stress, is presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Oedometer modulus during reloading from in-situ stress
Stress Increment,
Secant Oedometric
Glacial Unit
Modulus, Eoed,sec [MPa]
[kPa]
Upper till
200
600
Chalk till
200
1114
Lower till
80
83
Lowermost till
200
31

A series of trend lines to predict lower bound values of Eoed,sec for each of the till units has
been determined in /4/. These trend lines predict Eoed,sec values based on the plasticity index
of the soil, provided that the stress after unloading is between 120 kPa and 500 kPa. A
summary of the formula and adjusted parameters used to predict these trend lines is presented in Table 5-2. A discussion and detailed account of these trend lines is contained in
/4/.
Table 5-2: Trend lines for lower bound values of oedometric secant modulus where Eoed,sec =
A + (Bunl) and 120 kPa < unl < 500 kPa
Glacial Unit
Ip [%]
A [kPa]
B
Upper till
< 10
200 103
1000
Chalk till
200 103
500
3
< 10
40 10
750
10 14
20 103
750
Lower till
14 18
0
750
> 18
0
500
Lowermost till
0
250

5.2.2

Constrained oedometer modulus (unloading)

During unloading, it is anticipated that the soil will expand and the constrained modulus
will decrease. Therefore, a single incremental unloading test was undertaken on a sample
of Lower till, from boring 10.A.054 at a depth of 13.54 m, to determine a value of secant
unloading modulus, Eoed,sec. The results of this test, together with the method used for deriving Eoed,sec, is contained within /4/.
Besides being undertaken to determine a value of Eoed,sec, for the Lower till, the unloading
incremental loading test was carried out to investigate the relationship between unloading
and reloading values of secant constrained modulus. To enable this comparison to be
made, an incremental loading test was undertaken on a sample of Lower till, obtained
from the same borehole and at a similar depth, to the unloaded tested sample. The result
of this comparison is illustrated in Figure 5-2, with the stress increments plotted against
the derived values of Eoed,sec. On this figure represents the absolute value of the stress
change from the initial in-situ stress, v0.

25

1400

Eoed,sec [MPa]

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

/'vo
Unloading

Reloading

Figure 5-2: Oedometric secant modulus against stress increments

The relationship between unloading and reloading constrained oedometer modulus was
further investigated by comparing the ratio of Eoed,sec between the two tests. Where the
applied stress increments were different between tests, Eoed,sec values were interpolated
from the Figure 5-2. The result of this comparison is noted in Table 5-3 and shows that
the ratio between the derived values of Eoed,sec. decreases with increasing stress
increments.
Table 5-3: Comparison of oedometer modulus during unloading and reloading
Unloading Eoed,sec
Unloading Eoed,sec
Reloading Eoed,sec
v/
vo
[MPa]
/Reloading Eoed,sec
[MPa]
0.40
58
1198
1/20
0.50
(43)
(1080)
1/25
0.60
(29)
(938)
1/33
0.70
16
(782)
1/50
0.80
14
(627)
1/45
Values interpreted of Eoed,sec shown in brackets

5.2.3

Coefficient of consolidation (loading/unloading)

The laboratory coefficient of consolidation, ck, has been determined from CRS and IL
testing for a number of Upper and Lower till samples. The full results of these tests are
contained within /4/. In summary, the tests concluded ck values ranging between 210-7
and 210-5 m2/sec for the Upper till and between 110-7 and 110-5 m2/sec for the Lower
till.
These laboratory determined values are very low and it is probable that field measurements will show significantly higher values.

26

5.2.4

Compression ratio (loading)

The compression ratio, Q, has been derived either from the stress-strain measurements at
the end of consolidation stage within the incremental loading oedometer tests or from the
stress-strain values in the CRS tests. Details on the method to derive Q from the stressstrain measurements are provided within /4/.
The results of the incremental loading oedometer tests are contained within /4/. A summary of statistical values for the compression ratio of each Glacial unit is presented in
Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Compression ratios for Glacial units
Statistic
Upper till
Chalk till
Arithmetic mean [%]
3.8
Standard deviation [%]
1.4
No. Tests
10
2

Lower till
5.1
1.3
18

Lowermost till
2

To evaluate Q values with depth and Glacial unit, a plot of Q against depth below seabed
is presented in Figure 5-4. This shows that the Q value of each unit is highly variable;
with values in the Upper till ranging between 1.9 and 6.0 % and between 3.1 and 7.1 % in
the Lower till.
Q [%]
0

10

0
10

Depth [m]

20
30
40
50
60
70
Upper Till

Chalk Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 5-4: Compression ratio against depth below seabed

The relationship of Q with measured values of plasticity index, Ip, has been investigated
in /4/ for each Glacial unit and has concluded Q values between various ranges of Ip.
Analysis in /4/ concluded that for Glacial till with an Ip less than 9 % the corresponding Q
value was between 2 and 4 %, and, with an Ip between 10 and 16 % the Q value was between 4 and 7 %. Similarly, samples of Glacial till with an Ip of approximately 38 % were
found to have a Q value in excess of 8 %.

27

5.2.5

Creep properties (reloading)

A number of incremental loading oedometer tests have been carried out on samples of the
Upper, Chalk, Lower and Lowermost till units, with the aim of deriving the rate of secondary consolidation, C. The results of these tests are presented in /4/; together with plots
of normalised effective stress relative to the vertical in-situ stress (/vo) against the rate
of secondary consolidation for different Glacial units and loading and reloading results .
Review of the plots shows no distinction between Glacial units. However, a division is
shown between the loading and reloading data; where maximum C along the initial
loading curve was determined to be 0.26 % per log cycle of time and the maximum C
along the reloading curve was found to be 0.09 % per log cycle of time. In both the loading and reloading testing, the rate of secondary consolidation was found to increase with
increasing effective stress.

5.2.6

Swelling properties (unloading)

On review of the incremental loading oedometer tests carried out on samples of the Glacial deposits, /4/ indicates that Glacial deposits with an Ip less than 20 % have no swell
potential.

5.2.7

Permeability

Although no laboratory tests have been undertaken to specifically determine the coefficient of permeability, k (hydraulic conductivity), this has been determined from CRS and
IL testing; based on the coefficient of consolidation, ck. Review of these results provided
in /4/ has concluded the values of k, presented in Table 5-5, at the vertical effective insitu stress level, 'vo, at reloading.
Table 5-5: Coefficient of permeability of Glacial units at vo at re-loading
Glacial Unit
No. of
Range
Arithmetic mean Standard dev.
results
[1012 m/sec]
[1012 m/sec]
[1012 m/sec]
Upper till
5
3.4 47.9
18.5
19.3
Chalk till
3
2.0 22.3
9.3
11.3
Lower till
7
5.6 55.4
18.3
18.6
Lowermost till
2
2.2 4.1
3.1
1.3

In light of the results from the CRS and IL tests, the reported k values corresponding to
vertical in-situ stress level at reloading, as noted in Table 5-5, would deem each of the
Glacial units as low permeability. The low permeability values result of the low values
of coefficient of consolidation reported in 5.2.3, and field measurements may show significantly higher values.

5.3

Large scale testing

Not applicable.

28

5.4

Conclusions

A number of incremental loading oedometer tests have been undertaken on samples of

the Glacial units in order to determine the constrained secant oedometer modulus, Eoed,sec,
the coefficient of consolidation, ck, the compression ratio, Q, the rate of secondary consolidation C (or s) and the rate of secondary swell, Csw.
It is apparent that the derived values of Eoed,sec are markedly different between Glacial
units and have been shown to increase with depth. The minimum derived values of Eoed,sec,
with a stress increase not exceeding 500 kPa from the in-situ stress, has been shown to be
600 MPa for Upper till, 1114 MPa for Chalk till, 83 MPa for Lower till and 31 MPa for
Lowermost till. It should be noted that /4/ has devised a series of trend lines to predict
lower bound values of Eoed,sec for each Glacial units. These trend lines predict Eoed,sec values
based on the plasticity index of the soil, provided that the unloading stress is between 120
kPa and 500 kPa.
The laboratory coefficient of consolidation, ck, range between 210-7 and 210-5 m2/sec
for the Upper till and between 110-7 and 110-5 m2/sec for the Lower till. These are very
low values and field measurements may show significantly higher values.
The Q values of each Glacial unit were found to be highly variable; with values in the
Upper till ranging between 1.9 and 6.0 % and between 3.1 and 7.1 % in the Lower till.
However, analysis in /4/ has established an approximate relationship between Q and plastic index, Ip. For Glacial till with an Ip less than 9 % the Q value was between 2 and 4 %,
and, with an Ip between 10 and 16 % the Q value was between 4 and 7 %. Similarly,
samples of Glacial till with an Ip of approximately 38 % were found to have a Q value in
excess of 8 %.
Review of the creep properties noted a maximum value of C along the initial loading
curve of 0.26 % per log cycle of time and a maximum value of C along the reloading
curve of 0.09 % per log cycle of time. In both the loading and reloading testing, the rate
of secondary consolidation was found to increase with increasing effective stress.
Ref /4/ indicates that Glacial deposits with an Ip less than 20 % have no swell potential.
The coefficient of permeability, k (hydraulic conductivity), has determined from CRS and
IL testing at the corresponding vertical effective in-situ stress level, 'vo, at reloading.
These tests have concluded average k values ranging from 3.4 to 47.910-12 m/sec for the
Upper till, 2.0 to 22.310-12 m/sec for the Chalk till, 5.6 to 55.410-12 m/sec for the Lower
till and 2.2 to 4.110-12 m/sec for the Lowermost till. Such values would indicate that
these Glacial units have very low permeability.

29

6.

STATIC SHEAR STRENGTH

6.1

Introduction

In order to obtain information to allow the derivation of geotechnical strength parameters

for the Glacial deposits, a total of 27 No. triaxial tests (consisting of 21 No. undrained
compression and 6 No. undrained extension) and 5 No. direct simple shear tests were undertaken on selected samples. A detailed account of the laboratory procedures and test results is discussed in /12/ and /4/ respectively.
A number of laboratory tests (17 No. CAUc, 6 No. CAUe and 4 No. DSSst) were undertaken on samples of Glacial deposits that were recovered from borings drilled within 5 m
of CPTUs. As a result, the geological logs of the boring can be compared to the CPTU
profile and a correlation between the laboratory test results and the CPTU profile made.
By comparing this data, a direct assessment of the strength properties in the Glacial till
deposits can be derived.

6.2

Undrained shear strength, in-situ stress

The undrained shear strength from triaxial and direct simple shear tests, with consolidation stresses corresponding to the in-situ stress of the samples, is presented in Table 6-1.
Lower till triaxial specimens were consolidated to the estimated in-situ stress levels and
then sheared, but Upper till specimens were pre-consolidated to a high stress level approaching the estimated pre-consolidation stress before unloading to the in-situ stress.
All DSS specimens were initially consolidated to a vertical stress level approaching the
estimated pre-consolidation stress before unloading to the in-situ stress
It should be noted that in the undrained triaxial compression tests on specimens of Chalk
till negative pore water pressures developed during the test. The negative pore water
pressures increased as the axial stress increased resulting in the apparent undrained shear
strength of the sample increasing with increasing applied stress. When there is no peak in
the deviator stress due to pore water pressure becoming progressively more negative as
the axial stress is increased undrained shear strengths reported in /4/ is based on the deviator stress at 10% axial strain.
Table 6-1: Triaxial and direct simple shear test results
Depth
Test
vo
Boring
Glacial Unit
[m]
Type
[kN/m2]
09.A.007
6.11
CAUc
Upper till
68
09.A.008 11.10
CAUc
Upper till
130
09.A.012 11.30
CAUc
Upper till
135
09.A.013 11.48
CAUc
Upper till
140
09.A.013 11.58
CAUe
Upper till
140
09.A.009 15.35
CAUc
Chalk till
170
09.A.009 18.17
CAUc
Chalk till
220
10.A.054 15.62
DSSst
Lower till
155
10.A.054 15.67
CAUc
Lower till
155
09.A.003 15.74
CAUc
Lower till
150

30

cuC
[kN/m2]
807
820
924
1224
1204
1788
186
411

cuE
[kN/m2]
418
-

cuDSS
[kN/m2]
208
-

Depth
[m]
15.77
15.82
15.90
15.96
16.54
16.63
16.82
17.32
17.47
17.65
20.38
21.59
42.01
29.42
29.52
29.61

Boring
10.A.054
09.A.605
09.A.605
09.A.003
09.A.003
09.A.003
09.A.003
09.A.605
09.A.605
09.A.605
10.A.054
10.A.057
09.A.013
09.A.605
09.A.605
09.A.605

Test
Type
CAUe
CAUc
CAUc
CAUe
CAUc
CAUe
CAUe
DSSst
DSSst
CAUc
CAUc
DSSst
CAUc
CAUc
CAUe
DSSst

vo
[kN/m2]
155
180
180
150
160
160
160
200
200
200
210
215
540
360
360
360

Glacial Unit
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lowermost till
Lowermost till
Lowermost till

cuC
[kN/m2]
328
326
365
339
677
347
295
-

cuE
[kN/m2]
131
208
359
151
188
-

cuDSS
[kN/m2]
285
203
404
387

A graph of the laboratory determined undrained shear strength results (excluding results
for Chalk till) against depth below seabed from triaxial compression testing is presented
in Figure 6-1. This graph notes the units that comprise the Glacial deposits and highlights
the range of measured values of cuC.
cuc [kN/m 2 ]

Depth [m]

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Upper Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 6-1: Undrained shear strength, cuC against depth

By comparing the borehole logs and laboratory strength test results with the adjacent
CPTU profiles, values of net cone resistance (qnet) corresponding to the sample depths
can be derived. Table 6-2 highlights the undrained shear strength test results from the
laboratory testing, together with interpreted cone resistance. The calculated cone factor
(Nkt= qnet/cu) is also presented.

31

Table 6-2: Triaxial CAUc shear strength results correlated with CPTU data
vo
cuC
qnet
Depth [m] Glacial Unit
Boring
2
[kN/m ] [kN/m2] [kN/m2]
09.A.007
6.11
Upper till
68
807
7490
09.A.008
11.10
Upper till
130
820
8335
09.A.013
11.48
Upper till
140
1224
14000
10.A.054
15.67
Lower till
155
186
3175
09.A.605
15.82
Lower till
180
328
3385
09.A.605
15.90
Lower till
180
326
3385
09.A.605
17.65
Lower till
200
339
3010
10.A.054
20.38
Lower till
210
677
5842
09.A.013
42.01
Lower till
540
347
5705
09.A.605
29.42
Lowermost till
360
295
4510

Nkt
(qnet/cuC)
9.28
10.16
11.44
17.07
10.32
10.38
8.88
8.63
16.44
15.29

Given that most of the correlations between the laboratory strength testing and the CPTU
data is from samples of Upper and Lower till, plots of the net cone resistance against the
undrained shear strength, cuC, for these units are illustrated in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3.
16000
14000

qnet [kN/m 2 ]

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

250

500

750

1000
cu

1250

1500

1750

2000

c [kN/m 2 ]

Figure 6-2: Undrained shear strength against net cone resistance for the Upper till

32

10000

qnet [MN/m 2 ]

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

cuc [kN/m 2 ]

Figure 6-3: Undrained shear strength against net cone resistance for the Lower till

A plot of the cone factor Nkt against depth, distinguishing between Glacial unit is presented in Figure 6-4.
qnet/cuC

Depth [m]

10

15

20

25

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Upper Till

Lower Till

Lowermost Till

Figure 6-4: qnet/cuC (Nkt factor) against depth

As demonstrated within Figure 6-4, the calculated cone factor for each Glacial unit is variable, with no consistent trend observed with depth
In light of the variability of Nkt factors within Glacial units, published literature suggests
that the geometric mean value of the Nkt value may provide an informed estimate of the
cone factor to be used in design /13/. Statistical analysis of the Nkt values for each unit is
provided in Table 6-3.

33

Table 6-3: Cone factor statistics for Glacial units

Nkt
Unit
Unit
Statistic
C
[qnet/cu ]
Upper till
Arithmetic mean
10.3
Chalk till
Geometric mean
10.3
Standard dev.
1.1
Number of tests
3
Lower till
Arithmetic mean
12.0
Lowermost
Geometric mean
11.5
till
Standard dev.
3.8
Number of tests
6

Statistic
Arithmetic mean
Geometric mean
Standard dev.
Number of tests
Arithmetic mean
Geometric mean
Standard dev.
Number of tests

Nkt
[qnet/cuC]
-

2
1

Although there are a limited number of correlated tests the Nkt values for the Upper and
Lower Glacial tills are generally in agreement with published literature /14/.

6.3

Undrained shear strength, SHANSEP

The SHANSEP procedure provides a method of estimating the undrained shear strength
of an over-consolidated clay from the pre-consolidation stress and the in situ vertical
effective stress. Past experience for Danish till /14/ is that the undrained triaxial
compressive strength (cuC) of intact clay till can be estimated using the relationship:
cuC = 0.42 v0 (pc/v0)0.85
Using pc determined from the relationship pc = 0.3 qnet proposed in Section 4.3.2 and
the estimated in-situ vertical effective stress v0, Figure 6-6 shows cuC/v0 for the Upper
till, Lower till and Chalk till plotted against OCR for test results in Table 6-1 which have
corresponding CPTU data.
14,00
12,00

cu/
'v0

10,00
8,00
6,00
Upper Till
4,00

Lower Till

2,00

Chalk Till
Shansep relationship

0,00
0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

OCR = 0.3qnet/
'v0

Figure 6-6: cuC/v0 versus OCR (assuming pc = 0.3 qnet)

34

40,0

The SHANSEP relationship previously proposed for Danish till is also shown on Figure
6-6 for comparative purposes. It can be seen that cuC values for the Upper till and the
Chalk till are higher than predicted by the SHANSEP relationship but the results for the
Lower till lie above and below the SHANSEP line. No obvious explanation can be provided why some of the Lower till results lie below the SHANSEP line, but the test results
that give the lower cuC/v0 values are those that give the higher Nkt values shown on Figure 6-4. This suggests that the measured cuC strength is low in comparison to the qnet
value used to derive the OCR value.

6.4

Undrained shear strength, stresses lower than in-situ

Not applicable. No strength testing has been undertaken on samples of the Glacial deposits where the applied stresses are less than that in-situ.

6.5

Effective shear strength, in-situ

Effective shear strength parameters have been determined from undrained triaxial compression and extension tests with pore water pressure measurements and from drained
triaxial compression tests. All triaxial tests are on test specimens with a height to diameter ratio of 1:1.
The advanced laboratory testing for the Glacial deposits comprised; 10 no. anisotropically consolidated drained compression tests (CADc), 12 No. anisotropically consolidated
undrained compression tests (CAUc), and 3 No. anisotropically consolidated undrained
extension (CAUe) tests.
The specimens were consolidated to the estimated in-situ stress levels before the actual
loading programme is applied. Specimens of Lower till were generally consolidated to insitu stress levels and then sheared but Upper till specimens were pre-consolidated to a
high stress level approaching the estimated pre-consolidation stress before unloading to
the in-situ stress and succeeding shearing. Effective stress paths from undrained tests and
peak stress ratios from drained tests are shown in Enclosures C-23 to C-27. Effective
shear strength parameters have been derived by drawing best fit failure lines to the stress
path envelopes. These are shown on Enclosures C-23 to C-27. The inferred effective
shear strength parameters for the Glacial units are listed in Table 6.4.
A number of the stress paths from undrained tests have been excluded due to no back
pressure being applied or problems with the back pressure (12 No. tests) or wrong test
procedure (one extension test). The cyclic tests are also omitted. Undrained tests where
the pore water pressure has clearly reached a limit governed by the back pressure are only
included for the stress path below the limit because the effective stress includes the pore
pressure value. Also where exceptionally high effective friction angles are indicated by
stress paths from extension the friction angle in extension has been limited to the companion effective friction angle in compression.

35

Table 6-4: Estimates of effective shear strength properties

Compression
Glacial Unit
[]
c [kPa]
No. tests
[]
Upper till
33.4
54
5

Meltwater Sand
37.6
44
3

Chalk till
36.2
99
5

Lower till
36.2
0
8
36.2
Lowermost till
31.3
0
1
31.3

6.6

Extension
c [kPa]

0
0

No. tests

2
1

Anisotropy factors

In order to examine the potential anisotropic influences within the Glacial deposits, the
undrained shear strength in compression, cuC, in extension, cuE and in direct simple shear,
cuDSS, of laboratory tests of samples that were recovered within 0.25 m of one another
within borings, were compared. The findings of this review are presented in Table 6-5
and Table 6-6.
Table 6-5: Comparison of undrained shear strength results for Glacial deposits
Sample
cuC
cuE
Boring
Unit
Depth [m]
2
Range [m]
[kN/m ]
[kN/m2]
09.A.013 Upper till
11.48 11.58
0.10
1224
418
10.A.054 Lower till
15.62 15-77
0.15
186
131
09.A.605 Lower till
15.47 15.71
0.24
519
09.A.605 Lower till
17.32 17.56
0.24
407
09.A.605 Lower till
17.47 17-56
0.09
407
09.A.605 Lowermost 29.48 11-58
0.19
295
188
Table 6-6:
Boring
09.A.013
10.A.054
09.A.605
09.A.605
09.A.605
09.A.605

cuDSS
[kN/m2]
208
123
285
203
387

Comparison of undrained shear strength ratios for Glacial deposits

Unit
Depth [m]
cuC/cuE
cuC/ cuDSS
cuE /cuDSS
Upper till
11.48 11.58
2.93
Lower till
15.62 15-77
1.42
0.89
0.63
Lower till
15.47 15.71
4.22
Lower till
17.32 17.56
1.43
Lower till
17.47 17-56
2.00
Lowermost
29.48 11-58
1.57
0.76
0.49

As shown in Table 6-6, there is a large variation in the ratios between the measured values of undrained shear strength. It is also noted that there is a limited amount of data to
compare for each Glacial unit, making it difficult to distinguish any trends. In order to
visually ascertain any potential relationship between values of undrained shear strength, a
plot of undrained shear strength in compression against undrained shear strength in extension and direct simple shear for the Lower till is shown in Figure 6-7.

36

Triaxial extension (cuE) and Direct Simple

Shear (cuDSS) strength [kPa]

Lower Till
300
250
200
150
CuDSS
100
CuE
50
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Triaxial Compression (cuC) Strength [kPa]

Figure 6-7: Comparison of undrained shear strength results within the Lower till

Because of the limited number of data points, and the large variability in the ratios between measured values of undrained shear strength, there are no obvious trends within
the data. As a result, it is not possible to predict anisotropic factors for individual Glacial
units but it is clear that the tills demonstrate anisotropic behaviour.

6.7

Rate effects

Not applicable.

6.8

Large scale testing

Not applicable.

6.9

Conclusions

A number of laboratory tests were undertaken on samples of Glacial deposits that were
recovered from borings drilled within 5 m of CPTUs. As a result, the geological logs of
the boring can be compared to the CPTU profile and a correlation between the laboratory
strength testing results and the qnet values made.
Despite a high variability in the cone factors calculated for the Glacial units, it is proposed that an Nkt value of 10.0 is adopted when predicting cu on basis of qnet for the Upper
and Chalk tills. For Lower and Lowermost tills, a value of 11.5 is adopted.

37

Danish experience notes that the undrained shear strength of clay till can be related to
pre-consolidation pressure and in situ vertical effective stress using the SHANSEP procedure. The Upper till and Chalk till have higher undrained shear strengths than the tills to
which the SHANSEP procedure has previously been applied. It has been found that when
used with the previous correlation factors, together with pre-consolidation pressures derived from CPT qnet values testing, the SHANSEP procedure underestimates the undrained shear strength of the Upper till but does not provide consistently reliable estimates of
undrained shear strength for the Lower till.
Given the limited number of compression, extension and direct simple shear measurements of undrained shear strength at close proximity to one another, and the large variability in the ratios between those values obtained, it is not possible to predict anisotropic factors for individual Glacial units but indeed the tills behave anisotropic.

38

7.

SMALL STRAIN STIFFNESS AND DAMPING

7.1

Introduction

Small strain testing of the Glacial units proved difficult to implement due to the inherent
high strength and stiffness of these materials. Many of the till specimens were too stiff for
resonant column testing and installing bender elements within these test specimens also
proved to be difficult to achieve. As a consequence, limited testing has been carried out to
obtain small strain stiffness data for the Glacial deposits and to determine how soil stiffness and damping vary with strain. Testing has been limited to specimens of Lower till
and Chalk till; no small strain testing has been undertaken for the Upper till, Lowermost
till and Meltwater deposits. Testing consisted of one resonant column test on a specimen
of Lower till, 3 no. cyclic triaxial tests on Chalk till specimens and 6 no. cyclic triaxial
tests on specimens of Lower till. Details of the test carried out are given in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Tests carried out to derive small strain stiffness data

Boring

Core No.

09.A.009
09.A.009
09.A.009
10.A.057
10.A.057
10.A.057
10.A.061
10.A.061
10.A.061
09.A.013

09-101807
09-101807
09-101807
10-105950
10-105952
10-105952
10-106176
10-106186
10-106186
09-100241

7.2

Specimen
Depth [m]
12.36
12.53
12.70
19.03
19.81
19.98
22.88
23.83
23.99
55.05

Test
Type
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
CAUcy
RC

Unit
Chalk till
Chalk till
Chalk till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till
Lower till

vo
[kPa]
150
150
150
180
180
180
250
250
250
725

Bender
Element

Yes

Yes
Yes

Small strain stiffness

The small strain shear modulus has been determined in the laboratory using bender elements and by resonant column testing. Bender elements were used in two cyclic triaxial
test specimens (CAUcy) and in the test specimen used for resonant column (RC) testing.
Upper bound values of small strain shear modulus (Gmax) determined using bender elements reported in /4/ are summarised in Table 7-2, together with Gmax determined from
resonant column testing. Estimated values of in-situ vertical effective stress (vo) and
final vertical consolidation stress (v) are also provided in Table 7-2. Gmax values vary
between 200 MPa and 500 MPa with Gmax increasing with depth. However, with such a
small data set it is difficult to draw any conclusions about which parameters have the
most effect on the measured values of Gmax.

39

Table 7-2: Gmax measurements in Chalk till and Lower till from bender elements and
resonant column testing
Depth Test
vo
v
Gmax,bender Gmax,RC
Boring
Unit
v /vo
[m]
type
[MPa]
[MPa]
[kPa] [kPa]
Chalk
09.A.009 12.70 CAUcy
150
146
1.0
204
till
Lower
10.A.061 23.83 CAUcy
250
598
2.4
288
till
725
400
0.6
398
401
Lower
09.A.013 55.05 RC
till
725
600
0.8
490
497

Vertical Seismic Profiling (vsp) has been carried out in a number of onshore boreholes to
determine seismic P-wave and S-wave velocities. The small strain shear modulus (G0)
has been determined from S-wave velocities and is reported in /16/ at 1 m depth intervals
over the logged depth. The small strain shear modulus for all field and laboratory tests
(G0 and Gmax) within the Glacial deposits are plotted versus depth on Figure 7-1. The
boreholes from which the specimens used for bender element and resonant column testing were recovered are not the same as those in which vsp logging has been carried out.
Nevertheless, within the same formation unit there is agreement between Gmax values
obtained from laboratory testing and G0 obtained from vsp logging.
G0 values vary between approximately 200 MPa and 600 MPa. The lower values apply
to the Lowermost till and Lower till at depths less than about 15m, while the higher
values were measured in Upper till at depths less than about 15 m. Below 20 m depth the
derived G0 values generally converge to values generally between 300 and 400 MPa.

40

G0 and Gmax (MPa)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

10

Depth (m)

20

30

40
Lowermost Till
Meltwater Sand
Lower Till
Upper Till
Lower Till RC
50

Lower Till BE
Chalk Till BE

60

Figure 7-1: Gmax and G0 values for the Glacial deposits determined using bender elements
and downhole vsp logging

Table 7-3 shows Gmax/qnet obtained using bender element and resonant column Gmax
values for the Lower till and qnet (the net cone resistance) from the adjacent CPTU at the
corresponding depth. The data shows the Lower till at 24 m depth has a Gmax/qnet ratio of
17 but at 55 m depth the Gmax/qnet ratio in the Lower till varies between 80 and 100. There is insufficient data to draw any general conclusions from these results.
Table 7-3: Gmax/qnet ratios using bender element and resonant column Gmax data for Glacial
deposits
Test
Gmax,bender Gmax,RC
Gbender
GRC
Depth
qnet
Boring
type
Unit
/qnet
/qnet
[MPa] [MPa]
[m]
[MPa]
[MPa]
[MPa]
Chalk
09.A.009 12.70 CAUcy
204
No CPT
till
Lower
10.A.061 23.83 CAUcy
288
16.70
17
till
398
401
4.97
80
81
Lower
09.A.013 55.05 RC
till
490
497
4.97
99
100

41

Figure 7-2 shows G0/qnet profiles from boreholes where CPTU testing and vsp logging
was carried out in adjacent boreholes.
The G0/qnet profiles show little difference between the Glacial units to about 20 m depth
but below this depth the range of Gmax/qnet ratio is similar to that determined from the
bender element and resonant column testing.
G0 /qnet and Gmax/qnet
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10

Depth (m)

20

30

40
Lowermost Till
Meltwater Sand
Lower Till
Upper Till
Lower Till RC
50

Lower Till BE

60

Figure 7-2: G0/qnet and Gmax/qnet ratios for Glacial units

Enclosure C-28 summarises Gmax from bender element testing by borehole, depth and
formation and Enclosure C-29 summarises the vsp logging average G0 values for each
formation logged by borehole. Average Gmax/qnet and G0/qnet values are also tabulated.
The variation of shear modulus with shear strain has been investigated by resonant column and cyclic triaxial testing. Results of these tests are provided in /4/ Sections 7 and 9
as plots of shear modulus (G) against cyclic shear strain (). Normalised versions of the
data provided in /4/ are shown on Figures 7-3 and 7-4 where values of G/Gmax are shown
versus cyclic shear strain. For the cyclic triaxial tests the Gmax value used for normalisation is that obtained from bender element results for the relevant specimen and for the
resonant column testing Gmax is taken as the measured value of G at the smallest shear
strain.

42

Bender element testing was only carried on two CAUcy test specimens. Figure 7-3 includes the results for these two tests together with the results from the resonant column test
on Lower till. The three points shown for each test are values after 2, 10 and 50 cycles of
loading.
1
0,9

G/Gmax

0,8
0,7

Lower Till RC

0,6

Lower till CAUcy

0,5

Chalk till CAUcy

0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0,0001

0,001

0,01

0,1

10

Cyclic Shear strain (%)

Figure 7-3: G/Gmax versus cyclic shear strain from Resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests
with bender element measurement of Gmax

Assuming that Gmax measured on one specimen is valid for other specimens from the
same core, or an adjacent core, Figure 7-4 shows normalised plots based on three CAUcy
tests in the Lower till and 3 tests in the Chalk till. This figure indicates that the degradation curve for Chalk till lies below the corresponding curve for Lower till. Additional
testing will be required to verify the degradation properties if cyclic loading is important.
1
0,9

G/Gmax

0,8
0,7

Lower Till RC

0,6

Lower Till CAUcy

0,5

Chalk Till CAUcy

0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0,0001

0,001

0,01

0,1

10

Cyclic Shear strain (%)

Figure 7-4: G/Gmax versus cyclic shear strain from Resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests
using nearest bender element measurement of Gmax

43

7.3

Damping ratios

Damping ratios obtained from resonant column and cyclic triaxial testing are provided in
Sections 7 and 9 of /4/. The damping measurements are shown plotted against shear strain
on Figure 7-5.
The damping ratios determined from the CAUcy tests are high and do not show the expected trend of increasing damping ratio with increasing cyclic shear strain and do not
appear to be consistent with the low ratios determined from the resonant column testing.
No explanation has been found for this unexpected behaviour and these test results should
be treated with caution.

Damping Ratio (%)

35
30

Lower Till RC

25

Lower Till CAUcy

20

Chalk Till CAUcy

15
10
5
0
0,0001

0,001

0,01

0,1

10

Cyclic Shear strain (%)

Figure 7-5: Damping ratios versus shear strain for Chalk till and Lower till

7.4

Conclusions

Small strain testing of the Glacial units proved difficult to achieve due of the inherent
high strength and stiffness of these materials. Because of these constraints a limited
amount of laboratory testing has been completed to provide small strain stiffness data for
the Glacial deposits and to define how soil stiffness and damping vary with strain. Testing has been limited to specimens of Lower till and Chalk till; no small strain testing has
been undertaken for the Upper till, Lowermost till and Meltwater deposits.
The laboratory testing is complemented by small strain stiffness values derived from
downhole logging using Vertical Seismic Profiling within boreholes through the Glacial
deposits.
The test results indicate that small strain stiffness (G0) derived from vsp logging varies
between approximately 200 MPa and 600 MPa. The lower values apply to the Lowermost till and Lower till at depths less than about 15 m, while the higher values were measured in Upper till at depths less than about 15 m. Below 20 m depth the G0 values generally converge to values generally between 300 and 400 MPa.

44

Laboratory testing and downhole logging results indicate Gmax/qnet and G0/qnet ratios in
the range 20 to 100 with no distinct variation between the Glacial units.
Due to the size of the data set firm conclusions on how stiffness and damping vary with
shear strain have not been determined. Normalised plots of G/Gmax follow the expected
S shape profile when stiffness degradation profile is plotted against the log of cyclic
shear strain, but the damping ratio values derived from cyclic triaxial tests appear to be
high and do not show the expected trend of increasing damping ratio with increasing cyclic shear strain.

45

8.

CYCLIC UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

8.1

Introduction

The undrained cyclic shear strength is defined as the sum of the average shear stress, a
and the cyclic shear stress, cy as addressed in /15/. These stress components will depend
on the in-situ stress state of the soil, the type of structure applied and the load scenario
driving the design, e.g. size of load, direction of load, variation of load with time and the
equivalent number of load cycles to be applied.

8.2

Cyclic undrained direct simple shear strength

In order to determine the number of cycles to fail the Lower till with a combination of
average and cyclic shear stresses, six cyclic undrained direct shear tests as constant volume were undertaken on samples recovered from 10.A.057. The results of these tests are
presented in Table 8-1. Details of the test procedures for undertaking the cyclic undrained
direct simple shear strength tests are found in /2/. The full results of these tests are contained in /4/.
Table 8-1: Results of cyclic undrained direct simple shear strength tests on Lower till
Depth
vo
cy
a
No. cycles
Boring
cy/cuDSS a/cuDSS
[m]
[kPa] [kPa] [kPa] to failure
10.A.057
19.19
180
197.8
80
28
0.49
0.20
10.A.057
19.23
180
0
0.00
10.A.057
19.36
180
117.2
235
1
0.29
0.58
10.A.057
21.64
215
175.7
6
141
0.43
0.01
10.A.057
21.75
215
259.7
0
19
0.64
0.00
10.A.057
21.79
215
317.6
0
5
0.79
0.00

The result of a static undrained direct simple shear test, undertaken on a sample from
10.A.057 at 21.59 m, was used to provide a value of cuDSS which could then be used to
determine the ratios of cyclic shear stress against static undrained shear stress and average shear stress against static shear strength. Figure 8-1 shows these ratios plotted against
one another at failure conditions; which is defined as the number of cycles required to
reach 15 % shear strain.

46

1,00

cy/cuDSS [-]

0,80

N=5
N=19

0,60

N=10

N=28
N=141

0,40

N=1
0,20

0,00
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50
a/cu

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

DSS [-]

Figure 8-1: Ratio of average shear stress against cyclic shear stress, relative to static
undrained shear strength, for the Lower till

The blue dashed line represents the envelope of combinations of average and cyclic shear
stress ratios that lead to failure in 10 cycles of loading. If N exceeds 10 in the design, the
undrained cyclic shear strength will be lower and conversely if N < 10.
The N=10 envelope shown on Figure 8-1 is consistent with the results of previous cyclic
testing on clay till reported in /17/.

8.3

Conclusions

To determine the number of cycles required to fail the Lower till with a combination of
average and cyclic shear stresses, i.e. reach 15 % shear strain, six cyclic undrained direct
shear tests as constant volume were undertaken.
Simplified diagrams have been used to assess the undrained cyclic shear strength. Such
methods have indicated that when failure is reached in 10 cycles (N = 10) the undrained
cyclic shear strength equals between approximately 70 % and 100% of the undrained
static shear strength dependant on the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the static
undrained DSS strength..

47

9.
/1/
/2/
/3/
/4/
/5/
/6/
/7/
/8/

/9/

/10/

/11/
/12/
/13/
/14/
/15/
/16/
/17/

REFERENCES
GDR 17.0-001, Boring Campaign 2009, January 2011, prepared by Fugro.
GDR 17.0-003, Boring Campaign 2010, January 2011, prepared by Fugro.
GDR 17.0-002, Seabed CPT Campaign 2009, May 2010, prepared by Fugro.
GDR 18.0-004, Advanced Laboratory Testing, Glacial Deposits, March 2011,
prepared by GEO.
Femern A/S. Geo Information System
Femern A/S. Geo Nomenclature
Terzaghi el al (1996)
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K. and Jefferies, M.G. (1987), Work as a
criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in clay, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Volume 24, p. 549
Casagrande, A. (1936), The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its
practical significance, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Volume 3, Discussion D-34, p. 60,
Boston, June 22 to 26, 1936
Janbu, N. (1969). The resistance concept applied to deformation of soils.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Volume 1, p. 191, Mexico City, August 1969
Akai, K. (1960). Die Strukturellen Eigenschaften von Schluff, Mitteilungen Heft
22, Die Technische Hochschule, Aachen
GDR 18.0-002, Advanced Laboratory Testing, Laboratory Procedures, March
2011, prepared by GEO.
Mortensen, J.K., Hansen, G., Srensen, B., 1991: Correlation of CPT and Field
Vane Tests for Clay tills. Danish Geotechnical Society, Bulletin No. 7.
Srensen, C.S, Steenfelt, J.S., Mortensen, J.K.: Foundations of the East Bridge for
the Storeblt Link. Danish Geotechnical Society, Bulletin No. 11. Vol. 5. 1995.
Andersen, K.H., A. Kleven and D. Heien. Cyclic Soil Data for Design of Gravity
Structures. NGI Publication 175, Oslo, 1988.
GDR 04.0-002, Geophysical Borehole Logging, December 2010, prepared by
Rambll Arup JV
Kleven, A. And Andersen, K.H. Cyclic laboratory tests on Storeblt Clay till.
Proceedings of the 1st Seminar on Design of Exposed Bridge Piers, Copenhagen,
22 January 1991.

48

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.001
09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.014

09.A.015
09.A.015A
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603
09.A.603B
09.A.604
09.A.605

09.A.606
09.A.607
09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.058
10.A.059

10.A.059A
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607
10.A.610
10.A.610A
10.A.610B

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-01
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Plasticity index [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013

09.A.014
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.605
09.A.606

09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
10.A.054
10.A.057
10.A.058
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060

10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.610
10.A.610A
10.A.610B

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Meltwater sand
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-02
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Plasticity index
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012

09.A.013
09.A.014
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.602

09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.058

10.A.059
10.A.059A
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607

wP l

l wL
Water content
Upper till

Encl. C-03a
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content and Atterberg limits
Glacial upper till units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.005
09.A.602
09.A.703
09.A.704

10.A.060
10.A.065
10.A.071

wP l

l wL
Water content
Meltwater silt/clay

Encl. C-03b
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content and Atterberg limits
Glacial meltwater silt/clay units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.704

10.A.054
10.A.057
10.A.059B

wP l

l wL
Water content
Chalk till

Encl. C-03c
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content and Atterberg limits
Glacial chalk till units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013

09.A.014
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.605
09.A.606

09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
10.A.054
10.A.057
10.A.058
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060

10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.610
10.A.610A
10.A.610B

wP l

l wL
Water content
Lower till

Encl. C-03d
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content and Atterberg limits
Glacial lower till units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.004
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603
09.A.603B
09.A.604
09.A.605

09.A.606
09.A.607
09.A.704
10.A.056
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.610A

wP l

l wL
Water content

Lowermost till

Encl. C-03e
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content and Atterberg limits
Glacial lowermost till units
2011-05-01

Liquidity index [-]

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Depth below surface of chalk [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013

09.A.014
09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603

09.A.605
09.A.606
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057

10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607
10.A.610
10.A.610A

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-04
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Liquidity index
Glacial units
2011-05-01

120

CL

CM

CV

CH

Plasticity Index [%]

80

40

OH/MH

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till
CL - ML
ML

0
0

OL/ML

100

200

300

Liquid Limit [%]

Encl. C-05
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Plasticity chart
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Unit weight [kN/m3]

10

15

20

25

30

35

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.014

09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603
09.A.603B
09.A.604
09.A.605

09.A.606
09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.058
10.A.059

10.A.059A
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607
10.A.610
10.A.610A

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-06
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Unit weight
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Void ratio [-]

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.015
09.A.018
09.A.605

10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.058
10.A.059
10.A.059A
10.A.059B
10.A.060

10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.610
10.A.610A

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-07
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Void ratio
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Clay content [%]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.014

09.A.015
09.A.015A
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603
09.A.603B
09.A.604

09.A.605
09.A.606
09.A.607
09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057

10.A.058
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607
10.A.610
10.A.610A

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-08
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Clay content
Glacial unit
2011-05-01

Activity [-]
0

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.004
09.A.005
09.A.006
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.011
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.014

09.A.015
09.A.016
09.A.017
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.602
09.A.602A
09.A.603
09.A.603B
09.A.604
09.A.605

09.A.606
09.A.607
09.A.701
09.A.702
09.A.703
09.A.704
10.A.054
10.A.055
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.058

10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.062
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.071
10.A.607
10.A.610
10.A.610A

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-09
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Activity
Glacial unit
2011-05-01

Carbonate content [%]

0

20

40

60

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.003
09.A.007
09.A.008
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.012
09.A.013
09.A.014
09.A.605

10.A.054
10.A.056
10.A.057
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.060
10.A.061
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.610

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

Encl. C-10
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Carbonate content
Glacial units
2011-05-01

ec
tit
e

(
(
(

Sm

100

80

)
)
)

Upper till
Meltwater silt/clay
Chalk till
Lower till
Lowermost till

20

40

60

60

40

80

20

i
Ill

100

te

100

80

60

40

20

Kaolinite/Chlorite

Encl. C-11
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Clay mineralogy
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Water content [%]

0

20

40

60

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.005
09.A.007
09.A.013
09.A.014
09.A.015
09.A.018
09.A.019
09.A.601
09.A.606
09.A.701

10.A.056
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.061
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
10.A.607
Encl. C-12
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Water content
Glacial meltwater sand unit
2011-05-01

Saturated unit weight [kN/m3]

10

15

20

25

30

35

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.007
09.A.013
09.A.018
09.A.602
09.A.606
09.A.701

10.A.056
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.061
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
Encl. C-13
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Saturated unit weight
Glacial meltwater sand unit
2011-05-01

Void ratio [-]

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Depth [m]

20

40

60

80

09.A.007
09.A.018
10.A.059
10.A.059B
10.A.061
10.A.063
10.A.064
10.A.065
Encl. C-14
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Classification data
Void ratio
Glacial meltwater sand unit
2011-05-01

Net Cone Resistance [MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

10

15

20

25

Depth [m]

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75
09.B.003
09.B.018
10.B.057
10.B.065

09.B.007
09.B.605A
10.B.060

09.B.008
10.B.054
10.B.061

09.B.013
10.B.056
10.B.064

Encl. C-15
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Glacial units
2011-05-01

Net Cone Resistance[MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

Depth [m]

15

20

25

30

35

40
09.B.003

09.B.007

09.B.008

09.B.013

09.B.018

10.B.056

10.B.057

10.B.060

10.B.061

10.B.065

10.B.064

Encl. C-16
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Upper Till
2011-05-01

60

Net Cone Resistance [MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

25

Depth [m]

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70
09.B.007

09.B.013

09.B.018

10.B.061

10.B.065

10.B.064

10.B.056

Encl. C-17
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Glacial Meltwater Deposits
2011-05-01

60

Net Cone Resistance [MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

Depth [m]

15

20

25

30

35

40

09.B.008

10.B.054

10.B.057A

Encl. C-18
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Chalk Till
2011-05-01

60

Net Cone Resistance [MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

25

Depth [m]

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75
09.B.003
09.B.018
10.B.057
10.B.064

09.B.007
09.B.605A
10.B.060

09.B.008
10.B.054
10.B.061

09.B.013
10.B.057A
10.B.065

Encl. C-19
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Lower Till
2011-05-01

60

Net Cone Resistance [MN/m2]

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

25

Depth [m]

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

09.B.605A

10.B.056

10.B.060

10.B.061

Encl. C-20
Feharmbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Lowermost Till
2011-05-01

60

Net cone resistance, qnet [MPa]

10.B.055
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10.B.056
10.B.057
10.B.058

10.B.059
10.B.060
10.B.061

10

10.B.062
10.B.063
10.B.064

15

10.B.065
10.B.071
09.B.003

Depth [m]

20

09.B.004
09.B.006
09.B.007

25

09.B.008
09.B.010

30

09.B.013
09.B.015
09.B.017

35

09.B.018
09.B.019A
09.B.602B

40

09.B.602C
09.B.602D
09.B.602E

45

09.B.701A
09.B.702A

50

Encl. C-21
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Glacial upper till
2011-05-01

Net cone resistance, qnet [MPa]

0
0

10

20

Depth [m]

30

40

50

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

60

10.B.054
10.B.055
10.B.056
10.B.057
10.B.059
10.B.059B
10.B.059C
10.B.060
10.B.061
10.B.062
10.B.063
10.B.064
10.B.065
10.B.071
10.B.610
09.B.003
09.B.004
09.B.006
09.B.007
09.B.008
09.B.010
09.B.013
09.B.015
09.B.017
09.B.018
09.B.019A
09.B.601C
09.B.601D
09.B.602B
09.B.602C
09.B.602D
09.B.602E
09.B.602F
09.B.603A
09.B.603B
09.B.603C
09.B.603DE
09.B.604A
09.B.605A
09.B.606G
09.B.607A
09.B.607B
09.B.607C
09.B.701A
09.B.702A

80

Encl. C-22
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Net cone resistance
Glacial lowermost, lower and chalk till
2011-05-01

Effective shear stress [kPa]

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Average effective stress [kPa]

Drained tests:
09.A.007_CADc_09-100734_14_21
09.A.007_CADc_09-100734_27_34
09.A.012_CADc_09-100567_27_34
Undrained tests:
09.A.007_CAUc_09-100734_01_08
09.A.008_CAUc_09-100418_20_27
--- Shear compressional failure line:
' 33.4
c' 54 kPa

Encl. C-23
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Laboratory data
Effective stress paths
Glacial upper till unit
2011-05-01

1750

1500

Effective shear stress [kPa]

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Average effective stress [kPa]

Drained tests:
09.A.018_CADc_09-100040_41_48
09.A.018_CADc_09-100040_52_59
Undrained tests:
09.A.018_CAUc_09-1000420_62_69
--- Shear compressional failure line:
' 37.6
c' 44 kPa

Encl. C-24
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Laboratory data
Effective stress paths
Glacial meltwater sand unit
2011-05-01

2500

Effective shear stress [kPa]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Average effective stress [kPa]

Drained tests:
09.A.009_CADc_09-101802_12_19
09.A.009_CADc_09-101802_22_29
Undrained tests:
09.A.008_CAUc_09-100452_22_29
09.A.008_CAUc_09-100452_32_39
09.A.009_CAUc_09-101802_02_09
--- Shear failure line:
' 36.2
c' 99 kPa

Encl. C-25
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Laboratory data
Effective stress paths
Glacial chalk till unit
2011-05-01

Effective shear stress [kPa]

1000

500

-500
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Average effective stress [kPa]

Drained tests:
09.A.013_CADc_09-100272_31_38
10.A.054_CADc_10-105406_07_14
10.A.054_CADc_10-105406_17_24
Undrained tests:
09.A.003_CAUe_09-101868_32_39
09.A.013_CAUc_09-100272_41_48
10.A.054_CAUc_10-105426_07_14
10.A.054_CAUe_10-105426_17_24
10.A.054_CAUc_10-105399_03_10
10.A.057_CAUc_10-105950_42_49
10.A.061_CAUc_10-106162_34_41

--- Shear compressional failure line:

' 36.2
c' 0 kPa
--- Shear extensional failure line:
'
36.2
c' 0 kPa

Encl. C-26
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Laboratory data
Effective stress paths
Glacial lower till unit
2011-05-01

500

Effective shear stress [kPa]

250

-250

-500
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Average effective stress [kPa]

Undrained tests:
09.A.605A_CAUc_09-102005_02_09
09.A.605_CAUe_09-102005_12_19
--- Shear compressional failure line:
' 31.3
c' 0 kPa
--- Shear extensional failure line:
'
31.3
c' 0 kPa

Encl. C-27
Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link
Laboratory data
Effective stress paths
Glacial lowermost till unit
2011-05-01

Data on Gmax determined from bender element testing

Gmax from bender element [MPa]
Depth [m]

Upper Till Meltwater sand Meltwater clay

Lower
Till

Lowermost
Till

Chalk Till

11,3
09.A.001

32,4
38,8

09.A.002
09.A.003
09.A.009
09.A.010
09.A.013

16,1
16,3
46,02
12,70
20,85
55,05

398

55,05

490

10.A.052

43,59

10.A.054

30,17

10.A.055

46,07

10.A.056
10.A.058

204

20,71

40,77
39,11
39,27

10.A.061

23,83

10.A.610

34,06

288

Gmax/qnet using G from bender element

Depth [m]

Upper Till Meltwater sand Meltwater clay

Lower
Till

Lowermost
Till

Chalk Till

11,3
09.A.001

32,4
38,8

09.A.002

16,1
16,3

09.A.003

46,02

09.A.009

12,70

09.A.010
09.A.013

20,85
55,05
55,05

10.A.052

43,59

10.A.054

30,17

10.A.055

46,07

10.A.056

40,77

10.A.058

No CPT data

20,71
80 (81)[1]
[1]
99 (100)

39,11
39,27

10.A.061

23,83

10.A.610

34,06

[1]

17

Numbers in brackets are values of Gmax determined from

resonant column testing

Data on G0 determined from vsp logging

G0 from vsp logging [MPa]
Upper Till

Meltwater
sand

Meltwater
clay

196

197

Lower
Till

Lowermost
Till
149

09.A.602

70
193
305

09.A.603

108

09.A.604
277

09.A.605

343
217

09.A.606

462
436

599

09.A.701

502

315

380
393

09.A.703

403

G0/qnet from vsp logging

Upper Till

Meltwater
sand

Meltwater
clay

42

20

Lower
Till

Lowermost
Till
38

09.A.602

17
12
73

09.A.603

109

09.A.604
46

09.A.605

58
16

09.A.606

74
60

38

09.A.701

47

40

68
No CPT data

09.A.703
Note:

Values reported are average values for each

continuous section of the relevant Glacial unit