Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 149
October 2001 Issue 4
Pages 1±14
Paper 13008
Received 00/00/0000
Accepted 00/00/0000
Keywords: geotechnical N. Al-Shayea S. Abduljauwad R. Bashir H. Al-Ghamedy I. Asi
engineering/mathematical Associate Professor, Department Professor, Department of Civil Research Assistant, Department Associate Professor, Department Associate Professor, Department
modelling/strength & testing of of Civil Engineering, King Fahd Engineering, King Fahd University of Civil Engineering, King Fahd of Civil Engineering, King Fahd of Civil Engineering, King Fahd
materials University of Petroleum & of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi University of Petroleum & University of Petroleum & University of Petroleum &
Minerals, Saudi Arabia Arabia Minerals, Saudi Arabia Minerals, Saudi Arabia Minerals, Saudi Arabia
FS
N. Al-Shayea, S. Abduljauwad, R. Bashir, H. Al-Ghamedy and I. Asi
FS
material behaviour. These include models based on the form
functional representation of one or more observed stress±strain
and volumetric response curves. Hyperbolic representation has
å
been used for static and quasi-static behaviour, and can ó1 ó3
1 1 å
provide a satisfactory prediction of load±displacement
5
Ei (ó 1 ó 3 )u
behaviour under monotonic loading.
2. BACKGROUND
OO
A brief overview of the hyperbolic model for soil is presented.
2 Rf
(ó 1
(ó 1
ó 3 )f
ó 3 )u
(σ1 σ3)f A
isotropic linear-elastic stress±strain relationships but with the Hyperbola
elastic parameters varied according to the stress state. A 1
tangent, rather than secant, formulation is used for Young's Ei
modulus, making this model particularly suitable for Actual
incremental simulation.
12 11
Selig extended the above model of Duncan et al. by using
the same Young's modulus formulation but with an alternative
bulk modulus having a hyperbolic formulationÐthat is, a
tangent bulk modulusÐwhich is a function of the mean normal Axial strain, ε
stress state. It was found to represent hydrostatic compression
better than the power law form proposed by Duncan and
5 Fig. 1. Comparison of typical stress±strain curve with
Chang. The hyperbolic form was also found capable of hyperbola
representing uniaxial (uncon®ned) and triaxial compression.
FS
which is used to non-dimensionalise the parameters K and n. 1 (åvol =åu )
The parameters K and n can be determined from a logarithmic
plot of Ei =Pa against ó 3 =Pa . Because specimens in the present
study were drained and not saturated, the stress ó 3 can be where Bi is the initial tangent bulk modulus, and åu is the
taken as total or effective. ultimate volumetric strain at large stress.
The failure deviator stress is a function of the con®ning stress, The tangent bulk modulus, Bt , is determined by differentiating
ó 3 . The Mohr±Coulomb failure envelope is represented for equation (9) and substituting åvol also from equation (9). The
simplicity by a straight line with a slope ö and an intercept C. result is Selig's bulk modulus expression:
The failure envelope is expressed mathematically by
óm 2
2C cos ö 2ó 3 sin ö 10 Bt Bi 1
(ó 1 ó 3 )f Bi åu
5
1 sin ö
where C is the cohesion of the soil, and ö is the angle of To determine the parameters Bi and åu , the hydrostatic test
13
internal friction. data are plotted in a linearised hyperbolic form. Yang and
OO
The actual envelope is often curved. Thus either the best-®t
straight line can be used, or ö may be varied with ó 3 . The
latter case was used in this investigation, and ö is represented
by
14
Lin have shown that the hyperbolic formulation for the
tangent bulk modulus, equation (10), represents soil behaviour
in a hydrostatic compression test better than the formulation
proposed by Duncan et al.
11
where Äó m is the change in mean stress, and Äåvol is the 4. SITE SELECTION FOR SOIL MATERIALS
change in volumetric strain. Because this research was supported by the pipeline industry,
sampling sites were selected in areas where a pipeline network
11
Duncan et al. proposed a formulation for B based on data encountered a speci®c soil type in the Eastern Province of
from triaxial tests. An alternative method for obtaining the Saudi Arabia. Emphasis was placed on the surface geology of
bulk modulus is from a hydrostatic (isotropic) compression test. the area to determine the types of natural soil associated with
In this test, the soil specimen is compressed under an local pipeline networks, by combining geological maps with
increasing con®ning pressure applied equally in all directions. pipeline network maps. Three different types of soil were
According to equation (8), the tangent bulk modulus, Bt , is the considered: sand, marl, and sabkha. The geological
12
slope of the hydrostatic stress±strain curve. Selig observed distributions of these soils in the area have been studied by
FS
Neogene formation Umm Er Radhuma formation the ®eld using a nuclear
gauge, at depths of 5, 10, 20
Hofuf formation Rus formation
and 30 cm below the ground
surface. Extensive laboratory
Collection sites: S Sand M Marl C Sabkha testing took place in order to
characterise all three different
soil materials.
50°00E
51°00E
48°00E
49°00E
28° 5. EXPERIMENTAL
Saffaniyah PROGRAMME
FS
compactions (RC) of 81´4% and 92´8% respectively. For the according to ASTM D 3080. Tests were made at the very slow
marl, these conditions are labelled as low density and high rate of loading of 0´048 mm=min. For the marl and sabkha, the
density respectively. The marl samples were prepared with a conventional apparatus was modi®ed to allow for a large
water content equal to the optimum moisture content. The horizontal displacement, up to 26 mm instead of only 6 mm for
sabkha soil was tested at two different dry densities of 1´64 and the standard set-up.
1´86 g=cm3 , corresponding to relative compactions of 85´2%
and 96´8% respectively. For the sabkha, these conditions are 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
labelled as low density and high density respectively. As the
sabkha samples were collected from a location below the 6.1. Physical properties
groundwater table, they were prepared with a water content Particle size distribution (PSD) curves for all samples are shown
equal to the optimum moisture content corresponding to the in Fig. 3. The coef®cients of uniformity, C u , for the sand and
respective density from the compaction curve. Table 1 provides marl are 1´744 and 3´285 respectively. The coef®cients of
a summary of the properties of the tested soils. curvature, C c , for the sand and marl are 0´924 and 0´992
respectively. The sand was classi®ed as SP (poorly graded sand)
The three soil types at the densities stated above were subjected according to the Uni®ed Soil Classi®cation System, whereas the
to the following tests. marl was classi®ed as SP (gravelly sand with ®nes). The ®ne
fraction of the marl was found to be non-plastic. For the
OO
5´2´1. Triaxial tests. A set of at least four unconsolidated
drained (UD) triaxial compression tests were conducted for
each soil type at loose (low density) and dense (high density)
conditions. These tests were done at con®ning pressures of 100,
200, 300 and 1000 kPa. Measurements included axial strain,
sabkha, the 15% coarser than sieve # 200 was visually
inspected and found to contain ®ne sand and remains of
marine organisms. The clay fraction (, 2 ìm) was about 50%.
# 200
# 140
# 100
# 60
# 40
# 30
# 20
# 10
performed at the very slow rate of loading of 0´0466 mm=min.
#4
Samples were loaded on the testing apparatus to a very high 100
strain level, up to about 50%. Each test took about one day.
80
5´2´2. Hydrostatic (isotropic) compression tests. One test was
Percentage passing
conducted for each soil type at loose (low density) and dense 60
(high density) conditions at con®ning pressures of 25, 50, 100,
200, 400 and 1200 kPa. The volume change and con®ning
40
pressure were measured. This test is an isotropic compression
test, which is similar to the triaxial test, but without applying Sand
any deviator stress, and with the con®ning pressure being 20 Marl
increased in stages for each specimen. Each stage of con®ning Sabkha (sieve)
Sabkha (hydrometer)
pressure was maintained for about one day for the volume 0
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
PR
change to reach a stable value. The triaxial cell used for these Grain size: mm
tests was calibrated in order to indicate the cell expansion
following the application of pressure. A solid steel cylinder
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curve for the sand, marl and
with a volume equal to that of the soil sample was used in this sabkha tested
calibration.
FS
The maximum and minimum densities (rmax and rmin ) obtained sand. Similar results were obtained for the high-density sand.
in the laboratory for the sand were found to be 1´787 and The dense sand fails at a much lower strain and at a much
1´515 g=cm3 respectively. The in-situ density (rfield ), as higher deviator stress than loose sand. Also, the dense sand
measured by the nuclear gauge, was found to be 1´641, 1´667, exhibits a smaller reduction in volume initially, and greater
1´690 and 1´712 g=cm3 at depths of 5, 10, 20 and 30 cm expansion at higher strain levels, compared with the loose
respectively. The relative densities, Dr , of the loose and dense sand. By increasing the con®ning pressure, the deviator stress
sands were 30% and 80%, respectively. Therefore the sand increases and the volumetric strain decreases. This behaviour is
28
samples were prepared for loose and dense conditions at dry similar to that reported in the literature.
densities of 1´587 and 1´725 g=cm3 respectively. These limits
cover the range of in-situ results of the densities found in the For the low-density sand (Dr 30%), and by using the Mohr±
®eld. Coulomb failure criterion, the Mohr circles and the Coulomb
failure envelope were drawn in Fig. 6. For this sand, the
The compaction curve of the marl from the modi®ed Proctor cohesion, C, was zero, and the angle of internal friction, öo ,
test (ASTM Standard D 1557) is shown in Fig. 4, which gives a was taken as the slope of the tangent of the ®rst three circles,
maximum dry density (rd,max ) of 2´022 g=cm3 and an optimum and found to be 38´308. The reduction in the angle of internal
moisture content, wopt , of 9´1%. Fig. 4 also shows the friction, Äö, was taken to be the difference between the slope
compaction curves of the sabkha from the modi®ed Proctor of the tangents of Mohr circles at con®ning pressures, ó 3 , of
OO
test, which gave rd,max as 1´925 g=cm3 and wopt as 13´55%. The
optimum moisture contents for marl at low density
(rd 1:64 g=cm3 ) and at high density (rd 1:86 g=cm3 ) are
100 and 1000 kPa, and found to be 3´168.
2500
1.95
1000
Dry density: g/cm3
1.90 500
1.85 0
2.6
0 5 10 15
1.80 2.0
Volumetric strain, %
1.4
1.75
0.8
0.2
1.70
0.4
1.65 1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15
Moisture content: % Axial strain: %
Fig. 4. Compaction curves for the marl and sabkha Fig. 5. Results of triaxial tests on the sand at low density
FS
φo 38.30°
∆φ 3.316°
Shear stress: kPa
2500
or
2000
Ei ó3
12 log10 log10 (K) n log10
1500 Pa Pa
1000
0.000 20
OO
Confining pressure
100 kPa
given in Table 3. These parameters are comparable to those
reported in the literature for similar soils.
12
FS
200 687´8 1´319 7´512 0´758 1´331 0´907
300 961´0 0´947 5´521 1´056 1´811 0´910
2
n 6´3´1. Soil parameters. Soil parameters were obtained from
hydrostatic (isotropic compression) tests performed on the
1000
9 various types of soil (sand, marl and sabkha) for both loose and
8
7
6
5
4
K
OO dense conditions. The results of the hydrostatic compression
tests for all three soil types are presented in Figs 12, 14, 15 and
16 in terms of con®ning pressure, ó m , against volumetric
3 strain, åvol . The volumetric strain was corrected to account for
2
the expansion of the chamber upon applying the pressure. This
expansion was considered as part of the calibration of the cells
used for the hydrostatic compression tests.
100
5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
1 10 Figure 12 presents the results of hydrostatic tests performed on
Confining pressure, σ3/Pa
the sand at low and high densities, in terms of hydrostatic
stress, ó m , against volumetric strain, åvol . The loose sand
Fig. 8. Determination of model parameters K and n for sand at experienced more volumetric strain than the dense sand,
low density especially at low values of hydrostatic stress. As the test
progressed, the loose sand started to densify and the rate of
reduction in volume reduced. The plot of ó m =åvol against ó m
that the soil parameters (K, n and Rf ) were determined based on for the low-density sand is shown in Fig. 13. Equation (9) can
the results of triaxial tests at ó 3 100, 200 and 300 kPa only; be written as
the experimental results for ó 3 1000 kPa were not included
in the determination of these parameters. This was done to óm 1
adhere to the standard procedure, and to avoid contaminating 14 Bi ó m
åvol åu
PR
FS
density sabkha experienced
2500
more volumetric strain
reduction than the high-
Back-prediction density sample because of the
amount of water lost during
2000 Experimental curve
consolidation. Water was
observed emerging from the
Confining pressure
sabkha soil samples during
σ1 σ3: kPa
0
OO under hydrostatic stress
conditions. The predicted
behaviour for each soil type
is compared with the actual
curve obtained from the
0 5 10 15 experimental tests. The
Axial strain: %
hyperbolic form, given in
(a)
equation (9), was used to
5000
back-predict the behaviour of
soils during hydrostatic
4500 loading.
Figure 14 presents
4000
comparisons between the
experimental and back-
3500 predicted ó m ±åvol curves for
the low- and high-density
3000
Confining pressure sand. Similar results were
σ3 100 kPa obtained for the marl at low
σ1 σ3: kPa
2500
σ3 300 kPa
Back-prediction and for the sabkha (Fig. 16).
Experimental curve The experimental and back-
σ3 1000 kPa
2000 predicted curves are in very
close agreement.
1500
6.4. Results of direct shear
tests
1000 The results of the direct shear
tests for all soil types are
500 presented in terms of shear
stress and normal
displacement against
0
horizontal displacement.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain: %
Figure 17 presents the results
(b)
of direct shear tests on the
low-density sand. Similar
results were obtained and
Fig. 9. Back-prediction of behaviour of sand under triaxial compression, at: (a) low density; (b)
high density analysed for the high-density
sand, the marl and the
FS
compression is less, than for
loose sand. The shear stress,
2000
ô, is taken as the value of ô at
the peak of the shear stress±
Confining pressure displacement curve, provided
σ3 100 kPa that peak occurs at a
horizontal displacement of
1500 σ3 200 kPa
Ä H less than 6 mm (which
σ1 σ3: kPa
σ3 300 kPa
corresponds to a shear strain
σ3 1000 kPa
of about 10%). In the cases
where the peak in the shear
1000 stress±displacement curve is
not evident, or where it
occurs at Ä H . 6 mm, the
value of ô is taken to be that
of Ä H 6 mm. The shear
500 stress, ô, of the loose sand is
OO plotted against normal stress,
ó n , plotted in Fig. 18, from
which C 0, öo 41:48 and
Äö 2:058.
0
2500
Confining pressure
The results of direct shear
tests were obtained for the
σ3 100 kPa
σ1 σ3: kPa
FS
2500
σ3 300 kPa
as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
The values of these
σ3 1000 kPa
parameters are comparable to
the range of values reported
2000 in the literature for similar
soils. Using the obtained
parameters, the models were
σ1 σ3: kPa
0
OO Other soil materials require
the determination of their
parameters prior to using the
hyperbolic model.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Axial strain: % For the results from triaxial
compression tests with a
Fig. 11. Back-prediction of behaviour of sabkha under triaxial compression at high density sharp peak of the stress±
strain diagram, it is important
1200 50000
Low density
High density
1000
40000
800
30000
σm: kPa
σm/εvol
600
PR
1/εu
20000
400 1
10000
200
Bi
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0 200 400 600 800 1000
εvol σm: kPa
Fig. 12. Results of hydrostatic compression tests on sand Fig. 13. Determination of Bi and åu for sand at low density
7. CONCLUSIONS to note that the hyperbolic model is not valid beyond the peak.
Three soil types from eastern Saudi Arabia were extensively This is because the hyperbola cannot capture the post-peak
characterised for the analysis of soil-interaction problems using strain softening behaviour. The peak value is considered to be
the non-linear ®nite element method. The hyperbolic models the failure value, beyond which the soil sample is generally not
for tangent Young's and bulk moduli were calibrated by of interest in non-linear elastic problems. For soil with a ¯at
FS
800 800
σm: kPa
σm: kPa
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
εvol εvol
(a) (a)
1200 1200
Experimental curve Experimental curve
1000
800
OO
Back-prediction
1000
800
Back-prediction
σm: kPa
σm: kPa
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
εvol εvol
(b) (b)
Fig. 14. Back-prediction of behaviour of sand under Fig. 15. Back-prediction of behaviour of marl under
hydrostatic compression, at: (a) low density; (b) high density hydrostatic compression, at: (a) low density; (b) high density
PR
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
peak, the model can predict the soil behaviour up to extremely The authors acknowledge the support of King Fahd University
large strains. This shows the ability of this model to simulate of Petroleum and Minerals in general, and the Civil
excessive deformation of low-density soils. Engineering Department and the Research Institute in
particular, for providing computing, laboratory and editing
At high con®ning pressure (1000 kPa), the triaxial results were facilities. They would also like to acknowledge Saudi-ARAMCO
FS
600 600
σm: kPa
σm: kPa
400 400
200 200
0 0
0.000 0.040 0.080 0.120 0.160 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060
εvol εvol
(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Back-prediction of behaviour of sabkha under hydrostatic compression, at: (a) low density; (b) high density
900
OO
Normal pressure
1000
φ
800 100 kPa φ ∆φ
200 kPa
700
300 kPa 800
1000 kPa
Shear stress: kPa
600
500 φ 39.35
Shear stress: kPa
400 600
φ 41.40
300
200
400
100
0
0 1 2 3
Normal displacement: mm
200
0.20
0
0.05 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
PR
0.10 Fig. 18. Shear stress vs. normal stress for sand at low density
0 1 2 3
Horizontal displacement: mm
REFERENCES
Soil C: kPa öo : deg Äö: deg 1. COON M. D. and EVANS R. J. Recoverable deformation of
cohesionless soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Sand (low density) 0´00 41´40 2´05 Foundations Division, ASCE, 1971, 97, No. SM2, 375±391.
Sand (high density) 0´00 52´04 5´64 2. COROTIS R. B., FARZIN M. H. and KRIZEK R. J. Non-linear
Marl (low density) 4´19 32´1 0´00
stress±strain formulation for soils. Journal of the
Marl (high density) 43´69 38´58 4´12
Sabkha (low density) 42´29 36´78 0´65 Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1974, 10, No.
Sabkha (high density) 53´84 42´52 4´71 GT9, 993±1008.
3. KO H.-Y. and MASSON R. M. Nonlinear characterization and
Table 5. Soil parameters obtained from direct shear tests analysis of sand. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 1976.
FS
Foundations Division, ASCE, 1970, 96, No. SM5, from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Quarterly
1629±1653. Journal of Engineering Geology, 1994, 27, 333±351.
6. WONG K. S. and DUNCAN J. M. Hyperbolic Stress±Strain 18. ABDULJAUWAD S. N. and AL-AMOUDI O. S. B. Geotechnical
Parameters for Non-linear Finite Element Analyses of behaviour of saline sabkha soils. GeÂotechnique, 1995, 45,
Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses. Department of No. 3, 425±445.
Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, 19. AZAM S., AL-ABDULJAUWAD S. N., AL-SHAYEA N. A. and
Report No. TE-74-3 to National Science Foundation. AL-AMOUDI O. S. B. Expansive characteristics of
7. KONDNER R. L. (1963), Hyperbolic stress±strain response: gypsiferous/anhydritic soil formations. Engineering Geology
cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Journal, 1998, 51, No. 2, 89±107.
Foundations Division, ASCE, 1963, 89, No. SM1, 115±143. 20. ABDULJAUWAD S. N., AL-SULAIMANI G. J., BASUNBUL I. A. and
8. KONDNER R. L. and ZELASKO J. S. A hyperbolic stress±strain AL-BURAIM I. Laboratory and ®eld studies of response of
formulation of sands. Proceedings of the 2nd Pan- structures to heave of expansive clay. GeÂotechnique, 1998,
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation 48, No. 1, 103±121.
Engineering, Brazil, 1963, 1, 289. 21. AL-SHAYEA N. A. Inherent heterogeneity of sediments in
9. HANSEN J. B. Discussion of `Hyperbolic stress±strain Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: a case study. Engineering Geology
response: cohesive soils' by R. L. Kondner. Journal of the Journal, 2000, 56, No. 3±4, 305±323.
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1963, 89, 22. AHMAD H. Characterization and Stabilization of Eastern
No. SM4, 241±242.
OO
10. JANBU N. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer
and triaxial test. Proceedings of the European Conference
Saudi Marls. MS thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi
Arabia, 1995.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesbaden, 23. AL-AYEDI E. S. Chemical Stabilization of Al-Qurayyah
1963, Vol. 1, pp. 19±25. Eastern Saudi Sabkha Soil. MEng report, Civil Engineering
11. DUNCAN J. M., BYRNE P., WONG K. S. and MABRY P. Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Strength, Stress±Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Minerals, Saudi Arabia, 1996.
Finite Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil 24. AL-GUNAIYAN K. A. Assessment of the Geotechnical
Masses. University of California, College of Engineering, Properties of Sand-Marl Stabilized Mixtures for
Berkeley, CA, 1980, Report No. UCB/GT/80-01. Constructional Purposes. MS thesis, Civil Engineering
12. SELIG E. T. Soil parameters for design of buried pipelines. Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Proceedings of the Pipeline Infrastructure Conference, Minerals, Saudi Arabia, 1999.
ASCE, 1988, pp. 99±116. 25. ASTM. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and
13. YANG G.-R. Hyperbolic Young's Modulus Parameters for Materials (ASTM) Standards, Vol. 04´08. ASTM,
Compacted Soils. Project Report ACP87-Pe for MS degree, Philadelphia, PA, 1993.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1987. 26. LEE I. K., WHITE W. and INGLES O.G. Geotechnical
14. LIN R.-S. D. Direct Determination of Bulk Modulus of Engineering. Pitman, Boston, MA, 1983.
Partially Saturated Soils. Project Report ACP87±341P for 27. BOWLES J. E. Engineering Properties of Soils and Their
MS degree, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, Measurement, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.
1987. 28. HOLTZ R. D. and KOVACS W. D. An Introduction to
PR
15. POWERS L. F., RAMIREZ L. F., REDMOND C. D. and ELBERG E. L. Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
Jr Geology of the Arabian Peninsula: Sedimentary Geology NJ, 1981.
Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary: email: mary.henderson@ice.org.uk; fax: 44 (0)20 7799 1325;
or post to Mary Henderson, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1±7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.