Low STRAIN DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

OF ARTIFICIALLY CEMENTED SAND

By Yalcin B. Acar, 1 M. ASCE, and El-Tahir A. El-Tahir 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Torsional resonant column tests are conducted to study the effect
of artificial cementation on low strain dynamic properties of Monterey No. 0
sand. Artificially cemented specimens are prepared using 1,2, and 4% Portland
cement by weight. Specimens were tested after 14 days of curing. It is deter-
mined that maximum shear modulus increased and damping ratio decreased
with an increase in the degree of cementation. The maximum dynamic shear
moduli increased due to corresponding increases in stiffness coefficients. The
stiffness ratio defined as the stiffness of cemented to uncemented specimens
varied with the degree of cementation and density. Dense specimens rendered
higher stiffness ratios. The stiffness ratio was correlated to unconfined com-
pressive strength and the cohesion intercept from CIU tests. Degradation of
modulus ratio with strain ratio depended upon both the degree of cementation
and density. Decay of modulus was more predominant in stiffer specimens.
Cementation led to a decrease in damping ratio at all levels of strain.

INTRODUCTION

An understanding of the effect of low to moderate degrees of cemen-

tation on static and dynamic strength-deformation behavior of sands is
becoming increasingly important in design and analysis in geotechnical
engineering. Mitchell a n d Solymar (21) presented n e w evidence s u p -
porting previous observations (6,11,18) illustrating time-dependent stiff-
ness and strength increases in sands. The writers suggest that cemen-
tation at interparticle contact points m a y be a major factor leading to
this strength gain. It was noted that reconstituted samples m a y yield
significantly lower strength and m o d u l u s values than undisturbed de-
posits. Previous studies comparing in situ a n d laboratory determined
low strain dynamic properties of sands further justify this conclusion
(5,12,28,29).
Large strain static and dynamic properties of naturally a n d artificially
cemented sands have been studied by different investigators (1,4,14,22-
25,31). Artificially cemented specimens have b e e n used to either develop
a fundamental understanding of the behavior of naturally cemented de-
posits (4,23) or to establish design specifications and analysis criteria in
cement stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand deposits (10). These
pioneering studies indicate that artificially cemented sands simulate the
behavior of naturally cemented sands (23).
Low strain dynamic properties of cemented sands are essential in seis-
mic site response analysis (27). Analysis disregarding the effect of ce-
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA
70803.
2
Grad. Research Asst., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge,
LA.
Note.—Discussion open until April 1, 1987. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
June 5, 1986. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 11, November, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/86/0011-1001/$01.00. Pa-
per No. 21016.

1001

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 mentation on maximum dynamic shear modulus and damping in sands
may lead to overestimates of the predominant periods, acceleration am-
plitudes, and liquefaction susceptibility. The purpose of this study is to
investigate the low strain dynamic properties of weakly cemented Mon-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

terey No. 0 sand and assess the development of dynamic shear modulus
and damping ratio with artificial cementation.

TESTING PROGRAM

A total of 26 uncemented and 54 artificially cemented specimens of

Monterey No. 0/30 sand were tested for low strain dynamic properties.
Unconfined compressive strength tests were also conducted. Artificially
cemented specimens were prepared using 1, 2 and 4% Portland cement
by weight. Table 1 presents a summary of the testing program.
Equipment.—The resonant column equipment at LSU uses cylindrical
specimens fixed at the base. Longitudinal or torsional excitation is ap-
plied to the top. However, only torsional mode was used in this study.
The characteristics of this equipment have been described elsewhere (8).
Physical Properties of Monterey No. 0 Sand.—Monterey No. 0 sand
has been used since the 1930's for laboratory determination of static and

TABLE 1.—Summary of Testing Program

Number of Tests
a
Relative density, D r (%) Cementation, C (%) c V If
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
25 0 2 1 —
1 2 3 2
2 2 3 2
4 2 3 2
35 0 2 — —
1 2 — 2
2 2 — 2
4 2 — 2
40 0 2 — —
50 0 2 3 —
1 2 3 2
2 2 3 2
4 2 3 2
60 0 2 5 —
4 — — 2
75 0 2 — —
4 — — 2
80 0 2 3 —
1 2 3 2
2 2 3 2
4 2 3 2
90 4 — — 2
a
Gmax—maximum shear modulus.
b
7—variation of shear modulus with strain.
c
qf—unconfined compressive strength.

1002

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 dynamic behavior of sands. This sand is a clean beach sand with sub-
angular to subrounded particles (2,3,23,26). The production of this sand
was discontinued in 1976 and was replaced by Monterey No. 0/30 sand
(2).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Charlie, et al. (2) demonstrated that slight differences in the maximum

void ratio and the grain size distribution of Monterey No. 0/30 sand may
lead to higher cyclic strengths than No. 0 sand. However, studies by
other investigators show that static and dynamic strength deformation
behavior of Monterey No. 0/30 is within the expected variability for No.
0 (7,23). In order to avoid any difference in daily production, a large
batch of this sand was purchased and thoroughly mixed before use.
Specimen Preparation.—Chung, et al. (3) have showed that the type
of specimen (solid or hollow cylinder) had no significant effect on the
calculated shear moduli and damping ratios of Monterey No. 0 sand.
Therefore, solid cylindrical specimens were used in this study. The spec-
imens had nominal diameter of 36 mm (1.4 in.) and length of 80 mm
(3.2 in.). Uncemented specimens were prepared using air dried sand
and with the tapping method (7,17).
Recent studies led to the development of different procedures for pre-
paring artificially cemented specimens (4,10,23). Specimens with high
degrees of cementation (>4%) are prepared by either tamping (4,23) or
compaction (10), while the pluviation technique is used for specimens
with a loose structure and low degrees of cementation (23). In this study
(13), the latter procedure was adopted with slight revisions.
Cemented specimens were prepared in cylindrical lucite molds of 36.7
± 0.3 mm (1.45 ± 0.01 in.) diameter and 123.4 ± 0.9 mm (4.86 ± 0.1
in.) length with a narrow slit cut along one side. Hose clamps were used
to hold the mold together during specimen preparation. The inner sur-
face of the mold was coated with a silicon base oil to help remove the
specimen after curing. A certain amount of air-dried sand was weighed
and placed in a container. The amount of Portland cement (Type I—II,
low alkali cement) corresponding to a specific degree of cementation was
weighed and placed in a separate container. Approximately 15 g of sand
was then mixed with the cement by shaking. This helped break loose
any small cement clods, if any. An amount of water equivalent to 0.4%
by weight of the sand was added to the sand and was manually mixed
thoroughly with a spatula. The sand cement mixture was then added to
the container with sand and they were manually mixed together. This
premixing operation in the presence of water avoids segregation of ce-
ment and sand particles during pluviation (23). A cylindrical lucite piece
was placed at the top of the mold to retain the excess sand. After plu-
viating the necessary amount of sand-cement mixture, the mold was
tapped along its length to obtain the desired density. The specimen was
then submerged in water in a container and left for curing for 14 days.
Cured specimens were taken out of the mold by unfastening the two
hose clamps and pushing open the longitudinal slit giving way to the
specimen to slide freely out of the mold. The specimens were then
trimmed to a length of approximately 80 mm.
Testing Procedure.—Uncemented specimens were prepared and set
up in the resonant column equipment and were tested dry. Cemented
specimens were saturated using backpressures of 500-600 kPa (72-87
1003

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 psi). An identical testing procedure was followed for both types of spec-
imens.
The top cap and the base pedestal in the resonant column equipment
have eight radial teeth of 12.6 mm (0.5 in.) in length and 1.6 mm (0.06
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in.) in thickness embedded in the porous stones for applying the shear
stress. No provisions were taken to reduce the end restraint introduced
by the friction mobilized between the caps and the specimen. However,
the effect of this end restraint on shear modulus is shown to be negli-
gible (32).
When the specimen was set up in the confining chamber under a pos-
itive confining pressure of 10 kPa (1.5 psi), a low amplitude torsional
shakedown test was conducted to determine the response of the system.
This test also helped detect any specimen disturbance caused during
assembling, by an observation of the LVDT readings that measure changes
in specimen height (3). Subsequent to this test, the procedure varied
according to the purpose of the test. Maximum shear modulus and
damping were determined by applying a torsional excitation force of very
low magnitude. The average shear strain amplitude at this force level
was less than 5 X 10 -3 %. The test was started at the low confining pres-
sure of 10 kPa (1.5 psi) and was repeated at different confining pressures
up to a maximum of 400 kPa (58 psi). Confining pressures of 35, 103,
and 345 (5, 15, and 50 psi), respectively, were chosen to study the vari-
ation of shear modulus and damping as a function of strain amplitude
in cemented specimens. These confining pressures were selected to have
results complementing the large strain static strength parameters pre-
viously reported (23). A specimen subjected to high levels of strain (3-
5 x 10~2%) at any confining stress was not used for any further testing.
The increase due to cementation in the maximum dynamic shear mod-
ulus of lightly cemented specimens may be correlated to the unconfined
compressive strength or the cohesion intercept. Unconfined compressive
strength of cemented specimens was determined at a strain rate of 1.0-
1.5%/hr. This low strain rate level was selected so as to minimize any
capillary stress effects.

STATIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS

The static strength parameters are necessary in order to estimate the

reference strains (16). Static strength parameters of uncemented Mon-
terey No. 0 sand are previously studied by different investigators (9,23,30).
The effect of operator and equipment variability on the behavior of ce-
mented specimens was assessed in order to make use of the results of
a previous study (23) on large strain static behavior of artificially ce-
mented Monterey No. 0/30 sand. Unconfined compressive strength tests
and some CIU tests were used for the purpose.
The strength parameters for uncemented and artificially cemented
Monterey No. 0 sand are presented in Table 2. Rad and Clough (23) used
a pluviation technique to prepare the 1 and 2% cemented specimens,
while they adopted a tamping method (4) for specimens with 4% ce-
mentation. Table 2 indicates that although the unconfined compressive
strength of specimens prepared by pluviation technique agree, speci-
mens prepared with the tamping method yield considerably higher un-
1004

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 TABLE 2.—Strength Parameters for Uneemented and Artificially Cemented Mon-
terey No. 0 Sand
Strength Parameters Unconfined Compressive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cementation Relative (Ref. 23) Strength, q, (kPa)

(%) density (%) c' (kPa) <(>' (degrees) Ref. 23 This study
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 31 0 33 0 0
45 0 35 0 0
77 0 39 0 0
1 25 5 33 7 10
35 7b 34b NA 15
50 9 35 20 19
80 14 38 30 28
2 25 12 34 25 22
b
35 1 7
35" NA 33
50 20 36 42 41
80 30 39 55 54
4 25 NA NA NA 48
35 NA NA NA 51
50 NA NA NA 59
60 123" 29" 203" 63
75 143" 35" 275" 69
80 NA NA NA 71
90 153" 41' 350" 77
"Tamping method was used in specimen preparation.
b
This study.

confined compressive strengths. This might be d u e to possible changes

in the fabric of specimens. It is concluded that specimen preparation can
be a major factor that should be considered in studying the s t r e n g t h /
deformation behavior of artificially cemented sands.
The cohesion intercept, c', a n d friction angle, <(>', presented in Table
2 are determined by a straight line approximation of peak strength values
determined in CIU tests. The confining pressure range was 35-345 kPa
(242-2,380 psi) (23). Cementation leads to an increase in the cohesion
intercept, c', while the peak internal friction angle is not significantly
changed. The correlation between the unconfined compressive strength,
cff, and the cohesion intercept, c', can best be expressed with
<7/=2.1C (1)
Cement stabilized sands have curved failure envelopes (4,20). This im-
plies that the cohesion intercept, c', obtained b y the straight line ap-
proximation of the failure envelope is greater t h a n the " t r u e " cohesion.
Therefore, higher unconfined compressive strengths w o u l d be com-
puted if the strength parameters c' a n d 4>' are used with a straight line
approximation. Unconfined compressive strength reflects the fully m o -
bilized values of cementation a n d frictional components of strength. Eq.
1 indicates that the cohesion intercept, c', is as good a parameter as the
unconfined compressive strength in reflecting the contribution of both
components in weakly cemented specimens.

1005

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 Low STRAIN DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

Uncemented Specimens.—The maximum shear modulus of both

cohesionless and cohesive soils can be evaluated by empirical equations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proposed by different investigators. A comprehensive summary of these

equations and review of literature is presented by Chung, et al. (3). The
maximum shear modulus of sands is given as (15)

Gmax = •£- (P^-to)" (2)

/(e)
where S = stiffness coefficient; /(e) = a function reflecting the effect of
void ratio, e; a0 = mean effective confining stress; Pa = atmospheric pres-
sure in the same units as Gmax and v0; and n = a constant. The maximum
shear modulus was normalized for the effect of density with
/(e) = 0.3 + 0.7e2 (3)
ASTM Subcommittee on Dynamic Properties of Soils initiated a round
robin resonant column testing program to determine the operator and
equipment variability introduced in dynamic shear modulus and damp-
ing testing of Monterey No. 0 sand (7). Comparison of maximum shear
modulus of Monterey No. 0/30 with the results of previous studies in-
dicated that although n values were lower, the data were within the
variability of values reported in the round robin testing program (13).
The 95% confidence limit for n values varied between 0.40-0.45 with a
mean value of 0.43. Consequently, the maximum shear modulus in this
series of tests on Monterey No. 0/30 sand is expressed as

G
~-=sifb (f, - ) " ( '" r (4)
The reference strains are calculated with (16)

7r = -z— (5)
J
max

where Tmax =ffosin 4>' + c' cos 4>' (6)

Variation of shear modulus versus shear strain and modulus ratio,
G/Gmax, versus strain ratio, y/yr, favorably compared with previous
studies. The variation of damping ratio with strains is also determined
to fall within the range of previously reported data (13).

CEMENTED SPECIMENS

Maximum Shear Modulus.—Fig. 1 shows the variation of maximum

shear modulus with confining stress for specimens prepared at a relative
density of 50%. The stiffness coefficients, S, and n values for all speci-
mens are presented in Table 3. It is noted that such low levels of ce-
mentation lead to an increase in stiffness coefficient, S, while the ex-
ponent, n, is within the variability of values presented for uncemented
specimens.
1006

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 1 1 1—i—i—r-rr-| r
Monterey No. O Sand
a. 1000 5
Dr = 5 0 % y d " 15.23 kN/nv
s Cementation %"
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o
s

<
s
50 100 500 1000
CONFINING PRESSURE, <7 0 (kPa)

FIG. 1.—Effect of Cementation on Maximum Dynamic Shear Modulus

TABLE 3.—Stiffness Coefficients and n Values

Relative 95% Confidence

density, Cementation, Stiffness Interval
Dr (%) C (%) coefficient, S Wmean "min "max

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

25 0 621 0.42 0.39 0.45
1 867 0.43 0.40 0.45
2 1,122 0.43 0.41 0.45
4 1,396 0.43 0.40 0.46
35 0 638 0.44 0.42 0.46
1 918 0.43 0.41 0.44
2 1,184 0.42 0.41 0.44
4 1,481 0.42 0.41 0.43
50 0 624 0.43 0.40 0.45
1 1,028 0.42 0.40 0.44
2 1,318 0.42 0.39 0.44
4 1,586 0.43 0.38 0.48
75 0 658 0.41 0.38 0.43
1 1,115 0.42 0.38 0.46
2 1,387 0.42 0.41 0.42
4 1,651 0.41 0.38 0.43

An increase in the confining stress leads to an increase in the number

of particle bonds or flow units (19) contributing to the resistance of the
specimen to deformation. The magnitude of this contribution depends
upon the physical and compositional variables of the load-transmitting
matrix. The indifference of n values to cementation indicates that the
relative contribution to resistance from cement to cement or sand to ce-
ment bonds is insignificant. Therefore, the cementation-induced in-
1007

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 crease in the stiffness coefficient, S, implies that cement particles provide
a confinement effect at sand to sand interfaces.
The equation expressing the maximum dynamic shear modulus of sands
is revised for the effect of cementation as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RELATIVE DENSITY, Dr(%)

100 75 50 25 0
3.0 1 I 1 1 1

2.6

cr ^^ Cementation
o N v ^ C = 4%
- ---o
S
cr
N. \
Ixl * \ ^ C = 2%
Z 1.8
- ~-~®-
s
a. \

- * \ ^ C = l% _
s
• \
r ®min
1 , 1 \
1.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
VOID RATIO, e

FIG. 2.—Effect of Cementation and Density on Stiffness Ratio

20 40 60 80 100
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, q f ( kPa)

FIG. 3.—Correlation of Stiffness Ratio with Unconfined Compressive Strength

1008

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 GC = R- (Pn)°>o)° (7)
0.3 + 0.7e
where Gc = maximum shear modulus including the effect of cementa-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tion; R = stiffness ratio (Sc/S); Sc = stiffness coefficient for cemented

specimens; and S = stiffness coefficient for uncemented specimens (a
mean value of 631 for this series of tests).
Fig. 2 shows the change in stiffness ratio with density and the degree
of cementation. The significant influence of density on stiffness ratio is
demonstrated with this figure. Cemented specimens prepared at higher
densities yield higher stiffness ratios. The variation of stiffness ratio with
the degree of cementation, C, and void ratio, e, is best expressed with

(8)
The stiffness generated due to the confinement effect of the cement

• DEGRESSION LINE - REGRESSION LINE

, = 35kPo , = 35 hPa
, =l03kPo , = 103 hPa
,=345hPo , =345 hPo

STRAIN RATIO, / / / „ ( % )
(a)

- REGRESSION LINE
' = 35 HPo
•0 =103 hPa
; =345kPa

STRAIN RATIO, r/YR (%)

(0

FIG. 4.—Variation of Modulus Ratio with Strain Ratio

1009

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 particles at interparticle contact points is also expected to contribute to
the unconfined compressive strength. Fig. 3 correlates the stiffness coef-
ficient with the unconfined compressive strength. The relation between
the stiffness ratio and the unconfined compressive strength is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R = 0.61qf33 (9)
As the degree of cementation increases and cement particles contribute
more to filling of the voids, the contribution of cementation to torsional
resistance will decrease. However, the corresponding decrease in effec-
tive void ratio will lead to a proportional increase in the contribution of
cementation component to the unconfined compressive strength. As a
consequence the stiffness ratio of weakly cemented specimens is non-
linearly related to the unconfined compressive strength.
Variation of Modulus with Strain.—The variation of modulus ratio,
G/Gmax, with strain ratio, y/yr, can be expressed as (16)

(10)
1 + 7/,

and 7,, = - [1 + ae^'^] (11)

7r

i /
5 0.8

>f
- 4&§C<*> ' -
z
" 0.6
' ! ,7 •

< -
1-
!//
X /
PERBOLIC

x °2 J1 / /-^
*i / s ^
' * * *
MONTEREY No. D SAND
'-
"
-
CEMENTATION 2 %
6^, i i

STRAIN RATIO,y/r, STRAIN RATIO, Y/Y,

(•)

1 1
'/''/ t' y ' ' ' /
I'A /
' / J®/
'! *
' / / # y
y
-\ht y
\V* /
';// / .^f
^
-'/'' / <&* -
MONTEREY No. 0 SAND -
VA^ CEMENTATION " 4 %

STRAIN RATIO, Y/Y,

FIG. 5.—Variation of Hyperbolic Strain with Strain Ratio

1010

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 TABLE 4.—Summary of a and b Values

Relative density, Constant

Type of soil Dr (%) a b
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(D (2) (3) (4)

Clean dry sands (16) all -0.5 0.16
Clays3 (16) all 1.70 1.30
Monterey No. 0/30 Sand
Cementation = 1% 25 1.97 2.34
50 2.16 2.15
80 2.12 0.93
Cementation = 2% 25 1.73 1.08
50 2.09 1.01
80 1.80 0.53
Cementation = 4% 25 2.86 1.39
50 3.58 1.33
80 4.60 1.28
"Number of cycles is taken as 1,000.

where 7/, = hyperbolic shear strain; -yr = reference strain, and a, b =

constants. Fig. 4 shows the variation of modulus ratio with strain ratio
for artificially cemented specimens. The reference strains are calculated
using the strength parameters presented in Table 2. It is interesting to
note that this normalization eliminated only the effect of confining stresses
and the effect of relative density is not removed. This implies that a and
b values in Eq. 11 would be a function of both the relative density and
cementation level. This is further shown in Fig. 5 where the hyperbolic
strains are plotted versus the strain ratio for the regression lines shown
in Fig. 4. Table 4 compares the a and b values with the values presented
by Hardin and Drnevich (15) for clean dry sand and cohesive soils. It
should be noted that the values determined in this study are valid for
strain levels of less than 5 X 10~2%.
The decay of modulus in artificially cemented sands is similar to that
of cohesive soils. The degree of cementation and relative density sig-
nificantly influence the degradation of modulus. Increasing shear strains
leads to a greater reduction in modulus of specimens with high stiffness
ratios. The increase in shear strain leads to both a decrease in the stiff-
ness offered by the flow units at interparticle contact points and a release
in the confinement induced stiffness due to loosening and rupture of
the cementation bonds. It is the release of this confinement-induced
stiffness that leads to a faster decay of modulus with increasing strains.
Since the magnitude of this stiffness is directly related to the number of
interparticle bonds and the degree of cementation, a greater modulus
reduction is observed in specimens cemented at higher densities.
Damping Ratio.—Resonant column equipment is not suitable for de-
termining the maximum damping ratios at strain levels of 0.1-1%. Fur-
thermore, the accuracy of measurements are low in measuring damping
ratios of less than 1%. Consequently, it was only possible to obtain a
qualitative assessment of damping ratios.
1011

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—i ""i 1 i i i 1 > I I Uk I I 1 1
Monterey No. 0 Sond ' A
3
_ D, = 5 0 % Ytl - 1 5 2 3 kN/m A „e°
A C = 0% A eo_, ™
- 9 C = 1 % _
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o c = 2% & A9- •
. • C • 4% • o i = 3 5 kPa "
4 a / •" • ,,
l I i i i i i 11 i i
A *

"
A 8 e oB
— A . e 8 o B ~
A • O •
A6 0 | «b • 103 kPo
" © Ao'i 0 a° 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| r . o-0 = 3 4 5 kPo
A
A
_
— A ^ • S S

. A . 8 _ O
B
A * •• 0 °_ B
A *0&
o m © .••
°m°>mB
1 i i i n 111
LU I1 1I 1 1 1 '
1 1 1 1 I• 1 I 1 I I I 1I I1 I
1

I0" z 10"' 10°

STRAIN RATIO, yl yr

FIG. 6.—Effect of Cementation on Damping Ratio

The effect of the degree of cementation on damping ratios is shown

in Fig. 6. An increase in cementation leads to a substantial decrease in
damping ratios.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study on low strain dynamic properties of Monterey

No. 0/30 sand indicate that:

1. Specimen preparation scheme is a major factor affecting the strength

parameters of artificially cemented specimens. The tamping method leads
to higher unconfined strengths than the tapping scheme adopted in this
study.
2. The increase in the dynamic shear modulus of artificially cemented
specimens at low levels of cementation (1-4% by weight) is determined
to be due to an increase in stiffness coefficient, S.
3. The relative increase in the stiffness coefficient with cementation
could be expressed with stiffness ratio, R. This ratio is nonlinearly re-
lated to both the degree of cementation and void ratio (Eq. 8). The stiff-
ness ratio is higher for dense specimens.
4. For weakly cemented specimens, the stiffness ratio could be esti-
mated from a knowledge of unconfined compressive strength (Eq. 9) or
the cohesion intercept (Eqs. 1 and 9).
5. It is determined that an increase in the degree of cementation leads
to a rapid decay of modulus with increasing strains. It is observed that
1012

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 this modulus decay is more p r e d o m i n a n t in specimens with high stiff-
ness ratios.
6. Cementation leads to a decrease in d a m p i n g ratio at all levels of
strain.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The results of this study h a v e several practical implications in practice.

* Weakly cemented specimens with unconfined compressive strengths of
10-80 kPa (1.45-11.6 psi) r e n d e r stiffness ratios of 1.4-2.6. This implies
that such low degrees of cementation might lead to 18-60% higher shear
wave velocities. Consequently, seismic site response analysis disregard-
ing the effect of an existing cementation w o u l d result in corresponding
overestimates of predominant periods. Such analysis may also yield con-
servative estimates of acceleration amplitudes, stresses, and liquefaction
potentials. The results of the study also emphasize the importance of
density on cementation-induced sensitivity in sands. Strength a n d mod-
ulus determinations obtained from reconstituted dense specimens m a y
render substantially lower values t h a n undisturbed in situ deposits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Department of Civil Engineering at Louisiana State University is

acknowledged for support provided for this study. The Saudi Arabian
government is acknowledged for the scholarship provided to the second
| writer. Nader S. Rad is gratefully acknowledged for his help a n d sug-
' gestions in preparing artificially cemented specimens. The authors also
J appreciate the ASTM r o u n d robin testing results provided by Vincent
I P. Drnevich.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Beckwith, G. H., and Hansen, L. A., "The Calcerous Soils of the South-
western United States," ASTM Symposium on Calcerous Soils, Ft. Lauderdale,
Fla., Jan. 20, 1981.
2. Charlie, W. A., Matthew, W. M., Tiedemann, D. A., and Doehring, D. O.,
"Cyclic Triaxial Behavior of Monterey Number 0 and 0/30 Sands," Geotech-
nical Engineering Journal, ASTM, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, pp. 111-125.
3. Chung, B. M., Yokel, F. Y., and Drnevich, V. P., "Evaluation of Dynamic
Properties of Sands by Resonant Column Testing," Geotechnical Testing Jour-
nal, GTJODJ, Vol. 7, No. 2, June, 1984, pp. 60-69.
4. Clough, G. W., Sitar, N., Bachus, R., and Rad, N. S., "Cemented Sands
under Static Loading," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107,
No. GT6, June, 1981, pp. 799-817.
5. Cunney, R. W., and Fry, Z. B., "Vibratory In-Situ and Laboratory Soil Mod-
uli Compared," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Vol. 99, No. SM12, Dec, 1973, pp. 1055-1076.
6. Denisov, N. Y., and Reltov, B. F., "The Influence of Certain Processes on
the Strength of Soils," Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engr., Vol.
1, 1961, pp. 75-78.
7. Drnevich, V. P., "Draft Report of the Initial ASTM Resonant Column Round
Robin Testing Program," University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., 1979.
8. Drnevich, V. P., Hardin, B. O., and Skippy, D. J., "Modulus and Damping
of Soils by the Resonant Column Method," Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, STP
654, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1978, pp. 91-125.

1013

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 9. Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., and Mabry, P., "Strength, Stress,
Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of Stresses
and Movement in Soil Masses," Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., University of California, Berkeley, Calif., Aug., 1980.
10. Dupas, J. M., and Decker, A., "Static and Dynamic Properties of Sand Ce-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT3, Mar.,
1979, pp. 419-436.
11. Durante, V. A., and Voronkevich, S. D., "Studies of Sand Densities for Con-
struction Purposes," Annals of Moscow University, No. 2, 1955, pp. 131-137.
12. Durgunoglu, H. T., Tezcan, S. S., and Acar, Y. B., "A Study on Comparison
of Empirically and Insitu Determined Dynamic Soil Properties," Proceedings
of the 7th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, Vol.
2, Sept., 1982, pp. 291-299.
13. El-tahir, A. E., "Low Strain Dynamic Properties of Artificially Cemented
Monterey No. 0/30 Sand," thesis presented to Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, La., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science.
14. Frydman, S., Hendron, D., Horn, H., Steinbach, J., Baker, R., and Shaal,
B., "Liquefaction Study of Cemented Sand," Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT3, Mar., 1980, pp. 275-297.
15. Hardin, B. O., "The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior of Soils," Proceedings of
the Geotechnical Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, Calif., 1978, pp. 3-90.
16. Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P., "Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils:
Design Equations and Curves," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Di-
vision, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July, 1972, pp. 667-692.
17. Ladd, R. S., "Preparing Test Specimens Using Undercompaction," Geotech-
nical Testing Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, Mar., 1978, pp. 16-23.
18. Lukas, R. G., "Densification of Loose Deposits by Pounding," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT4, Apr., 1980, pp.
435-446.
19. Mitchell, J. K., Soil Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y., 1976.
20. Mitchell, J. K., "The Properties of Cement-Stabilized Soils," paper prepared
for workshop on materials and methods for low cost road, rail and recla-
mation work, Leuro, Australia, Sept. 6-10, 1976.
21. Mitchell, J. K., and Solymar, Z. V., "Time-dependent Strength Gain in Freshly
Deposited or Densified Sand," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No. GT11, Nov., 1984, pp. 1559-1576.
22. Poulos, H. G., "A Review of the Behavior and Engineering Properties of
Carbonate Soils," Research Report No. R381, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia, D e c , 1980.
23. Rad, N. S., and Clough, G. W., "The Influence of Cementation on the Static
and Dynamic Behavior of Sands," Report No. 59, John Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., Dec, 1982.
24. Salomone, L. A., Singh, H., and Fisher, J. A., "Cyclic Shear Strength of
Variably Cemented Sands," Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering
Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol.
11, Pasadena, Calif., June, 1978, pp. 819-835.
25. Saxena, S., and Lastrico, R. M., "Static Properties of Lightly Cemented Sand,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT12, Dec, 1978, pp.
1449—1464.
26. Silver, M. L., Chan, C. K., Ladd, R. S., Lee, K. L., Tiedemann, D. A.,
Townsend, F. C , Valera, J. E., and Wilson, J. H., "Cyclic Triaxial Strength
of a Standard Test Sand," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 102,
No. GT5, May, 1976, pp. 511-523.
27. Sitar, N., and Clough, G. W., "Seismic Response of Steep Slopes in Ce-
mented Soils," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. GT2,
Feb., 1983, pp. 210-227.
1014

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.

 28. Stokoe, K. E., and Richart, F. E., "Shear Modulus of Soils, In Situ and from
Laboratory Tests," Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Vol. 1, Rome, Italy, 1973, pp. 356-369.
29. Taylor, P. W., and Larkin, T. J., "Seismic Site Response Analysis of Nonlin-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Aberdeen, Bedford Road on 08/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ear Soil Media," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No. GT3, Mar., 1978, pp. 369-386.
30. Wong, K. S,, and Duncan, J. M., "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters for
Nonlinear Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soils
Masses," Geotechnical Engineering Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, Calif., July, 1974.
31. Yamanouchi, T., Mochinaga, R., Gotoh, K., and Murata, H., "Status of Cut-
off Slopes in Pumicer Flow Soil Deposits and their Applications to the Design
Standards for an Expressway," Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1977.
32. Yu, P., and Richart, F. E., "Stress Ratio Effects on Shear Modulus of Dry
Sands," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 3, Mar., 1984, pp.
331-345.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

a = constant;
b = constant;
C = cementation;
cc = concavity coefficient;
c„ = uniformity coefficient;
c' = cohesion intercept;
Dr = relative density;
e = void ratio;
*-max = maximum void ratio;
^min = minimum void ratio;
m G =
= a function reflecting the effect of void ratio;
dynamic shear modulus;
^max = maximum shear modulus for uncemented sands;
Gc = maximum shear modulus including the effect of cementation;
Gs = specific gravity;
n = constant;
P„ = atmospheric pressure;
If = unconfined compressive strength;
R = stiffness ratio (Sc/S);
S = stiffness coefficient of uncemented specimens;
sc = stiffness coefficient of cemented specimens;
7 = shear strain;
^ = dry density;
7/, = hyperbolic strain;
7r = reference strain;
(To = mean effective stress;
T"max = shear stress at failure; and
4>' = friction angle.

1015

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:1001-1015.