Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

A method proposed for the assessment of failure envelopes of cemented

sandy soils
Nilo Cesar Consoli
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – 3 andar, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims at quantifying the influence of the amount of cement (C), the porosity (η) and the porosity/
Received 15 July 2013 cement ratio (η/Civ) in the assessment of the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope of artificially cemented sands cen-
Received in revised form 31 October 2013 tered on splitting tensile strength (σt) and unconfined compressive strength (σc). Based on the concept previous-
Accepted 27 November 2013
ly established by Consoli et al. that the σt/σu relationship is unique for each specific sandy soil and cement agent,
Available online 5 December 2013
it is shown that the effective angle of shearing resistance of a given cemented sandy soil (Ø′) is independent of the
Keywords:
porosity and the amount of cement of the specimen and that effective cohesion intercept (c′) is a direct function
Failure envelope of the unconfined compressive strength (σc) [or splitting tensile strength (σt)] of the improved granular material,
Shear strength parameters which depends on the porosity/cement ratio (η/Civ) of the soil–cement blends. These concepts are tested with
Cemented sand success for a uniform fine sand treated with early strength Portland cement and a silty sand treated with ordinary
Triaxial tests Portland cement, considering weak, moderate and strong cementation levels, as well as for a volcaniclastic for-
Unconfined compressive strength mation deposit composed of moderately cemented fine sand and silt-size particles (naturally cemented soil).
Splitting tensile strength The methodology developed herein allows estimating c′ and Ø′ for any specific condition comprised inside the
range of porosity and amount of cement employed during basic testing, without the necessity of carrying out tri-
axial testing or any other complex and time consuming tests.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction machine and proving rings). Besides, the methodology to be presented

Portland cement at treatment levels of 3 to 10 percent by dry weight
is particularly well-suited for low plasticity and sandy soils (Mitchell,
1981). Also according to Mitchell (1981) ranges of properties for ce-
ment treated granular soils are: density ranging from 14 to 22 kN/m3,
unconfined compressive strength (in kPa) ranging from 500 to 1000
of the cement content (in percentage by dry weight) and tensile
strength varies from 0.20 to 0.33 of unconfined compressive strength.
Determination of Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope parameters of arti-
ficially cemented soils requires carrying out triaxial tests (e.g., Consoli
et al., 2000, 2007, 2012a; Dalla Rosa et al., 2008), simple shear
(Festugato et al., 2013), amongst many other complex and time consum-
ing tests. Mitchell (1981) suggested that friction angle of treated granular
soils varies from 40° to 45° while Brown (1996) proposes values varying
from 40° to 60°. Regarding cohesion intercept, Brown (1996) establishes
that its value may be as high as a few thousand kPa, while Mitchell
(1981) suggests that cohesion (in kPa) can be estimated as 0.225 times
unconfined compressive strength (in kPa) plus 50 kPa. An alternative
methodology to estimate Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope parameters
of artificially cemented soils is suggested in present work. The concept
is to carry out basic tests, such as unconfined compression and splitting
tensile tests, which are available in any laboratory facilities (loading
E-mail address: consoli@ufrgs.br.
herein intends to allow increasing reliability and widening range of valid-
ity of the results, once the setup of basic (splitting tensile and unconfined
compression) tests carried out for a given sandy soil and a specific ce-
ment agent will allow assessing c′ and ϕ′ for any specific condition pro-
vided that blends are inside the range of porosity and amount of
cement tested.
2. The methodology proposed
The Mohr–Coulomb failure theory is represented in the shear
strength (τ) versus effective normal stress (σ′) space by plotting
Mohr semi-circles representing stress states at failure and then drawing
a tangent to these semi-circles, which represents the Mohr–Coulomb
failure envelope. As presented in Fig. 1, in the Mohr–Coulomb failure
theory, the shear strength (τ) of a given material is assumed, consider-
ing effective stress conditions, to vary linearly with effective normal
stress (σ′), according to two parameters: effective cohesion intercept
(c′) and effective angle of shearing resistance (ϕ′), as shown in Eq. (1).
τ ¼ c′ þ σ′ tanϕ′ ð1Þ
Using unconfined compression and splitting tensile tests principal
stress states at failure, in which the minimum effective principal stress
(σ3′) and maximum effective principal stress (σ1′) are σ3c′ = zero and
σ3c′ = σc for unconfined compression and σ3t′ = σt and σ1t′ =−3σt

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.016
62 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68

and consequently


σ c −4σ t
ϕ′ ¼ arcsin ð5Þ
σ c −2σ t

Following, substituting ϕ′ of Eq. (5) into Eq. (2) and rearranging it in

terms of c′ ends up in Eq. (6).


σ −4σ t
σ c 1− c
σ c −2σ t
c′ ¼ 
 ð6Þ
σ −4σ t
2 cos arcsin c
σ c −2σ t

In the development of a rational dosage methodology for soil-Portland

cement, Consoli et al. (2010) have shown that the porosity/cement ratio
(η/Civ), defined as the porosity of the compacted mixture divided by the
Fig. 1. Mohr–Coulomb envelope based on Mohr circles from splitting tensile and unconfined volumetric cement content, is an appropriate parameter to evaluate the
compression tests.
unconfined compressive strength (σc) and the splitting tensile strength
(Jaeger et al. 2007) for splitting tensile tests, it is possible to establish the (σt) of Osorio sand–cement mixture, considering the whole range of ce-
following equations, based on triangle–rectangle shown in Fig. 1, respec- ment content and the porosity studied. The σt/σc ratio was shown to
tively for unconfined compression (Eq. (2)) and splitting tensile [Eq. (3)] be a scalar for the sand–cement mixture studied, being independent of
test results. porosity/cement ratio. As a consequence, dosage methodologies based
on rational criteria can concentrate either on tensile or compression
σc tests, once they are interdependable. Further studies by Consoli et al.
(2012b, 2013) have corroborated that the σt/σc ratio was also a scalar
sinϕ′ ¼
2  ð2Þ
σc c′ for other soils and cementing agents, such as silt–lime and non-plastic
þ 0 clayey sand–cement blends. In the bases of these evidences, it is proposed
2 tanϕ
herein that σt = ξ σc, where ξ is a scalar introduced into Eqs. (5) and (6),
ending in ϕ′ and c′ being expressed by Eqs. (7) and (8).
2σ t
sinϕ′ ¼
 ð3Þ

c0 1−4ξ
σt þ ϕ′ ¼ arcsin ð7Þ
tanϕ0 1−2ξ

Substituting [c′/(tan ϕ′)] of Eq. (2) into Eq. (3) and rearranging it in


terms of (sin ϕ′) ends up in Eq. (4) 1−4ξ
σ c 1−
1−2ξ
c′ ¼ 
 ð8Þ
σ −4σ t 1−4ξ
sinϕ′ ¼ c ð4Þ 2 cos arcsin
σ c −2σ t 1−2ξ

Fig. 2. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (σc) and splitting tensile strength (σt) with porosity/cement ratio (η/Civ) [adapted from Consoli et al. (2010)].
 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68 63

Table 1 3.1. Osorio sand treated with early strength Portland cement
Summary of the triaxial compression tests on artificially cemented Osorio sand [adapted
from Consoli et al. (2012a)].
Consoli et al. carried out two distinct and complementary studies on
Specimen σ3′ η(%) C (%) η/Civ σ1–σ3 the mechanical behavior of Osorio sand–cement mixtures. First, Consoli
(kPa) (kPa) et al. (2010) carried out unconfined compressive strength (σc) and
T-01 20 43.8 3.0 31.8 350.2 splitting tensile strength (σt) of Osorio sand–cement blends, consider-
T-02 200 43.8 3.0 31.6 677.8 ing amounts of Portland cement varying from 1% to 12% and porosities
T-03 400 43.8 3.0 31.7 995.2
of the blend varying from 38% to 45%. The Osorio sand used in the test-
T-04 20 44.8 3.3 29.8 429.7
T-05 200 45.1 3.3 30.4 735.1 ing was classified as non-plastic uniform fine sand with rounded
T-06 400 44.8 3.3 29.9 995.5 particle shape. Mineralogical analysis showed that sand particles were
T-07 20 41.5 5.0 17.3 828.1 predominantly quartz. The grain size was purely fine sand with a
T-08 200 41.5 5.0 17.3 1340.8 mean effective diameter (D50) of 0.16 mm, being the uniformity and
T-09 400 41.2 5.0 17.2 1788.9
curvature coefficients of 1.9 and 1.2, respectively. The minimum and
T-10 20 45.1 6.0 17.1 759.5
T-11 200 45.1 6.0 17.0 1198.1 maximum void ratios are 0.6 and 0.9, respectively. Early strength
T-12 400 44.4 6.0 16.7 1450.6 Portland cement (Type III) was used as the cementing agent. Fig. 2
T-13 20 41.5 8.6 10.4 1479.7 presents good correlations (R2 = 0.98 and 0.97 respectively for com-
T-14 200 40.8 8.6 10.3 2215.1
pression and tensile strengths) between (η/Civ) and the unconfined
T-15 400 41.2 8.6 10.4 2594.4
T-16 20 44.4 10.3 10.0 1697.4 compressive strength (σc) and splitting tensile strength (σt) of the
T-17 200 44.4 10.3 10.1 2061.9 sand–cement mixture studied [see Eqs. (9) and (10)].
T-18 400 44.4 10.3 10.1 2753.4
 −1:30
η
σ c ðkPaÞ ¼ 28; 327 ð9Þ
C iv
 −1:30
As a consequence, it can be observed that for a given soil and η
σ t ðkPaÞ ¼ 4; 266 ð10Þ
cementing agent, is a scalar and the effective angle of shearing resis- C iv
tance (ϕ′) [given by Eq. (7)] is a constant and consequently is indepen-
dent of the unconfined compressive strength (σc) and the splitting Dividing Eq. (10) by Eq. (9) yields the ratio (Eq. (11)):
tensile strength (σt), as well as of the cement content, porosity or poros- h i−1:30
ity/cement ratio of the studied blend, being a function only of the σt/σc σt 4; 266 Cη
ξ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:15 ð11Þ
iv
ratio. On the other side, the effective cohesion intercept (c′) of the blend h i
σ c 28; 327 η −1:30
is a function of ξ and σc, the latter being a function of porosity/cement C iv

ratio (η/Civ). Consequently, c′ is a function of the ξ, η and Civ.

3. Checking the proposed methodology
In order to check the accuracy of the proposed methodology, exper-
imental results carried out in a uniform fine sand (Osorio sand) treated
with early strength Portland cement (Consoli et al., 2010, 2012a) and in
a silty sand treated with ordinary Portland cement (Consoli et al. 1996;
Schnaid et al., 2001). Both studies considered 7 days curing period in a
humid room at 23 °C and a relative humidity above 95%.
It can be seen in Eq. (11) that ξ is a scalar (0.15) for the Osorio sand–
cement blends, being independent of porosity, cement content or
porosity/cement ratio. So, there is a straight proportionality between
tensile and compressive strengths, which is valid for the whole range
of void ratio and cement content studied in the present research pro-
gram. Further details of testing can be found in Consoli et al. (2010).
Following, Consoli et al. (2012a) carried out eighteen (18) drained
triaxial tests (details of T-01 to T-18 triaxial tests are given in Table 1)
in Osorio sand–cement blends, considering amounts of Portland cement
varying from 3.0% to 10.3% and porosities of the blend varying from

Fig. 3. Uniform fine sand Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ stress space for six (6) triaxial specimens considering η/Civ = 10 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 400 kPa.
64 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68

Fig. 4. Uniform fine sand Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ′ stress space for six (6) triaxial specimens considering η/Civ = 17 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 400 kPa.

40.8% to 45.1%, with the aim of examining the strength of specimens Inserting Eq. (9) into Eq. (13) ends up c′ being given by Eq. (14).
with the same porosity/cement ratio, but different absolute values of
porosity and cement content. Three values of ratio η/Civ [10 (T-13 to  −1:30
η
T-18), 17 (T-7 to T-12), and 30 (T-1 to T-6)] were chosen representing c′ðkPaÞ ¼ 0:26σ c ¼ 7; 365 ð14Þ
C iv
strong, moderate and weak cementation levels, respectively. For a spe-
cific η/Civ, specimens were molded at two different η and Civ and confin-
ing pressures varying between of 20 and 400 kPa. Results show that the For η/Civ = 10, 17 and 30, the effective cohesion intercept (c′) is re-
peak strengths (for each confining pressure and for the same η/Civ) are spectively 369 kPa, 185 kPa and 88.5 kPa.
alike for specimens under each specific studied confining pressure, as Figs. 3–5 present the Mohr semi-circles of triaxial peak shear
can be seen in Table 1. strength in a τ–σ′ stress space (considering the three confining pres-
Inserting ξ value (0.15) into Eqs. (7) and (8), yields in ϕ′ and c′ being sures used in the research: 20, 200 and 400 kPa) and the failure enve-
given by Eqs. (12) and (13), respectively. lopes obtained through the triaxial tests respectively for η/Civ = 10
(T-13 to T-18), η/Civ = 17 (T-7 to T-12) and η/Civ = 30 (T-01 to T-


1−4ð0:15Þ o 06), as well as the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes whose parameters
ϕ′ ¼ arcsin ¼ 34:9 ð12Þ were calculated above using the proposed methodology. It can be ob-
1−2ð0:15Þ
served in Figs. 3–5 that the Mohr–Coulomb shear strength envelopes

 drawn using ϕ′ = 34.9° (for all η/Civ) and c′ = 369 kPa (η/Civ = 10),
1−4ð0:15Þ
σ c 1− 185 kPa (η/Civ = 17) and 88.5 kPa (η/Civ = 30) [values obtained
1−2ð0:15Þ based on the methodology developed herein — using unconfined com-
c′ ¼ 
 ¼ 0:26σ c ð13Þ
1−4ð0:15Þ pression and splitting tensile tests, whose equipment can be found even
2 cos arcsin
1−2ð0:15Þ under minimal laboratory facilities] are a good representation of failure

Fig. 5. Uniform fine sand Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ stress space for six (6) triaxial specimens considering η/Civ = 30 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 400 kPa.
 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68 65

Table 2 practical relationships (Eqs. (15) and (16)), which are valid for granular
Summary of the triaxial compression tests on artificially cemented silty sand [adapted soils:
from Schnaid et al. (2001)].
o o
Specimen σ3′ η(%) C (%) σ1–σ3 ϕ′ ¼ 40 ⇔ 45 ð15Þ
(kPa) (kPa)

TR-01 20 33.7 1.0 320.2 c′ðkPaÞ ¼ 50 þ 0:225σ c ð16Þ

TR-02 60 34.0 1.0 510.2
TR-03 100 34.3 1.0 640.3
in which σc was considered (in present study) after Eq. (9).
TR-04 20 34.6 3.0 729.1
TR-05 60 34.0 3.0 980.9 Figs. 3–5 also present the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes consid-
TR-06 100 33.8 3.0 1072.8 ering parameters obtained using practical relationships suggested by
TR-07 20 33.5 5.0 1266.2 Mitchell (1981). It can be observed in Figs. 3–5 that results of effective
TR-08 60 34.3 5.0 1355.7 cohesion intercept (c′) obtained by a typical practical relationship sug-
TR-09 100 34.1 5.0 1535.8
gested by Mitchell (1981) and by the methodology presented herein
are in the same range of variation (c′ = 369.5 kPa, 210 kPa and
126.5 kPa against c′ = 369 kPa, 185 kPa and 88.5 kPa). Regarding ef-
when compared to ϕ′ = 38.3° (η/Civ = 10), ϕ′ = 33.4° (η/Civ = 17) fective angle of shearing resistance range (ϕ′), even the lower values
and ϕ′ = 27.3° (η/Civ = 30) and c′ = 346 kPa (η/Civ = 10), 190 kPa predicted by the Mitchell (1981) method are above those predicted
(η/Civ = 170), and 102.7 kPa (η/Civ = 30) of the tangent to the Mohr by the methodology presented herein (ϕ′ = 40° to 45° against ϕ′ =
semi-circles drawn based on triaxial testing, at distinct effective confin- 34.9° for all η/Civ), resulting in present methodology being by some
ing stresses, of the studied sand-cement blends. means more accurate.
The poorest representation of the failure envelope obtained consid-
ering the proposed methodology was observed for the weak cementa- 3.2. Silty sand treated with ordinary Portland cement
tion levels (η/Civ = 30) at high confining pressures. In such case
(confining pressures of 400 kPa) the Mohr semi-circles are far below Schnaid et al. (2001) and Consoli et al. (1996) carried out two com-
the failure envelope obtained based on the methodology developed plementary studies on the mechanical behavior of a silty sand derived
herein—using unconfined compression and splitting tensile tests, from Botucatu weathered sandstone treated with cement. The grain
which can be explained by possible cementitious bonding breakage size distribution was 27.8% medium sand, 33.4% fine sand, 31.3% silt
(yielding) occurring during appliance of confining stresses, as explained and 7.5% clay. Atterberg limits of the fine portion of the material were
by Consoli et al. (2000) and Dalla Rosa et al. (2008). High porosities a liquid limit of 22% and a plastic limit of 15%, yielding a plastic index
combined with low degrees of cementation and high stress levels lead of 7%. Several factors were maintained constant throughout the experi-
the failure envelope to be curved rather than a straight line. ment (void ratio of 0.51, curing period of 7 days and degree of satura-
One point that must be recalled is that in order to have representa- tion above 95%). The silty sand had 1%, 3% and 5% (by weight of dry
tivity, saturated drained triaxial failure envelope parameters will be ef- soil) of ordinary cement content added to it, having unconfined com-
fectively represented by splitting tensile and unconfined compression pressive strengths (σc) of 305 kPa, 737 kPa and 1168 kPa, respectively,
tests carried out in specimens having high degrees of saturation, being characterized as weak to strongly cemented soils. The relation
above 85%, in which apparent cohesion due to suction are nearly zero splitting tensile strength (σt) to unconfined compressive strength (σc)
(Fredlund et al., 1996). Such conditions are usually reached in artificially was found to be ξ = 0.135. Nine (9) drained triaxial tests under low
cemented sandy soils by submerging the specimens in water for at least confining pressures of 20, 60 and 100 kPa (details of TR-01 to TR-09 tri-
24 h before testing (Consoli et al., 2007, 2010). axial tests are given in Table 2) were carried out with amounts of
Portland cement varying from 1% to 5% and void ratio of the blend of
3.1.1. Comparison with typical practical relationships about 0.51.
According to Mitchell (1981), an alternative of assessing the Mohr– Inserting ξ value (0.135) into Eqs. (7) and (8), yields in ϕ′ = 39.5°
Coulomb failure envelope parameters (ϕ′ and c′) is using the following and c′(kPa) = 0.24σc. For σc = 305 kPa (1% cement), 737 kPa (3%

Fig. 6. Silty sand–cement Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ stress space for three (3) triaxial specimens considering 1% cement content, void ratio of about 0.51 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 100 kPa.
66 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68

Fig. 7. Silty sand–cement Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ stress space for three (3) triaxial specimens considering 3% cement content, void ratio of about 0.51 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 100 kPa.

cement) and 1168 kPa (5% cement), the effective cohesion intercept (c′)
is respectively 73.2 kPa, 176.9 kPa and 280.3 kPa.
Figs. 6–8 present the Mohr semi-circles of triaxial peak shear
strength in a τ–σ stress space (considering the three confining
pressures used in the research: 20, 60 and 100 kPa) respectively for
1%, 3% and 5% cement content, as well as the Mohr–Coulomb shear
strength envelope (whose parameters were calculated above). It can
be observed in Figs. 6–8 that the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes
drawn using ϕ′ = 39.5° (for all cement contents) and c′ = 73.2 kPa
(1% cement), 176.9 kPa (3% cement) and 280.3 kPa (5% cement) [values
obtained based on the methodology developed herein—using uncon-
fined compression and splitting tensile tests] are a sound representation
of failure when compared to ϕ′ = 41° and c′ = 56.7 kPa (1% cement),
ϕ′ = 44° and c′ = 137.6 kPa (3% cement) and ϕ′ = 39° and c′ =
276.7 kPa (5% cement) of the tangent to the Mohr semi-circles drawn
based on triaxial testing, at low effective confining pressures, of the
studied silty sand–cement blends.
3.2.1. Comparison with typical practical relationships
Following the practical relationships (Eqs. (15) and (16)) suggested
by Mitchell (1981), the effective angle of shearing resistance (ϕ′) varies
in the range between 40° and 45° for all studied cement contents (1, 3
and 5%) and the effective cohesion intercept c′ = 118.6 kPa [consider-
ing σc = 305 kPa (1% cement) in Eq. (9)], 215.8 kPa [considering
σc = 737 kPa (3% cement) in Eq. (9)] and 312.8 kPa [considering
σc = 1168 kPa (5% cement) in Eq. (9)] are in the same range of
variation that the results obtained using the methodology presented
herein (ϕ′ = 40° to 45° against ϕ′ = 39.5° for all cement percentages
and c′ = 118.6 kPa, 215.8 kPa and 312.8 kPa against c′ = 73.2 kPa,
176.9 kPa and 280.3 kPa, respectively for 1%, 3% and 5% cement con-
tent), with outcomes of present methodology being by some means
more accurate.
4. Possible use of the proposed methodology for naturally
cemented soils
The straightforward concept of the methodology presented herein
allows extending its application to naturally cemented soils. Splitting
tensile, unconfined compression and seven (7) drained triaxial com-
pression tests (details of TN-01 to TN-07 triaxial tests are given in
Table 3) were carried out by O'Rourke and Crespo (1988) in a vol-
caniclastic formation deposit composed of moderately cemented fine

Fig. 8. Silty sand–cement Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes [using methodology developed in present research, typical practical relationships (Mitchell, 1981) and based in the triaxial test
results] in τ–σ stress space for three (3) triaxial specimens considering 5% cement content, void ratio of about 0.51 and confining pressures varying from 20 to 100 kPa.
 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68 67

Table 3 representation of the tangent to the Mohr semi-circles drawn based

Summary of the triaxial compression tests on naturally cemented volcanic soil [adapted on triaxial testing carried out by O'Rourke and Crespo (1988). The
from O'Rourke and Crespo (1988)].
poorest representation of the failure envelope obtained considering
Specimen σ3′ η(%) σ1–σ3 the proposed methodology was observed at high void ratio and high
(kPa) (kPa) confining pressures. In such case the Mohr semi-circles are far below
TN-01 60 50.7 710 the failure envelope obtained based on the methodology developed
TN-02 100 50.7 920 herein, which can be explained by possible cementitious bonding
TN-03 200 50.7 1040
breakage (yielding) occurring during appliance of confining stresses,
TN-04 300 50.7 1150
TN-05 60 43.2 1070 as explained by Consoli et al. (2000) and Dalla Rosa et al. (2008). At
TN-06 100 43.2 1280 high porosities combined with low amounts of natural cementation
TN-07 200 43.2 1430 and high stress levels the failure envelope is usually curved rather
than a straight line. Hürlimann et al. (2001), who studied residual volca-
sand and silt-size particles (silty sand according to USCS). Considering nic soils, observed two distinct linear failure envelopes in a bonded soil:
block samples containing two distinct void ratio (e = 1.03 and one representing the results for stresses up to 600 kPa and the other for
e = 0.76) and specimens tested with a degree of saturation of about stresses higher than 2500 kPa, possibly representing a curvilinear fail-
90% (in which suction is small enough that can be disregarded), the rep- ure envelope. These authors concluded that different stresses typically
resentative splitting tensile and unconfined compressive strengths are produce different shear strength regimes for residual volcanic soils
σt = 50 kPa and σc = 400 kPa for the block whose void ratio is 1.03 due to bonding effects. It is important to emphasize that some curvature
and σt = 75 kPa and σc = 600 kPa for the block whose void ratio is must occur for all failure envelopes and when no curvature is observed
0.76. As ξ = σt/σc, considering the above cited data, ξ = 0.125 for it is just that tests have not been conducted for some of the mixes at suf-
both blocks with distinct void ratio and using Eq. (7), the effective ficiently high stresses to observe it. Further research is still necessary in
angle of shearing resistance (ϕ′) is equal to 41.9° for samples of both order to determine the stress level at the onset of the curvature and the
void ratio. Substituting ξ = 0.125 into Eq. (8), the effective cohesion in- possibility of such variable being a function of the porosity/cement ratio,
tercept (c′) is given in Eq. (17) as a function of σc. so engineers would know when they are designing safely.



1−4ð0:125Þ
σ c 1−
1−2ð0:125Þ
c′ ¼ 
 ¼ 0:224σ c
1−4ð0:125Þ
2 cos arcsin
1−2ð0:125Þ
Knowing that σc = 400 kPa and 600 kPa respectively for the blocks
whose void ratio are 1.03 and 0.76, the cohesion intercept (c′) of such
materials are 89.6 kPa and 134.4 kPa.
Figs. 9 and 10 present the Mohr semi-circles of drained triaxial peak
shear strength test results, carried out by O'Rourke and Crespo (1988),
in a τ–σ stress space respectively for e = 1.03 (confining pressures of
60, 120, 200 and 300 kPa) and e = 0.76 (confining pressures of 60,
120 and 200 kPa), as well as the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes con-
sidering parameters calculated above. It can be observed in Figs. 9 and
10 that the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes drawn using the effective
angle of shearing resistance range (ϕ′ = 41.9°) and effective cohesion
intercept c′ = 89.6 kPa [considering block whose void ratio is 1.03]
and 134.4 kPa [considering block whose void ratio is 0.76] are a fair
5. Conclusions
ð17Þ From the data presented in this manuscript the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• A methodology for assessing Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope param-
eters based on splitting tensile strength (σt) and unconfined compres-
sive strength (σc) of artificially cemented sandy soils is proposed and
successfully tested;
• The proposed methodology was shown to be effective for both artifi-
cially and naturally cemented sandy soils;
• The methodology developed herein permits estimating c′ and ϕ′ for
any specific condition comprised inside the range of porosity and
amount of cement employed during basic testing, without the neces-
sity of carrying out triaxial testing or any other complex and time con-
suming tests. However, present study is limited to soils and cements
studied herein and further studies are still necessary to check if such
methodology might be spread to other soils (e.g., clays, volcanic
soils), as well as to other cement agents, such as lime, fly ash-lime, etc.

Fig. 9. Naturally cemented soil Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope [using methodology developed in present research] in τ–σ stress space for four triaxial specimens whose void ratio is 1.03
and confining pressures varying from 60 to 300 kPa.
68 N.C. Consoli / Engineering Geology 169 (2014) 61–68

Fig. 10. Naturally cemented soil Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope [using methodology developed in present research] in τ–σ stress space for three triaxial specimens whose void ratio is
0.76 and confining pressures varying from 60 to 200 kPa.

Notation Consoli, N.C., Schnaid, F., Rohlfes Jr., J.A., Prietto, P.D.M., 1996. Engineering properties of
residual soil–cement mixtures. In: Rotterdam, Yonekura, Terashi, Shibazaki (Eds.),
C cement content Proc., Grouting and Deep Mixing. vol. 1, vol. 1. ISBN: 90 5410 805 3, pp. 25–30.
Civ volumetric cement content Consoli, N.C., Rotta, G.V., Prietto, P.D.M., 2000. Influence of curing under stress on triaxial
D50 mean effective diameter response of cemented soils. Geotechnique 50 (1), 99–105.
Consoli, N.C., Foppa, D., Festugato, L., Heineck, K.S., 2007. Key parameters for strength
R2 coefficient of determination control of artificially cemented soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 133 (2),
STS splitting tensile strength 197–205.
UCS unconfined compressive strength Consoli, N.C., Cruz, R.C., Floss, M.F., Festugato, L., 2010. Parameters controlling tensile and
compressive strength of artificially cemented sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
ξ σt/σc ratio 136 (5), 759–763.
η porosity Consoli, N.C., Cruz, R.C., Viana da Fonseca, A., Coop, M.R., 2012a. Influence of cement-voids
η/Civ porosity/cement ratio ratio on stress-dilatancy behavior of artificially cemented sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. ASCE 138 (1), 100–109.
σ′ effective normal stress
Consoli, N.C., Johann, A.D.R., Gauer, E.A., Santos, V.R., Moretto, R.L., Corte, M.B., 2012b. Key
σt splitting tensile strength parameters for tensile and compressive strength of silt–lime mixtures. Géotechnique
σc unconfined compressive strength Lett. 2 (3), 81–85.
σ1′ maximum effective principal stress Consoli, N.C., Moraes, R.R., Festugato, L., 2013. Variables controlling strength of fiber-
reinforced cemented soils. Proceedings of ICE/UK — Ground Improvement. 166
σ3′ minimum effective principal stress (GI4), 166 (GI4), pp. 221–232.
τ shear stress Dalla Rosa, F., Consoli, N.C., Baudet, B.A., 2008. An experimental investigation of the
behavior of artificially cemented soil cured under stress. Geotechnique 58 (8),
675–679.
Acknowledgements Festugato, L., Fourie, A., Consoli, N.C., 2013. Cyclic shear response of fibre-reinforced
cemented paste backfill. Géotechnique Lett. 3 (1), 5–12.
Fredlund, D.G., Xi, A., Fredlund, M.D., Barbour, S.L., 1996. The relationship of the unsatu-
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Brazilian MCT/CNPq rated soil shear strength to the soil–water characteristic curve. Can. Geotech. J. 33,
(projects Produtividade em Pesquisa, Iniciação Científica, Edital Univer- 440–448.
sal and INCT-REAGEO) for the financial support to the research group. Hürlimann, M., Ledesma, A., Martí, J., 2001. Characterisation of a volcanic residual soil and
its implications for large landslide phenomena: application to Tenerife, Canary
Special thanks are due to Professors James K. Mitchell (Virginia Tech) Islands. Eng. Geol. 59, 115–132.
and Fernando Schnaid (UFRGS) for several comments regarding the Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.W., 2007. Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 4th
draft paper, as well as to Mr. Daniel Winter and Mr. Bernardo Scapini edition. Blackwell Publishing (475 pp.).
Mitchell, J.K., 1981. Soil improvement—state-of-the-art report. Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on
Consoli for helping with drawings. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engng. vol. 4, vol. 4. International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 509–565.
O'Rourke, T.D., Crespo, E., 1988. Geotechnical properties of cemented volcanic soil.
References J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 114 (10), 1126–1147.
Schnaid, F., Prietto, P.D.M., Consoli, N.C., 2001. Characterization of cemented sand in
Brown, R.W., 1996. Practical foundation engineering handbook, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill. triaxial compression. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 127 (10), 857–868.