Monotonic Behavior of Mississippi River

Valley Silt in Triaxial Compression

Shuying Wang1 and Ronaldo Luna, P.E., F.ASCE2

Abstract: The static behavior of Mississippi River Valley silt was characterized using triaxial compression testing. Silt specimens, especially
overconsolidated ones, showed dilation behavior. There was no unique critical state among specimens with different overconsolidation ratios
(OCRs). With OCRs of 1, 2, and 8, the specimens exhibited normal behavior and dilated more as effective consolidation pressure dropped.
However, for an OCR of 4, the specimens showed opposite behavior and dilated more as effective consolidation pressure rose. The friction
angle of the silt was computed on the basis of several failure criteria, and the limiting strain was found to be the best one owing to better
consistency and rational results of the friction angle. The silt showed a unique behavior compared with sand and clay: The critical state line
was not parallel to the normal consolidation curve in the e-lnp0 space; the stress-strain behavior can be normalized by effective consolidation
pressure. The normalized shear strength of overconsolidated specimens was correlated to that of a normally consolidated specimen using
Ladd et al.’s equation with an m value of 0.58 for low-plasticity silts. However, the normalized shear strength of overconsolidated silts cannot
be related to OCR directly. It was indicated that at least the normalized shear strength of a normally consolidated specimen needs to be tested
for low-plasticity silts to obtain the normalized shear strength of overconsolidated specimen using Ladd et al.’s equation. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000603. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Plasticity; Silts; Slurries; Soil consolidation; Soil compression; Mississippi River.
Author keywords: Low plasticity; Silt; Slurry deposition; Consolidated undrained; Triaxial; Overconsolidation ratio; Unique monotonic
behavior.

Introduction
Low-plasticity silt is widespread throughout the world. It occupies
the uppermost stratigraphic position over extensive areas of the
central United States, other parts of the United States, and vast
areas in central China (Wang et al. 2010). For example, deposits
of loess, a typical low-plasticity silt, vary in thickness from 1
to 35 m. The thickest deposits occur adjacent to the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers to the leeward side of the prevailing westerly
winds (Puri 1984).
Compared with sand and clay, low-plasticity silt is difficult to
characterize. For example, the difficulty to retrieve undisturbed
samples has been experienced by many, and in situ testing is chal-
lenging because of its dilative tendencies during shearing. There-
fore, the work to investigate silt’s static behavior in the laboratory
has been limited. Silts are usually thought to behave similar to clay
or sand. However, a study by Fleming and Duncan (1990) pointed
out that empirical correlations for strength and compressibility used
for clays may be in error if applied to silt. The same study also
noted that failure to recognize the difference between the shear
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil, Arch and Env, Engineering, Mis-
souri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409. E-mail:
sw896@mst.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Arch and Env, Engineering, Missouri Univ.
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409 (corresponding author).
E-mail: rluna@mst.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 7, 2010; approved on
July 21, 2011; published online on July 25, 2011. Discussion period open
until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 4, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2012/4-516–525/$25.00.
characteristics of silts and clays on one hand and sands on the other
hand could lead to overconservative designs of offshore structures.
This paper presents an investigation of the static behavior of
Mississippi River Valley (MRV) silt using triaxial compression test-
ing. In particular, the unique behavior of this silt is compared with
the classical behaviors of sand and clay. A reasonable failure
criterion is recommended to calculate the friction angle (ϕ0 ) of
low-plasticity silt. Finally, the effect of the overconsolidation ratio
(OCR) and effective consolidation pressure (σ0c ) on the stress-strain
behavior is evaluated.
Research Background
Although the study of static behaviors of low-plasticity silt began
approximately 60 years ago, work in this field is still limited, be-
cause the behavior of silt is much more complex than that of sand
and clay. The published work on static behavior of low-plasticity
silt is subsequently summarized.
Early in 1953, Penman (1953) studied the static behavior of
Braehead silt under normally consolidated tests, both drained
and undrained. The silt specimens showed dilative behavior. Such
dilative behavior was also found in Alaska silts (Wang et al. 1982;
Fleming and Duncan 1990) and Bonnie silt (Arulmoli et al. 1992),
among others. Wang et al. (1982) found in Alaska silts no unique
undrained shear strength with various effective consolidation pres-
sures. They determined that the ratio of undrained shear strength to
effective consolidation pressure was greater than that for clay with
an identical OCR. Fleming and Duncan (1990) investigated the
characteristics of undisturbed and reconstituted Alaskan silt spec-
imens using a slurry deposition approach. In unconsolidated un-
drained (UU) tests, the reconstituted specimens reduced the
undrained shear strength of undisturbed specimens by as much

516 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
as 42%. On the other hand, consolidated undrained (CU) tests in-
dicated that the undrained strength of reconstituted specimens was
more than that of undisturbed specimens. Fleming and Duncan
(1990) concluded that the silt was more likely to be seriously af-
fected by disturbance. In general, the undrained strength of Alaskan
silts could be normalized by effective consolidation pressure. As
OCR increases, the normalized value of shear strength increases.
Yasuhara et al. (2003) observed the same normalized behavior
in the Keuper Marl silt, which has a plasticity index (PI) of 19.7.
Hoeg et al. (2000) investigated the effect of specimen prepara-
tion methods on the static behavior of silt in Borlange, Sweden with
a PI of 5. Using triaxial compression tests, they compared the
strength of undisturbed specimens with that of reconstituted silt
specimens at normally consolidated conditions. Most specimens
were prepared by moist tamping, but one was created using the
slurry deposition approach. The undisturbed specimens showed
dilative and ductile behavior, whereas almost all the reconstituted
specimens showed contraction, brittle behavior.
Brandon et al. (2006) studied the drained and undrained strength
of two silts, undisturbed gray silt (called Yazoo silt, no plastic)
and disturbed tan silt (called LMVD silt, PI ¼ 4) from Lower Mis-
sissippi Valley Division (LMVD). In undrained tests, both consoli-
dated and unconsolidated, all specimens showed dilative behavior.
That study demonstrated that the UU tests did not provide useful
information on the undrained strengths of the Yazoo silts. The au-
thors suggested that the failure criterion that best determined the
ratio of undrained shear strength to effective consolidation stress
was a constant Skempton pore pressure parameter A equal to zero.
Izadi (2006) investigated static behavior of Collinsville silt from
the same region where the silt tested in this study was collected.
Using a slurry deposition approach, Izadi (2006) reconstituted
specimens in a large consolidometer. The soil showed fairly high
dilation behavior, even normally consolidated. Without high
enough B values after saturation, cavitations easily developed
owing to negative excess pore water pressure, and specimens be-
came unsaturated under large strain. Thus, the stress-strain behav-
ior could not be determined well.
Boulanger and Idriss (2006) reviewed the behavior of three
blended silt mixtures with normal consolidation, which was origi-
nally presented by Romero (1995). The specimen with a PI of 10.5
showed a plastic stress-strain response similar to that of normally
consolidated clay. Its normal consolidation and critical state lines
(CSLs) were almost parallel, and it exhibited no quasi–steady-state
behavior. Yasuhara et al. (2003) observed such plastic stress-strain
behavior in the Keuper Marl silt. Boulanger and Idriss (2006), on
the other hand, noted that throughout the test, the silt specimen
without plasticity exhibited strain-hardening similar to that seen
in loose sands, and the specimen’s normal consolidation and CSLs
were not parallel. However, the silt with a PI of 4 exhibited behav-
ior more similar to that of claylike silt, but with a tendency toward
some strain-hardening and phase-transformation behavior. Its nor-
mal consolidation and CSLs were approximately parallel, but it had
a quasi–steady-state line. Boulanger and Idriss (2006), therefore,
concluded that fine-grained soils with a PI of 7 or greater can con-
fidently be expected to exhibit claylike behavior, and fine-grained
soils with PI values ranging from 3 to 6 exhibit intermediate behav-
ior. Nocilla et al. (2006) observed such transitional behavior in an
Italian silt. For this Italian silt with clay content of 8% (PI ≈ 13) or
3.5% (PI ≈ 11), no unique normal consolidation and CSLs were
found because specimens prepared from slurries at different water
contents generated different fabric.
Low-plasticity silt can show strain-hardening behavior, strain-
softening behavior, and even plastic stress-strain behavior,
which depend primarily on the PI, OCR, and specimen preparation
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 517
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
technique. The overconsolidated silt is widespread in the shallow
ground, because of the fluctuation of the ground water and desic-
cation. This study investigated the static behavior of Mississippi silt
by conducting CU tests with various OCRs and effective consoli-
dation pressures.
Testing Program
Material Description
The material tested was taken from Collinsville, Illinois, which is
located in the MRV approximately 13 mi away from the Mississippi
River. Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the index
properties. Grain size distribution was obtained using sieve and
hydrometer analysis [ASTM D 422 (2007)], and the clay content
was determined to be 14.5% (Fig. 1). It is difficult to measure the
liquid limit of low-plasticity silt using the Casagrande approach
because the silt paste cracks easily when cut with a grooving tool.
To confirm the validity of the liquid limit obtained from the
Casagrande method [ASTM D 4318 (2010)], therefore, the Fall
cone method (BS 1377-2) was also used. The Casagrande and Fall
cone methods indicated liquid limits of 28 and 30, respectively.
Koester (1992), Sridharan and Prakash (2000), and Prakash and
Sridharan (2006) also found the Casagrande liquid limits slightly
less than those obtained from the Fall cone method. The liquid limit
was determined to be 28 to provide a probably valuable comparison
with other silts, whose index properties were determined using the
Casagrande approach, a popular one in teh United States.
The minimum and maximum void ratios were determined using
the modified compaction method [ASTM D 1557 (2009)] and by
allowing silt slurry to settle in a graduated cylinder, following the
methods previously described by Polito and Martin (2001) and
Bradshaw and Baxter (2007). A consolidation test was carried
out using isotropic confining pressure in a Humboldt triaxial setup
to measure compression and recompression indices. The index
properties and compressibility are shown in Table 1.
The particle shape and surface roughness of the MRV silt were
investigated using a scanning electron microscope (Fig. 2). The
shapes of the silt particles ranged from subangular to angular
and even to very angular. The surface of the silt particles was rough.
These features tend to contribute to a dilative behavior of this
material, which is further discussed in the results analysis section
in this paper.
Specimen Preparation
Slurry deposition is a common approach to reconstitute silt
or silty sand specimens in the laboratory (Ishihara et al. 1978;
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of Mississippi River Valley silt
 32
Table 1. Index Properties of Mississippi River Valley Silt
31 ∆ω = 1.4%
Index property Value σv = 34.5 kPa

Water content [ω (%)]

30 ∆ω = 3.5%
Clay content (< 2 um) 14.5% σv = 34.5 kPa
29
Liquid limit 28
28
Plastic limit 22
∆ω = 2.2%
Plasticity index 6 27
σv = 68.9 kPa
Specific gravity 2.71 26
Maximum void ratio 1.60 25 ∆ω = 1.2%
σv = 45.0 kPa
Minimum void ratio 0.44 24
Compression index (λ) 0.0393 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from top of specimen (mm)
Recompression index (κ) 0.0037
Consolidometer (Izadi 2008)
Top dead weights (Izadi 2008)
Top dead weights and bottom vacuum (Izadi 2008)
Top and bottom vacuum (Wang 2010)
Kuerbis and Vaid 1988; Hyde et al. 2006; Carraro and Prezzi 2007;
Izadi 2006, 2008). Izadi (2006, 2008) prepared silt specimens in a Fig. 3. Effect of preparation techniques on uniformity of specimens
large-scale consolidometer and a split mold. He compared the two
silt specimen preparation approaches and found that the most
uniform silt specimen was the one prepared in the split mold with vacuum provided from the bottom valve following dead weights
(Fig. 3). In this paper, therefore, the silt specimens were prepared
in a split mold, which was placed around the triaxial base. The
water content of the silt slurry was 44%. However, identical vac-
uums of 45 kPa were provided from the top and bottom valves si-
multaneously to consolidate the slurry [Fig. 4(a)] after the specimen
finished consolidation under the dead weights, which applied a ver-
tical stress of 32.3 kPa. With this improvement, the silt specimen
had a maximum difference in water content of 1.2% in the vertical
direction (Fig. 3). The finished specimen was approximately
71 mm in diameter and 142 mm high. The use of a vacuum also
promoted saturation by the removal of air bubbles.
To expedite the testing process, a special experimental setup
only for preparing specimen was developed. When saturation, con-
solidation, or shearing was conducted on one specimen in the tri-
axial platen, another specimen could be prepared in the special
setup simultaneously. Use of this setup, however, required that
the specimen be moved from the preparation location to the triaxial
platen. The key point for this process was that the specimen should
be translated with little disturbance. A step-by-step procedure was
developed to translate a specimen from the special setup to the tri-
axial platen with little disturbance successfully. Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)
show the specimen translation using a split miter mold from the
vacuum station to the triaxial base platen for testing. With this tech-
nique, the time of the whole testing program was decreased by
approximately 50%.

Triaxial Shear Testing

Static triaxial compression tests were carried out in a Humboldt
triaxial system with various OCRs and effective consolidation pres-
sures (Table 2). The specimens were saturated using back pressure
until a B value of 0.98 was reached. To avoid the development of
cavitation caused by negative excess pore water pressure during
shearing of overconsolidated specimens, back pressure greater than
that producing a B value of 0.98 was supplied. After saturation, the
specimens were consolidated at OCRs of 1, 2, 4, and 8 and effective
consolidation pressures (σ0c ) of 50, 90, and 129 kPa. Overconsoli-
dation was achieved by consolidating the specimens to a precon-
solidation pressure (σ0p ¼ σ0c × OCR) and then unloading to the
desired σ0c . Owing to the limited capacity of the testing equipment,
only a normally consolidated test was conducted on the specimen
Fig. 2. Particle investigation for Mississippi River Valley silt
with a σ0c of 129 kPa.

518 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 4. Experimental setup used for reconstituting silt specimens
Results Analysis
Stress-Strain Behavior
Fig. 5 shows the deviator stress and excess pore water pressure re-
sponse of the MRV silt specimens. Although the shearing of spec-
imens with an OCR of 1 was stopped at 20% axial strain, the
specimens could be expected to reach critical state at the axial strain
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 519
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
of approximately 25%. In slightly overconsolidated specimens
MS4 and MS5 (OCR ¼ 2), there were no big increases in the de-
viator stress after the axial strain was larger than 20%. The deviator
stresses (Δσ) and excess pore water pressures (ue ) of normally con-
solidated specimens at the critical state were estimated by interpret-
ing with the entire set of test results (Table 2). Fig. 5(a) shows that
all overconsolidated specimens with an OCR of 2 or larger showed
continuous dilation behaviors (strain-hardening), but the normally
consolidated specimens had a slight strain-softening stage after the
initial peak deviator stress. After the slight strain-softening stage,
the more deviator stress built up, and the normally consolidated
specimens showed strain-hardening behavior. Under greater OCRs,
the dilation behavior became more obvious for specimens with
identical effective consolidation pressures, which was also indi-
cated by the Af value in Table 2. As expected, the OCR increased,
and the Af value decreased.
No unique critical state was observed among the different tested
silt specimens. Classic sand specimens with different void ratios
reach the unique critical state through different stress-strain paths
under identical effective consolidation pressure, as do clay speci-
mens with different OCRs. Hence, the silt tested showed stress-
strain behavior different from that of either sand or clay. This
behavior was also demonstrated by the curves of excess pore water
pressure against axial strain [Fig. 5(b)]. No unique excess pore
water pressure state existed.
Friction Angle
The effective friction angle (ϕ0 ) can be obtained on the basis of
various failure criteria. Brandon et al. (2006) summarized six pos-
sible failure criteria for this purpose: maximum deviator stress
[ðσ1
σ3 Þmax ]; maximum principal stress ratio [ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax ];
maximum excess pore water pressure (ue;max ); reaching the K f line;
limiting strain; or excess pore water pressure of 0 (ue ¼ 0). The
friction angle of the low-plasticity MRV silt tested was calculated
using all of these failure criteria (Fig. 6). Because the silt just
showed a little dilation behavior under normal consolidation, the
excess pore water pressure did not reach zero. Thus, the Mohr’s
circles in Fig. 6(e) are on the basis of overconsolidated specimens
only. The failure criteria of ðσ1
σ2 Þmax , ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax , and 15%
limiting strain yielded relatively constant friction angles for the
MRV silt. Conversely, the friction angles with criteria of ue;max ,
ue ¼ 0, and reaching K f line are widely scattered. Two criteria
in particular, ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax and 15% limiting strain, both yielded fric-
tion angles of approximately 35°. However, the friction angle was
approximately 32° on the basis of the criterion of ðσ1
σ2 Þmax ,
which was obtained at the point of large strain, under which an
earth structure would fail. Thus, ðσ1
σ2 Þmax is not appropriate
criterion for calculation of the friction angle of the MRV silt. Bran-
don et al. (2006) did similar research work for the normally con-
solidated Yazoo silt (non plastic) and LMZD silt (PI ¼ 4) and
presented that all of the previously mentioned failure criteria except
the ue;max can result in the friction angle within a narrow range for
the two silts.
Friction angles of the MRV silt were obtained from both nor-
mally consolidated and overconsolidated specimens. There were
two or three Mohr’s circles for each OCR in Fig. 6. Holtz et al.
(2010) refer to a difference in the friction angle among the clays
with different OCRs owing to the stress history. However, the
low-plasticity silt would tend to behave more as a granular material
with less ability to retain stress history (memory). Fig. 6 shows that
all Mohr's circles can be best-fitted using one straight line in the
τ
σ0 space on the basis of the failure criteria ðσ1
σ3 Þmax ,
ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax , and limiting strain 15%. Therefore, the OCR did
not influence the friction angle as would be expected for a clay
Table 2. Static Shearing Tests on Mississippi River Valley Silt
Test σBP at B ¼ 0:95 σBP at end of B at end of u at critical Δσ at critical
identification (kPa) saturation (kPa) saturation σ0p (kPa) σ0c (kPa) OCR e state (kPa) state (kPa) Af
MS1 241.3 289.6 0.985 — 50.0 1 0.700 300.6 85.0 0.13
MS2 217.2 241.3 0.980 — 90.0 1 0.679 269.2 144.0 0.19
MS3 217.2 241.3 0.981 — 129.0 1 0.652 299.4 154.8 0.38
MS4 241.3 337.8 0.994 102.4 51.2 2 0.665 337.3 113.7 0.00
MS5 193.1 265.4 0.991 180.0 90.0 2 0.653 263.6 198.9
0:01
MS6 241.3 337.8 0.997 200.0 50.0 4 0.647 306.3 191.0
0:16
MS7 265.6 362.0 0.991 364.8 91.2 4 0.612 287.2 370.3
0:20
MS8 265.4 360.6 0.980 400.0 50.0 8 0.648 284.6 296.5
0:26
MS9 248.2 386.1 1.000 720.0 90.0 8 0.591 255.6 513
0:25
Note: σBP = back pressure; e = void ratio of specimen after it was rebounded to effective consolidation pressure (σ0c ); Af = ratio of excess pore water pressure to
deviator stress at the critical state; OCR = overconsolidation ratio; Δσ = deviator stresses.

in the OC and NC regions. This result was also found by Izadi
(2006) for the Collinsville silt sampled from the same region as
the MRV silt. Izadi (2006) presented that there was no noticeable
effect of the OCR on the magnitude of the friction angle.
To analyze the influence of the failure criterion on the calculated
friction angle of low-plasticity silt, this work was combined with
the results reported by Brandon et al. (2006) and Izadi (2006). Fig. 7
shows that the failure criteria of ðσ01 =σ03 Þmax , 15% limiting strain,
and reaching K f lines yielded a greater friction angle than other
criteria. The friction angle is least on the basis of the criterion
of ue;max because full strength in terms of effective stress had
not been mobilized. Although Brandon et al. (2006) concluded that
any of the failure criteria except the umax could be used to evaluate
the friction angle of low-plastic, dilative silts, the criteria of ue ¼ 0
and reaching K f line were also not available for the MRV silt tested,
because the silt did not dilate enough to induce negative excess pore
water pressure, and large ranges of stress paths touched the K f line
in the stress space, respectively. The criteria of 15% limiting strain
and ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax always gave a consistent estimation of friction an-
gle. For the MRV silt tested, the maximum σ01 =σ03 appeared at ap-
proximately 10% axial strain. However, the axial strain at the
maximum σ01 =σ03 is probably larger than 15% for other low-
plasticity silt. Thus, it was recommended that a 15% limiting strain
be the best criterion to calculate the effective friction angle of low-
plasticity silt.

Critical State
The stress paths of all static tests were plotted in the Cambridge
∆σ

stress space [Fig. 8(a), p0 ¼ ðσ01 þ 2σ03 Þ=3; q ¼ σ1
σ3 ]. All stress

paths rose along one line (the CSL) after the phase-transformation
points were reached. The phase-transformation point was desig-
nated as the state at which the reversal from contractive to dilative
behavior occurred (Ishihara et al. 1975). A failure CSL was plotted
with M of approximately 1.4 in the stress space. Therefore, the fric-
tion angle was computed to be 34.6° using sin ϕ0 ¼ 3M=ð6 þ MÞ,
ε which is comparable with the other failure criteria stated previously.
(a) Deviator stress To study the stress paths more closely, Fig. 8(b) was enlarged to
focus on the early stage of stress paths. The OCRs were marked for
each stress path from 1 to 8. In general, the stress path indicated that
the silt specimens became more dilative as the OCR increased. Fur-
ther investigation identified the following phenomenon: Specimens
with an OCR of 1 or 2 showed initial contraction followed by con-
tinuous dilation behavior; with an OCR of 4, the specimen at an
effective consolidation pressure of 50 kPa showed behavior similar
to that of specimens with an OCR of 1 or 2. But at an effective
consolidation pressure of 90 kPa, the specimen with an OCR of
4 showed continuous dilation, as did the specimens under an
OCR of 8. Thus, the specimen greater higher effective consolida-
tion pressure dilated more when the OCR was equal to 4. The result
was opposite to the classical behavior of soil. Normally, with in-
creasing effective consolidation pressure, soil specimens tend to
contract. Yamamuro and Lade (1998) also observed this opposite
behavior in silty sand. They noted that the specimen with an effec-
tive consolidation pressure of 25 kPa showed static liquefaction. As
(b) Excess pore water pressure the pressure increased, the silty sand became more stable (i.e., more
dilated). Thus, the low-plasticity silt tested showed a behavior dif-
Fig. 5. Static testing results of Mississippi River Valley silt ferent from that observed in typical sands and clays.

520 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 6. Friction angleon the basis of various failure criteria
This paper also presents an investigation of the critical state in
the e-lnp0 space. One CSL was obtained for the tested silt in Fig. 9.
Because void ratio (e) remains constant during undrained shearing,
the stress path in the e-lnp0 space can only move horizontally to-
ward the CSL depending on the pore pressure response. Fig. 9
shows that all data points moved, starting at the initial state point
through the phase transformation and ending at the critical state
point owing to the negative pore pressure induced by the tendency
to dilate. All specimens near the end of shearing showed dilative
Fig. 7. Variation in friction angles on the basis of various failure cri-
teria
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 521
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
behavior compared with the state at the beginning of shearing. Even
the normally consolidated and slightly overconsolidated specimens
produced a decrease in pore pressure (dilative response) at the end
of shearing after the expected contraction in the initial shearing
[Fig. 5(b)]. This behavior was in agreement with the findings in
the stress space, because all stress paths rose along the CSL in
the stress space after the phase-transformation stage. The CSL
was not parallel to the normal consolidation line. As noted by Bou-
langer and Idriss (2006), if the normal consolidation line and CSLs
are not parallel, the silt behaves similar to a sand. Thus, the silt
tested had sand like behavior. However, the work of Boulanger
and Idriss (2006) does not address the effect of OCR on silt behav-
ior. The OCR played a significant role in the normalized behavior
of the tested silt, as it did in that of clay, so that the silt did not
behave exactly as a sand does.
From the initial state to the critical state, the general dilation
behavior was found in the critical state diagram. However, as men-
tioned previously, specimens with an OCR of 1 or 2 initially con-
tracted and then dilated. To identify the initial dilation or
contraction in the e-lnp0 space, a phase-transformation line was also
plotted in Fig. 9. Only data points of MS7, MS8, and MS9 are lo-
cated left of the phase-transformation line. Owing to the magnitude
of negative excess pore water pressure compared with other
specimens, the highly overconsolidated specimens MS7, MS8,
and MS9 tend to dilate from their initial state to the phase-
transformation state.
Normalized Behavior
The deviator stress of some clays can be normalized by effective
consolidation pressure (Ladd and Foott 1974; Ladd et al. 1997).
 Fleming and Duncan (1990) demonstrated that the undrained
strength of low-plasticity Alaskan silts can also be normalized with
relatively small variations. The small variations in the normalized
values for identical OCRs were believed to result from sample
preparation and reconsolidation effects.
Fig. 10 shows the normalized behavior plots with respect
to effective consolidation stress for the MRV silt tested. With a
greater OCR, the normalized deviator stress was greater, and
more negative normalized excess pore pressure was generated
[Figs. 10(a) and 10(b)]. In the normalized stress space
[Fig. 10(c)] generally a greater OCR resulted in a more dilative
response, except for the specimen MS1 with a σ0c of 50 kPa and
an OCR of 1. Therefore, the OCR played a significant role in
the normalized stress-strain behavior. Furthermore, under the same
OCR, normalized behaviors were different for different effective
consolidation pressures (σ0c ). When the OCR was equal to 1 or

Fig. 8. Stress path in Cambridge space: (a) full range of data; (b) ex-
panded inset from Fig. 8(a).

Fig. 9. Critical state diagram obtained from Consolidated undrained

tests (NCP = normal consolidation point; ISP = initial state point;
CSP = critical state point; PTP = phase transformation point) Fig. 10. Normalized behaviors of Mississippi River Valley silts

522 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 3. Su =σ0c of Silts with Various Overconsolidation Ratios
Overconsolidation ratio
Silt Plasticity index 1 2 4 8 10
Alaskan (Fleming and Duncan 1990) Near A-line in plasticity chart 0.925 1.775 — 2.925
Keuper Marl (Yasuhara et al. 2003) 19.7 0.34 0.565 0.85 — 1.7
Collinsville (Izadi 2006) 6 1.325 2.625 3.2 — —
Mississippi River Valley 6 0.566 0.820 1.332 1.951 —

8, the normalized deviator stress decreased with increasing effec-
tive consolidation pressure. On the other hand, when the OCR was
4, the normalized deviator stress increased with increasing effective
consolidation pressure. Specimens with an OCR of 2 had inter-
mediate behaviors, as indicated by closely matching curves of nor-
malized deviator stress and excess pore water pressure against axial
strain.
The stress-strain behavior appears not to be normalized by ef-
fective consolidation pressure. However, the variations of normal-
ized stress-strain behavior induced by the effective consolidation
pressure were much lower than those by the OCR. These small var-
iations were caused in part by inevitable variations in procedures
from one test to another. Thus, the MRV silt tested can be said to
have normalized behavior. Similarly, the excess pore water pressure
could also be normalized by effective consolidation pressure.
On the basis of many tests of six clays, Ladd et al. (1997) de-
veloped the following equation to consider effect of OCR on the
normalized shear strength of clay:
For the silt materials compared previously, it was impossible to
relate Su =σ0c to OCR using a single expression such as Eq. (2). Ladd
et al. (1997) also used the ratio of normalized shear strength of OC
to that of NC specimens, as shown in Eq. (1). Fig. 11(b) shows that
there was no big difference in the normalized shear-strength ratio
ðSu =σ0c ÞOC =ðSu =σ0c ÞNC among different silts. Thus, there is no big
effect of PI on the normalized shear-strength ratio for low-plasticity
silt.
The data points in Fig. 11(b) can be fitted using Eq. (1) with an
m value of 0.58, except the data point with the OCR of 10. Ladd
et al. (1997) tested clays and found the m value to be 0.8 and re-
quired a larger m value for greater OCRs. As is possible with clayey
soil, the equation permits convenient prediction of the undrained
shear strength of overconsolidated silty soil using the known shear
strength of normally consolidated specimens. Fig. 11(b) also shows
the curve used to demonstrate the effect of OCR on the normalized

ðSu =σ0c ÞOC

¼ OCRm ð1Þ
ðSu =σ0c ÞNC

in which Su = undrained shear strength and σ0c = effective consoli-

dation pressure. In the equation, the m value is normally equal to
0.80, but this value varies from 0.75 to 0.85 on the basis of the
OCR. A greater OCR is probably associated with a greater value
of m.
Furthermore, Ladd (1991) presented the following equation to
calculate the Su =σ0c :

Su
¼ S × OCRm ð2Þ
σ0c

in which S = 0.22 and 0.25, respectively, for clay and silt; and m =
0.80 for both clay and silt.
This paper presents a study of the effect of OCR on the normal-
ized shear strength of low-plasticity silt under isotropic consolida-
tion by combining the test results reported by Fleming and Duncan
(1990), Yasuhara et al. (2003), and Izadi (2006). These compari-
sons are shown in Table 3. The undrained shear strength was de-
termined as one-half of the deviator stress at an axial strain of 15%,
as done by Fleming and Duncan (1990). Fleming and Duncan
(1990) presented a range of Su =σ0c for the Alaskan silt, and the
middle value was used for comparison herein. The Keuper Marl
silt studied by Yasuhara et al. (2003) had a PI of 19.7 and a liquid
limit of 38.6, which classifies as a lean clay (CL) using the Unified
Soil Classification System. However, the silt fraction was nearly
70% on the basis of a grain size distribution curve and was con-
sidered as a low-plasticity silt (Yasuhara et al. 2003). Izadi (2006)
reported normalized deviator stress curves of Collinsville silt,
which were used to determine the undrained shear strength. The
same data shown in Table 3 are shown in Fig. 11(a), which clearly
shows that the Su =σ0c increases as the OCR increases for all silts
Fig. 11. Effect of overconsolidation ratio on normalized shear strength
compared.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 523

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 12. σ01 =σ03 vs ε1 of Mississippi River Valley silt
shear-strength ratio of clay. The curve for the clay is above the
curve for the silt, indicating that the OCR affects the normalized
shear-strength ratio of the silt less than it does that of the clay.
The m value is probably related to the plasticity of the silt. This
hypothesis is supported by the fact that low-plasticity silts behave
similar to an intermediate soil. The m value for the silts was deter-
mined on the basis of limited data available for four kinds of low-
plasticity silt. Additional research data could add to verify the val-
idity of m ¼ 0:58 for low-plasticity silt.
Fig. 12 shows the curve of the principal stress ratio (σ01 =σ03 )
against axial strain. The maximum values of σ01 =σ03 are located
in a narrow zone of 3.45–3.77, which explains why the failure cri-
terion of ðσ01 =σ03 Þmax can yield a relatively constant friction angle.
Thus, stress-strain behavior can be normalized using effective con-
fining stress during the shearing.
Conclusions
The MRV silt tested had no unique critical state among specimens
with different OCRs. With an OCR of 1 or 2, the silt initially con-
tracted and then dilated. With an OCR of 8, the silt dilated contin-
uously. All these specimens (OCR ¼ 1, 2, and 8) had a normal
behavior (i.e., less dilation with greater effective consolidation
pressure). For an OCR of 4, however, the specimens showed op-
posite behavior (i.e., greater dilation with greater effective consoli-
dation pressure).
A CSL was obtained in the e-lnp0 space. The CSL was not par-
allel to the normal consolidation curve. According to Boulanger
and Idriss (2006), the silt has a sand like behavior. However, in
this paper, the OCR did play a significant role in the stress-strain
behavior of the silt, as it does in that of clay. These findings indi-
cated that the silt had a unique behavior, and thus its behavior was
more complex than previously thought.
The failure criteria of umax , u ¼ 0, and reaching K f line were not
available to calculate effective friction angle of the silt tested. This
paper presents a suggestion that limiting strain is the criterion best
used to calculate the effective friction angle, because of more
consistency of friction angle and more rationality for the low-
plasticity silt.
The stress-strain behavior of the MRV silt can be normalized by
effective consolidation pressure and effective confining pressure.
524 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
As the OCR increased, the shear strength normalized by effective
consolidation pressure increased. The m value of 0.58 was used to
estimate the overconsolidated shear strength for low-plasticity silt
using Eq. (1) when the normally consolidated shear strength was
known. Although this value should be verified with more testing
data, it provides a means to relate the shear strength of low-
plasticity silt to its OCR. However, Eq. (2) cannot be used to relate
the Su =σ0c to OCR, because there are large differences in the of
Su =σ0c vs OCR among different silts, which makes them unique
materials.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their colleagues Dr. Richard W.
Stephenson and Dr. Louis Ge at the Missouri University of Science
and Technology. They provided comments and recommendations
throughout this research, especially during the testing program and
critical state analysis. Additionally, the instrumental and skilled la-
boratory technicians Gary Abbott and Brian Swift made this experi-
mental research run smoothly.
References
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S.
(1992). “Verification of liquefaction analysis by centrifuge studies
laboratory testing program.” Soil data report, Earth Technology
Corporation, Irvine, CA.
ASTM. (2007). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction charac-
teristics of soil using modified effort. D422-63, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2009). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.
D1557, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils. D4318, West Conshohocken, PA.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2006). “Liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(11),
1413–1426.
Bradshaw, A. S., and Baxter, C. D.P. (2007). “Sample preparation of silts
for liquefaction testing.” Geotech. Test. J., 30(4) 324–332.
Brandon, T. L., Rose, A. T., and Duncan, J. M. (2006). “Drained and
undrained strength interpretation for low-plasticity silts.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132(2), 250–257.
Carraro, J. A. H., and Prezzi, M. (2007). “A new slurry-based method of
preparation of specimen of sand containing fines.” Geotech. Test. J.,
31(1), 1–11.
Fleming, L. N., and Duncan, J. M. (1990). “Stress-deformation character-
istics of Alaskan silt.” J. Geotech. Eng., 116(3), 377–393.
Hoeg, K., Dyvik, R., and Sandbækken, G. (2000). “Strength of undisturbed
versus reconstituted silt and silty sand specimens.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 126(7), 606–617.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D., and Sheahan, T. C. (2010). An introduc-
tion to geotechnical engineering, 2nd Ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Hyde, A. F. L., Higuchi, T., and Yasuhara, K. (2006). “Liquefaction, cyclic
mobility, and failure of silt.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(6),
716–725.
Ishihara, K., Sodekawa, M., and Tanaka, Y. (1978). “Effects of overcon-
solidation on liquefaction characteristics of sands containing fines.” Dy-
namic geotechnical testing, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 246–264.
Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F., and Yasuda, S. (1975). “Undrained deformation
and liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses.” Soils Found., 15(1),
29–44.
Izadi, A. (2006). “Static behavior of silts.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, MO.
Izadi, A. (2008). “Liquefaction and post-liquefaction behavior of low plas-
ticity silts using cyclic triaxial tests.” Ph.D. dissertation, Missouri Univ.
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.
Koester, J. P. (1992). “The influence of test procedure on correlation of
atterberg limits with liquefaction in fine-grained soils.” Geotech. Test.
J., 15(4), 352–361.
Kuerbis, R. H., and Vaid, Y. P. (1988). “Sand sample preparation: The
slurry deposition method.” Soils Found., 28 (4), 107–118.
Ladd, C. C. (1991). “Stability evaluation during staged construction.”
J. Geotech. Eng., 117(4), 540–615.
Ladd, C. C., and Foott, R. (1974). “New design procedure for stability of
soft clays.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100(7), 763–786.
Ladd, C. C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. G. (1997).
“Stress-deformation and strength characteristics.” Proc, 9th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, 421–494.
Nocilla, A., Coop, M. R., and Colleselli, F. (2006). “The mechanics of an
italian silt: An example of ‘Transitional’ behavior.” Geotechnique,
56(4), 261–271.
Penman, A. D. M. (1953). “Shear characteristics of a saturated silt, mea-
sured in triaxial compression.” Geotechnique, 3(8), 312–328.
Polito, C. P., and Martin, J. R. (2001). “Effects of nonplastic fines on the
liquefaction resistance of sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(5),
408–415.
Prakash, K., and Sridharan, A. (2006). “Critical appraisal of the cone
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 525
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
penetration method of determining soil plasticity.” Can. Geotech. J.,
43(8), 884–888.
Puri, V. K. (1984). “Liquefaction behavior and dynamic properties of loessial
(silty) soils.” Ph.D. disseratation, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.
Romero, S. (1995). “The behavior of silt as clay content is increased.”
M.S. thesis, Univ. of California-Davis, Davis, CA.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. (2000). “Percussion and cone methods
of determining the liquid limit of soils: Controlling mechanisms.”
Geotech. Test. J., 23(2), 242–250.
Yamamuro, J., and Lade, P. V. (1998). “Steady-state concepts and static
liquefaction of silty sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124(9),
868–877.
Yasuhara, K., Murakami, S., Song, B. W., Yokokawa, S., and Hyde, A. F. L.
(2003). “Postcyclic degradation of strength and stiffness for low plas-
ticity silt.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(8), 756–769.
Wang, J. L., Vivatrat, V., and Rusher, J. R. (1982). “Geotechnical properties
of Alaska OCS silt.” Proc., 4th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 415–420.
Wang, L., Sun, H., Yuan, Z., and Deng, J. (2010). “Criterions, prediction
and prevention of loess liquefaction.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.