6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,

April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Investigation of the Rockfill Materials Properties Based on the

Confining Pressure Effect and the Rock Type

M. Nemati1, S. Jahangiri1, F. Kalantary2, M. A. H. Mehrdad3 and M. Veiskarami3*

1- M.Sc. Student in Civil-Geotechnical Engineering, The University of Guilan,
Email: m.nemati.civil@gmail.com
2 -Faculty Member, School of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology
Email: fz_kalantary@kntu.ac.ir
3 -Faculty Member, Dept. of Civil Eng., Faculty of Engineering, The University of Guilan
Email: mehrdad@guilan.ac.ir and mveiskarami@gmail.com
* Corresponding Author (Mehdi Veiskarami)

Abstract
Rockfill materials have been widely utilized in large structures as well as rockfill breakwaters and rockfill
dams construction. Design procedure of such structures requires a rather precise estimation of geomechanical
properties of such materials and hence, such properties are often evaluated with great difficulty. In this
research, one of the important parameters commonly used in elasto-plastic constitutive model, namely dilation
angle, is investigated by studying triaxial test results on five rockfill materials.
Keywords: Rockfill, Constitutive model, Dilation angle, Geomechanical properties.

1. INTRODUCTION

In general, the design of rockfill structures are affected by intrinsic properties of parent rock and this dependency
distinguishes rockfill structures from other earth structures. The behaviour of the rockfill materials is affected by
such factors as mineralogical composition, particles grading, size and shape of particles and stresses. Triaxial
tests have been conducted on modeled rockfill materials [1-4],to study the stress strain behavior of rockfill
materials and fount that stress-strain characteristics of rockfill materials are non-linear, inelastic and stress
dependent behaviour and increasing confining stress, maximum deviatoric stress, axial strain and volumetric
strain at failure, increase .
In high confining stress, strength of material is dependent on particle breakage. Therefore, friction angle,
particle sliding and particle breakage control material’s behaviour [5]. The friction angle of rockfills decreases
with a declining rate, with the increase of confining pressure. Rate of dilation is dependent on the degree of
breakage. At high confining pressure, the breakage increases, because expansion is restricted [6]. According to
investigations of Marachi et al. (1972), axial strain is affected by particle shape and type of parent rock. However,
particle shape is more influential. In addition, round shaped particles has greater friction angle.
Another factor, which influences the material’s behavior, is particle grading. Particle grading controls the
friction angle of rockfills, by breakage process. Comparing uniformly graded materials, well-graded rockfill has
lower particle breakage and greater friction angle. Uniformly graded materials have higher ratio of porosity [7].
Porosity is dependent on particle shape and gradation; the porosity increases with decreasing uniformity
coefficient and increasing particle roundness. At low confining stresses, porosity and initial relative density affect
the rockfill strength. [3]
In this paper, it is intended to perform a study on the dilative behaviour of rockfill samples under different
test conditions. In addition, the stress-strain-volume change behaviour of the modeled rockfill materials has been
investigated. The behaviour of various rockfill materials have been compared.

2. D ILATION ANGLE

It is a well-known fact that “precompressed” granular samples show dilative behaviour during shear. The term
“precompressed” indicates that the density is high with respect to surrounding pressure. Hence, it is expected that
samples with equal density exhibit different dilative behaviour under different confining pressures. In other
words, dense samples dilate during shearing under low confining pressure, whereas the same sample would
contract under high confining pressures.

1
6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Granular material’s stress-strain behaviour (especially post failure) is affected by volumetric strain. There
are two kinds of deformation in granular materials: [8]
1) Distortion (and crushing) of individual particles
2) Relative motion between particles as the result of sliding or rolling
In constitutive modeling, the angle between the incremental vector of the volumetric plastic strain and
deviatoric plastic strain is known as dilation angle:
P P
1 d v 1 d v
tan P
tan p p
1
d d d 1 d 3
p
2d v
tan p
2
3d d vp a
The negative sign arises from the convention that contractive volumetric strain and increasing deviatoric
strain is taken as positive.

3. MATERIAL SPECIFICATION AND TEST RESULT

In this paper, experimental data from five large dams in the Azarbayejan Province, Iran, is used. Triaxial tests
were carried out on rockfill samples in the Soil Mechanics Laboratory of the Building and Housing Research
Centre (BHRC), which is equipped with a 30cm diameter triaxial apparatus [9].
The gradation curves of the rockfill samples are shown in Figure 1. Parallel scaling was used to limit the
maximum particle size to 30mm. Details of the tests are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1- Summary of tests

Sample Specification Index Properties
robtained from Los Gradation
Group

Point Load test Angele specifications

(MPa) s d50
Origin Name Rock Type Shape
abrasio
Cu Cc
Dry Saturated n Test (mm )
%
A-And-
- - 25.0 2.9 7.1
Aydoghmoush AY
Andesite Angular 19.0
Dam Project A-And-
- - 3.0 0.9 3.1
AY-U
Sabalan Dam Diorite-
A-Dio-SB Angular - - 28.0 22.5 2.2 6.5
Project Andesite
One

Sahand Dam Diorite-

R-Dio-SH Rounded - - 46.3 14.0 0.4 2.4
Project Dacite
Vanyar Dam
A-Dia-VN Diabase Angular - - 30.0 25.8 2.2 7.5
Project
Yamchi Dam R-And- Andesit-
Rounded - - 32.5 20.0 0.7 2.5
Project YM Basalt

It has been attempted to compact all samples equally with optimum water content and the samples were all
compacted to 95% of its maximum dry density, obtained by a compaction test carried out in accordance with the
modified effort (ASTM D1557).

4. TRIAXIAL TEST’S RESULT

Triaxial tests had been carried out on all the samples. The triaxial test apparatus could accommodate samples
with a diameter of 30cm. All tests were performed under static consolidated-drained condition. Axial loading was
imposed with constant rates of prescribed displacement of 0.5 mm/min. Triaxial tests had been done under
different confining pressures. The results are shown in Figure (2) to (8). In all these figures, the compressive

2
 6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

volume changes are considered positive and expansive volume changes have negative values. In d v d d - axial
strain curves the dilation has positive value.

100

90 Sabalan
Vanyar
80
Sahand
70 Aydoghmoosh
Yamchi
Percentage Finer (%)

60
Aydoghmoosh-Uniform
50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Grain Size (mm)

Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve of rock fill samples (Sadeghpour, 1998)

1
3500
0.8
1
3000
0.6 50 KPa 700 KPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 700 KPa 16
0.4 100 KPa -1 2500
500 KPa 500 KPa
Dev. Stress (KPa)
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 200 KPa 300 KPa

200 KPa
2000
de v/de d

300 KPa
-3
0 500 KPa 100 KPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1500 300 KPa
-0.2 50 KPa
700 KPa
-5
1000 200 KPa
-0.4
100 KPa
-0.6 -7 500
50 KPa
-0.8
0
-9
-1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)
Axial strain (%)

Figure 2. results of triaxial tests on A-And-AY sample

1 3500

0.8 700 KPa

50 KPa 1 3000

0.6
2500 700 KPa
100 KPa 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 300 KPa 16
0.4 -1
Dev. Stress (KPa)
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 100 KPa 2000

-3
0
dev /ded

1500
0 2 300 KPa 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.2 300 KPa
-5
1000
-0.4 700 KPa
100 KPa
-7 50 KPa 500
-0.6
50 KPa

-0.8 0
-9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1 Axial Strain (%)
Axial Strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Figure 3. results of triaxial tests on A-And-AY-U sample

1
3500
900 Kpa
0.8 600 Kpa 3000
1
900 KPa
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2500
0.4 -1
Dev. Stress (KPa)

300 Kpa
600 KPa
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 2000
300 KPa
de v/de d

-3
0 1500
0 2
600 KPa 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.2
-5 300 KPa
1000
-0.4
900 KPa
-0.6 -7 500

-0.8 0
-9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1
Axial Strain (%) Axial strain (%)
Axial Strain(%)

Figure 4. results of triaxial tests on A-Dio-SB sample

3
 6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

1
3500
700 KPa
0.8
1 400 KPa
3000
0.6 200 KPa

0.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2500
100 KPa -1
700 KPa

Dev. Stress (KPa)

0.2

Vol. Strain (%)

2000
dev/ded

200 KPa -3
0
100 KPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1500
-0.2 400 KPa 400 KPa

-5 1000
-0.4 700 KPa
200 KPa

-0.6 100 KPa

500
-7
-0.8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1 -9 Axial strain (%)
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

Figure 5. results of triaxial tests on A-Dia-VN sample

1 3500

0.8 1
700 KPa 3000
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2500
200 KPa -1 400 KPa
0.4 700 KPa

Dev. Stress (Kpa)

200 KPa
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 2000
400 KPa
dev/ded

-3
0
1500 400 KPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-0.2
700 KPa -5
1000
-0.4 200 KPa

-0.6 -7 500

-0.8
0
-1 -9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Figure 6. results of triaxial tests on R-Dio-SH sample

1 3500

0.8 1 3000
0.6
700 KPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2500 700 KPa
0.4 200 KPa -1 400 KPa
Dev. Stress (Kpa)
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 400 KPa 200 KPa 2000

de v/de d

-3
0 400 KPa
1500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.2 700 KPa
-5 1000
-0.4 200 KPa

-0.6 500
-7
-0.8
0
-1 -9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%) Axial strain (%)
Axial Strain (%)

Figure 7. results of triaxial tests on R-And-YM sample

1 3500

0.8 1
500 KPa
3000
500 KPa
0.6
100 KPa 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1 2500
0.4 300 KPa
Dev. Stress (KPa)
Vol. Strain (%)

0.2 300 KPa

2000
-3 300 KPa
dev/ded

500 KPa
0
100 KPa 1500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.2 -5
1000
-0.4

-0.6 -7 100 KPa

500

-0.8
-9 0
-1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain (%)
Axial Strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Figure 8. results of tri-axial tests on R-And-YM sample

5. THE EFFECT OF CONFINING PRESSURE ON SHEAR STRENGTH OF ROCKFILL

As it is presented in figure (9), increasing confining pressure the angle of friction decreases. Considering the
stress factor, f
(
1 3
)f , variation of the friction angle versus stress factor is linear in a logarithmic scale. As
2 3

it is presented in figure (10), this relationship is represented in equation (3).

4
6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

peak 37.88Log f 30.394 3

Figure 10. variation of friction angle versus Figure 9. variation of friction angle versus conf. stress

6. THE EFFECT OF CONFINING PRESSURE ON DILATION ANGLE

As confining pressure increases, particle breakage increases and correspondingly, the dilation angle decreases.
The results show the same trend in this research. Figure (11) shows the variation boundary of dilation angle in all
samples. While increasing the confining pressure, this boundary decreases. The type of parent rock, shape of
particles, grading and density effects are the main reasons of the expanded boundary at low confining pressures.
As it can be seen in Figure (11), the maximum dilation angle in confining stress of 100KPa varies from 10 to 37.5
degrees and from zero to 15 degrees at confining pressure of 500KPa. The same comparison about strain
corresponding to maximum dilation angle in figure (12) shows that axial strain corresponding to maximum
dilation angle varies from 1 to 5 percent in confining pressure of 100KPa in confining stress of 500KPa.

Figure 12. The boundary of axial strain

Figure 11. the boundary of max. dilation angle
corresponding to max. dilation angle variations
variations versus confining pressure.
versus confining pressure.

7. THE EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ON VARIATION OF THE FRICTION AND

D ILATION ANGLE

5
6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

The particle breakage induced hardening behavior of rockfill materials has intensified the effect of particle
breakage on overall behavior of rockfills and its significant feature appears in materials dilative behavior.
Rockfills with bigger particles has more breakage. In addition, uniformly graded material has more
breakage and lower strength in comparison with well-graded materials.

8. THE EFFECT OF PARENT ROCK TYPE ON VARIATION OF FRICTION AND DILATION ANGLE

Hard rocks are expected to provide particles with hard asperities, which exhibit greater dilation. A similar trend is
observed in A-And-AY sample with 19% and A-Dia-VN sample with 30% weight loss in Los Angeles abrasion
test. However, at lower confining pressures R-Dia-SH with 46.25% weight loss in Los Angeles abrasion test has
greater dilation in comparison with the R-And-YM sample with 32.5% weight loss. This trend is converse at
confining stress of 700KPa. Because particle breakage in round shaped particles at low confining pressures is not
as effective as in angular shaped particles. On the other hand, at high confining pressures, the effect of breakage
is intensified even in round shaped particles and it affects the whole behaviour of the sample. Figure (13)
represents the variation of dilation angle versus loss weight in Los-Angeles abrasion test at confining pressure of
300KPa for A-Dio-SB, A-Dia-VN and A-And-AY samples. It shows that the dilation angle at failure decreases
while abrasive strength decreases.

Figure 13. variation of dilation angle versus loss weight in

Figure 14. Dilation angle in samples of group
LA abrasion test at conf. stress of 300KPa.

9. VARIATION OR DILATION ANGLE VERSUS FRICTION ANGLE

Researches of Vaid and Sasitharan (1992), Yang & Li (2004) and Veiskarami (2010) about dilative behaviour of
sands showed that there is a unique relationship between the maximum dilation angle and the maximum friction
angle. Samples with angular shaped particles have achieved this agreement. These samples have approximately
the same grading specifications. Figure (15) shows this trend and Equation (4) expresses the relationship.
1.356 49.95 4
It is concluded that the relationship between the friction and dilation angles is affected by many other
factors such as compactness, sample size, fine percentage and parent rock type.

6
6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

10. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, consolidated drained triaxial tests have been

conducted on rockfill materials. The results obtained are
summarized as follows:
Dilation is directly related to the abrasive strength
of angular shaped particles in rockfill mass. In rockfills
with round shaped particles, breakage induced behaviour
is intensified at high confining stress. Thus, at high
confining pressures, variation of the dilation angle is
related to abrasive strength of materials.
Rock fill materials show increase in axial strain
and volumetric strain with the increase in confining
pressure.
The materials show increase breakage factor with Figure 15. the relation between max. friction angle and
max. dilation angle in angular samples
the increase in confining pressure.
Uniformly graded material has more particle breakage.
Angle of friction in well-graded sample is about 4 degrees greater than that of the uniformly graded
sample. It conforms to the results of Marsal’s tests in 1973. Uniform samples undergo greater axial strain at
failure at high confining pressures. The difference between the shear strength of well-graded samples with
uniformly graded samples exceeds, increasing high confining pressure up to certain stress level because of
multiplied effect of breakage at high stresses.
By increasing the particle breakage, the dilation angle decreases. This effect can be resulted from the
particle breakage, which tends to a hardening behaviour.
About the effect of particles dimensions it is concluded that materials with greater d 50 , have more
breakage. Well-graded materials have lower breakage and greater dilation in order to existence of average sized
particles.
There is a unique relationship between the maximum friction angle and the stress factor .

11. REFERENCES

1. Marsal, R. J. (1967), ‘‘Large scale testing of rockfill materials’’ J. SMFE, ASCE,

2. Fumagalli, E. (1969) “Tests on Cohesion less Materials for Rockfill Dams”, J. of SMFE, ASCE, 313-
332.
3. Marachi, D. N, Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B. (1972),“Evaluation of properties of rockfill materials.’’
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM1, Proc Paper 8672,
Jan.,pp. 95 - 114.
4. Gupta, A. K. (2000), ‘‘Constitutive modeling of rockfill materials.’’ PhD thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi, India
5. Brauns, J., and Kast, K., (1991), “Laboratory testing and quality controls of rockfill –German practice.”
Chapter 8, Advances in Rockfill Structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, NATO ASI
Series, Vol. 200, pp. 195-220.
6. Inderaranta, B., Wijewardena, L. S. S., and Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1993), “Large–scale triaxial
testing of greywacke rockfill ’’Geotechnique, London, U. K., 43(1), 37-51.
7. Lee, kenneth. L., Farhoomand. Iraj., (1967), “Compressibility and crushing of granular soil in
anisotropic triaxial compression’’ Can. Geotech Journal, Vol. IV, No. 1. pp 68- 86.
8. Lambe, T. W, and Whitman, R. V.,(1969), “Soil mechanics.’’ John Whiley & Sons, Inc.

7
6th National Congress on Civil Engineering,
April 26-27, 2011, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

9. Sadeqpour, A. H., “Investigation of the Behavior and Particle Breakage of Material Used in Rockfill
Dams”, Thesis, Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University as a partial
fulfillment of the requirements of a M.Sc. degree.
10. Veiskarami, M., 2010, “Prediction of the Load-Displacement Behavior and Bearing Capacity of
Foundations by Stress Level Based ZEL Method”, Dissertation Submitted to the Dept. of Civil and
Environ. Eng., Shiraz University, as a partial fulfillment of the requirements of a Ph.D. degree. May
2010.
11. Wood, David Muir., (1991). “Soil behavior and critical state soil mechanics”. Cambridge University
Press.
12. Yang, J. & Li, X. S.,(2004) , “State-dependent strength of sands from the perspective of unified
modeling”. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp.
186-198.
13. Indraratna, B., Ionescu, and Christie, H. D., (1998), “ Shear behavior of railway ballast based on large-
scale triaxial tests.’’ ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 124, No. 5,
May.,1998, pp. 439-449.
14. Delgado Rodrigues, J., (1991), “Physical characterization and assessment of rock durability through
index properties.” Chapter 2, Advances in Rockfill Structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, NATO ASI Series, Vol. 200, pp. 7-33.
15. Jalali, H. (1988). “The mechanical properties of rockfill”. Conference of dam construction, Tehran.
16. Jahangiri, S.,(2006), “numerical modeling of rockfill material”, Thesis, Submitted to the Dept. of Civil
Eng., the University of Guilan, as a partial fulfillment of the requirements of a M.Sc. degree.