See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333260614

Impacts of Drying-Wetting and Loading-Unloading Cycles on Small Strain Shear

Modulus of Unsaturated Soils

Article  in  International Journal of Geomechanics · May 2019

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001463

CITATIONS READS

0 294

3 authors, including:

Thang Pham Behzad Fatahi

University of Technology Sydney University of Technology Sydney
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    198 PUBLICATIONS   1,722 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Numerical modelling of static and dynamic pile load testing by advanced soil models View project

Seismic Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thang Pham on 28 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Axial displacement
dial gauge (LVDT)

Air bleed plug

Connect to upper
chamber controller

Connect to air
Feedthroughs for controller
Bender elements Bender elements

Sample

Connect to back Connect to back

water controller water controller
flush
High air entry
value disk
Connect to pore
pressure trans

a)
Page 1 of 29
 b) c)

Fig. 1. Modified Rowe cell apparatus with bender elements: a) schematic diagram of the Rowe cell setup; b) a photograph of the top loading

system; and c) a photograph of the bottom pedestal

Page 2 of 29
 10
8 t Transmitted
Received

Amplitude of Signal (v)

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Time (s)

Fig. 2. Determination method for the shear wave propagation time in the Rowe cell equipped with two bender elements

Page 3 of 29
 100

80

Percent Finer (%) 60

40

20

0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Particle Diameter (mm)

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curve for the sand and kaolin mixture

Page 4 of 29
 0.34
v=20 kPa 1st drying 1st wetting
eo=0.332 2nd drying 2nd wetting
3rd drying 3rd wetting
0.33

Void Ratio (e)

0.32

0.31

0.3
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)

Fig. 4. Void ratio and matric suction (e- ) relationship during three drying-wetting cycles

Page 5 of 29
 1
1st drying
0.9 1st wetting
2nd drying

Degree of Saturation (Sr)

2nd wetting
0.8
vn=20 kPa 3rd drying
eo=0.332 3rd wetting
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)

Fig. 5. Degree of saturation versus measured matric suctions (SWCC) in three drying-wetting cycles

Page 6 of 29
 1

0.9

Degree of Saturation (Sr)

0.8 1st drying
1st wetting
vn=20 kPa 2nd drying
0.7 eo=0.332
2nd wetting
3rd drying
0.6 3rd wetting

0.5

0.4
0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34
Void Ratio (e)

Fig. 6. Sr-e relationship during three drying-wetting cycles

Page 7 of 29
 2140
vn=20 kPa

Effective Dynamic Mass Density (eff)

1st drying 1st wetting
eo=0.332 2nd drying 2nd wetting
2130 3rd drying 3rd wetting

(kg/m3)
2120

2110

2100
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)

Fig. 7. eff- relationship during three drying-wetting cycles

Page 8 of 29
 2810
low range high range
of Sr of Sr
2800

eff(1+e) (kg/m3)
2790

1st drying
2780 1st wetting
vn=20 kPa
eo=0.332 2nd drying
2770 2nd wetting
3rd drying
3rd wetting
2760
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Degree of Saturation (Sr)

Fig. 8. Sr-eff(1+e) relationship during three drying-wetting cycles

Page 9 of 29
 200
vn=20 kPa
ψ=30 kPa
150 ψ=90 kPa

Gmax/f(e) (MPa)
ψ=330 kPa
ψ=430 kPa
100 ψ=530 kPa
ψ=630 kPa
ψ=730 kPa
50
ψ=930 kPa

0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Degree of Saturation (Sr)

Fig. 9. Gmax/f(e)- Sr relationship during three drying-wetting cycles

Page 10 of 29
 104 104
clay silt sand

Inter-particle Stress (kPa)

103
Inter-particle Stress (kPa)

103
van der Waals electric double
102 102 attraction layer repulsion

101 101

100 100

10-1 10-1

10-2 10-2
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Particle Diameter (mm) Degree of Saturation (Sr)
a) b)

Fig. 10. Dependence of inter-particle stress generated by van der Waals and electric double layer forces on a) particle diameter (after Ingles

1962); and b) degree of saturation (adapted from Lu and Likos 2006)

Page 11 of 29
 500

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

400

vn=20 kPa
300 eo=0.332

1st drying
200 1st wetting
2nd drying
100 2nd wetting
3rd drying
3rd wetting
0
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)

Fig. 11. Gmax- relationship during the three drying-wetting cycles

Page 12 of 29
 0.31

0.3
=30 kPa
Void Ratio (e) Loading path
0.29 Unloading path

0.28

0.27
10 100 1000

Vertical Net Stress (vn) (kPa)

Fig. 12. vn-e relationship in the loading-unloading cycle

Page 13 of 29
 0.63 6.4
Sr-Loading

Gravimetric Water Conent (W) (%)

Sr-Unloading

Degree of Saturation (Sr)

0.61 6.3
W-Loading
W-Unloading
0.59 6.2

0.57 6.1
=30 kPa

0.55 6

0.53 5.9
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vertical Net Stress (vn) (kPa)

Fig. 13. Hydraulic hysteresis in a loading-unloading cycle

Page 14 of 29
 2170

Effective Dynamic Mass Density, (eff)

2160
=30 kPa

(kg/m3)
Loading path
2150 Unloading path

2140

2130
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vertical Net Stress, vn (kPa)

Fig. 14. vn-eff relationship in a loading-unloading cycle

Page 15 of 29
 350

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

300
=30 kPa

Loading path
250 Unloading path

200

150
10 100 1000
Vertical Net Stress (vn) (kPa)

Fig. 15. vn-Gmax relationship in a loading-unloading cycle

Page 16 of 29
 (260,0.279,0.622)

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

vn=400 kPa (265,0.289,0.555) (Gmax, e, Sr)
270

=30 kPa
(213,0.281,0.632)
240
(236,0.297,0.550)
vn=200 kPa

210 (180,0.283,0.633) (218,0.302,0.544)

vn=100 kPa
180

Fig. 16. Variation of Gmax with void ratio and degree of saturation in the loading-unloading cycle

Page 17 of 29
 (106,0.560,800)
Loading
Unloading

110 (95,0.555,400) (Gmax, Sr, vn)

100 (92,0.622,400
Gmax/f(e) (MPa) (85,0.550,200)
)
=30 kPa
90
(79,0.544,100)
80
(76,0.632,200)
70 (75,0.538,50)

60
(64,0.633,100)

Fig. 17. Variation of Gmax/f(e) with vertical net stress and degree of saturation in the loading-unloading cycle

Page 18 of 29
Page 19 of 29
 500

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

1st drying (measured)
1st wetting (measured)
400 1st drying (predicted) (Eq.7)
1st wetting (predicted) (Eq.7)
300 vn=20 kPa
R2= 0.98
200

100

0
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)

a)

Page 20 of 29
 500

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

2nd drying (measured)
2nd wetting (measured)
400
2nd drying (predicted) (Eq.7)
2nd wetting (predicted) (Eq.7)
300
vn=20 kPa
R2= 0.98
200

100

0
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)
b)

Page 21 of 29
 500

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

3rd drying (measured)
3rd wetting (measured)
400 3rd drying (predicted) (Eq.7)
3rd wetting (predicted) (Eq.7)

300 vn=20 kPa

R2= 0.98
200

100

0
10 100 1000
Matric Suction () (kPa)
c)

Page 22 of 29
 500

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

loading (measured)
unloading (measured)
400 loading (predicted) (Eq.7)
unloading (predicted) (Eq.7)

300 =30 kPa

200 R2= 0.94

100

0
10 100 1000
Vertical Net Stress, vn (kPa)
d)

Fig. 18. Measured and predicted Gmax values during a) first; b) second; and c) third drying-wetting cycles; and d) loading-drying cycle

Page 23 of 29
 (e, , vn)
0.305
(0.302,200,5) (0.301,200,5)
(0.300,200,5)
0.300 (0.299,200,5)

Void Ratio (e)

0.295

0.290 (0.278,200,400

0.285 (0.277,200,400)
(0.283,30,100
0.280 (0.279,400,200

0.275

a)

Page 24 of 29
 (Sr, , vn)
0.65 (0.556,200,400)
(0.633,30,100)

Degree of Saturation (Sr)

0.60 (0.516,200,400)

0.55 (0.532,200,5)
(0.508,400,200)
0.50

0.45 (0.470,200,5)

0.40 (0.428,200,5) (0.410,200,5)

b)

Fig. 19. Variations of a) void ratio; and b) degree of saturation, during model test stages applying different matric suctions and net stresses

Page 25 of 29
 (387,200,400)
(379,200,400) (Gmax_measured, , vn)
(395,400,200) (Gmax_predicted, , vn)
(354,200,400)

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

(404,400,200) (433,200,5)
450 (365,200,400)
(399,200,5) (448,200,5)
(416,200,5)
400

(314,200,5) R2=0.98
350
(325,200,5)
Measured
300
Predicted
250
(249,200,5)
200 (246,200,5)
(180,30,100)
150 (187,30,100)

Fig. 20. Measured and predicted Gmax values during model variation test stages

Page 26 of 29
 500

400 1:1 line

Predicted Gmax (kPa)

300 a=296
46 points n=0.4
b=493
m=0.5
c=2307
200
k=2.7

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

Measured Gmax (kPa)

Fig. 21. The entire set of measured and predicted Gmax values in this study

Page 27 of 29
 Measured (From Khosravi, 2011) drying Bonny Silt

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

80 Measured (From Khosravi, 2011) wetting e0=0.53
Predicted (this study) drying
Predicted (this study) wetting

70
n=200 kPa R2=0.98

60
n=150 kPa

50 n=100 kPa

40
0 20 40 60 80
Matric Suction (ψ) (kPa)

Page 28 of 29
 a)
400
Completely decomposed granite

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

n=300 kPa
300

R2=0.99
n=110 kPa
200

100 Measured (From Ng and Yung, 2008) drying

Measured (From Ng and Yung, 2008) wetting
Predicted (this study) drying
Predicted (this study) wetting
0
0 100 200 300
Matric Suction (ψ) (kPa)
b)

Page 29 of 29
View publication stats

100
Zenoz kaolin

Small Strain Shear Modulus (Gmax) (MPa)

80 =300 kPa

60 R2=0.99

40
Measurement (Biglari et. al, 2012) loading
20 Measurement (Biglari et. al, 2012) unloading
Prediction (this study) loading
Prediction (this study) unloading
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Net Mean Stress (n) (kPa)
c)

Fig. 22. Prediction of Gmax for a) Bonny Silt; and b) Completely decomposed granite during different drying-wetting cycles; and c) Zenoz kaolin

during a loading-unloading cycle against net mean stress

Page 30 of 29