Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Effects of particle size and confining pressure on breakage factor of

rockfill materials using medium triaxial test
Ashok Kumar Gupta*
Civil Engineering Department, Jaypee University of Information Technology, Waknaghat, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India

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

Article history: Rockfill dams are mostly constructed using blasted rockfill materials obtained by blasting rocks or al-
Received 18 September 2015 luvial rockfill materials collected from the riverbeds. Behaviors of rockfill materials and their charac-
Received in revised form terization significantly depend on breakage factor observed during triaxial loading. In this paper, two
3 December 2015
modeled rockfill materials are investigated by using medium triaxial cell. Drained triaxial tests are
Accepted 4 December 2015
Available online 16 March 2016
conducted on various sizes of modeled rockfill materials used in the two dams, and test data are analyzed
accordingly. Breakage factor of rockfill material is studied and the effects of particle size and confining
pressure on breakage factor are investigated using medium triaxial cell as many researchers have already
Keywords:
Triaxial tests
conducted investigation using large triaxial cell.
Rockfill materials Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Particle size Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Confining pressure licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Breakage factor

1. Introduction number of factors like mineral composition, particle size, shape,

Rockfill dams are getting popular because of their inherent
flexibility, large capacity to absorb seismic energy and adaptability
to various foundation conditions. Rockfill is used as a construction
material for different types of structures like dams, embankments,
etc., and has been used by humans since time immemorial. Modern
equipment and local availability of material make the use of rockfill
materials an economical option. In the present scenario, it has been
increasingly used in the hydropower projects. Therefore, it be-
comes imperative to study the characterization of the behaviors of
rockfill materials. In recent times, after establishing the funda-
mentals of soil mechanics, researchers have focused on the be-
haviors of rockfill materials.
Rockfill is a coarse grained and free draining material acquired
from quarrying of rocks or from riverbed. The most important
characteristics are the coarse angular or rounded particles and the
absence of pore pressure. Sampling and testing become difficult
because of coarseness and interlocking state of particles. Since it is
difficult to test a specimen with actual rockfill material size, it be-
comes important to scale down the size of particles of the rockfill
material. These test samples should be prepared in relation to pro-
totype which can be affected by boundary and seating condition. A
* Tel.: þ91 1792239246.
E-mail address: ashok.gupta@juit.ac.in.
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
grading and relative density of rockfill can also affect the behaviors
of rockfill materials. Academic researchers and field engineers both
have been focusing on finding the extent to which these laboratory
tests can predict the actual field behaviors of rockfill materials.
During the dumped rockfill material era, there was no restric-
tion on the size of spalls. Large material size was acceptable and
also desirable. However, for effective compaction of rockfill, the
material should be spread in layers of small depth. The actual size of
rockfill material is larger than the capacity of a normal laboratory
testing equipment. Therefore, determination of strength and
deformation parameters should be done in a way that it simulates
the actual characteristics of the rockfill materials. This was achieved
by small-scale rockfill model or developing large testing equipment
or a combination of both techniques to get realistic results.
Research on rockfill behaviors was more focused on testing the
rockfill material by reducing its size to coarse grained sand size and
boulder size as large triaxial equipment was not available. With the
development of large-scale direct shear test apparatus, the re-
searchers tested the rockfill materials with actual size and extrap-
olated the results. Later, the large triaxial test apparatus was used
for studying the behaviors of rockfill material. This is evident from
the fact that actual size of rockfill materials has already been tested
in large triaxial testing machines and reported by many researchers
in the past and present also.
This paper presents the testing results of medium sized alluvial
(riverbed) and blasted (quarried) rockfill materials in a medium

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.12.005
1674-7755 Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388 379

Table 1 specimen was enclosed in a cylindrical rubber membrane and was

Large-scale triaxial testing devices. loaded by partially evacuating the internal air pressure. It was
Location Maximum Specimen Maximum tested for compressive strength by loading it axially in a standard
confining diameter size of rockfill concrete cylinder testing machine. Hall and Gordon (1963) tested
pressure (MPa) (mm) materials (mm) rock fragments smaller than 10.2 mm size but larger than 2.54 mm.
Corps of Engineers, 0.862 30.5 7.6 Table 1 as described by Gupta (2000) shows the various large-
Sausalito, California 10.35 15.2 3.8 scale triaxial testing devices used in different laboratories and
Geo testing, California 3.795 30.5 7.6
research organizations along with confining pressure, specimen
13.8 15.2 3.8
Soil Mechanics and 5.175 30.5 7.6 size and size of rockfill materials which can be accommodated for
Foundations testing.
Engineers, California Marsal (1967) developed a high pressure triaxial cell to test the
United States Bureau of 0.69 22.9 7.6
rockfill material of Infiernillo dam, and 148 m high cylindrical
Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado
specimens, 1130 mm in diameter and 2500 mm in height, were
Infiernillo, Mexico 2.415 113 20.3 used. The apparatus consisted of a spherical cell of 4200 mm in
4.83 20.3 3.8 diameter. The specimens were tested under a maximum lateral
University of California 5.175 91.4 15.2 pressure of 2.415 MPa.
Berkeley (UCB),
Fumagalli (1969) devised a cylindrical chamber consisting of a
Richmond, California
Central Soil and Materials 2.8 381 80 stack of alternating rings of steel and a highly deformable material
Research Station (CSMRS), 3 500 100 glued together. Ring chamber of 1300 mm in diameter and
New Delhi, India 2600 mm in height was used for testing the rockfill material in
triaxial compression. Rockfill materials up to the size of 260 mm
triaxial testing machine. In this study, breakage factor of rockfill were tested. A compression testing machine of 20 MN capacity was
material is studied and the effects of particle size and confining used for the test.
pressure on breakage factor of rockfill materials are investigated Marachi et al. (1972) conducted investigations on the properties
using medium triaxial testing machine by reducing the size of both of rockfill materials by performing test in the Rockfill Testing Fa-
alluvial (riverbed) and blasted (quarried) rockfill materials. cility of the University of California at Berkeley, using triaxial test
specimens ranging from 71.1 mm to 914.4 mm in diameter. The
2. Review testing program consisted of three series of isotropically consoli-
dated drained triaxial compression tests on the typical rockfill
2.1. Testing of rockfill materials materials. Each series consisted of at least four specimens having
diameters of 914.4 mm, 304.8 mm and 71.1 mm. The four tests for
The rockfill materials generally consist of boulders, cobbles and each specimen size were performed at confining pressures of
coarse gravel. The testing of these large rockfill materials requires 0.207 MPa, 0.966 MPa, and 4.485 MPa. The tests were conducted on
equipment of formidable dimensions, particularly when their be- the rockfill materials used in construction of Pyramid and Oroville
haviors are to be evaluated to resemble closely field conditions. The dams. Tests were also conducted on the crushed basalt. A triaxial
first attempt to test the rockfill material in triaxial shear test was cell of 914.4 mm in diameter and 2300 mm in height was used.
made by Hall and Gordon (1963), who developed equipment for Specimen can be tested under confining pressure as high as
testing 457 mm in diameter by 914 mm high specimens. The 5.175 MPa and under axial loads as high as 17.8 MN. A two-channel

Fig. 1. Shah Nahar materials.

380 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

Fig. 2. Kol Dam materials.

SHAN NAHAR PROJECT MATERIALS

KOL DAM MATERIALS

Modeled curves
PERCENTAGE PASSING (%)
PERCENTAGE PASSING (%)

Modeled
curves

Prototype curve

Prototype curve

PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

Fig. 3. Grain size distribution for Kol Dam prototype and modeled materials. Fig. 4. Grain size distribution for Shah Nahar prototype and modeled materials.
 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388 381

Table 2 sizes, i.e. 381 mm in diameter and 813 mm in height, and 500 mm
Physical characteristics of rockfill materials. in diameter and 600 mm in height. The tests were conducted with
Project Specific Water Aggregate Aggregate Los four confining pressures of 0.35 MPa, 0.7 MPa, 1.1 MPa and 1.4 MPa.
name gravity absorption impact curve Angeles Modeled rockfill materials obtained by geometrically reducing the
(%) value (%) value (%) abrasion (%) particle size with maximum particle sizes of 10 mm, 25 mm,
Kol Dam 2.64 3 41.4 45.23 28.87 50 mm, 80 mm and 100 mm were used for testing. Xiao et al.
Shah Nahar 2.62 5.2 38.7 40.23 29.5 (2014a,b,c) had also conducted a series of triaxial tests for
Tacheng rockfill materials with different initial consolidated void
ratios and initial confining pressures.
Table 3 The isotropic consolidation and consolidated drained triaxial
Relative densities for the rockfill materials.
shear tests were conducted by Gupta (1980) on three particle sizes
Project name Particle Dry density (g/cm3) ranging from fine sand to fine gravel of calcite and quartz at
size (mm) confining pressures ranging from 0.14 MPa to 12.7 MPa to under-
gmax gmin Corresponding to
87% of relative density stand the response of modeled rockfill materials. At the end of each
Kol Dam 1.18 1.8 1.65 1.731
test, grain size distribution of the material was determined.
2.36 1.9 1.74 1.827 Isotropic consolidation and triaxial shear tests were conducted on
4.75 1.9 1.75 1.827 cylindrical specimens with slender ratio 1:1 using enlarged friction
5.6 1.9 1.76 1.827 free end platens. Fine and medium size materials were tested in
Shah Nahar 1.18 1.8 1.64 1.731
38 mm diameter specimen and coarse size material in 100 mm
2.36 1.8 1.66 1.731
4.75 1.8 1.67 1.731 diameter specimen. Triaxial shear tests were conducted on small
5.6 1.9 1.75 1.827 and large specimens at a constant rate of deformation of 0.096 mm/
min and 0.043 mm/min, respectively. Sufficiently slow rate of
deformation was selected by him in order to provide effective
material testing electro-hydraulic system capable of applying static drainage even during degradation of the material at high confining
or dynamic loads was used. The triaxial testing units had the pressure. The smaller size specimens of 38 mm in diameter were
capability of producing axial strains of 30%. tested in a triaxial cell enabling to test specimen under confining
Thiers and Donovan (1981) conducted triaxial shear tests on pressure up to 14 MPa. A triaxial cell to test large specimens of
four types of compacted rockfill materials (sedimentary rocks) used 100 mm in diameter was used for testing coarser material. This cell
in the construction of Little Blue Run dam. Large-size (380 mm in permits testing of the specimen under confining pressure up to
diameter) and conventional (150 mm in diameter) triaxial tests 8 MPa. The confining pressure was applied through a self-
were conducted. Specimens of 63.5 mm as the maximum particle compensating pressure assembly. Xiao et al. (2014c) had also
size were used in 380 mm diameter triaxial shear tests. The spec- studied strength and deformation of rockfill material based on
imens were subjected to the confining pressures up to 0.34 MPa. large-scale triaxial compression tests.
Greywacke rockfill material was tested under consolidated
drained condition on three different gradations corresponding to 2.2. Particle breakage
three maximum particle sizes by Ansari and Chandra (1986).
Specimens of 300 mm in diameter and 600 mm in height were Virtually all the investigations involving soil testing with high
tested on a large triaxial machine with a servo-controlled appli- pressure have resulted in considerable particle breakage (Becker,
cation of vertical load and with an automatic data acquisition sys- 1972; Hardin, 1985; Murphy, 1987; Colliat-Dangus et al., 1988;
tem. The consolidation pressures up to 0.6 MPa were applied. Fukumoto, 1990; Hagerty et al., 1993; Lade et al., 1996; Daouadji and
To study the stressestrain characteristics of modeled riverbed Hicher, 1997; Gupta, 2009).
rockfill material, Venkatachalam (1993) conducted a large consol- Several authors have already attempted to quantify the particle
idated drained triaxial test on cylindrical samples with two kinds of breakage by defining factors based on the modification of the grain

Table 4
Mass of various fractions of modeled rockfill materials for triaxial test.

Project name Fractions (mm) Mass (g) to achieve 87% of relative density

Dmax ¼ 1.18 mm Dmax ¼ 2.36 mm Dmax ¼ 4.75 mm Dmax ¼ 5.6 mm

Kol Dam 5.6e4.75 0.36

4.75e2.36 0.72 116.68
2.36e1.18 253.45 162.23
1.18e0.6 15.98 115.6 24.05 29.83
0.6e0.3 119.34 101.6 31.59 18.67
0.3e0.15 106.98 66.41 22.98 13.64
0.15e0.075 40.8 22.98 8.26 6.28
<0.075 57.8 52.41 17.95 11.31
Total mass (g) 340.9 359 359 359
Shah Nahar 5.6e4.75
4.75e2.36 6.8 54.57
2.36e1.18 16.66 197.88 130.96
1.18e0.6 169.66 76.84 74.74
0.6e0.3 58.48 35.7 12.92 19.06
0.3e0.15 165.24 57.8 22.1 40.89
0.15e0.075 68.68 30.26 9.52 22.26
<0.075 47.68 29.92 13.94 16.52
Total mass (g) 340.08 340 340 359
382 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

Table 5
Details of drained triaxial tests conducted.

Project name Maximum particle Average particle Confining pressure (MPa) Length of Diameter of the
size, Dmax (mm) size, D50 (mm) specimen (mm) specimen (mm)

Kol Dam 1.18, 2.36, 4.75, 5.6 0.19, 0.35, 0.68, 0.8 0.196, 0.294, 0.49, 0.687 100 50
Shah Nahar 1.18, 2.36, 4.75, 5.6 0.2, 0.4, 0.82, 1.15 0.196, 0.294, 0.49, 0.687 100 50

size distribution curves before and after tests. These empirical
factors have been written either as the variation of a particular
grain diameter (Lee and Farhoomand, 1967; Lade et al., 1996) or as
the shift of the whole grain size distribution curve (Marsal, 1967;
Hardin, 1985). Xiao et al. (2015a, b) studied the influence of parti-
cle breakage on critical state line of rockfill material.
There are several factors that affect the amount of particle
breakage in a geological material (Lee and Farhoomand, 1967;
Ramamurthy, 1969; Billam, 1971; Murphy, 1971; Lo and Roy, 1973;
Ramamurthy et al., 1974; Gupta, 1980; Hardin, 1985; Sudhindra
et al., 1987; Kjaernsli et al., 1992; Venkatachalam, 1993; Lade
et al., 1996). The amount of particle breakage is affected by the
stress level, stress magnitude and stress path. Large amount of
particle breakage is generated when stress levels are higher and
when large numbers of strains occur in regions of high stress
magnitudes. The quantity of particle breakage is also a function of
time (Yamamuro and Lade, 1993). Gupta (2000) and Abbas (2003)
stated that breakage factor increases with the increase in
maximum particle size as well as increase in confining pressure for
riverbed and blasted rockfill materials. The rate of change of the
breakage factor with respect to confining pressure is higher in case
of quarried rockfill materials than that for riverbed rockfill mate-
rials. Frossard et al. (2012) presented a method for evaluating
rockfill shear strength based on size effects in granular materials
affected by particle breakage according to fracture mechanics. Ef-
fect of intermediate principal stress ratio on particle breakage of
rockfill material has been reported by Xiao et al. (2014c, 2015a, b).
3. Materials used and testing
3.1. Materials of Shah Nahar project site
The materials collected from the riverbed consist of rounded/
subrounded particles of 200 mm in size (max.), and contain pieces
of micaceous sandstone and quartzite. Micaceous sandstone is
equi-granular in texture, well rounded and elongated few pieces in

Table 6 Table 7
Percentages passing before and after tests for Shah Nahar project rockfill materials. Percentages passing before and after tests for Kol Dam rockfill materials.

Maximum IS sieve Percentage Percentage passing after test (%) Maximum IS Percentage Percentage passing after test (%)
particle size, (mm) passing particle size, sieve passing
0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa
Dmax (mm) before Dmax (mm) (mm) before
test (%) test (%)

1.18 10 100 100 100 100 100 1.18 10 100 100 100 100 100
6.3 100 100 100 100 100 6.3 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 100 100 100 100 100 4.75 100 100 100 100 100
2.36 100 100 100 100 100 2.36 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 100 100 100 100 100 1.18 100 100 100 100 100
0.6 88.52 88.82 89.12 89.12 89.71 0.6 77.94 78.53 78.53 78.53 79.12
0.3 59.41 60.15 60.45 61.18 61.77 0.3 61.18 62.06 62.06 62.65 63.53
0.15 44.41 44.86 44.86 45.59 45.89 0.15 45 45.29 46.18 47.06 47.94
0.075 37.06 37.21 37.22 37.06 37.36 0.075 31.47 31.62 31.76 32.06 32.06
2.36 10 100 100 100 100 100 2.36 10 100 100 100 100 100
6.3 100 100 100 100 100 6.3 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 100 100 100 100 100 4.75 100 100 100 100 100
2.36 100 100 100 100 100 2.36 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 88.52 88.82 88.82 89.12 89.41 1.18 78.83 79.25 79.39 79.67 79.95
0.6 60 60.58 60.88 61.32 61.76 0.6 61.56 62.26 62.54 63.09 63.79
0.3 45 45.88 46.17 46.91 47.5 0.3 46.52 47.49 47.77 48.61 49.58
0.15 37.06 37.65 37.65 38.38 38.68 0.15 29.81 30.36 30.5 31.06 31.48
0.075 32.35 32.65 32.65 32.65 32.65 0.075 21.17 21.45 21.45 21.73 22
4.75 10 100 100 100 100 100 4.75 10 100 100 100 100 100
6.3 100 100 100 100 100 6.3 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 100 100 100 100 100 4.75 100 100 100 100 100
2.36 88.52 88.82 88.97 89.12 89.41 2.36 78.83 79.39 79.39 79.67 79.94
1.18 57.64 58.23 58.53 59.12 59.41 1.18 63.51 64.35 64.48 64.9 65.74
0.6 44.41 45.29 45.74 46.33 47.06 0.6 47.91 49.03 49.16 49.86 50.7
0.3 37.65 38.23 38.39 38.83 39.42 0.3 33.43 34.26 34.12 35.65 36.63
0.15 31.47 31.76 31.92 32.07 32.66 0.15 20.89 21.45 21.17 22 22.42
0.075 24.41 24.41 24.57 24.72 25 0.075 14.48 14.76 14.48 14.76 14.9
5.6 10 100 100 100 100 100 5.6 10 100 100 100 100 100
6.3 100 100 100 100 100 6.3 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 96.66 96.94 97.21 97.21 97.49 4.75 95.82 96.38 96.38 96.66 96.94
2.36 84.68 85.24 85.52 85.79 86.35 2.36 74.93 75.77 75.77 76.46 76.88
1.18 51.53 52.23 52.79 53.2 53.76 1.18 58.77 59.89 59.89 60.86 61.56
0.6 42.62 43.59 44.15 44.85 45.4 0.6 43.73 44.99 45.13 46.1 47.08
0.3 35.1 35.79 36.07 36.77 37.05 0.3 29.81 30.5 30.64 31.2 32.03
0.15 30.08 30.5 30.5 31.2 31.2 0.15 18.66 18.94 19.08 19.5 19.78
0.075 22.56 22.84 22.7 23.12 23.12 0.075 12.81 12.81 12.81 13.09 13.37
 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388 383

0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa 0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa
100 100

80 80

Percentage Passing (%)

Percentage Passing (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm) Particle Size (mm)

(a) Dmax= 1.18 mm. (b) Dmax= 2.36 mm.

0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa 0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa
100 100

80 80
Percentage Passing (%)

Percentage Passing (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm) Particle Size (mm)

(c) Dmax= 4.75 mm. (d) Dmax= 5.6 mm.

Fig. 5. Pre- and post-grain size distribution curves for Shah Nahar project rockfill materials at different confining pressures.

orientation. The materials contain quartz (88.5%), biotite (4%),
muscovite (3%), amphibole (3%), weathered iron oxide (0.5%), iron
pyrite (0.5%), and pyroxene (0.5%).
The individual particles are very strong as it is very difficult to
break the medium size particles with hammer. The rockfill mate-
rials collected from the field are shown in Fig. 1.
The area is occupied by rocks of upper Shivalik group. The rocks
are of sedimentary origin. In general, rocks consist of mature grains
and sediments of quartz, clay, mica and heavy minerals.
3.2. Materials of Kol Dam project site
The materials quarried from upstream of Kol Dam as a suitable
source consist of lime particles of 600 mm in size (max.) and are
sedimentary by chemical precipitation. They have small tissues and
give effervescence with dilute HCl, and are grey in color and fine
grained. The materials contain calcite (98.5%), muscovite (0.5%),
weathered iron oxide (0.5%) and clay mineral (0.5%). The rockfill
materials collected from the field are shown in Fig. 2.
4. Gradation of materials
4.1. Gradation of prototype materials
Representative rockfill materials are collected from two study
locations and subjected to grain size analysis. The grain size dis-
tribution results are plotted and an average curve is drawn. This
curve has been designated as the average prototype curve of the
representative rockfill materials for both the study sites, as shown
in Figs. 3 and 4.
4.2. Gradation of modeled materials
The particle sizes of the actual material are scaled down to some
degree. The material obtained, popularly known as modeled ma-
terial, is used for the testing.
Four modeled rockfill materials obtained by geometrically
reducing the particle size with maximum particle size Dmax of
1.18 mm, 2.36 mm, 4.75 mm and 5.6 mm have been used for the
tests on Kol Dam and Shah Nahar rockfill materials. Four modeled
gradation curves are derived using John Lowe’s parallel gradation
modeling technique (Lowe, 1964). Modeled gradation curves of Kol
Dam and Shah Nahar rockfill materials have also been presented in
Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. Physical characteristics of the rockfill
materials are presented in Table 2.
Using these modeled grain size distribution curves, the required
quantities of various fractions of rockfill materials have been
calculated. The total quantities of materials thus required are sieved
from the materials collected from two dam sites.
The dry density is calculated for the modeled rockfill materials.
The values of the maximum dry density (gmax), minimum dry
density (gmin) and required dry density corresponding to 87% of
relative density are given in Table 3.
In accordance with the modeled gradation curves, the total mass
required for achieving 87% of relative density is computed for each
384 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa 0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa
100 100

80 80
Percentage Passing (%)

Percentage Passing (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm) Particle Size (mm)

(a) Dmax= 1.18 mm. (b) Dmax= 2.36 mm.

0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa 0 MPa 0.196 MPa 0.294 MPa 0.49 MPa 0.687 MPa
100 100

80 80
Percentage Passing (%)

60 Percentage Passing (%) 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm) Particle Size (mm)

(c) Dmax= 4.75 mm. (d) Dmax= 5.6 mm.

Fig. 6. Pre- and post-grain size distribution curves for Kol Dam rockfill materials at different confining pressures.

of the specimens to be tested. The mass of individual fraction used
for the tests is given in Table 4.
5. Medium triaxial testing of two modeled rockfill materials
Consolidated drained medium triaxial shear tests have been
conducted on the modeled materials at AIMIL Ltd., New Delhi, In-
dia. The confining pressure ranges for the tests have been chosen
depending upon the dam height, earth pressure coefficient at rest,
and field density of rockfill materials. Four confining pressures of
0.196 MPa, 0.294 MPa, 0.49 MPa, 0.687 MPa for the Kol Dam and the
Shah Nahar project modeled materials have been used. Table 5
shows the details of triaxial tests conducted.
To study the effects of particle size and confining pressure on
breakage factor of rockfill materials, a single triaxial cell is used.
Diameter of triaxial cell is 200 mm and height of triaxial cell is
325 mm.

Table 8 Table 9
Breakage factors for Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials. Breakage factors for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials.

Dmax (mm) Confining pressure (MPa) Breakage factor, Bg (%) Dmax (mm) Confining pressure (MPa) Breakage factor, Bg (%)

1.18 0.196 0.88 1.18 0.196 0.74

0.294 1.18 0.294 1.04
0.49 2.06 0.49 1.77
0.687 2.94 0.687 2.36
2.36 0.196 0.97 2.36 0.196 0.88
0.294 1.25 0.294 1.17
0.49 2.09 0.49 1.91
0.687 3.06 0.687 2.5
4.75 0.196 1.12 4.75 0.196 0.88
0.294 1.25 0.294 1.33
0.49 2.22 0.49 1.92
0.687 3.2 0.687 2.65
5.6 0.196 1.26 5.6 0.196 0.97
0.294 1.4 0.294 1.53
0.49 2.37 0.49 2.23
0.687 3.35 0.687 2.79
 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388
4.0
3.5
3.0
Breakage Factor (%)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.196 0.294
Confining Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 7. Variations of breakage factor with the confining pressure for Kol Dam and Shah Nahar rockfill materials.
The quantity of individual fraction is mixed thoroughly after
wetting with 4% moisture content and then the mixture is divided
into six equal parts for compacting into six layers inside the split mold.
Porous base plate is placed on the pedestal. First part of the mixture is
poured into the split mold and compacted with a frequency of 60
cycles per second. In the same way, all six layers are placed and
compacted. Vibration time is determined on the basis of trial density
test. The sample is saturated by allowing water to pass through the
base of the triaxial cell and using a top drainage system for removing
air voids. The sample is first subjected to the consolidation pressure
and then sheared to failure with a rate of loading of 0.05 mm/min.
During the test, it is observed that the particles break. To
quantify the breakage, the grain size distribution curves before and
after the tests are plotted. The breakage is quantitatively expressed
as breakage factor, Bg, as proposed by Marsal (1967).
The values of percentage passing before and after tests are listed
in Table 6 for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials and Table 7 for
Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials.
The typical grain size distribution curves before and after tests
for Shah Nahar project riverbed rockfill materials at four confining
pressures of 0.196 MPa, 0.294 MPa, 0.49 MPa and 0.687 MPa for four
maximum particle sizes of 1.18 mm, 2.36 mm, 4.75 mm and 5.6 mm
are presented in Fig. 5.
The typical grain size distribution curves before and after tests
for Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials at four confining pressures
of 0.196 MPa, 0.294 MPa, 0.49 MPa and 0.687 MPa for four
maximum particle sizes of 1.18 mm, 2.36 mm, 4.75 mm and 5.6 mm
are presented in Fig. 6.
The values of breakage factor calculated for Kol Dam quarried
rockfill materials and Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials under
four confining pressures are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respec-
tively. It can be seen from Tables 8 and 9 that the value of the
breakage factor increases with the increase in particle size as well
as increase in confining pressure for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill
materials as well as Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials.
To study the effect of the particle size distribution on the
amount of the particle breakage, the values of breakage factor are
plotted against the confining pressure, as shown in Fig. 7.
Abbas (2003) reported the large triaxial tests on Shah Nahar
riverbed rockfill materials under consolidated drained condition.
385
Kol Dam rockfill material
1.18 mm size
Kol Dam rockfill material
2.36 mm size
Kol Dam rockfill material
4.75mm size
Kol Dam rockfill material
5.6 mm size
Shah Nahar rockfill material
1.18 mm size
Shah Nahar rockfill material
2.36 mm size
Shah Nahar rockfill material
4.75 mm size
0.49 0.687
Shah Nahar rockfill material
5.6 mm size
The particle sizes are 80 mm, 50 mm and 25 mm and the confining
pressures are 0.2 MPa, 0.4 MPa, 0.6 MPa and 0.8 MPa. The values of
breakage factor at failure in Abbas (2003) are extrapolated for the
present study. The values of breakage factor at failure for Shah
Nahar riverbed rockfill materials tested in medium triaxial testing
machine under consolidated drained condition in the present study
are almost the same as those of the extrapolated values of breakage
factor reported by Abbas (2003) tested in large triaxial testing
machine, as shown in Fig. 8.
Abbas (2003) also reported the large triaxial tests on Kol Dam
quarried rockfill materials under consolidated drained condition.
The particle sizes are 80 mm, 50 mm and 25 mm and the confining
pressures are 0.3 MPa, 0.6 MPa, 0.9 MPa and 1.2 MPa. The values of
breakage factor at failure are extrapolated for the present study. The
values of breakage factor at failure under the present study for Kol
Dam quarried rockfill materials tested in medium triaxial testing
machine are not the same as those of extrapolated values of
breakage factor reported by Abbas (2003) tested in large triaxial
testing machine, as shown in Fig. 9.
From Figs. 7e9, it is observed that the breakage factor increases
with the increase in confining pressure for Shah Nahar riverbed
rockfill materials as well as Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials
tested in medium triaxial testing machine. The rate of increase in
the breakage factor for the quarried rockfill materials from Kol Dam
project is higher than that for the riverbed rockfill materials from
Shah Nahar project site. The breakage factor is larger at higher
confining pressure in the case of rockfill materials from Kol Dam as
compared to the materials from Shah Nahar project site. The
breakage factor also increases with the increase in size of the par-
ticles for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials as well as Kol Dam
quarried rockfill materials. Similar trends have been reported by
Venkatachalam (1993) for Tipaimukh and Rangandi riverbed
rockfill materials and Gupta (2000) for Ranjit Sagar Dam riverbed
rockfill materials, Purulai Dam quarried rockfill materials and
Abbas (2003) for riverbed rockfill materials from Tihri Dam site, Kol
Dam site, Shah Nahar, bridge site of Yamuna Canal, silt ejector site,
Western Yamuna Canal and quarried rockfill material for Kol Dam,
Parbati Dam site.
This trend is found to be similar to that observed by Marsal
(1967), Vesic and Clough (1968), Marachi et al. (1969), and
386 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

Predicted value of breakage

factor for Shah Nahar rockfill
materials reported by
2.5 Abbas (2003) for particle
size 1.18 mm
Predicted value of breakage
factor for Shah Nahar rockfill
materials reported by
Abbas (2003) for particle size
2.36 mm
2 Predicted value of breakage
factor for Shah Nahar rockfill
materials reported by
Abbas (2003) for particle
Breakage Factor (%)

size 4.75 mm
Predicted value of breakage
factor for Shah Nahar rockfill
1.5 materials reported by
Abbas (2003) for particle
size 5.6 mm
Breakage factor for Shah
Nahar rockfill materials
under this study for particle
size 1.18 mm
1
Breakage factor for Shah
Nahar rockfill materials
under this study for particle
size 2.36 mm

Breakage factor for Shah

0.5 Nahar rockfill materials
under this study for particle
size 4.75 mm

Breakage factor for Shah

Nahar rockfill materials
under this study for particle
0 size 5.6 mm
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Confining Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 8. Variations of breakage factor with the confining pressure for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials compared with Abbas (2003).

Ramamurthy et al. (1974) also concluded that the magnitude of
crushing increases with increase in particle size, which is in
agreement with this work.
6. Conclusions
The breakage factor increases with the increase in confining
pressure for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials as well as Kol
Dam quarried rockfill materials when tested in medium triaxial
testing machine under consolidated drained condition. The rate of
increase in the breakage factor for the quarried rockfill materials
from Kol Dam project is higher than that for the riverbed rockfill
materials from Shah Nahar project site. The breakage factor is larger
at higher confining pressure in the case of rockfill materials from
Kol Dam as compared to the material from Shah Nahar project site.
The breakage factor also increases with the increase in size of the
particles for Shah Nahar riverbed rockfill materials as well as Kol
Dam quarried rockfill materials. In general, the effects of particle
size and confining pressure can be summarized as follows:
(1) Alluvial and blasted rockfill materials both show increase in
the breakage factor with increase in particle size. It is known
that as the particle size increases, the number of contact
points decreases. This leads to higher contact pressure and
increased particle breakage. Breakage factor of riverbed
rockfill materials tested in medium triaxial testing machine
is almost the same as the extrapolated value of breakage
factor of alluvial (riverbed) rockfill tested in large triaxial
testing machine of same dam site.
(2) Alluvial and blasted rockfill materials both show increase in
breakage factor with the increase in confining pressure for all
sizes of the particles. As would be expected, increase in
confining pressure causes increase in contact stresses lead-
ing to increase in particle breakage.
 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388
14
12
10
Breakage Factor (%)
8
6
4
2
0 Abbas (2003) for particle size 80 mm
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Confining Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 9. Variations of breakage factor with the confining pressure for Kol Dam quarried rockfill materials compared with Abbas (2003).
Conflict of interest
The author wishes to confirm that there are no known conflicts
of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
References
Abbas SM. Testing and modelling the behavior of riverbed and quarried rockfill
materials. PhD Thesis. Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Technology; 2003.
Ansari KS, Chandra S. How ought one to determine soil parameters to be used in the
design of earth and rockfill dam?. In: Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical
Conference, New Delhi; 1986. p. 1e6.
Becker E. Strength and deformation characteristics of rockfill materials under plane
strain conditions. PhD Thesis. Berkley, USA: University of California; 1972.
Billam J. Some aspects of the behavior of granular materials at high pressure. In:
Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium on Stress-Strain Behavior of
Soils. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University; 1971. p. 69e80.
Colliat-Dangus JL, Desrues J, Foray P. Triaxial testing of granular soil under elevated
cell pressure. In: Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock. West Con-
shohocken, USA: ASTM International; 1988. p. 290e310.
Daouadji A, Hicher PY. Modelling of grain breakage influence on mechanical
behavior of sands. In: Proceedings of Numerical Models in Geomechanics.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema; 1997. p. 69e74.
Frossard E, Hu W, Dano C, Hicher PY. Rockfill shear strength evaluation: a rational
method based on size effects. Géotechnique 2012;62(5):415e27.
Fumagalli E. Tests on cohesionless materials for rockfill dams. Journal of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundations Division 1969;95(1):313e32.
Fukumoto T. A grading equation for decomposed granite soil. Soils and Foundations
1990;30(1):27e34.
Gupta AK. Constitutive modelling of rockfill material. PhD Thesis. Delhi, India: In-
dian Institute of Technology; 2000.
Gupta AK. Effect of particle size and confining pressure on breakage and strength
parameters of rockfill material. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
2009;14(H):1e12.
Gupta KK. Behavior of modelled rockfill materials under high confining pressures.
PhD Thesis. Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Technology; 1980.
Hagerty MM, Hite DR, Ullrich CR, Hagerty DJ. One dimensional high pressure
compression of granular media. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
1993;119(1):1e18.
Hall EB, Gordon BB. Triaxial testing using large scale high pressure equipment. In:
Special Technical Publication No. 361, ASTM Symposium, Philadelphia; 1963.
387
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials reported by
Abbas (2003) for particle size 50 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials reported by
Abbas (2003) for particle size 25 mm
Predicted value of breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials
reported by Abbas (2003) for particle size 1.18 mm
Predicted value of breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials
reported by Abbas (2003) for particle size 2.36 mm
Predicted value of breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials
reported by Abbas (2003) for particle size 4.75 mm
Predicted value of breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials
reported by Abbas (2003) for particle size 5.6 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials under this study
for particle size 1.18 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials under this study
for particle size 2.36 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials under this study
for particle size 4.75 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials under this study
for particle size 5.6 mm
Breakage factor for Kol Dam rock fill materials reported by
1.4
Hardin BO. Crushing of soil particles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
1985;111(10):1177e92.
Kjaernsli B, Valstad T, Hoeg K. Rockfill dams e design and construction. Trondheim,
Norway: Division of Hydraulics Engineering, Norwegian Institute of Technol-
ogy; 1992.
Lade PV, Yamamuro JA, Bopp PA. Significance of particle crushing in granular ma-
terials. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1996;122(4):309e16.
Lee KL, Farhoomand I. Compressibility and crushing of granular soil in anisotropic
triaxial compression. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1967;4(1):68e99.
Lo KY, Roy M. Response of particulate materials at high pressure. Soils and Foun-
dations 1973;13(1):1e14.
Lowe J. Shear strength of coarse embankment dam materials. In: Proceedings of the
8th International Congress on Large Dams; 1964. p. 745e61.
Marachi ND, Chan CK, Seed HB, Duncan JM. Strength and deformation character-
istics of rockfill materials. Report No. TE69e5. Berkeley, USA: Civil Engineering
Department, University of California; 1969.
Marachi ND, Chan CK, Seed HB. Evaluation of properties of rockfill materials. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1972;98(1):95e114.
Marsal RJ. Large-scale testing of rockfill materials. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division 1967;93(2):27e43.
Murphy DJ. High pressure experiments on soil and rock. In: Proceedings of the 13th
Symposium on Rock Mechanics; 1971. p. 691e714.
Murphy DJ. Stress, degradation and shear strength of granular material. In:
Geotechnical modelling and applications. Houston, USA: Gulf Publishing
Company; 1987. p. 181e211.
Ramamurthy T, Kanitkar VK, Prakash K. Behavior of coarse-grained soils under high
stresses. Indian Geotechnical Journal 1974;4(1):39e63.
Ramamurthy T. Crushing phenomena in granular soils. Journal of Indian National
Society of SMFE 1969;8(1):67e86.
Sudhindra C, Venkatachalam K, Soni ML. Evaluation of design parameters of rockfill
materials for high fill dams. In: Proceedings of All India Seminar on Earth and
Rockfill Dams. Lucknow, India: Irrigation Department; 1987. B87e108.
Thiers GR, Donovan TD. Field density gradation and triaxial testing of large-size
rockfill for little blue run dam. In: Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil. ASTM
STP 740. West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International; 1981. p. 315e25.
Venkatachalam K. Prediction of mechanical behavior of rockfill materials. PhD
Thesis. Delhi, India: Indian Institute of Technology; 1993.
Vesic AB, Clough GW. Behavior of granular materials under high stresses. Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1968;94(3):661e88.
Xiao Y, Liu H, Chen Y, Chu J. Influence of intermediate principal stress on the
strength and dilatancy behavior of rockfill material. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 2014a;140(11):04014064.
Xiao Y, Liu H, Chen Y, Jiang J. Bounding surface model for rockfill materials
dependent on density and pressure under triaxial stress conditions. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 2014b;140(4):04014002.
388 A.K. Gupta / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 378e388

Xiao Y, Liu H, Chen Y, Jiang J. Strength and deformation of rockfill material based on Professor Ashok Kumar Gupta is Head of Civil Engineering
large-scale triaxial compression tests. II: influence of particle breakage. Journal Department, Jaypee University of Information Technology
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2014c;140(12):04014071. (JUIT), Waknaghat, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India. He
Xiao Y, Liu H, Desai CS, Sun Y, Liu H. Effect of intermediate principal stress ratio on obtained his Bachelor degree from University of Roorkee
particle breakage of rockfill material. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo- (now IIT Roorkee), M.E. degree from University of Roorkee
environmental Engineering 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943- in 1986, and Ph.D. of Civil Engineering from IIT Delhi in
5606.0001433. 2000. His areas of interest have been testing and modeling
Xiao Y, Liu H, Ding X, Chen Y, Jiang J, Zhang W. Influence of particle breakage on of geotechnical materials, finite element modeling and its
critical state line of rockfill material. International Journal of Geomechanics applications to geotechnical engineering, continuum
2015b;16(1):04015031. damage mechanics and its application to rockfill materials
Yamamuro JA, Lade PV. Effects of strain rate on instability of granular soils. modeling, and engineering rock mechanics. He is Founder
Geotechnical Testing Journal 1993;16(3):304e13. Chairman of Indian Geotechnical Society (IGS) Shimla
Chapter.