Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River:

Effect of Low Plastic Fine Contents and Other
Parameters

Mohammed Chemmam, Ahmed Arab, Mostefa Belkhatir & Rachid Bouferra

To cite this article: Mohammed Chemmam, Ahmed Arab, Mostefa Belkhatir & Rachid
Bouferra (2015): Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River: Effect of Low Plastic
Fine Contents and Other Parameters, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, DOI:
10.1080/1064119X.2015.1014983

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2015.1014983

Accepted online: 22 Jun 2015.Published

online: 22 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 22

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20

Download by: [CERIST] Date: 21 September 2015, At: 00:18

 Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 0: 1–11
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1064-119X print/1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1014983

Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River: Effect

of Low Plastic Fine Contents and Other Parameters
MOHAMMED CHEMMAM1, AHMED ARAB1, MOSTEFA BELKHATIR1, and RACHID BOUFERRA2
1
Laboratory of Materials Sciences and Environment, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Chlef, Algeria
2
Faculty of Science and Technology of Marrakech, Morocco

Received 13 October 2014, Accepted 30 January 2015

This article presents a laboratory study of static behavior of silty-sand soils. The objective of this laboratory investigation is to study
the effect of initial confining pressures and fines content on the undrained shear strength (known as liquefaction resistance) response,
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

pore pressure, and hydraulic conductivity of sand–silt mixtures. The triaxial tests were conducted on reconstituted saturated silty-sand
samples at initial relative density Dr ¼ 15% with fines content ranging from 0 to 50%. All the samples were subjected to a range
of initial confining pressures (50, 100, and 200 kPa). The obtained results indicate that the presence of low plastic fines in sand–silt
mixture leads to a more compressible soil fabric, and consequently to a significant loss in the soil resistance to liquefaction. The
evaluation of the data indicates that the undrained shear strength can be correlated to fines content (Fc), inter-granular void ratio
(eg), and excess of pore pressure (Du). The undrained shear strength decreases with the decrease of saturated hydraulic conductivity
and the increase of fines content for all confining pressures under consideration. There is a relatively high degree of correlation
between the peak shear strength (qpeak) and the logarithm of the saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat) for all confining pressures.
Keywords: fines content, hydraulic conductivity, initial confining pressure, inter-granular void ratio, shear strength, triaxial

Introduction Ishihara and Okada 1978). Since 1990s, it has been

Shearing strength and deformation characteristics of
granular materials like sand and silty sand are very influ-
enced by confining pressure where it is considered as a vital
factor. Several experimental researches (Marachi, Chan, and
Seed 1972) have investigated the effect of medium to high
confining pressure, Krim et al. (2012) have reported that
the initial confining pressure and the relative density affec-
ted, in a significant manner, the resistance to liquefaction;
however, it increases with the confining pressure and relative
density. Experimental studies of Tatsuoka, Sakamoto, et al.
(1986), Gupta (2009) have shown that with the increase of
pressure, load bearing capacity increases as angle of shearing
resistance (u), and dilation of sand decrease with the
increase of confining pressure (Lancelot, Shahrour, and Al
Mahmoud 1996; Al Mahmoud 1997; Arab 2008).
Early studies on liquefaction were mainly concentrated on
clean sand, although the occurrence of loose sand with fines
(particle diameter 0.075 mm) is not uncommon (Castro
1975; Chaney 1978; Colliat 1986; Yoshimi and Oh-Oka
1975; Tatsuoka, Toki, et al. 1986; Seed and Lee 1966;
Address correspondence to Ahmed Arab, Civil Engineering,
Laboratory of Materials Sciences and Environment,
Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef (02000), Algeria. E-mail:
ah_arab@yahoo.fr
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article
can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/umgt.
understood that the presence of fines in some manner affects
the resistance to liquefaction, but systematic studies on sand
with fines are relatively limited. Careful study on the
literature has revealed contradictory outcome on the effect
of fines. Three different findings or tendencies have been
reported in the literature.
. Liquefaction resistance decreases with increase in fines
contents up to a threshold fines content, and then lique-
faction resistance increases with increase in fines content
beyond the threshold fines content (Altun, Goktepe,
and Akguner 2005; Thevanayagam 1998; Xenaki and
Athanasopoulos 2003; Yang, Lacasse, and Sandven 2006;
Zlatovic and Ishihara 1995; Law and Ling 1992; Koester
1994; Bouferra and Shahrour 2004; Arab and Belkhatir
2012; Bayat et al. 2012).
. Liquefaction resistance increases with the increase in fines
content (Amini and Qi 2000; Kuerbis, Negussey, and Vaid
1988; Pitman, Roberston, and Sego 1994).
. Liquefaction resistance decreases with the increase in
fines content (Troncoso 1986; Georgiannou, Highnt, and
Burland 1990; Shen, Vrymoed, and Uyeno 1997; Troncoso
and Verdugo 1985; Finn, Ledbetter, and Wu 1994; Vaid
1994; Zlatovic and Ishihara 1997; Arab 2008; Arab 2009;
Belkhatir et al. 2011, 2012; Bayat 2012; Hanifi et al. 2011).
Third finding might be first reported by Zlatovic and
Ishihara (1995) on Toyoura sand with non-plastic fines.
Relatively recent studies also confirmed the third finding
 2 C. Mohamed et al.
on several other sand with fines (Altun, Goktepe, and
Akguner 2005; Thevanayagam and Martin 2002; Xenaki
and Athanasopoulos 2003). However, there are also some
research efforts which have investigated the reasons for
contradictory results concerning the effects of fines.
Clean sand behavior changes from a dilative tendency to
a contractive tendency with increasing mean effective stress
for the same void ratio. However, Yamamuro and Lade
(1998) reported a reversed trend for sand with fines. They
found that Nevada sand with 7% fines liquefied at low mean
effective stress (25 kPa) and become stable with increasing
mean effective stress (200 kPa) at same void ratio after con-
solidation (e  0.779). This behavior appears to be opposite
to the clean sand behavior. Considering clean sand behavior
as ‘‘normal behavior,’’ they named sand with fines behavior
as ‘‘reversed behavior.’’ They also found the ‘‘reverse beha-
vior’’ on Nevada sand at several relative density (Dr ¼ 12, 22,
31, 42%) (Yamamuro and Lade 1997). Bobei and Lo (2005)
also reported ‘‘normal behavior’’ for Sydney sand and
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015
‘‘reverse behavior’’ for Sydney sand with 10% Majura fines
(MII fines). The generation and redistribution of the excess
pore pressure, thus, the undrained shear strength (liquefac-
tion resistance) of sandy soils subjected to earthquake load-
ings is very much influenced by the hydraulic conductivity
(Belkhatir et al. 2013; Belkhatir et al. 2014) and gradation
(Asskar et al. 2013; Bayat et al. 2013). This soil parameter
may be influenced by the type (nature) and sand gradation,
percentage of fines, initial void ratio, confining pressure, and
initial relative density; laboratory testing allows more
control of the different parameters that affect the hydraulic
conductivity of soils.
In the published literature, to assess (evaluate) the
magnitude (amplitude) of the percentage of fines, void ratio,
confining pressure, and density effects on the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of sands mixed with fines is very
limited. Thevanayagam (2000) observed that the hydraulic
conductivity (ksat) was found to be one order of magnitude
smaller for silty sand when compared to clean sand for
Ottawa sand mixed with low plastic fines. Thevanayagam
(2000) found values of k in the range of 0.6  103
–1.3  103 cm=s for Ottawa sand, 9.0  105 cm=s for sand
with 15% fines, and 0.6  105–1.2  105 cm=s for sand with
25% fines. Sathees (2006) and Bandini and Sathiskumar
(2009) also reported mostly similar ranges of the hydraulic
conductivity (ksat) for two sands mixed with non-plastic
fines, Belkhatir, Schanz, and Arab (2013) found to be four
orders of magnitude smaller than that of clean sand.
This present study has been carried out to determine how
confining pressure, fines content, and inter-granular void
ratio affect the liquefaction resistance, steady state strength,
pore pressure, and hydraulic conductivity of sand–silt mix-
tures. To examine the behavior of silty sand under low to
medium confining pressures, a series of undrained triaxial
compression tests under monotonic loading were conducted
on reconstituted samples of Chlef sand with variation in
fines content from 0 to 50%. The tests conducted on loose
samples subjected to confining pressure ranging from 50 to
200 kPa.
History and Geological Context
According to geology, the Chlef region is represented by the
plain bottom oriented roughly east–west, bordered on the
North by the Chaine Mountains of Dahra and South by
the massif of Ouarsenis. The Ouarsenis is a series of moun-
tains in North-Western Algeria located about 80 km south of
the Mediterranean. It has a maximum elevation of 1985 m
near Bordj Bounaama city at about 60 km west of Tissemsilt
department. This plain is a Neogene basin, where it has
accumulated powerful sediments dating from the Miocene
and Pliocene. Miocene is composed of soft sandstone and
sandy marl overcoming blue marl; Pliocene consists of mar-
ine formations, sand, and sandstone conglomerates which
are succeeded by blue marls, sandstones, and read sands;
and Quaternary era is composed of alluvial terrace indicat-
ing Roman sites in the Cheliff basin with a terrace surface
of 500 years old.
Most of the northern Algerian cities lie in earthquake-
prone zones. Chlef (formerly known as El Asnam) and other
important cities have been affected by damaging earth-
quakes in the last century. The last earthquake of magnitude
of 7.3 (Wave Magnitude of 7.3) occurred on 10 October 1980
at 13:25:23.7 local time (12:25:23.7 GMT). The earthquake
main shock was located 12 km east of Chlef city (210 km
west of Algiers) at latitude 36.143 N and longitude
1.413 E with a focal depth of about 10 km. The approximate
duration of the quake was between 35 and 40 s. The event,
commonly referred to as the Chlef earthquake, was among
the most disastrous earthquakes that have affected the
northern region of Algeria. The earthquake devastated
the city of Chlef, population estimated at 125,000, and the
nearby towns and villages. The large loss of life (reportedly,
5,000–20,000 casualties) and property was attributed to the
collapse of buildings. In several places of the affected area,
especially along Chlef river banks, great masses of sandy
soils were ejected on to the ground surface level. Major
damage to certain civil and hydraulic structures (earth dams,
embankments, bridges, slopes, and buildings) was caused by
this earthquake.
Chlef city lies in a broad alluvial valley flanked to the
North and South by ranges of hills that rise to a height of
approximately 1,000 m. The valley is drained by the Chlef
river. Although there was clear evidence of different types
of soil failure, some of these failures occurred in a region
where engineered structures existed, thus, loss of life and
property because of soil failure was important. Settlement
of structures may have occurred, particularly in fill areas,
and most backfill behind bridge abutments settled. Numer-
ous slope failures were observed in the mountains, some
involving the whole side of hills in the region of fault move-
ments. Some major slope failures were observed in the city
of Chlef. Soil liquefaction occurred over widespread areas
in the flood plain of the Chlef river, particularly in the region
of Chlef and surrounding areas. Numerous sand boils were
visible. Some of these were 4 m in diameter. Water spouts
up to 2 m high were reported in many of the sand boil areas.
Partially as a result of liquefaction subsidence, a large
 Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River
earthquake lake formed southeast of the canyon mouth
where the Oued Fodda and Oued Chlef rivers join and flow
north-westward through the uplands on the up-thrown
block of the Oued Fodda fault.
Experimental Program
Description of Materials
All sand samples were collected from banks liquefied layer of
the deposit areas at a depth of 6.50 m (Figure 1). Figure 2a
shows the craters of liquefied soil of the Chlef river and
sample collection. Figure 2b shows the area susceptible to
liquefaction. The tests were conducted on the mixtures of
Chlef sand and silt. Chlef sand was mixed with 0–50% silt
to obtain different fines contents. The index properties of
the sand, silt, and sand–silt mixtures used in this experi-
mental laboratory research work are presented in Table 1.
The grain-size distribution curves of the tested sand–silt
are shown in Figure 3. The variation of emin (minimum void
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015
ratio corresponding to the densest state of the soil sample)
and emax (maximum void ratio corresponding to the loosest
state of the soil sample) versus the fines content Fc is given
Fig. 1. Geotechnical profile of the soil deposit at the site.
Fig. 2. (a) Craters of liquefied soil on the banks of Chlef river, (b) Ground susceptible to liquefaction.
3
in Figure 4, according to this figure, the different indices
decrease with increasing the fines content until Fc ¼ 20%;
then, they increase with further fines content increase.
Figure 5 shows the variation of emax with emin; we note from
this figure that the correlation between the minimum and
maximum void ratio of the sand–silt mixtures specimens is
quite similar to that of Yilmaz and Mollamahmutoglu
(2009) and Cubrinovski and Ishihara (2002).
Many tests were carried out on the Chlef sand Arab
(2009), Della, Arab, and Belkhatir (2011a), Della, Arab,
and Belkhatir (2011b), Belkhatir et al. (2011a), Djafar et al.
(2011), Belkhatir et al. (2011b), Belkhatir et al. (2013),
Missoum, Belkhatir, and Bendani (2013).
Figure 6 shows the variation of coefficient of uniformity
(Cu) versus fines content (Fc); as it can be seen from this
figure, the uniformity’s coefficient increase exponentially as
the fines content increases (R2 ¼ 0.995). The variation of
the coefficient of uniformity (Cu) versus effective diameter
(D10) is illustrated in Figure 7. As can be seen from this
figure, coefficient of uniformity decreases logarithmically
with the increase of effective diameter. Figure 8 shows the
variation of the initial gross void ratio versus coefficient of
uniformity and fines content at the initial relative density
(Dr ¼ 15%). The initial gross void ratio (e) decreases drasti-
cally with the increase of uniformity and fines content until
the value of 20% and the increases moderately from 30 to
40% fines content.
Sample Preparation
The dimensions of the samples were 70 mm in diameter and
70 mm in height (H=D ¼ 1) to avoid the appearance of shear
banding (sliding surfaces) and buckling. All samples were
prepared by first estimating the dry weights of sand and silt
needed for desired proportion (Table 2), the experimental
program includes static undrained tests on samples with
a relative density Dr ¼ 15% using under compaction method
of sample preparation which simulates a relativity homo-
geneous soil condition and is performed by compacted dry
soil in layers to a selected percentage of the required dry unit
 4 C. Mohamed et al.

Table 1. Index properties of sand and silt

Index properties of materials Sand Silt

Specific gravity, Gs 2.67 2.69

Effective diameter, D10 (mm) 0.263 —
Mean grain size, D50 (mm) 0.72 0.017
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu () 3.17 —
Maximum gross void ratio, emax () 0.783 1.39
Minimum gross void ratio, emin () 0.593 0.802
Plasticity index, Ip (%) — 6
Particles form Rounded Rounded
Liquid limit, LL (%) — 27.06
Plastic limit, PL (%) — 22.25

Fig. 5. Maximum void ratio versus minimum void ratio of the

sand–silt mixtures.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

Fig. 3. Grain-size distribution curves of the sand–silt mixtures.

Fig. 6. Coefficient uniformity versus fines content.

Fig. 4. Maximum and minimum void ratio sand–silt mixtures

versus fines content. Fig. 7. Coefficient uniformity versus effective diameter.
 Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River
Fig. 8. Gross void ratio versus coefficient Uniformity.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015
of the specimen Ladd (1978). After the specimen soil has
been performed, the specimen cap is placed with O-rings,
and a partial vacuum of 15–20 kPa is applied to the specimen
in order to reduce the disturbances.
Sample Saturation
The specimens were saturated by injecting CO2 gas (carbon
dioxide) during a 20-min period, followed by the injection
of de-aired and demineralized water into the specimen
from the bottom drain line. It is noted that saturation
affects significantly the shear strength of soils, and the
liquefaction resistance of sands increases when the degree
of saturation decreases (Yoshimi, Tanaka, and Tokimatsu
1989; Ishihara et al. 2001; Ishihara, Tsukamoto, and
Kamada 2004; Yang 2002; Yang, Savidis, and Roemer
2004; Bouferra, Benseddiq, and Shahrour 2007; Arab,
Shahrour, and Lancelot 2011).
Sample Consolidation
When samples were fully saturated, they were subjected to
consolidation. During consolidation, the difference between
all-around pressure and back pressure is set, so that, for each
sample the effective consolidation pressure is fixed as 50, 100,
and 200 kPa equivalent to the in situ effective stress where the
soil sample was collected. The back pressure (u) used in the
experiments was 400 kPa, while the confining pressure (r3)
was 450, 500, and 600 kPa. The saturation quality was
estimated through the Skempton’s coefficient B measurement
after consolidation (B ¼ Du=Dr0c ) (Skempton 1954).
Table 2. Index properties of sand–silt mixtures
Index properties
Fines fraction, Fc (%) 0 10 20 30 40
Specific gravity, Gs 2.665 2.667 2.669 2.671 2.674 2.677 2.680 2.682 2.685 2.688
Maximum gross void ratio, emax () 0.783 0.685 0.633 0.642 0.698 0.768 0.897 1.028 1.106 1.242
Minimum gross void ratio, emin () 0.593 0.455 0.399 0.418 0.439 0.468 0.555 0.672 0.717 0.775
5
Shear Loading
All undrained triaxial tests for this study were carried out at
a constant strain rate of 0.166%=min, which was slow
enough to allow pore pressure change to equalize through-
out the sample with the pore pressure measured at the base
of sample. All tests were continued up to 24% axial strain.
Monotonic Test Results
Effects of Fines on Undrained Behavior
The results of the undrained monotonic compression triaxial
tests carried out under initial confining pressures of 50, 100,
and 200 kPa for different fines contents ranging from 0 to
50% and the initial relative density (Dr ¼ 15%) are illustrated
in Figures 9, 10, and 11. As can be seen from these figures,
the increase of the low plastic fines induces a decrease of
the sand–silt mixture liquefaction resistance (Figures 9a,
10a, and 11a). This decrease results from the role of the fines
to increase the contractiveness of the sand–silt mixtures
leading to an increase of the excess pore pressure and
consequently to a decrease of the peak shear resistance
of the mixtures as it is illustrated in Figures 9b, 10b, and
11b. The stress path in the (p0 , q) plane shows clearly the role
of fines to decrease the average effective pressure and the
maximum deviatoric stress (Figures 9c, 10c, and 11c). In this
case, the influence of fines on the undrained behavior of the
mixtures is observed for the lower fines contents (Fc ¼ 0 and
10%), and becomes very pronounced beyond 20%. These
results are also in good agreement with the observations of
Singh (1994) where the liquefaction resistance (undrained
shear strength) of sand including an amount of 10, 20, and
30% silt content is somewhat smaller than that of the clean
sand at 50% relative density. The low plastic fines make
the soil structure more compressible, and therefore, acceler-
ates the risk of liquefaction of sand–silt mixture samples
in the range of 0–50% fines content, this behavior has been
well explained by Lade and Yamamuro (1997).
Figure 12 illustrates the peak undrained shear strength
versus the fines content. It can be seen from this figure
that the undrained shear strength at the peak (qpeak) of the
sand–silt mixtures decreases linearly with the increase of
the fines content. We notice that all the curves of this figure
(Figure 12) decrease with the same slope (a ¼ 3.1). In this
laboratory investigation, for the range of 0–50% fines
content in normally consolidated undrained triaxial com-
pression tests, the following expressions are suggested to
evaluate the undrained shear strength at the peak as a func-
tion of the fines content (R2 ¼ 0.87 for r0c ¼50 kPa, R2 ¼ 0.94
Sand silt mixtures
50 60 70 80 90 100
2.692
1.395
0.802
 6 C. Mohamed et al.

Fig. 9. Undrained monotonic response of the sand–silt mixtures ðr0c ¼ 50 kPa; Dr ¼ 15%Þ.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

Fig. 10. Undrained monotonic response of the sand–silt mixtures ðr0c ¼ 100 kPa; Dr ¼ 15%Þ.

for r0c ¼ 100 kPa, and R2 ¼ 0.99 for r0c ¼ 200 ka).
qpeak ¼ 32  ðFcÞ þ 140 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa
qpeak ¼ 3:1  ðFcÞ þ 160 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa
qpeak ¼ 3:1  ðFcÞ þ 180 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa
Effect of Gross Void Ratio on Shear Strength
Figure 13 shows the peak shear strength versus the initial gross
void ratio and fines content. It is clearly observed from this
figure that the peak shear strength decreases, almost, as the
gross void ratio decreases and fines content increases for all
samples shearing under confining pressure (r0c ¼ 50; 100;
and 200 kPa) up to 20% fines content. It means that when
decreasing the gross void ratio and increasing the fines content,
the undrained shear strength also decreases. In our case, we
could say that the gross void ratio appears to be a parameter
not as pertinent in sand–fines mixtures as in clean sands for
characterizing the strength continues to decrease almost with
increasing of the gross void ratio and the fines content.

Fig. 11. Undrained monotonic response of the sand–silt mixtures (r0c ¼ 200 kPa, Dr ¼ 15%).
 Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River
Fig. 12. Peak strength versus fines content at various confining
pressure (r0 3 ¼ 50, 100, and 200 kPa; Dr ¼ 15%).
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015
Fig. 13. Undrained shear strength versus initial void ratio.
Fig. 14. Undrained shear strength versus intergranular void ratio and fines content (Dr ¼ 15%).
7
Effect of Inter-granular Void Ratio on Shear Strength
Figure 14a shows the undrained shear strength at the peak
(Qss) versus the intergranular void ratio (es). It is clear from
this figure that the undrained shear strength at the (qpeak)
decreases logarithmically as the intergranular void ratio
increases. It seems that the variation of the undrained
strength (qpeak) due to the presence of the low plastic fines
fraction is related to the intergranular void ratio in the range
of 0–50% fines content. The behavior of sand–silt mixture
samples in this case is influenced by the contacts of coarser
grains, which is solely quantified by the inter-particle void
ratio. By increasing the fines content in the range of
0–50%, the contact between the sand grain decreases; and
consequently the intergranular void ratio (es) increases and
the undrained shear strength at the peak (qpeak) decreases.
The following expressions are proposed to correlate the
undrained shear strength at the peak to the intergranular
void ratio parameter (es) for the range of 0–50% fines
content (R2 ¼ 0.93 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa, R2 ¼ 0.97 for r0c ¼
100 kPa, and R2 ¼ 0.99 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa). Moreover, the
slope of the undrained shear strength line at the peak become
very pronounced for higher fines content comparing to smaller
fines content (Figure 14b). These results are in good agreement
with the observations of Belkhatir et al. (2010).


log qpeak ¼ 2:63  logðes Þ þ 4:10 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa


log qpeak ¼ 1:92  logðes Þ þ 4:50 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa


log qpeak ¼ 1:42  logðes Þ þ 4:80 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa
Effect of Mean Grain Size on Undrained Shear Strength
Figure 15 illustrates the variation of the peak strength (qpeak)
with the mean grain size (D50) and fines content. It is clear
from this figure that the undrained peak shear strength of
the sand–silt mixtures decreases logarithmically with the
decrease of the mean grain size (D50) and the increase of
the fines content for the relative density Dr ¼ 15%. It can
be seen from this figure that the range of the undrained shear
 8 C. Mohamed et al.

Effect of Fines Content on Excess Pore Pressure

Figure 16 illustrates the variation of excess pore pressure (Du)
at cancellation rate with the fines content (Fc). It is clear from
this figure that the excess of pore pressure increases logarithmi-
cally as the confining pressure and the fines content increase;
we notice that the higher values of excess pore pressure are
obtained for the higher confining pressure (r0c ¼ 200 kPa)
and fines content (Fc), this is due to the contractiveness and
compressibility of the fines fraction. The presence of low
plastic fines induces a contractive response of the sand–silt
mixtures. There is good correlation between excess pore
pressure with fines content (R2 ¼ 0.95 for r0c ¼50 kPa,
R2 ¼ 0.97 for r0c ¼100 kPa, and R2 ¼ 0.87 for r0c ¼200 kPa).

LogðDuÞ ¼ 0:11  logðFc Þ þ 3:31 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa

LogðDuÞ ¼ 0:10  logðFc Þ þ 4:00 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa
Fig. 15. Peak shear strength versus mean grain size and fines LogðDuÞ ¼ 0:07  logðFc Þ þ 4:83 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa
content (Dr ¼ 15%).
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

Figure 17 shows the variation of the excess pore pressure

strength is very important for the smaller fines content (Du) versus the undrained shear strength at the peak (qpeak).
and becomes lower for the higher fines content; and we It is clear from this figure that the excess pore pressure
notice that the higher undrained shear strength was obtained (Du) decreases in a linear manner as the undrained shear
for the higher confining pressures. In this laboratory strength (qpeak) increases. We notice that the higher excess pore
investigation, within this range of 0–50%, fines content pressures are obtained for the higher fines content (Fc). It
in normally consolidated undrained compression triaxial seems that the increase of the excess pore pressure (Du) and
tests, the following expressions are suggested to evaluate the decrease of the undrained shear strength (qpeak) is due to
the undrained shear strength at peak as function of the mean the presence of low plastic fines inducing contractive response
grain size (D50). of the sand–silt mixture samples. We notice that the excess
pore pressure (Du) correlates very well with the undrained shear
strength (qpeak) for the range of 0–50% fines content (R2 ¼ 0.90
qpeak ¼ 176  logðD50 Þ þ 215 for r0c

for r0c ¼ 50 kPa, R2 ¼ 0.91 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa, and R2 ¼ 0.94
¼ 100 kPa R2 ¼ 0:90 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa) according to the following expressions:
qpeak ¼ 171  logðD50 Þ þ 227 for r0c


Du ¼ 0:380632  qpeak þ 186:261 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa
¼ 100 kPa R2 ¼ 0:93

qpeak ¼ 167  logðD50 Þ þ 247 for r0c Du ¼ 0:232893  qpeak þ 89:0447 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa



Du ¼ 0:122138  qpeak þ 43:5056 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa
¼ 100 kPa R2 ¼ 0:96

Fig. 16. Excess pore pressure versus fines content and confining Fig. 17. Excess pore pressure versus undrained shear strength at
pressure (Dr ¼ 15%). various fines content.
 Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River 9

Effect of Fines Content on Hydraulic Conductivity

Figure 18 shows the variation of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity with the fines content. As it can be seen from
this figure, the saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat) of
the sand–silt mixtures decreases linearly with the increase
of the fines content for the initial relative density (Dr ¼ 15%).
The laboratory results reveal that the saturated hydraulic
conductivity (ksat) of saturated sand containing 50% silt is
approximately four orders of magnitude smaller than the
saturated hydraulic conductivity of clean sand. There is
a relatively high degree of correlation between the fines
content (Fc) and the logarithm of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity (ksat) for the relative density under consideration
(coefficient of determination R2 ¼ 0.998 for Dr ¼ 15%). The
following expression is suggested to evaluate the saturated
hydraulic conductivity (ksat) as a function of the fines content:
Fig. 19. Undrained shear strength versus hydraulic conductivity
logðksat Þ ¼ 0:27  ðFc Þ  9:80 for Dr ¼ 15% at various fines content.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

Figure 19 shows the variation of the undrained shear

strength at the peak with the saturated hydraulic conduc-
tivity (ksat) at various fines contents for samples shearing
under confining pressures r0c ¼ 50; 100; and 200 kPa. It is
clear from this figure that the undrained shear strength at
the peak decreases logarithmically with the decrease of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity and increase of the fines
content for all confining pressures. However, the undrained
shear strength slope line is very pronounced for the sample
shearing under r0c ¼ 50 kPa (a ¼ 15) when compared to the
other samples shearing under r0c ¼ 100 and 200 kPa. There
is a relatively high degree of correlation between the peak
shear strength (qpeak) and the logarithm of the saturated
hydraulic conductivity (ksat) for all confining pressure
(R2 ¼ 0.94 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa, R2 ¼ 0.96 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa,
and R2 ¼ 0.99 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa).
qpeak ¼ 14:70  logðksat Þ þ 295 for r0c ¼ 50 kPa
qpeak ¼ 13:25  logðksat Þ þ 293 for r0c ¼ 100 kPa
qpeak ¼ 12:30  logðksat Þ þ 303 for r0c ¼ 200 kPa
Fig. 18. Hydraulic conductivity versus fines content.
Conclusion
This article presents the main results of a laboratory study
on the influence of initial confining pressure, fines content,
and hydraulic conductivity on the behavior of sand–silt
mixtures. A series of monotonic tests were conducted on
loose samples reconstituted with different fines contents
and sheared under various confining pressures.
The increase of fines content showed a contractive beha-
vior of the sand–silt mixtures samples and leads to a decrease
of soil permeability consequently excess pore pressure
increases rapidly. The liquefaction resistance decreases with
increasing fines content.
The undrained shear strength at the peak (qpeak) decreases
logarithmically as the intergranular void ratio increases.
The slope line of the undrained shear strength at the peak
becomes very pronounced for higher fines content compar-
ing to smaller fines contents.
The liquefaction resistance of the sand–silt mixtures
decreases logarithmically with the decrease of the mean
grain size (D50) and fines content increase.
The excess pore pressure (Du) decreases linearly as the
undrained shear strength (qpeak) increases; the higher excess
pore pressures are obtained for the higher fines content (Fc).
The increase of excess pore pressure (Du) and, consequently,
the decrease of the undrained shear strength (qpeak) are due
to the presence of low plastic fines inducing contractive
response of the sand–silt mixture samples.
The peak undrained shear strength decreases logarithmically
with the decrease of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and
increase of the fines content for all confining pressures. The
undrained shear strength slope line is very pronounced for
the sample sheared under r0c ¼50 kPa (a ¼ 15) when compared
to the other samples sheared under r0c ¼100 and 200 kPa.
There is a relatively high degree of correlation between
the peak shear strength (qpeak) and the logarithm of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat) for all confining
pressures. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat)
decreases either with the increase of fines content.
 10 C. Mohamed et al.

Nomenclature Belkhatir, M., A. Arab, N. Della, H. Missoum, and T. Schanz. 2010.

Influence of inter-granular void ratio on monotonic and cyclic
Gs specific gravity
undrained shear response of sandy soils. Comptes Rendus
FC fines content (%) Mécanique 338: 290–303. doi:10.1016=j.crme.2010.04.002
D10 effective grain diameter Belkhatir, M., A. Arab, N. Della, and T. Schanz. 2014. Laboratory
D50 mean grain size of host sand study on the hydraulic conductivity and pore pressure of sand–silt
Cu coefficient of uniformity mixtures. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 32: 106–22.
emax maximum global void ratio doi:10.1080=1064119X.2012.71071
emin minimum global void ratio Belkhatir, M., A. Arab, T. Schanz, H. Missoum, and N. Della. 2011.
Laboratory study on the liquefaction resistance of sand–silt
Ip plasticity index (%)
mixtures: Effect of grading characteristics. Granular Matter
Dr initial relative density (%) 13: 599–609. doi:10.1007=s10035-011-0269-0
eo index void ratio Belkhatir, M., H. Missoum, A. Arab, N. Della, and T. Schanz. 2011.
emax maximum index void ratio The undrained shear strength characteristics of silty sand: An
emin minimum index void ratio experimental study of the effect of fines. Geologia Croatica 64(1):
LL liquid limit 31–39. doi:10.4154=gc.2011.03
PL plastic limit Belkhatir, M., A. Arab, N. Della, and T. Schanz. 2012. Experimental
study of undrained shear strength of silty sand: Effect of fines
u pore pressure (kPa) and gradation. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30(5): 1103–18.
r0c initial confining pressure Belkhatir, M., T. Schanz, and A. Arab. 2013. Effect of fines content
B Skempton’s pore pressure parameter and void ratio on the saturated hydraulic conductivity and
Du excess pore water pressure (kPa)
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015

undrained shear strength of sand–silt mixtures. Environmental

Ksat saturated hydraulic conductivity
es inter-granular void ratio
p0 mean effective pressure
q deviator stress
qss deviator stress at steady state
References
Al Mahmoud, M. 1997. Laboratory study of behaviour sands under
low confining. PhD. diss., University of Science and Technology
of Lille1, France.
Altun, S., A. B. Goktepe, and C. Akguner. 2005. Cyclic shear strength
of silts and sands under cyclic loading. Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics 1–11. doi:10.1061=40779(158)33
Amini, F. and G. Z. Qi. 2000. Liquefaction testing of layered silty
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 126(3): 208–17.
Arab, A. 2008. Behaviour soils under monotonic and cyclic loading.
PhD. diss., University of Science and Technology of Oran, Oran,
Algeria.
Arab, A. 2009. Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of silty sand. Comptes
Rendus Mecanique 337(2009): 621–31.
Arab, A. and M. Belkhatir. 2012. Fines content and cyclic preloading
effect on liquefaction potential of silty sand: A laboratory study.
Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 9(4): 47–64.
Arab, A., I. Shahrour, and L. Lancelot. 2011. A laboratory study of
liquefaction of partially saturated sand. Journal of Iberian Geology
37(1): 29–36.
Asskar, Janalizadeh, Choobbasti, Abbas Ghalandarzadeh, and
Mohammad Esmaeili. 2013. Experimental study of the grading
characteristic effect on the liquefaction resistance of various
graded sands and gravelly sands. Arabian Journal of Geosciences
7(7): 2738–48. doi:10.1007=s12517-013-0886-5
Bandini, P. and S. Sathiskumar. 2009. Effects of silt content and void ratio
on the saturated hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of sand–
silt mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing 135(12): 1976–80. doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000177
Bayat, E. and M. Bayat. 2013. Effect of grading characteristics on the
undrained shear strength of sand: Review with new evidences.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences 6: 4409–18. doi:10.1007=s12517-
012-0670-y
Bayat, M., E. Bayat, H. Aminpour, and A. Salarpour. 2012. Shear
strength and pore-water pressure characteristics of sandy soil
mixed with plastic fine. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 7: 1049–57.
doi:10.1007=s12517-012-0753-9
Earth Sciences 70: 2469–79. doi:10.1007=s12665-013-2289-z
Bobei, D. C. and S. R. Lo. 2005. Reverse behaviour and critical state
of sand with small amount of fines. The proceedings of the 16th
international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engin-
eering (16ICSMGE), Millpress Science Publishers, Osaka, Japan,
475–78.
Bouferra, R., N. Benseddiq, and I. Shahrour. 2007. Saturation and
preloading effects on the cyclic behavior of sand. International
Journal of Geomechanics 7(5): 396–401. doi:10.1061=(asce)1532-3641
(2007)7:5(396)
Bouferra, R. and I. Shahrour. 2004. Influence of fines on the resistance
to liquefaction of a clayey sand. Proceedings of the ICE - Ground
Improvement 8(1): 1–5. doi:10.1680=grim.2004.8.1.1
Castro, G. 1975. Liquefaction and mobility cyclique of saturated sands.
11 F, 1 T, 2OR: Castro, G 11 F, 1 T, 20 R. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 101(GT6): 551–69. doi:10.1016=0148-
9062(75)92422-5
Chaney, R. C. 1978. Saturation effects on the cyclic strength of sands.
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE 1: 342–58.
Colliat, J. L. 1986. Comportement des matériaux granulaires sous forte
contraintes, influence de la nature minéralogique du matériau
étudié. Thèse de doctorat de spécialité, IMG, Grenoble.
Cubrinovski, M. and K. Ishihara. 2002. Maximum and minimum
void ratio characteristics of sands. Soil Found 42(6): 65–78.
Della, N., A. Arab, and M. Belkhatir. 2011a. A laboratory study of the
initial structure and the overconsolidation effects on the undrained
monotonic behavior of sandy soil from Chlef region in northern
Algeria. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 4(5–6): 983–91. doi:10.1007=
s12517-010-0178-2
Della, N., A. Arab, and M. Belkhatir. 2011b. Laboratory investigation on the
effects of overconsolidation and saturation on undrained monotonic
shear behavior of granular material. Journal of Marine Georesources &
Geotechnology 29: 218–29. doi:10.1080=1064119x.2011.555708
Djafar, et al. 2011. Undrained behavior of silty sand: Effect of the over
consolidation ratio. Arabian Journal of Geosciences doi:10.1007=
s12517-011-0365-9
Finn, W. L., R. H. Ledbetter, and G. Wu. 1994. Liquefaction on silty
soils Design and analysis. Ground failures under seismic
condition, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 44, ASCE, 51–76.
Georgiannou, V. N., D. W. Hight, and J. B. Burland. 1990. The undrained
behaviour of clayey sands in triaxial compression and extension.
Geotechnique 40(3): 431–449. doi:10.1680=geot.1990.40.3.431
Gupta, A. K. 2009. Effect of particles size and confining pressures
on breakage and strength parameters of rockfill materials, EJGE,
14. Bund. H.
 Behavior of Loose Silty Sand of Chlef River
Hanifi Missoum, Mostefa Belkhatir Karim, Bendani. 2011. Undrained
shear strength response under monotonic loading of Chlef
(Algeria) sandy soil. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 15(8): 1335–
42. doi:10.1007=s12517-011-0387-3
Ishihara, K. and S. Okada. 1978. Effects of stress history on cyclic
behaviour of sands. Soils Found 18(4): 31–45.
Ishihara, K., H. Tsuchiya, Y. Huang, and K. Kamada. 2001. Recent
studies on liquefaction resistance of sand effect of saturation.
Proc. 4th Conf. Recent Advances in Geotech. Earth. Engg., Keynote
Lecture. San Diego, California, USA.
Ishihara, K., Y. Tsukamoto, and K. Kamada. 2004. Undrained
behaviour of near-saturated sand in cyclic and monotonic loading.
Proceedings of the International Conference, Cyclic Behavior of
Soils and Liquefaction Phenomena, 27–39.
Koester, J. P. 1994. The influence of fine type and content on cyclic
strength. Ground failures under seismic condition, Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 44, ASCE, 17–33.
Krim, A., Z. el Abidine Zitouni, A. Arab, and B. Mostéfa. 2012.
Identification of the behavior of sandy soil to static liquefaction
and microtomography. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 6: 2211–24.
doi:10.1007=s12517-012-0534-5
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 00:18 21 September 2015
Kuerbis, R., D. Negussey, and V. P. Vaid. 1988. Effect on gradation
and fines content on the undrained response of sand. Proceedings
hydraulic Fill structures, Fort Collins, USA, 330–345.
Lade, P. V. and J. A. Yamamuro. 1997. Effects of non-plastic fines on
static liquefaction of sands. Can. Geotech. J. 34(6): 918–28.
Lancelot, L., I. Shahrour, and M. Al Mahmoud. 1996. Comportement
du sable d’Hostun sous faibles contraintes. Revue Française de
Géotechnique 74: 63–74.
Law, K. T. and Ling, Y. H. 1992. Liquefaction of granular soils
with non-cohesive and cohesive fines. Proceedings of the tenth
world conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam,
1491–96.
Marachi, N. D., C. K. Chan, and H. B. Seed. 1972. Evaluation of
properties of rockfill materials. Journal of Soils Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 98(1): 95–114.
Missoum, H., M. Belkhatir, and K. Bendani. 2013. Undrained shear
strength response under monotonic loading of Chlef (Algeria)
sandy soil. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 6: 615–23. doi:10.1007=
s12517-011-0387-3
Pitman, T. D., P. K. Roberston, and D. C. Sego. 1994. Influence of
fines on the collapse of loose sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
321: 772–92. doi:10.1139=t94-084
Sathees, T. 2006. Saturated hydraulic conductivity of poorly graded
sands with nonplastic silt using a flexible wall permeameter. MS
thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
Seed, H. B. and K. H. Lee. 1966. Liquefaction of saturated sands
during cycling loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 92(6): 105–34.
Selig, E. T. and R. S. Ladd. 1978. Preparing test specimens using under-
compaction. Geotechnical Testing Journal 1(1): 16–23. doi:10.1520=
gtj10364j
Shen, C. K., J. L. Vrymoed, and C. K. Uyeno. 1997. The effects of fines
on liquefaction of sands. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol.
2, 381–85, Tokyo.
Singh, S. (1994) Liquefaction characteristics of silt. In Ground failures
under seismic conditions. vol. 44, 105–116. Annual Convention
and Special Exposition ASCE, Atlanta, Georgia.
Skempton, A. W. 1954. The pore-pressure coefficient A and B. Geotech-
nical IV: 143–47.
Tatsuoka, F., M. Sakamoto, T. Kawamura, and S. Fukushima. 1986.
Strength and deformation characteristics of sand in plane strain
compression at extremely low pressures. Soils and Foundations
26(1): 65–85. doi:10.3208=sandf1972.26.65
11
Tatsuoka, F., S. Toki, S. Miura, H. Kato, M. Okamoto, S.-I. Yamada,
S. Yasuda, and F. Tanizawa. 1986. Some factors affecting cyclic
undrained triaxial strength of sand. Soils and Foundations 26:
99–116. doi:10.3208=sandf1972.26.3_99
Thevanayagam, S. 1998. Effect of fines and confining stress on
undrained shear strength of silty sands. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(6): 479–91. doi:10.1061=
(asce)1090-0241(1998)124:6(479)
Thevanayagam, S. 2000. Liquefaction of silty soils—Considerations for
screening and retrofit strategies. In Proceedings 2nd International
workshop on mitigation of seismic effects on transportation structures,
ed. C. Loh, K. Kawashima, and I. Buckle, 314. Taipei, Taiwan:
National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering.
Thevanayagam, S., G. R. Martin. 2002. Liquefaction in silty soils—
screening and remediation issues. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 22(9): 1035–42.
Troncoso, J. H. 1986. Critical state of tailing silty sands for earthquake
loadings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 5: 248–52.
doi:10.1016=0267-7261(86)90011-4
Troncoso, J. H. and R. Verdugo. 1985. Silt content and dynamic
behaviour of tailing sands. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
1311–14, San Francisco, USA.
Vaid, V. P. 1994. Liquefaction of silty soils. Ground failure under seismic
condition, geotechnical, special publication No. 44. ASCE, 1–16.
Xenaki, V. C. and G. A. Athanasopoulos. 2003. Liquefaction
resistance of sand–silt mixtures: An experimental investigation
of the effect of fines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
23: 1–12. doi:10.1016=s0267-7261(02)00210-5
Yamamuro, J. A. and P. V. Lade. 1997. Static liquefaction of very loose
sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34: 905–17. doi:10.1139=
t97-057
Yamamuro, J. A. and P. V. Lade. 1998. Steady-state concepts and
static liquefaction of sitly sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(9): 868–77. doi:10.1061=(asce)
1090-0241(1998)124:9(868)
Yang, J. 2002. Liquefaction resistance of sand in relation to P-wave
velocity. Géotechnique 52(4): 295–98. doi:10.1680=geot.2002.52.4.295
Yang, S. L., S. Lacasse, and R. Sandven. 2006. Determination of the
transitional fines content of mixtures of sand and non-plastic
fines. Geotechnical Testing Journal 29(2): 102–07. doi:10.1520=
GTJ14010
Yang, J., S. Savidis, and M. Roemer. 2004. Evaluating liquefaction
strength of partially saturated sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130(9): 975–79. doi:10.1061=(asce)
1090-0241(2004)130:9(975)
Yilmaz, Y. and M. Mollamahmutoglu. 2009. Characterization
of liquefaction susceptibility of sands by means of extreme
void ratios and=or void ratio range. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 135: 1986–90. doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.
1943-5606.0000164
Yoshimi, Y. and H. Oh-Oka. 1975. Influence of degree of shear
stress reversal on the liquefaction potential of saturated sand.
Soils and Foundations 15(3): 27–40. doi:10.3208=sandf1972.
15.3_27
Yoshimi, Y., K. Tanaka, and K. Tokimatsu. 1989. Liquefaction
resistance of a partially saturated sand. Soils and Foundations
29(3): 157–62. doi:10.3208=sandf1972.29.3_157
Zlatovic, S. and K. Ishihara. 1995. On the influence of nonplastic
fines on residual strength. In Proceedings of IS-TOKYO 95, first
international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering,
ed. K. Ishihara, 239–44, Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Zlatovic, S. and K. Ishihara. 1997. Normalized behavior of very
loose non-plastic soils: Effects of fabric. Soils and Foundations
37(4): 47–56. doi:10.3208=sandf.37.4_47