Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5 - Effect of Sample Preparation On Strength of Sands - 2010
5 - Effect of Sample Preparation On Strength of Sands - 2010
ABSTRACT
Selection of the most suitable method of sand sample preparation becomes difficult because all available methods
affect the fabric and dry density of samples, and none of the available methods are shown to be unique. The
objective of this paper is to address some of these issues. A series of consolidated drained (CD) and consolidated
undrained (CU) triaxial compression tests were conducted on sand samples prepared using pluviation and tamping
techniques, under both dry and moist conditions. The standard triaxial test setup at IITB is described first. Stress-
strain behaviour for samples prepared with different sample preparation methods showed considerable difference
in the peak stress and dilation, whilst all sample reached the peak stress at 5 to 10% axial strains. Results showed
that samples prepared using tamping technique usually strain softens, whilst samples prepared by pluviation
technique may harden or soften with strain depending up on the sample relative density and confining pressures
applied during testing. Hence, pluviation technique proves to be the more reliable technique to prepare samples
for triaxial testing.
height in water, irrespective of total drop height. Pluviation diffuser during sample preparation. In this second method,
technique fails when used for sands containing fines because the diffuser was slowly raised concurrently as the sample
of particle segregation (Carraro and Prezzi, 2007). was formed. The two methods are referred to as fixed
diffuser (DF), and rising diffuser (DR) in the text. Detailed
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
procedure and the comparison of both DF and DR are
All tests were conducted in ADsoil laboratory at Indian mentioned in Raghunandan & Juneja (2010). In general,
Institute of Technology Bombay using Gujarat sand. Figure sand was rained from 280- to 600 mm height above the
1 shows the particle size distribution curve of the sample, base of mould. This height is the usual clearance available
and the results showed D50 = 0.3 mm, CU = 2.12, CC = between the cell and the cross head in triaxial shear frame.
1.47, and specific gravity, GS = 2.63. The maximum and
Table 1: Details of Funnels and Mesh Used
minimum void ratios of the sand sample were 0.795 and
0.492 respectively. Samples were prepared in 100mm Pore Size Deposition Intensity
Diffuser
(mm) x10-3 (g/s/mm2)
diameter and 200mm long split mould which had the
D1 2 2.1
facility to attach 80mm long collar at its top. The mould
was clamped to firm base during sample preparation. The D2 2 5.1
split mould was provided with a vacuum port to stretch the D3 8 88.7
membrane and prevent necking during sample preparation D4 9.4 121.6
(after Wijewickreme & Sanin, 2006). D5 10 147.8
100 Note: Diffuser fabricated as per ASTM E 323-80. Center-to-center
distance between the pores was varied to control the deposition
intensity.
80
Samples prepared using tamping and pluviation
Percentage finer (%)
the membrane stiffness (ASTM D4767-04). In this study, and further followed by shear dilation. The stress-strain
0.3mm thick rubber membrane of Young’s modulus equal plots of all the samples tends to follow same path at axial
to 1780 kN/m2 was used. strains (εa) greater than 30%, showing very less volume
1200 change with stress ratio value of about 1.24. Stress ratio is
(a) the term for deviator stress normalised with effective
confining pressure. Hence at this stage the samples are
1000 considered to have reached their critical or steady state.
Figure 3 shows the variation of volumetric strains (εv) with
Deviator stress (kN/m2)
-2
500
(b) 0
400
2
Deviator stress (kN/m2)
0 10 20 30
300 AxialAxial strain
Strains (%)(%)
Fig. 3: Variations of Volumetric Strains with Axial Strains
DP; Fixed diffuser; e = 0.695 Figure 4 shows the variation in ratio of deviator stress
200 DP; Rising diffuser; e = 0.634 at end state with consolidated relative density. Ratio of
WP; Fixed diffuser; e = 0.681 deviator stress at end state shall be defined as the ratio of
deviator stress at critical to peak state, i.e. qcric/qmax. The
100 WP; Rising diffuser; e = 0.683
qcric/qmax ratio explains the total energy loss or drop in
DT; h = 20mm; e = 0.603 deviator stress as a ratio during continued shearing, hence
MT; h = 20mm; e = 0.605 explains the behaviour of the sample as either strain
0 softening of strain hardening. For the ratio qcric/qmax less
0 10 20 30
Axial strain (%) than 1 implies drop in the deviator stress between peak
Axial Strain (%) and critical states, thus the sample shows strain softening
or over-consolidated (OC) behaviour. Similarly, if ratio qcric/
qmax = 1 implies that the sample shows strain hardening or
Fig. 2a-b: Stress-Strain Behavior of Sand Samples Tested
normally-consolidated (NC) behaviour, whilst ratio qcric/
Under (a) Undrained and (b) Drained Conditions
qmax can never be greater than 1. The observations from
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 4 show that ratio qcric/qmax varies between 0.6 to 1
In this paper, the behaviour of sand samples prepared using for all the samples. The samples prepared using dry and
different sample preparation techniques, at void ratios 0.603 wet tamping techniques have ratio qcric/qmax < 0.85, whilst
to 0.687 to consolidated undrained (CU) and drained (CD) for samples prepared using dry and wet pluviation technique
shear is studied. Figure 2a-b show the stress-strain response qcric/qmax ratio varied between 0.8 to 1 depending effective
of the sand samples to drained and undrained shear confining pressures applied during testing. Based on the
respectively. In general, all specimens showed initial peak above discussions it can be concluded that, samples
330 A. Juneja and M.E. Raghunandan
prepared using tamping technique usually strain softens, Chaney, R. and Mulilis, J.P. (1978). Suggested Method for
whilst samples prepared by pluviation technique may Soil Specimen Remoulding by Wet-Raining.
harden or soften with strain depending up on the sample Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 1(2), 107-108.
relative density and confining pressures applied during Cresswell, A., Barton, M.E. and Brown, R. (1999).
testing. Determining the Maximum Density of Sands by
Pluviation. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 22(4),
CU - DP
324-328.
1 CU - WP
DeGregorio, V.B. (1990). Loading Systems, Sample
CU - DT
CU - MT
Preparation, and Liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical
CD; DP-DF
Engineering Division, ASCE, 116(5), 805-821.
qcric/qmax