Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517
DOI 10.1007/s10706-009-9252-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Undrained Cyclic Pore Pressure Response of Sand–Silt
Mixtures: Effect of Nonplastic Fines and Other Parameters
H. K. Dash Æ T. G. Sitharam
Received: 13 October 2008 / Accepted: 20 January 2009 / Published online: 4 February 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Literature regarding the pore pressure
generation characteristics and in turn the cyclic
resistance behaviour of silty sand deposits is confus-
ing. In an attempt to clarify the effect of nonplastic
fines on undrained cyclic pore pressure response of
sand–silt mixtures, an experimental programme uti-
lising around 289 stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests
on specimens of size 50 mm diameter and 100 mm
height was carried out at a frequency of 0.1 Hz.
Specimens were prepared to various measures of
density through constant gross void ratio approach,
constant relative density approach, constant sand
skeleton void ratio approach, and constant interfine
void ratio approach to study the effect of nonplastic
fines on pore pressure response of sand–silt mixtures.
The effect of relative density, confining pressure as
well as the frequency and magnitude of cyclic loading
was also studied. It was observed that the pore
pressure response is greatly influenced by the limiting
silt content and the relative density of a specimen
corresponding to any approach. The influence of other
H. K. Dash (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering
and Technology (CET), Biju Patnaik University of
Technology (BPUT), Bhubaneswar, Orissa 751003, India
e-mail: hkbabool@gmail.com
T. G. Sitharam
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
e-mail: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in
parameters such as relative density, confining pressure
and magnitude of cyclic loading was as usual but an
increase in frequency of cyclic loading was seen to
generate excess pore pressure at a higher rate
indicating an impact load type of behaviour at higher
frequency. Utilising the entire test results over a wide
range of parameters a new pore pressure band for
sand–silt mixtures in line with Lee and Albaisa (1974)
has been proposed. Similarly another pore pressure
band corresponding to 10th cycle of loading as
suggested by Dobry (1985) and up to a shear strain
of around 25% has been proposed. These two bands
can readily be used by researchers and field engineers
to readily assess the pore pressure response of sand–
silt mixtures.
Keywords Gross void ratio
Sand skeleton
void ratio
Interfine void ratio
Limiting silt content

Pore pressure band
1 Introduction
A soil may or may not liquefy, but the amount of
excess pore water pressure generated during static or
cyclic loading considerably affects its strength and
stiffness. Generation of excess pore water pressure
and subsequent liquefaction of saturated sandy soils
with or without fines has been a topic of extensive
laboratory research since last 50 years. Most of the
123
502
earlier research was focused on clean sands with an
idea that presence of fines in a sand deposit resists the
development of pore water pressure. However, large
scale liquefaction related failures in silty sand
deposits in earthquakes of recent past changed this
idea and most of the present research are more
focused on the influence of fines in controlling the
pore pressure response and hence the liquefaction
behaviour of sandy soils. The pore pressure genera-
tion is dependent on the deformational characteristics
of silty sands which is quite different from that of
clean sands.
Generally two methods are employed to examine
the excess pore pressure response of soils as reported
in the literature. Lee and Albaisa (1974) suggested
examining the pore pressure response against the
cycle ratio (i.e. the ratio of cycles of loading to the
cycles of loading required for initial liquefaction).
The curves obtained by plotting excess pore pressure
ratio against cycle ratio fell within a relatively narrow
band for a wide range of relative densities and
consolidation pressures. The excess pore water pres-
sures may also be analysed in terms of the strains
required to generate them as suggested by Dobry
et al. (1982). Significant research have been carried
out in the past by Silver and Seed (1971), Martin
et al. (1975), Dobry (1985), Wang and Kavazanjian
(1989), Erten and Maher (1995), Polito (1999),
Xenaki and Athanasopoulos (2003), Ueng et al.
(2004), Govindaraju (2005), Ravishankar (2006),
and Derakhshandi et al. (2007) on the pore water
pressure generation of clean sands as well as sands
with some amount of fines, but the manner in which
the presence of fines in a sand affects the pore
pressure response and in turn the cyclic resistance
behaviour is a matter of discussion until now.
Increase (Chang et al. 1982; Amini and Qi 2000),
decrease (Kuerbis et al. 1988; Finn et al. 1994) and
initial decrease till limiting silt content and thereafter
an increase (Polito and Martin 2001; Xenaki and
Athanasopoulos 2003; Ueng et al. 2004; Ravishankar
2006) in cyclic resistance with increase in silt content
at a constant gross void ratio has been reported in the
literature. At a constant relative density, Singh (1994)
reported a decrease where as Polito and Martin
(2001) reported an initial constant behaviour till
limiting silt content followed by a drastic fall till a
relatively stable level but Sadek and Saleh (2007)
reported an initial peak and then a drastic fall in
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517
cyclic resistance with increase in silt content. Sim-
ilarly at a constant sand skeleton void ratio, increase
in cyclic resistance with increase in fines content was
reported by Shen et al. (1977), Kuerbis et al. (1988),
Vaid (1994) and Xenaki and Athanasopoulos (2003)
where as Finn et al. (1994) and Polito and Martin
(2001) reported a constant behaviour. In view of
these conflicting conclusions even at a particular
measure of density, a detailed laboratory investiga-
tion programme through stress controlled cyclic
triaxial tests was carried out to study and clarify the
effects of nonplastic fines and other parameters on the
undrained pore water pressure response of sand and
silt mixtures. The effect of nonplastic fines was
studied by preparing specimens to various measures
of density through constant gross void ratio approach,
constant relative density approach, constant sand
skeleton void ratio approach, and constant interfine
void ratio approach. The effect of relative density,
confining pressure as well as the frequency and
magnitude of cyclic loading was also studied.
2 Experimental Programme
2.1 Materials Used
Original Ahmedabad sand collected from Sabarmati
river belt of Ahmedabad (India) city area was wet
sieved through 75 lm IS sieve to obtain the clean
sand. Quarry dust (\75 lm) was used in this study as
a substitute for silt. It is a byproduct of rubble crusher
units in and around Bangalore (India). The grain size
distribution of clean sand and the quarry dust
(\75 lm) were done as per IS:2720 (part 4 - 1985,
1995) and are presented in Fig. 1. Sand–silt mixtures
were prepared by adding quarry dust (silt) in various
percentages (by weight) to the clean sand. Fourteen
combinations of sand and silt were created using
Ahmedabad clean sand with varying silt contents
from 5 to 75% for carrying out cyclic triaxial tests.
Clean sand and silt were also used for the testing
programme. Index properties including specific grav-
ity (IS:2720 part 3 - 1980, 1992) and maximum and
minimum index void ratios (IS: 2720 part 14 - 1983)
were determined for clean sand, each of these sand–
silt mixtures, and silt as per the Indian Standards
specifications. As per Indian classification and iden-
tification system (IS: 1498 - 1970-1992) the clean
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 503

100 Table 2 Minimum and maximum gross void ratios of various

Clean Sand
90 Silt (Quarry Dust) sand–silt mixtures used in this study
80
Soil type Minimum gross Maximum gross
70
void ratio (emin) void ratio (emax)
Pecent Finer

60
50 Clean sand 0.42 0.68
40 Clean sand ? 5% silt 0.32 0.647
30 Clean sand ? 10% silt 0.283 0.63
20
Clean sand ? 15% silt 0.255 0.62
10
Clean sand ? 20% silt 0.23 0.597
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Clean sand ? 25% silt 0.267 0.703
Particle Size (mm) Clean sand ? 30% silt 0.273 0.723
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution of clean sand and silt used in Clean sand ? 35% silt 0.296 0.78
this study Clean sand ? 40% silt 0.327 0.866
Clean sand ? 45% silt 0.33 0.97
sand is identified as a poorly graded sand with symbol Clean sand ? 50% silt 0.37 1
SP where as the silt is identified as inorganic silt with Clean sand ? 60% silt 0.373 1.1
symbol ML. Various index properties of the soils Clean sand ? 75% silt 0.5174 1.364
used in this study are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Silt 0.652 1.632

2.2 Limiting Fines Content loose contact with each other and the soil structure
becomes predominantly a silt dominated one. The
As fines (silt) are added to a sand, it passes from one limiting fines content (LFC) is generally calculated
phase to the other through a transition point called as using the following expression (Hazirbaba 2005):
the limiting fines (silt) content. Below this point the
Wfines G f es
soil structure is generally a sand dominated one with LFC ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Wsand þ Wfines Gf es þ Gs ð1 þ ef Þ
silt contained in a sand-skeleton where as beyond this
point there are enough fines such that the sand grains where Wfines is the weight of fines and Wsand is the
weight of sand in a sand–silt mixture. Similarly, Gf,
Table 1 Index properties of component soils used in this Gs, ef and es stand for specific gravity and maximum
study index void ratio of fines and sand, respectively. Using
Soil type Clean Quarry the Eq. 1, the limiting silt content for sand–silt
sand dust (silt) mixtures used in this study was found to be 21%.
IS classification symbol SP ML
2.3 Specimen Preparation
Maximum grain size (mm) 2 0.0747
Mean grain size D50 (mm) 0.375 0.037
Soil specimens used in this study were of 50 mm in
Minimum grain size (mm) 0.075 0.00063
diameter and 100 mm in height. The specimens were
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 3.58 7.83
formed by using dry deposition method. Each spec-
Coefficient of gradation (Cz) 1.163 1.418
imen was prepared in five layers. Depending upon the
Specific gravity (Gs) 2.65 2.67
desired relative density corresponding to any
Minimum index density (kN/m3) 15.77 10.14
approach, each layer was subjected to pre-assessed
Maximum index density (kN/m3) 18.66 16.16
number of tamping blows in a symmetrical pattern
Minimum index void ratio (emin) 0.42 0.652
from out side the specimen mould. Every care was
Maximum index void ratio (emax) 0.68 1.632
taken to maintain a uniform density over the entire
Liquid limit (%) NP 33.75 height of the specimen. The specimen was formed
Plastic limit (%) ND 32.18 carefully with maximum achievable accuracy. In
Plasticity index (%) NP 1.57 (NP) accordance with the approved guidelines of ASTM D
NP nonplastic, ND not determinable 5311-92 (Re-approved 1996), a small vacuum of

123
504
around 20 kPa was applied for about 1 hour through
the pore pressure line at lower platen of the tri-axial
cell to induce some positive effective stress on the
soil sample before cyclic triaxial testing was
performed.
2.4 Saturation and Consolidation
Once the preparation of the specimen was complete
and the specimen was formed, initial saturation of the
specimen was done by passing carbon dioxide
followed by deaired water through the specimen.
After a desired volume of water was collected, the
specimen was saturated with sufficient back pressure
till it was ensured that the Skempton’s B parameter
was greater than 95%. The specimens were then
isotropically consolidated to an effective confining
stress of 100 kPa. The duration for the process of
consolidation was varied from about 4 min (for clean
sands) to about 90 min (for pure silt). All void ratios
reported in this study are post consolidation void
ratios. Likewise the relative densities, sand skeleton
void ratios, and interfine void ratios are also based on
these post consolidation void ratios.
2.5 Cyclic Triaxial Testing Equipment
The pore pressure response of sand–silt mixture
specimens was studied by performing undrained
cyclic triaxial tests on isotropically consolidated
specimens. Testing was carried out using state of
the art cyclic triaxial testing apparatus. The equip-
ment consists of a triaxial chamber, an LVDT to
measure the vertical displacement, a submersible load
cell of 5 kN capacity, and three transducers to
measure the volume change, chamber pressure, and
pore water pressure. The loading system consists of a
load frame and hydraulic actuator capable of
performing both static and dynamic (strain-controlled
as well as stress-controlled) tests with a frequency
range of 0.01–10 Hz, employing built-in sine, trian-
gular and square wave forms. The equipment is
computerized and servo-controlled.
2.6 Programme of Experiments
The detailed programme of experiments correspond-
ing to all the approaches and parameter effects are
presented in Table 3. The results of around 289 cyclic
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517
triaxial tests on specimens with different silt contents
and over a wide range of parameters have been
utilised in this study to understand the pore pressure
generation characteristics of sand–silt mixtures.
3 Results and Discussions
3.1 Typical Test Result
The results of a typical cyclic triaxial test, performed
on a specimen with 5% silt content prepared to a post
consolidation sand skeleton void ratio (es) of 0.607
and loaded at a cyclic stress ratio of 0.154, are
presented in Fig. 2. The constant deviator stress
applied to the specimen till 100% excess pore water
pressure was developed is presented in Fig. 2a. The
corresponding axial strain induced on the specimen is
presented in Fig. 2b against the cycles of loading. It
is to be noted here that the specimen achieved the
100% excess pore water pressure at the 20th cycle of
uniform loading. The pore water pressures generated
in the specimen as a result of the induced axial strains
is presented in Fig. 2c. It may be seen in these figures
that the deviator stress remained unaltered till the end
of the test. The axial strain development on the
specimen remained very less at initial cycles of
loading but it drastically increased towards the end.
This drastic increase in axial strain is seen to start
corresponding to around 70% excess pore water
pressure generation due to a drastic reduction in
stiffness of the specimen as a result of increased
excess pore water pressure. Also it may be noted that
the pore water pressure generation speeds up after
around this value. The effective stress path of the
specimen is presented in Fig. 2d where it can be seen
that the specimen looses all its strength and stiffness
corresponding to 100% excess pore water pressure
generation. Similar observation was made in all the
tests corresponding to any approach and silt content.
Again, a typical pore pressure response analysis is
presented in Fig. 3. The pore pressure response in
specimens prepared to a constant post consolidation
gross void ratio of 0.44 is presented in this figure as
per the method suggested by Lee and Albaisa (1974).
The peak excess pore water pressure ratio corre-
sponding to various cycles of loading has been
plotted in this figure against the cycle ratio. Excess
pore water ratio (Ru) is defined as the ratio of excess
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 505

Table 3 Programme of experiments

Approach CGVR(e)/CRD (%)/ Soil type r0 3c Frequency Range of Total no.
adopted CSSVR(es)/CIVR(ef) (kPa) (Hz) cyclic stress of expts
ratio (CSR)

CGVR ec = 0.44 Clean sand ? 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 100 0.1 0.102–0.409 41
35, 40, 45, 50 and 60% silt
CGVR ec = 0.54 Clean sand ? 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 100 0.1 0.056–0.409 47
35, 40, 45, 50, 60 and 75% silt
CRD RDc = 53% Clean sand ? 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 100 0.1 0.0165–0.205 48
35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 75% silt and silt
CSSVR es = 0.54 Clean sand ? 0, 5, 10, 12.5 and 15% 100 0.1 0.128–0.358 19
silt
CSSVR es = 0.607 Clean sand ? 0, 5, 10, 15, 17.5 and 100 0.1 0.102–0.358 25
20% silt
CSSVR es = 0.84 Clean sand ? 20 and 25% silt 100 0.1 0.102–0.204 08
CSSVR es = 1.12 Clean sand ? 25, 30 and 35% silt 100 0.1 0.064–0.256 11
CSSVR es = 1.38 Clean sand ? 30, 35 and 40% silt 100 0.1 0.056–0.179 11
CSSVR es = 1.87 Clean sand ? 40, 45 and 50% silt 100 0.1 0.041–0.307 13
CSSVR es = 2.27 Clean sand ? 45 and 50% silt 100 0.1 0.077–0.154 06
CSSVR es = 2.77 Clean sand ? 50 and 60% silt 100 0.1 0.077–0.307 09
CIVR ef = 1.47 Clean sand ? 20, 30 and 40% silt 100 0.1 0.154 03
Effect of RD RD = 27, 45, 54% Clean sand 100 0.1 0.115–0.256 12
Effect of RD RD = 24, 43, 53, 73% Clean sand ? 20% silt 100 0.1 0.064–0.256 15
Effect of RD = 50% Clean sand ? 10% silt 50, 100, 0.1 0.087–0.179 09
conf pr 200
Effect of RDc = 53% Clean sand ? 10% silt 100 0.1, 0.2, 0.077–0.154 12
frequency 0.3, 0.5
Grand total no. of tests 289
CGVR constant gross void ratio, CRD constant relative density, CSSVR constant sand skeleton void ratio, and CIVR constant interfine
void ratio, Conf Pr confining pressure, RD relative density, and ec, RDc, es, ef represent post consolidation gross void ratio, relative
density, sand skeleton void ratio, and interfine void ratio respectively

pore water pressure (uexcess) generated during a
particular cycle of loading to the initial effective
confining pressure (r0 3c). Similarly the peak pore
pressure ratio is the maximum pore water pressure
ratio at a particular cycle of loading. The cycle ratio
(N/NL) is defined as the ratio of cycle of loading (N)
to the cycles of loading till 100% excess pore water
pressure (i.e. the point of initial liquefaction) is
generated (NL). It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the peak
pore pressures in Ahmedabad sand and silt mixtures
deviate the upper and lower bound values suggested
by Lee and Albaisa (1974) who performed stress
controlled tests on Monterey sand specimens. This
type of deviations was observed for all the specimens
with any silt content in this test programme corre-
sponding to any approach due to the presence of
fines.
A detailed discussion on the pore pressure generation
characteristics of sand–silt mixtures through various
approaches and parameters are presented herewith
3.2 Constant Gross Void Ratio Approach
The gross void ratio (e) of a soil specimen is the ratio
of the volume of void (VV) to the volume of the soil
solids (VS) in the specimen. It can be expressed as a
function of dry density (cd) of the soil specimen and
the specific gravity (GS) of the soil solids. The void
ratio (e) of the specimens tested was found to be
essentially independent of the silt content, except for
the small effect that the amount of silt present has on
the specific gravity (Gs) of soil solids. This statement
can easily be verified from the expression of dry
density (cd) of the specimen:

123
506 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517

(a) 20 (b) 6
Clean Sand + 5% Silt Clean Sand + 5% Silt
15 4
Deviator Stress q (kPa)

10 2

Axial Strain (%)

5 0

0 -2

-5 -4
e s = 0.607
-10 -6
σ'3c = 100kPa
-15 -8 f = 0.1Hz
e s = 0.607, σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz, CSR = 0.154 CSR = 0.154
-20 -10
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 Cycles of Loading till R u = 1

(c) 1.2 (d) 20

Clean Sand + 5% Silt
15
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

Deviator Stress, q (kPa)

10
0.8
5

0.6 0

-5
0.4
e s = 0.607 e s = 0.607
-10
σ'3c = 100kPa σ'3c = 100kPa
0.2
f = 0.1Hz -15 f = 0.1Hz
CSR = 0.154 Clean Sand + 5% Silt CSR = 0.154
0 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 Mean Effective Stress, p' (kPa)

Fig. 2 a Deviator stress versus cycles of loading till Ru = 1; b axial strain versus cycles of loading till Ru = 1; c pore water pressure
response till Ru = 1; d effective stress path

1
0% Silt Specimens with various silt contents at constant
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

Upper and Lower Bound Values

0.8 (Lee and Albaisa, 1974) 5% Silt post consolidation gross void ratios of 0.44 and 0.54
10% Silt
15% Silt
were tested at various cyclic stress ratios as per the
0.6 20% Silt programme mentioned in Table 3. The number of
25% Silt cycles of loading required for the development of
0.4 30% Silt
100% excess pore water pressure or Ru = 1 varied
35% Silt
40% Silt with silt content, cyclic stress ratio (CSR), and also
0.2
e c = 0.44, σ'3c = 100kPa, 50% Silt the gross void ratio of the specimen. Figure 4
f = 0.1Hz, CSR = 0.154 60% Silt presents the cycles of loading required to cause a
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 pore pressure ratio of one against the silt content of
Cycle Ratio (N/N L )
specimens prepared to constant post consolidation
Fig. 3 Typical pore pressure response against cycle ratio as
gross void ratios of 0.44 and 0.54 at constant cyclic
per the method suggested by Lee and Albaisa (1974) stress ratios of 0.154 and 0.128, respectively. It may
the seen in this figure that the cycles of loading
decreases drastically with increase in silt content till
Gs cw G s cw Gs cw
cd  )e¼ 1)e¼ 1 ð2Þ the limiting silt content is reached and thereafter the
1þe cd Wd =V
trend is reversed in both the cases of constant gross
As the unit weight of water (cw) is generally void ratio. This indicates that at a constant gross void
considered to be unity at normal temperature, the ratio the specimens get weaker against cyclically
void ratio (e) solely depends on the dry weight (Wd) induced loads with increase in silt content till the
of the soil used and the volume (V) of the specimen. limiting silt content is reached and they try to become

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 507

1000 Table 4 Variation in relative density at ec = 0.44 and

e c = 0.44
ec = 0.54
(CSR = 0.154)
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

Silt RDc (%) at RDc (%) at

100 content (%) ec = 0.44 ec = 0.54

0 92 53.8
5 63.3 32.6
10
10 55.8 26.6
e c = 0.54 15 49.3 21.6
(CSR = 0.128)
σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz 20 42.7 15.7
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 25 60.1 37.3
Silt Content (%)
30 62.5 40.7
Fig. 4 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus silt content at 35 70 49.8
ec = 0.44 and ec = 0.54 40 78.7 60.5
50 88.8 73.1
stronger after that. The peak pore pressure response is 60 90.5 77
plotted against the cycles of loading till Ru = 1 in 75 97.3
Fig. 5 for specimens prepared to constant gross void
ratio of 0.44 at a constant cyclic stress ratio of 0.154.
It may be seen in this figure that the rate of generation
decreases with increase in silt content till the limiting
of excess pore water pressure increases drastically
silt content and thereafter it increases (Table 4).
with increase in silt content till the limiting silt
The peak pore pressure response when plotted
content is reached and thereafter the trend is reversed
against the cyclic ratio shows prominent deviations
thus justifying the similar behaviour discussed ear-
from the upper and lower bound values suggested by
lier. Similar peak pore pressure response behaviour
Lee and Albaisa (1974) for Monterey sand specimens
was observed in specimens prepared to constant post
and this has been discussed in the typical pore
consolidation gross void ratio of 0.54. Specimens
pressure response plot in Fig. 3. These deviations
tested at various cyclic stress ratios at these constant
may be due to the presence of fines.
gross void ratios were seen to generate similar excess
pore water pressure as discussed already.
3.3 Constant Relative Density Approach
The weaker cyclic resistance with increase in silt
content till the limiting silt content and thereafter an
The relative density of a specimen is based on the
increase is justified again by the fact that at a constant
gross void ratio of the specimen and the maximum
gross void ratio the relative density of a specimen
and minimum index gross void ratios of a particular
mixture of sand and silt and is calculated using the
1.2 following expression.
0% Silt
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

1 5% Silt emax  e
RD ¼ ð3Þ
10% Silt emax  emin
0.8 15% Silt
20% Silt where RD is the relative density, emax and emin are the
0.6 25% Silt
maximum and minimum gross void ratios of a
30% Silt
0.4 35% Silt
particular sand–silt mixture and e is the gross void
40% Silt ratio of the specimen. The relative density is gener-
0.2 σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz 50% Silt ally expressed as a percentage. The detailed test
e c = 0.44, CSR = 0.154 60% Silt
0 programme has been presented in Table 3 and the
1 10 100 1000 tests were conducted on specimens of sand–silt
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1
mixtures with silt content varying from 0 to 100%
Fig. 5 Pore pressure response as function of cycles of loading at a constant post consolidation average relative
at ec = 0.44 density of 53% to study the undrained cyclic pore

123
508 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517

pressure response of sand–silt mixtures at a constant be seen that the rate of generation of excess pore
relative density. water pressure initially decreases till 5% silt content
Initially the number of cycles required to generate and thereafter decreases rapidly till around the
100% excess pore water pressure (or initial liquefac- limiting silt content and finally it remains relatively
tion) in the specimens at a constant cyclic stress ratio same for all the silt contents till even pure silt thus
of 0.128 was studied and is presented in Fig. 6. It is justifying the cyclic resistance behaviour as described
observed from this figure that the cycles of loading above. The initial increase in cyclic resistance at a
initially increases till around 5% silt content and constant relative density may be due to an increase in
thereafter there is a drastic fall till around the limiting dry density of a specimen till the limiting silt content
silt content and beyond this point it remains more or and thereafter a decrease (Table 5). The increase in
less same with further increase in silt content till even cyclic resistance till 5% silt content is supposed to be
pure silt. This observation indicates that in constant due to an increase in dry density as the effect of fines
relative density approach the cyclic resistance ini- is not felt up to 5% silt content as reported in the
tially increases till 5% silt content, thereafter literature (Seed et al. 1985), but the effect of fines in
decreases rapidly till around the limiting silt content reducing the cyclic resistance despite an increase in
and beyond limiting silt content it remains relatively dry density till the limiting silt content is well
same for all the silt contents till pure silt. understood. Also the effect of fines can well be
The peak pore pressure response as a function of understood in keeping the cyclic resistance relatively
cycles of loading is presented in Fig. 7 where it can same despite a decrease in dry density with increase
in silt content beyond the limiting silt content because
1000 the presence of more fines in a specimen at a constant
σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz relative density resists the development of excess
RD c = 53%, CSR = 0.128
pore water pressure and this prevents the likely fall in
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

100 cyclic resistance.

Similar deviation in peak pore pressure response
from the boundaries suggested by Lee and Albaisa
10 (1974) when plotted against cycle ratio was also
observed in this approach as discussed earlier.

1
0 20 40 60 80 100 Table 5 Variation in dry density with silt content at RDc =
Silt Content (%) 53%
Silt Dry density,
Fig. 6 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus silt content at
content (%) cdc (g/cc) at RDc = 53%
RDc = 53%
0 1.7231
5 1.8031
1.2
0% Silt 10 1.8295
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

5% Silt
1 10% Silt 15 1.856
15% Silt 20 1.8952
0.8 20% Silt
25% Silt 25 1.8052
30% Silt
0.6
35% Silt 30 1.783
40% Silt
0.4 45% Silt 35 1.7378
50% Silt
60% Silt
40 1.6744
0.2 σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz 75% Silt 45 1.6243
RD c = 53%, CSR = 0.128 Silt
0 50 1.5884
1 10 100 1000
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1
60 1.5475
75 1.3921
Fig. 7 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of 100 1.2702
loading at RDc = 53%

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 509

3.4 Constant Sand Skeleton Void Ratio Approach It was not possible to maintain a constant sand
skeleton void ratio for all the silt contents investigated as
Sand skeleton void ratio is the gross void ratio that the relative density increases with increase in silt content
would exist in a silty-sand by removing all the silt at a constant sand skeleton void ratio (Fig. 8) and after
particles, leaving only the sand and void to form the some silt content the relative density increases beyond
soil structure. It is expressed in terms of gross void 100% thus making it impossible to prepare a specimen.
ratio and the fines content (Kenny 1977; Kuerbis Therefore several constant sand skeleton void ratios
et al. 1988) as follows: were chosen with at least two to three combinations of
e þ FC sand and silt and it is shown in Fig. 9.
es ¼ ð4Þ Below the limiting silt content two constant post
1  FC
consolidation sand skeleton void ratios of 0.54 and
where es is the sand skeleton void ratio, e is the 0.607 were chosen till silt contents of 15 and 20%,
gross void ratio of the specimen and FC is the fines respectively for the reasons mentioned above. The
content. number of cycles of loading required to generate 100%
100
excess pore water pressure (or initial liquefaction) at
Sand Skeleton e = 0.54 constant cyclic stress ratios of 0.205 and 0.154,
80 Sand Skeleton e = 0.607 respectively is presented in Fig. 10. It may be seen in
Relative Density (%)

Sand Skeleton e = 0.84 this figure that the cycles of loading remains tentatively
60 same in both the cases till some silt content corre-
Sand Skeleton e = 1.12
Sand Skeleton e = 1.38 sponding to a relative density of around 70% and
40
Sand Skeleton e = 1.87 thereafter a sudden increase is observed indicating a
20 Sand Skeleton e = 2.27
relatively same cyclic resistance to some silt content
Sand Skeleton e = 2.77
corresponding to a relative density of 70% and
0 thereafter a sudden increase. Similar cyclic resistance
0 20 40 60 80
behaviour was also observed at constant sand skeleton
Silt Content (%)
void ratios beyond the limiting silt content and as an
Fig. 8 Variation in relative density with increase in silt example Fig. 10 also presents the test results obtained
content at various constant sand skeleton void ratios for specimens with silt contents of 40, 45, and 50%

4.5
0% Silt
4 5% Silt
10% Silt
3.5
Sand Skeleton Void Ratio (es )

12.5% Silt
3 15% Silt
e s = 2.77 17.5% Silt
2.5 20% Silt
e s = 2.27 25% Silt
2
e s = 1.87 30% Silt

1.5 35% Silt

e s = 1.38
40% Silt
1 e s = 1.12 45% Silt
e s = 0.84
e s = 0.607 50% Silt
0.5
e s = 0.54 60% Silt

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Gross Void Ratio (e )

Fig. 9 Various constant sand skeleton void ratios chosen

123
510 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517

500 1
e s = 0.54 σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz 40% Silt

Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

(CSR = 0.205) 45% Silt
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

400 e s = 1.87 0.8 50% Silt

(CSR = 0.128)

300 0.6

200 e s = 0.607 0.4

(CSR = 0.154)

100 0.2
e s = 1.87, σ'3c = 100kPa
f = 0.1Hz, CSR = 0.128
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 10 100 1000
Silt Content (%) Cycles of Loading till R u = 1

Fig. 10 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 against silt content at Fig. 12 Pore pressure response as function of cycles of
es = 0.54, es = 0.607, and es = 1.87 loading at es = 1.87

prepared to a constant sand skeleton void ratio of 1.87.

The peak pore pressure response at es = 0.54 and the interfine void ratio (ef) as the silts dominate the soil
es = 1.87 is presented in Figs. 11 and 12 from which it structure and sands only act as reinforcing material, an
can be seen that the rate of generation of excess pore attempt was made in this investigation to study the
pressure against cycles of loading initially remains cyclic pore pressure response of sand–silt mixture
relatively same till some silt content corresponding to specimens prepared to silt contents larger than the
RDc = 70% followed by a sudden decrease. This limiting silt content at a constant post consolidation
behaviour was observed at all constant sand skeleton interfine void ratio of 1.47. The interfine void ratio (ef)
void ratios both below and beyond the limiting silt of a sand–silt mixture specimen is defined as the ratio
content. This type of cyclic resistance and pore of gross void ratio (e) of the specimen to the
pressure response behaviour indicates that at higher corresponding fines content (FC) i.e. ef = e/FC. The
relative density these parameters are independent of specimens with 20, 30, and 40% silt content were tested
silt content, but the effect of fines is well felt at relative for this purpose at a cyclic stress ratio of 0.154 and a
densities less than 70%. frequency of 0.1 Hz.
The number of cycles of loading required to
3.5 Constant Interfine Void Ratio Approach generate 100% excess pore water pressure (or Ru = 1
or till initial liquefaction) is plotted against silt
Based on the conceptual framework suggested by content in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the number of
Thevanayagam (2000) that the cyclic response of silty cycles of loading decreases drastically with increase
sands beyond the limiting silt content is controlled by in silt content indicating a decrease in cyclic

1 1000
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

0% Silt
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

0.8

5% Silt 100
0.6
10% Silt
0.4
12.5% Silt 10

0.2
σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz 15% Silt Inter Fine Void Ratio (e f ) = 1.47
e s = 0.54, CSR = 0.204 σ'3c = 100kPa, CSR = 0.154, f = 0.1Hz
0 1
1 10 100 1000 0 10 20 30 40 50
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 Silt Content (%)

Fig. 11 Pore pressure response as function of cycles of Fig. 13 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus silt content at
loading at es = 0.54 ef = 1.47

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 511

1.2 1000
20% Silt 0% Silt
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

30% Silt 20% Silt

1

Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

40% Silt

0.8 100

0.6

0.4 10

0.2
Interfine Void Ratio (e f ) = 1.47
σ'3c = 100kpa, f = 0.1Hz, CSR = 0.154 σ'3c = 100kPa, CSR = 0.128, f = 0.1Hz
0 1
1 10 100 1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 Relative Density (%)

Fig. 14 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of Fig. 15 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus relative density
loading at ef = 1.47
1.2
RDc = 24% RDc = 43%
RDc = 53% RDc = 73%

Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

Table 6 Variation in relative density at ef = 1.47 1
Silt content (%) RDc (%) at ef = 1.47
0.8
20 82.42
0.6
30 60.46
40 51.96 0.4

0.2
20% Silt
resistance with increase in silt content at a constant σ'3c = 100kPa, CSR = 0.128, f = 0.1Hz
interfine void ratio. This cyclic resistance behaviour 0
1 10 100 1000
is justified by the increase in the rate of generation of Cycles of Loading till R u = 1
excess pore water pressure with respect to cycles of
loading with increase in silt content as presented in Fig. 16 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of
Fig. 14. The decrease in cyclic resistance is explained loading at different relative densities for specimen with 20%
silt content
by a corresponding decrease in relative density with
increase in silt content at a constant interfine void where it can be seen that for the specimen with 20%
ratio (Table 6). silt content the rate of generation of excess pore water
pressure decreases with increase in relative density at
3.6 Effect of Relative Density a constant cyclic stress ratio of 0.128. Similar
behaviour was observed for clean sand specimen.
Specimens with 0 and 20% silt at different relative
densities as mentioned in Table 3 were cyclically 3.7 Effect of Confining Pressure
loaded at a frequency of 0.1 Hz to study the effect of
relative density on the pore pressure response. Specimens with 10% silt content at initial relative
Figure 15 presents the number of cycles of loading densities of 50% were cyclically loaded with initial
required to generate 100% excess pore water pressure effective confining pressures of 50, 100, and 200 kPa
in these specimens at a cyclic stress ratio of 0.128. As to study the effect of confining pressure on the pore
may be seen in this figure the number of cycles pressure response. It is to be mentioned here that
increases with increase in relative density of a these specimens were also isotropically consolidated
specimen and it is similar for both the specimens to the same effective confining pressures. Figure 17
thus indicating that the cyclic resistance increases presents the required number of cycles to generate
with increase in relative density. This cyclic resis- 100% excess pore water pressure at a constant cyclic
tance behaviour is again verified from the pore stress ratio of 0.128 against the respective confining
pressure response behaviour presented in Fig. 16 pressures where it can be seen the cycles of loading

123
512 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517

100 100
10% Silt
RD c = 53%, σ'3c = 100kPa, CSR = 0.128
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

10% Silt
RD = 50%, CSR = 0.128, f = 0.1Hz
10 10
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Confining Pressure (kPa) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 17 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus confining Fig. 19 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus frequency of
pressure loading

increases with increase in initial effective confining required to generate 100% excess pore water pressure
pressure indicating that the cyclic resistance increases against the respective frequency of loading at a
with increase in confining pressures. This cyclic constant cyclic stress ratio of 0.128. It can be seen
resistance behaviour is again justified from the pore that the cycles of loading decreases with increase in
pressure response against cycles of loading as frequency of loading. This behaviour is justified from
presented in Fig. 18 from which it can be seen that the pore pressure response against cycles of loading
the pore pressure generation rate with respect to as presented in Fig. 20 where it can be seen that the
cycles of loading decreases with increase in confining pore water pressure generation rate increases with
pressure. increase in frequency of loading. The above finding
indicates that the cyclic resistance decreases with
3.8 Effect of Frequency of Loading increase in frequency of loading on a specimen. The
reason for this behaviour of cyclic resistance may be
The effect of frequency of loading on the undrained due to the fact that at higher frequency the load on the
cyclic pore pressure response of soils was studied specimen acts as an impact load and a load at lower
through cyclic triaxial tests at various frequencies as frequency acts as a gradually applied load and
mentioned in Table 3 on specimens with 10% silt basically the impact load produces approximately
content at a post consolidation relative density of twice the stress produced by a gradually applied load
53%. Figure 19 presents the cycles of loading of same magnitude thus justifying the finding that a

1.2 1.2
Effective Conf Pr = 50kPa f = 0.1Hz f = 0.2Hz
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

Effective Conf Pr = 100kPa

Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

1 Effective Conf Pr = 200kPa 1 f = 0.3Hz f = 0.5Hz

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
10% Silt 10% Silt
RD = 50%, f = 0.1Hz, CSR = 0.128 RD c = 53%, σ'3c = 100kPa, CSR = 0.128
0 0
1 10 100 1 10 100
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 Cycles of Loading till R u = 1

Fig. 18 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of Fig. 20 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of
loading at different confining pressures for specimen with 10% loading at different frequencies for specimen with 10% silt
silt content content

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 513

1000 rate thus decreasing its cyclic resistance. This cyclic

resistance behaviour is again justified from the pore
Cycles of Loading till Ru = 1

pressure response against cycles of loading at differ-

100 ent cyclic stress ratios which is presented in Fig. 22
where it can be seen that the pore pressure generation
rate increases with increase in cyclic stress ratio (or
10 the magnitude of cyclic loading).

50% Silt
e c = 0.54, σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz
1 4 Combined Pore Water Pressure Analysis
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR )
4.1 Method Suggested by Lee and Albaisa (1974)
Fig. 21 Cycles of loading till Ru = 1 versus cyclic stress ratio
for specimen with 50% silt content Lee and Albaisa (1974) carried out around 22
numbers of cyclic triaxial tests with varying param-
load at higher frequency weakens the soil quicker eters on Monterey river sand to study the pore
than its counterpart. pressure response of sand. They varied the relative
density from around 30 to 100%, confining pressure
3.9 Effect of Magnitude of Loading from 15 to 200 psi and cyclic stress ratio from 0.24 to
0.38. They reported that all the curves generated by
The magnitude of cyclic loading is represented by the plotting the pore pressure response against the
cyclic stress ratio (CSR). The results of cyclic triaxial corresponding cycle ratio fall within a relatively
tests at different cyclic stress ratios of 0.0922, 0.1022, narrow band. Results obtained from this investigation
0.128 and 0.154 on specimens with 50% silt content were utilised to study the limitations of this band
are presented here to study the effect of magnitude of when nonplastic fines are added to sand. For this
loading on the cyclic pore pressure response of soils. purpose, peak pore pressures generated in sand and
The cycles of loading required to produce 100% silt mixture specimens prepared at various relative
excess pore water pressure at different cyclic stress densities corresponding to all the approaches over a
ratios are presented in Fig. 21 from which it can be wide range of parameters is presented as a function of
seen that the cycles of loading decreases with cycle ratio (N/NL) in Fig. 23 to asses the upper and
increase in cyclic stress ratio thus indicating that a lower bound values as suggested by Lee and Albaisa
higher magnitude cyclic load disturbs a soil at a faster (1974). These values are suggested over a relative
density range of 14–91%, confining pressure range of
50–200 kPa, frequency range of 0.1–0.5 Hz, silt
1.2 content range of 0–100%, and cyclic stress ratio
CSR = 0.0922 CSR = 0.1024
CSR = 0.128 CSR = 0.154 range of 0.0922–0.205. The values may readily be
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

1
used for assessing pore pressure generation charac-
0.8 teristics of similar sand–silt mixture soil specimens.
These values are also compared with that of upper
0.6 bound and lower bound values of Monterey sand
0.4
specimens as suggested by Lee and Albaisa (1974).
The upper bound values of Monterey sand appears to
0.2
50% Silt
be conservative and the upward deviations in upper
e c = 0.54, σ'3c = 100kPa, f = 0.1Hz bound values of sand–silt mixture specimens from
0
1 10 100 1000 that of Monterey sand is due to the presence of fines.
Cycles of Loading till R u = 1 The initial higher peak pore pressure generation, as
observed in sand–silt mixture specimens with various
Fig. 22 Pore pressure response as a function of cycles of
loading at different cyclic stress ratios for specimen with 50% silt content, is a special characteristic of this sand
silt content implying its high potential to liquefaction.

123
514 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517

1
Upper and Lower Bound Curves
(Sand and Silt Mixtures)

Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

0.8

0.6

0.4

Range of σ'3c = 50kPa - 200kPa,

0.2 Range of Frequency = 0.1Hz - 0.5Hz
Range of CSR = 0.0922 - 0.205
Upper and Lower Bound Curves Range of Silt Content = 0 - 100%
(Lee and Albaisa, 1974) Range of Relative Density = 14% - 91%
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cycle Ratio (N/N L )

Fig. 23 Maximum and minimum peak pore pressure generation in sand and silt mixture specimens over a wide range of parameters
and compared with Lee and Albaisa (1974)

4.2 Method Suggested by Dobry (1985) parameter effects and are plotted in Fig. 24 as per the
method suggested by Dobry (1985). The results thus
Next, the peak pore water pressures generated at the obtained are compared with the upper and lower bound
10th cycle of loading and the corresponding shear values suggested by Dobry (1985) and Erten and
strains were evaluated over a wide range of parameters Maher (1995) from strain controlled tests on sandy
corresponding to all the approaches and all other soils. As may be seen in this figure, the peak excess

1.2
Range of σ'3c = 50 - 200kPa 0% Silt
Range of Frequency = 0.1 - 0.5Hz
N = 10
5% Silt
Range of CSR = 0.0411 - 0.5115
Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

1 10% Silt
Range of Silt Cont. = 0 - 100%
Range of RD c = 14% - 97% 12.5% Silt
15% Silt
0.8 17.5% Silt
Upper and Lower 20% Silt
Bound Cyrves
25% Silt
0.6 (Dobry, 1985)
30% Silt
35% Silt
40% Silt
0.4
45% Silt
50% Silt
0.2 60% Silt
Upper and Lower
Bound Curves
75% Silt
(Erten and Maher, 1995) Silt
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Shear Strain (%)

Fig. 24 Peak pore water pressure generation in sand and silt mixture specimens @10th cycle over a wide range of parameters and
compared with that of Dobry (1985) and Erten and Maher(1995)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517 515

1.2
Upper and Lower Boundary Values N = 10 0% Silt
proposed for Sand-Silt Mixtures 5% Silt
10% Silt

Excess Peak Pore Pressure Ratio (Ru )

1
12.5% Silt
15% Silt
0.8 17.5% Silt
20% Silt
Proposed 25% Silt
0.6 30% Silt
Extensions
of UB and 35% Silt
LB 40% Silt
0.4
Values Range of Silt Content = 0 - 100% 45% Silt
Range of σ'3c = 50 - 100kPa 50% Silt
0.2 Range of CSR = 0.0411 - 0.5115 60% Silt
Range of Frquency = 0.1 - 0.5Hz 75% Silt
Range of RD c = 14 - 97% Silt
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Shear Strain (%)

Fig. 25 Peak pore water pressure generation in sand and silt mixture specimens @10th cycle over a wide range of parameters and
proposed new narrow band

pore water pressure ratios of sand and silt mixture
specimens over a wide range of parameters fall well
within the limits of Dobry (1985) in the respective
smaller strain range with minor deviations and this may
be due to the presence of fines. The pore water
pressures at higher strains are having a tendency to fall
within the upper and lower bound curves suggested by
Erten and Maher (1995) who studied the pore water
pressure generation in silty sands. Then these excess
peak pore water pressures corresponding to 10th cycle
of loading obtained for sand and silt mixtures over a
wide range of parameters are banded with upper and
lower bound curves as shown in Fig. 25 and for this
purpose all the 289 test results were used. The dotted
lines in this band are proposed extensions of the upper
and lower bound curves as no data could be obtained
within this shear strain range and this is due to the
limitations of cyclic triaxial tests. This narrow band up
to a shear strain of around 25% can easily be used to
assess the pore pressure response for research and
practical purposes.
5 Summary and Conclusions
The rate of generation of excess pore water pressure
with respect to cycles of loading was found to
initially increase with increase in silt content till the
limiting silt content is reached and thereafter it
reverses its trend when the specimens were tested at a
constant gross void ratio. This behaviour was found
to be due to corresponding initial decrease and then
increase in relative density of the specimens. The
cyclic resistance behaviour was observed to be just
opposite to the pore pressure response.
In constant relative density approach, the excess
pore pressure generation rate with respect to cycles of
loading is found to initially decrease till around 5%
silt content followed by a drastic increase till the
limiting silt content and thereafter a more or less
same rate till even pure silt. This pore pressure
response implied that the cyclic resistance initially
increases till about 5% silt content followed by a
sudden decrease till the limiting silt content and
thereafter remains relatively constant. The dry den-
sity and the silt content of a specimen were found to
play a great role in this approach. The effect of fines
is also felt well in this approach.
In constant sand skeleton void ratio approach, the
rate of generation of excess pore water pressure with
respect to cycles of loading was found to remain
relatively constant initially till some silt content
corresponding to a gain in relative density till around
70% and thereafter a sudden decrease was observed
thus implying that the cyclic resistance remains same
initially followed by a drastic increase after some silt

123
516
content corresponding to a relative density of around
70%. In this approach it was observed that pore
pressure response and the cyclic resistance behaviour
is independent of silt content at very high relative
densities.
In constant interfine void ratio approach it was
observed that the rate of generation of excess pore
water pressure increases with increase in silt content
implying a decrease in cyclic resistance. This behav-
iour was justified because the corresponding relative
density decreases with increase in silt content at a
constant interfine void ratio.
From all the approaches it was observed that the
relative density either increases or decreases (except
constant RD approach) with increase in silt content
and this relative density controls the cyclic resistance
and pore pressure generation characteristics. It was
also observed that the effect of fines in generating
excess pore water pressures is not felt at relative
densities more than 70% however, the presence of
fines influences this to a great extent at relative
densities less than this value.
An increase in either relative density or confining
pressure was observed to decrease the pore pressure
generation rate where as this rate was found to
increase with increase in frequency and magnitude of
loading. The cyclic resistance behaviour with respect
to these parameters was found to follow an opposite
trend to the pre pressure generation rate.
All the test results over a wide range of parameters
were utilised to suggest new pore pressure bands in
line with Lee and Albaisa (1974) and Dobry (1985)
which can readily be used by researchers and field
engineers to readily assess the pore pressure response
under similar conditions. They can use their data to
find the maximum and minimum peak pore pressure
response at a particular cycle ratio or shear strain
from these bands and can have an approximate
estimation of pore pressure response of their soil.
6 Recommendation
From the entire test results corresponding to all the
approaches namely constant gross void ratio
approach, constant relative density approach, con-
stant sand skeleton void ratio approach, and constant
interfine void ratio approach, it was observed that the
relative density is the major player in generating
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517
excess pore water pressure of a soil specimen with
any silt content. Based on the test results, it is
recommended that silty sand deposits in the field
should be densified to a relative density of at least
70% irrespective of its silt content so that a better
cyclic resistance could be achieved.
Acknowledgments The work reported in this technical paper
was carried out with the sponsorship from Ministry of Earth
Sciences and formerly Department of Science and Technology
(Seismology Division), Ministry of Science and Technology,
Government of India. The authors express their sincere
appreciation to the ministry.
References
American Society for Tests and Materials (ASTM) (1996)
Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial
strength of soil. ASTM D 5311-92 (Re-approved 1996).
ASTM, West Conshohoken
Amini F, Qi GZ (2000) Liquefaction testing of stratified silty
sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(3):208–217. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:3(208)
Chang NY, Yeh ST, Kaufman LP (1982) Liquefaction potential
of clean and silty sands. Proceedings of 3rd international
conference on earthquake microzonation, vol 2, pp 1017–
1032
Derakhshandi M, Rathje EM, Hazirbaba K, Mirhosseini SM
(2007) The effect of plastic fines on the pore pressure
generation characteristics of saturated sands. Soil Dyn
Earthq Engi. www.elseiver.com. doi: 10.1016:1-11
Dobry R (1985) Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes.
Committeee on earthquake engineering, commission on
engineering and technical systems, national research
council. National Academy Press, Washington
Dobry R, Ladd RS, Chang RM, Powell D (1982) Prediction of
pore water pressure build up and liquefaction of sands
during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method. NBS
Building Sci Ser Wash DC 138:1–150
Erten D, Maher MH (1995) Cyclic undrained behaviour of silty
sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14:115–123. doi:10.1016/
0267-7261(94)00035-F
Finn WDL, Ledbetter RH, Wu G (1994) Liquefaction in silty
soils: design and analysis. Ground failures under seismic
conditions, geotechnical special publication. ASCE 44:
51–74
Govindaraju L (2005) Liquefaction and dynamic properties of
sandy soils. Ph.D thesis submitted to Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore in the Faculty of Engineering
Hazirbaba K (2005) Pore pressure generation characteristics of
sands and silty sands: a strain approach. Dissertation
presented for Ph.D program to the faculty of Graduate
School, University of Texas, Austin
IS (1992) 1498-1970 Classification and identification of soils
IS (1992) 2720 (Part 3) Sect. 1-1980. Specific gravity-fine
grained soils; Sect. 2-1980. Specific gravity—fine, med-
ium and coarse grained soils
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:501–517
IS (1995) 2720 (Part 4)-1985. Grain size analysis
IS (1983) 2720 (Part 14). Determination of density index
(relative density) of cohesionless soils
Kenny TC (1977) Residual strength of mineral mixtures. Pro-
ceedings of the 9th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Tokyo 1:155–160
Kuerbis R, Negussey D, Vaid YP (1988) Effect of gradation and
fines content on the undrained response of sand. Proceed-
ings on hydraulic fill structures, geotechnical special
publication. ASCE 21:330–345
Lee KL, Albaisa A (1974) Earthquake induced settlements in
saturated sands. J Geotech Eng Div 100(GT4):387–406
Martin GR, Finn LD, Seed HB (1975) Fundamentals of lique-
faction during cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng Div 101
(GT5):423–438
Polito CP (1999) The effects of non-plastic and plastic fines on
the liquefaction of sandy soils. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, pp 1–274
Polito CP, Martin II Jr (2001) Effects of nonplastic fines on the
liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
127(5):408–415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:5
(408)
Ravishankar BV (2006) Cyclic and monotonic undrained behav-
ior of sandy soils. PhD thesis submitted to Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore in the Faculty of Engineering
Sadek S, Saleh M (2007) The effect of carbonaceous fines on
the cyclic resistance of poorly graded sands. J Geotech
Geol Eng 25:257–264. doi:10.1007/s10706-006-9108-1
517
Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung R (1985) Influence
of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalua-
tions. J Geotech Eng 111(12):861–878
Shen CK, Vrymoed JL, Uyeno CK (1977) The effects of fines on
liquefaction of sands. Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Tokyo, Japan, vol 2, pp 381–385
Silver ML, Seed HB (1971) Volume changes in sands during
cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(SM 9):
1171–1185
Singh S (1994) Liquefaction characteristics of silts. Ground
failure under seismic conditions, geotechnical special
publication. ASCE 44:105–116
Thevanayagam S (2000) Liquefaction potential and undrained
fragility of silty soils. Proceedings of 12th world confer-
ence on earthquake engineering, Auckland
Ueng TS, Sun CW, Chen CW (2004) Definition of fines and liq-
uefaction resistance of Maoluo river soil. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 24:745–775. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.011
Vaid YP (1994) Liquefaction of silty soils. Ground failure
under seismic conditions, geotechnical special publica-
tion. ASCE 44:1–16
Wang JN, Kavazanjian E (1989) Pore pressure development
during non-uniform cyclic loading. Soil Found 29(2):1–14
Xenaki VC, Athanasopoulos GA (2003) Liquefaction resis-
tance of sand–silt mixtures: an experimental investigation
of the effect of fines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:183–194.
doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00210-5
123