INFLUENCE OF FIBER AND CEMENT ADDITION

ON BEHAVIOR OF SANDY SOIL

By Nilo C. Consoli,t Pedro D. M. Prietto,Z and Luciane A. Ulbrich3

ABSTRACT: Triaxial compression tests were carried out to evaluate the effect of randomly distributed fiber
reinforcement and cement inclusion on the response of a sandy soil to load. Cemented specimens were prepared
with cement contents of 0% and 1% by weight of dry soil and cured for seven days. Fiber length was of 12.8
mm, in the contents of 0% and 3% by weight of dry soil-cement mixture. Test results indicated that the addition
of cement to soil increases stiffness, brittleness, and peak strength. The fiber reinforcement increases both the
peak and residual triaxial strength, decreases stiffness, and changes the cemented soil's brittle behavior to a
more ductile one. The triaxial peak strength increase due to fiber inclusion is more effective for uncemented
soil. However, the increase in residual strength is more efficacious when fiber is added to cemented soil. Peak
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength envelopes indicate that the friction angle is increased from 35° to 46° as a result of fiber inclusion. The
cohesion intercept is affected slightly by fiber addition, being basically a function of cementation.

INTRODUCTION Alegre in southern Brazil. The soil is classified as a nonplastic

The compressive strength of both naturally and artificially
cemented sands has been studied in the past by several inves-
tigators, such as Saxena et al. (1978), Clough et al. (1981),
Leroueil and Vaughan (1990), Airey (1993), Coop and Atkin-
son (1993), and Abdulla and Kiousis (1997). In addition, stud-
ies concerning the reinforcement of uncemented and cemented
sands by using fiber inclusions have also been reported (e.g.,
Gray and Ohashi 1983; Gray and A1-Refeai 1986; Maher and
Gray 1990; Maher and Ho 1993; Omine et al. 1996). However,
more work is necessary to comprehend the influence of fiber
inclusion on the mechanical behavior of cemented and unce-
mented soils.
In order to provide information to help understand the over-
all behavior of fiber-reinforced cemented and uncemented
soils, a series of laboratory tests was carried out to define the
response of such materials under static compression loading.
A total of 12 drained triaxial compression tests were carried
out on either reinforced or nonreinforced samples, the former
through the insertion of randomly distributed fiber glass.
The results of the tests show the behavior of both cemented
and uncemented soils to be significantly influenced by fiber
reinforcement. In general, peak and residual compressive
strengths increase and stiffness decreases. Nevertheless, the
main advantage of fiber reinforcement, especially when ap-
plied to cemented soils, seems to be the reduction of soil brit-
tleness. The improved characteristics of cemented soil result-
ing from fiber reinforcement may be very important to some
engineering applications of artificially cemented soils.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Materials
The soil samples used in the present study, derived from a
weathered sandstone, were obtained from the region of Porto
IAssoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Fed. Univ. of Rio Grande do Sui,
Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3. andar, 90035-190, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande
do Sui, Brazil.
'Assoc. Prof., School of Engrg. and Arch., Catholic Univ. of Pelotas,
Rua Felix da Cunha, 412, 96010-000, Pelotas. Rio Grande do Sui, Brazil.
3Res. Assist.. Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Fed. Univ. of Rio Grande do SuI,
Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3. andar, 90035-190. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande
do Sui, Brazil.
Note. Discussion open until May 1. 1999. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on December 22, 1997. This technical note is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmentoi Engineer.
ing, Vol. 124, No. 12, December, 1998. ~ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/98/
0012-1211-1214/$8.00 + $.50 per page. Technical Note No. 17236.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1998/1211
silty sand (SM) according to Unified Soil Classification Sys-
tem. Specific Gravity of Solids (Gs ) is 2.7. The grain size dis-
tribution is 27.8% medium sand, 33.4% fine sand, 31.3% silt,
and 7.5% clay, with a Uniformity Coefficient (C.) of 48. At-
terberg limits of the fine portion of the material were: 22%
Liquid Limit (WL) and 15% Plastic Limit (wp), which yields a
Plasticity Index (PI) of 7%.
The chopped fiberglass selected is 12.8 mm long, 1.2 mm
wide, and 0.013 mm thick. Specific Gravity of Solids (G a) is
2.62. Tensile strength, elastic modulus, and Poisson's ratio are,
respectively, of 1200 MN/m2 , 73000 MN/m2 , and 0.22, with a
linear strain at failure of 1.8%. The friction angle of the
chopped fiberglass, measured in direct shear, is 22°, with zero
cohesion intercept.
A Type IV Portland Pozzolanic cement obtained from one
source was used throughout this investigation.
Preparation and Testing of Specimens
The samples were prepared by mixing soil and water, with
the addition of Type IV Portland Pozzolanic cement and
chopped fiberglass as appropriate. The undercompaction pro-
cess (Ladd 1978) was selected to produce homogeneous sam-
ples that could be used for a parametric study in a laboratory
testing program. Samples were compacted in layers into a 50
mm diameter and 100 mm high cylindrical mold, with a de-
fined maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content
of 17.5 kN/m3 and 16.4%, respectively, corresponding to the
values obtained in Standard Proctor compaction tests carried
out for reinforced and nonreinforced materials. Finally, the
molds were wrapped in moistureproof bags and stored in a
humid room to cure for seven days before testing.
Drained triaxial tests were carried out to determine the non-
reinforced and reinforced stress-strain behavior of cemented
(1 % by weight) and uncemented soils for a selected fiber con-
tent (3% by weight) and fiber length (12.8 mm). The tests were
carried out under complete saturation and at confining pres-
sures of 20, 60, and 100 kN/m2 • Percolation of de-aired water
and back pressures of up to 500 kN/m2 applied throughout the
test ensured B values of at least 0.9 for cemented samples and
0.97 for uncemented ones. Sample axial deformations were
monitored inside the triaxial cell by Hall effect instruments
(Clayton and Khatrush 1986) which enable a precise calcula-
tion of moduli.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The stress-strain curves obtained in triaxial compression
tests are given in Figs. lea and c) for the nonreinforced sam-
ples and Figs. l(b and d) for the fiber-reinforced ones.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:1211-1214.

 600 .,...--.,---;---;-,.-,--;---;,-,.--,.---,.---;-_ _- _ ~ 600 , -..........'I---,.--.--,.........,..........--;---;---,-----;,---,,.---~
, , , CClllllal,,_,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - T - ,- -, - ;- - - ., - I" -,- -,' =-..-....,"'"IOO~'. -'.7-,-=-=1
"" ,(kNIm'),
-1-T-r~-T-I-1-r--1-f~-T-~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I 1 I I I I
- -I - ,-I
-, - T - ,- -, - ;- - ,- I - ;- -, -C:';;";'- I
-I-T-I-~--
I I I I I
-~-~----------
I I I I I I

"""",~,
_,_1. , '_L_'_J_L_'_-,_,-_,_-,-_,- ~_l
, , ,
__ l __ J_L __ l_L __ l_'-
I ,60,

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
" '" '100 , , , , I I I I J I I I I I I 1 I
J.,,~"""...L~_,_ J _ L _'_ J _ L _'_ 1._,- _' 1 _ ,__, _ .L _,_ J _ L _,_ 1 _ L _,_ 1 _ ,_
I I I I I I I I I I I I tit I I I I I
I tIt I I 6Q I I I r I I I 1 I I I I , I I I I I I
,_ .1 _ L .J _ 1. _ L -l _ L _,_ .i _ L _,_ .1 _ L __ .12!!L

'20'
I I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
1
,
I
, ,, ,, ,,
~ ~~=:=~:=::=:=~~~::::=~=:
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I _ 1. _ '- _' _ 1 _1_ J _ L _1_ J _ L _I _ .1 _ '-
-, - I" - ,- -, - ;-,; ,- -; - I -,- -; - ,- -, - I - ,- 3
I I I I I Itt I I I I I I
-I - +- I- -l - ~ -1- -4 - I- -1- -+ - . . . -1- +- l- -I - +- I- -l - +--1- -4 - I- -1- +- ~ -I - + - l-
I I I I t 601 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

o ~;-~'-~~;:F:~;;;~~r:-~-00~1~-~r~-~'~-~1~-~'-~
-,- T - ,- -, - , -,- , - r -,- 1 - r -, - 1
20 ,-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I
o
~I -I - + - f- -i - t- - 1- ; - t- -1- "t - t- -I - + - I- -I '60 '
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-2
-3
-, - T -,- -, -
+--+-+++-+--+-+--+-+-+---4---j---j1--1---l
r -,- I - r -,- 1 - -1- T - t - r
-21~~~~llJ:JC:~:-~':-~-~':-f'-:-~::-~T~'IOO~-f:-~
-3
o I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Allia1 Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

(a) (b)
!lOO !lOO T'""--;-___;_.....,.--;-,.-~__;____;__~,- ~

,
r I I I I I I I I I I I I I
800 I I I J I
f ~-T-r'-r'-T-r,-r'-T-r,­
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-I-I-I--,-T-,-

~ 700 -I - T -,- -, -
I I I
r
I
-1- T -,- .., -
I , I I
r -,-
I I
T - ,- -, -
I I I
-'- 1 CoDlIDiDI_ ~
" (kNllll')
600 ,
I
-r,-r'-1-r,-r'-1-r,-
I I 1 I I I I I I t I I
J _ L. _'_ ! _'_
, ,
500 ,- -~,,-'I-I-'-I-'- -,- ~""'''''-:'....!J,",_~L.:_ _ ll~,_ , ,
__ 1 _ L~I_ 1. _ '-
400 , (kN/m')
·'-'-'-1-1--'-
"""

I 300 1--'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I t I I r I I
-I~~-t-T-,-~-f-,-~-~~­
___
__ J _ L
I I I
_I _
I
1 _L
I
I

r
I 200 J_L_I_l_'_J_L_I_l_L~_
'_~1201

_,_.1_'-

i 100
I
_,_ J!' L
20'
I I 1
_, _ .1 _ '- ...J _ L _,_ 1 _ ,__, _
I I I
I I

t
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

t
I 1 1 I I r
_1_ .1 _ L .J _ L _,_ -l _ L _,_ .1 _ L _, _ .1 _ '-
I I I I I 1
I

I
I

I
I

1
1

I
1

1
1

I
I

I
I

I
0
4
I I I I I 1 I I I I t I I I
-1-T-~1-r-I-T-I-l-r-I-1-~l­
_, _ J. _ ,_ .J ~ L _,_ J. _ ,_ .J _ L _1_ J. _ L- ..J _
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
-, T-- ~r-I-T-r~-r-I-T-r~-
o -b~~'~,=,..!:IOOI~,-!..: -!..: -!..:----'-:--1 -!:_:L-'!-: ---!:_L:
..1 ~ -I - + - 1- ~ - .... -I - + -1- -t - ... -1- + - I- ~ -
, 1 I I I I I I til I I I
-2 -I - T -,- 1 - r -I - T - ,- I - r -,- 1 - 1- -, -

-3 +-+-+-+-+-+-1-11-1--1-+-+-++-1--4
o I 2 3 • 5 6 7 • 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS
o I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Axial Strain (%)
Axial StnJin (%)

(c) (d)
FIG. 1. Stress-Straln-Volumetrlc Response for (a) Nonrelnforced Uncemented Soli; (b) Fiber-Reinforced Uncemented Soli; (c) Non-
reinforced Cemented Soli; and (d) Fiber-Reinforced Cemented Soli

It is readily observed from Fig. 1 that the overall soil be- moderate increase in shear strength is accompanied by a ri-
havior is significantly influenced by the investigated variables. gidity loss; the residual strength is increased and the volu-
Peak strength, stiffness, brittleness, and residual response are metric response becomes more compressive in the early stages
changed as a consequence of either the separate or the joined of loading and less expansive afterwards. Finally, the coupled
effects of fiber and cement inclusions. The general pattern can effect of fiber and cement inclusions are pointed out when
be better observed in Fig. 2, in which the stress-strain-volu- contrasting curve 1-3 with all the others. The shear strength is
metric curves obtained for a constant confining pressure (20 greater than those produced separately by cementation and fi-
kN/m 2) are plotted. When comparing curves 0-0 and 1-0, de- ber inclusion; the fiber-reinforced cemented soil is stiffer as
noting the soil without any inclusion and the soil with 1% compared to uncemented soils (0-0 and 0-3), but a consistent
cement content, respectively, one can easily realize the effect rigidity loss is observed as related to cemented soil (1-0),
of cementation on soil response. Shear strength and stiffness which is fully compensated by a behavior that is far more
are dramatically increased while residual strength remains ductile. Also, the residual strength is greater than that produced
practically the same; the dilation rate increases and the post- only by fiber inclusion (0-3), indicating that the fiber effect on
peak behavior becomes strongly brittle. In parallel, the effect the residual strength is amplified by the cement addition,
of fiber inclusion as related to uncemented soil (curves 0-0 though, a stated previously, the cementation itself does not
and 0-3) is shown to be less pronounced but consistent. A have a direct influence on the residual behavior of the soil.
1212/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:1211-1214.

 600 ~'-'-'_.'----_.'-' ----,----,-,----,------,-------,--:----:,....-, soil. Including both cement and fiber to the soil maintains the
, ,
, , , 0-0: 0% cement, 0% fiber
h' I I I I I t I I peak friction angle in 46°, the same value obtained by adding
..€! SIlO -~--.--~-~--.--~-~--~ 0-3: 0% cement, 3% fiber
I I I I I I I ,
only fiber to the soil. It should be noticed that the friction
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
1-0: 1% cement, 0% fiber angle value is also depending on the confining stresses under

I!
.j()() -~-- --~ ~--~- -~-4- •
I
I
I
I
I I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
1-3: 1% cement, 3% fiber which the samples are tested, as the whole envelope is ex-
300
•

-,
I
--I
I
I
-
I I
I
I
I
1
1
--'--T--r·-,---r--I--'--t---
I I I I I
I
I pected to be nonlinear. The cohesion intercept is practically
: : 1 : : : 1-3: : : unaffected by fiber inclusion, suggesting that the cohesive por-
I I I I I I

200 -
I I I I 1 I 1 I , I I I I tion of shear resistance is due only to cement addition.
'" ,--r-~-~T--r-1--r--r-'--T--r-l--r--
I I I I I I I I , I I I I
The residual strength envelopes are shown in Figure 4. The

I
1-0
I I I I 1 I I I I I I

100 - - ~ - -I - - ~ - - ~ - -: - - ; - -:- - -: - - ; - -:- - ~~~~ - -

corresponding parameters, also presented in Table 1, were de-
0-0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
termined from the stress-strain data where the curves leveled
0
I I I I I I I I I I
out following the peak in the curve. The results have pointed
4 I
I t !
-i - , --I
I
-I
I
-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
t
I
I
out that the residual friction angle for the nonreinforced un-
_1_. __. . . . . . __ I I-_-I __ "' __ I__ -1 __ 4. __

~
_.j. _~_-1 __ .l- __
cemented and cemented soils is the same, 34°, and that for the
: : : : : : - :1-3:
:1-0 : 0-0 : :
2 --I--T--r----T--r-'--T-- reinforced uncemented and cemented soil the angle is, respec-
j --r-'--~--
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t I I I t I
I I I I t
0-3: -- I
tively, 46° and 43°. On the other hand, residual cohesion is
'" 0
- -I • : - -: - - - - I - - - ." - - 1- -

~_----l_----I_
":

close to zero for the nonreinforced and uncemented-reinforced

'1 -I --I
I
-'--T-- . . . -4--.,.--I--'--,.--
I I I I I I I I I
-I""
I

I
t
I
I
I
I 1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
soils, whereas for the fiber-reinforced cemented ones it has the
value of 34.4 kN/m 2 , showing that the addition of fiber to
~ -2
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I'
- I--l'--r--.--l'--'---I--T--I---I--T--I--,--r--1 I

-3
I ••
o 1 2 3
FIG. 2. Stress-Straln-Volumetrlc Response for Fiber-Rein-
forced and Nonrelnforced Solis (Confining Pressure: 20 kNlm'
The volumetric response lies between those observed for the
nonreinforced cemented soil (1-0) and for the fiber-reinforced
uncemented one (0-3).
The peak strength envelopes shown in Fig. 3 and the data
presented in Table 1 provide an additional analysis of soil be-
havior. It is observed that the peak friction angle increases
from a minimum of 35° for uncemented nonreinforced soil to
41° or 46°, respectively, when cement or fiber is added to the
, 1 I I
4 5 6 7
Axia1 Slrain (%)
1 1
8 9
1 • 1 1 1
cemented soils improves post-peak behavior.
10 IJ 12 13 14 15 Values of secant deformation modulus (E,) presented in Ta-
ble 1 were calculated for an axial strain of 0.5% and show
that cementation increases the modulus values while fiber in-
clusion reduces the stiffness of both cemented and uncemented
soils.
The effect of fiber reinforcement on shear strength is clearly
observed through the calculation of the average ratio of triaxial
deviatoric stress at failure for fiber-reinforced and nonrein-
forced. For uncemented soil, the ratio is 1.65, decreasing to
1.3 when 1% of cement is added to the soil, showing that fiber-
reinforcement is more effective for uncemented soil.
Nevertheless, the most impressive advantage of fiber rein-
forcement when applied to cemented soils is the remarkable
improvement of ductility of the material. An absolute measure
of such behavior is provided by the brittleness index (/s) de-
fined by the expression

(1)

---- --- -----~- -----~------------1------ in which fJt and qu are, respectively, the failure and ultimate
" ,,
"
"
, deviatoric stresses. As the index decreases, approaching zero,
1
"
1 1 I
,
1 the failure behavior becomes increasingly ductile. For the
______ 1 -l I- _ _ _ -I _
~ 300 1 1 1 I I
specimens containing 1% of cement, considering the average
.
1 1 1 I 1
b~ ,, "
" value of all confining pressures, the brittleness index decreased
,, "

~200 - - , - - - T" - - - - -
"
-1- - - - - - -,- - - ~ -- from 2.6 to 0.6 due to 3% fiber inclusion.
, ,
,,
1 I I I

, ,
,, ,, ,, 600 ,,
o
I I 1 I
100 -l------r------I------~------
I t I I 00/0 cement, 0"/0 fiber ,,
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I SIlO •()
0"/0 cement, 3% fiber
1% cement, 0% fiber
,,
----1---- - - , - - ----
,
,,
,
,

FIG. 3.
100 200

(0" 1

Peak-5trength Envelopes
+ a', )/2
300

(leN/m')
.j()() SIlO 600
h'
.€
g
.j()() - - •
- - - -1-

"
1% cement, 3% fiber
. "I .

1
,
,,
, I

1
"
,
,
I·

I 1 • 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ 1I -lI I
.I-- 1I -II _

~ 300 1 I I I

TABLE 1. Peak and Residual Strength Parameters, Elastic Pa- b~

1
I
t
1
I
1
I
I

rameters for Nonrelnforced and Fiber-Reinforced Solis In li'lax- I

I
1
I
1
1
I
1

lal Compression Tests I I , 1 1

~ 200 ------1------,--
I 1
I
-r------~-----.,------
I
I
1
I
1
I
Secant elastic Peak Strength Residual Strength I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
Cement Fiber modulus at I I I 1

content content 0.5% axial d '1" 0:.. 'P:"

100 ------1-- - I

I
1
l------r------I------1------
•
1

I
I

(%) (%) strain (kN/m 2 ) (degrees) (kN/m2 ) (degrees) I

1
I
I
I
I
I
1

(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) "

"
,,
0 0 11-39 9.9 35 5.4 34
0 3 7-19 6.9 46 3.8
o 100 200 300 .j()() SIlO 600
46
1 0 48-63 56.7 41 2.8 34 (0" I + 0"3 )/2 (leN/m')
1 3 27-55 66.9 46 34.4 43
FIG. 4. Residual-Strength Envelopes

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1 DECEMBER 1998/1213

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:1211-1214.

 CONCLUSIONS
The following observations and conclusions are made re-
garding the engineering properties and behavior of fiber-rein-
forced/nonreinforced cemented and uncemented soils:
1. The addition of cement to soil increases stiffness and
peak strength.
2. Fiber reinforcement increases both the peak and residual
triaxial strengths decreases stiffness, and changes the ce-
mented soil's brittle behavior to a more ductile one. The
triaxial peak strength increase due to fiber inclusion is
more effective for uncemented soil. Furthermore, the in-
crease in residual strength is more effective when fiber
is added to soil containing cement.
3. The peak friction angle of the uncemented soil is in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/27/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mented sands under static loading." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107(6),
799-817.
Coop, M. R., and Atkinson, J. H. (1993). "The mechanics of cemented
carbonate sands." Geotechnique, 43(1), 53-67.
Gray, D. H., and Ohashi, H. (1983). "Mechanics of fiber-reinforcement
in sand." J. Geotech. Engrg., 109(3), 335-353.
Gray, D. H., and AI-Refeai, T. (1986). "Behavior of fabric versus fiber-
reinforced sand." J. Geotech. Engrg., 112(8), 804-826.
Ladd, R. S. (1978). "Preparing test specimens using undercompaction."
Geotech. Testing J., 1(1), 16-23.
Leroueil, S., and Vaughan, P. R. (1990). "The general and congruent
effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks." Geotechnique,
40(3), 467 -488.
Maher, M. H., and Gray, D. H. (1990). "Static response of sands rein-
forced with randomly distributed fibers." J. Geotech. Engrg., 116(11),
1661-1677.
Maher, M. H., and Ho, Y. C. (1993). "Behavior of fiber-reinforced ce-
mented sand under static and cyclic loads." Geotech. Testing J., 16(3),

330-338.
creased from 35° to 46° due to fiber inclusion. The peak Omine, K., Ochiai, H., Yasufuku, N., and Kato, T. (1996). "Effect of
cohesion intercept is just slightly affected by fiber inclu- plastic wastes in improving cement-treated soils." Proc., 2nd Int.
sion, being a function basically of cementation. Congr. on Envir. Geotech., A. A Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-
4. The inclusion of 3% of fiber on the soil samples con- lands, 2, 875-880.
taining 1% of cement reduced the brittleness index from Saxena, S. K., and Lastrico, R. M. (1978). "Static properties of lightly
2.6 to 0.6, turning the post-peak behavior into an increas- cemented sand." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 104(12), 1449-1465.
ingly ductile one.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following symbols are used in this paper:
The writers wish to express their gratitude to the Brazilian research
agencies CNPq and CAPES for their financial support. Particular thanks B = Skempton's pore-pressure parameter;
is also due to Professor J. K. Mitchell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and c' = peak cohesive intercept;
State University, for several comments concerning the draft paper. c:.. = residual cohesive intercept;
Cu = uniformity coefficient;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES Es = secant elastic modulus;
Os = specific gravity;
Abdulla, A A, and Kiousis, P. D. (1997). "Behavior of cemented sands: I = brittleness index;
B
I. Testing." Int. J. Numer. and Analytical Methods in Geomech., 21, PI = plasticity index;
533-547. CJ.J = deviatoric stress at failure;
Airey, D. W. (1993). "Triaxial testing of naturally cemented carbonate
soil." J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(9), 1379-1398. qu = ultimate deviatoric stress;
Clayton, C. R. I., and Khatrush, S. A. (1986). "A new device for mea- 'P' = peak friction angle;
suring local axial strain on triaxial specimens." Geotechnique, 25(4), 'P:.. = residual friction angle;
657-670. W L = liquid limit; and
Clough, G. w., Sitar, N., Bachus, R. C., and Rad, N. S. (1981). "Ce- Wp = plastic limit.

1214/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998.124:1211-1214.