See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240504632

Modeling Strength of Sandy Gravel

Article in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · June 1992

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:6(920)

CITATIONS READS

100 856

4 authors, including:

Richard Fragaszy Carlton L. Ho

47 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS

University of Massachusetts Amherst
105 PUBLICATIONS 1,504 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlton L. Ho on 26 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MODELING STRENGTH OF SANDY GRAVEL
By Richard J. Fragaszy, 1 Member, ASCE, James Su, 2 Associate Member,
ASCE, Farhat H. Siddiqi, 3 Member, ASCE,
and Carlton L. Ho, 4 Associate Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: A new method to evaluate static strength and deformation behavior

of gravelly soils containing particles too large to be tested with conventional lab-
oratory equipment is presented. This new matrix method is based on the assumption
that large particles floating in a matrix of finer-grained material do not significantly
affect the strength and deformation characteristics of the mixture. Therefore, the
behavior of a prototype soil containing oversized particles can be modeled by testing
the matrix portion alone, provided the model specimen is prepared at the density
that exists within the prototype soil away from the oversized particles. A testing
program designed to validate the matrix modeling method is described. Results of
consolidated-drained triaxial (CDTX) tests performed on prototype and model
specimens are presented. CDTX peak shear strengths for the prototype and model
soils are found to be almost identical. Fully softened strengths for the prototype
and model specimens vary by no more than 15%. The stress-strain and the volu-
metric strain-axial strain behavior of the prototype and model soils are very similar
up to the peak shear stress.

INTRODUCTION

Cost and material availability considerations have made fills containing

gravel to boulder-size particles more common in recent years. This is es-
pecially true for earth-dam construction. The use of such coarse-grained
material presents a problem to the designer. Strength and deformation
characteristics are needed for stability analyses. However, the common
criterion for static testing using triaxial equipment is that the maximum soil
particle size should be no larger than one-sixth the specimen diameter.
Therefore, fills containing particles larger than approximately 0.5 in. (12.7
mm) should not be tested with standard triaxial equipment where the max-
imum specimen size is 2.8 in. (71.1 mm), without the removal of the over-
sized particles.
To date, two methods have been used extensively to model the static
strength of soils containing oversized particles. These methods are generally
referred to as the parallel gradation method and the scalp-and-replace method.
In the parallel gradation method, the oversized particles are scalped. Ad-
ditional finer material is added to the remaining soil as needed to generate
a grain size distribution curve parallel to that of the prototype soil. Results
of tests performed on Oroville gravel based on this method are presented
by Marachi et al. (1969). In the scalp-and-replace method (Donaghe and
Townsend 1976), the oversized particles are scalped and replaced with an

2
'Consulting Geotech. Engr., 1091 Summit Circle, Watkinsville, GA 30677-2022.
Vice Pres. Engrg. Erika James Co., Inc., 600 Bioderick Bldg., 615 2nd Ave.,
Seattle,
3
WA 98104.
Assoc. Engrg., Harding Lawson Assoc, 3 Hutton Dr., Suite 200, Santa Ana,
CA4 92707.
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Washington State Univ., Pullman,
WA 99164-2910.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April
4, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No.
6, June, 1992. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/92/0006-0920/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper
No. 26633.
920

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 equal mass of particles of approximately the maximum size allowable. How-
ever, neither of these methods takes into account grain boundary effects
on soil density.
In this paper, a matrix method is described that produces accurate mod-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eling of drained strength, stress-strain, and volumetric strain-axial strain

characteristics of granular soils containing oversized particles within certain
limits on the percentage of oversized particles by dry weight. The matrix
method is based on an empirical procedure for determining the effects of
grain boundaries on the density of a soil matrix containing oversized par-
ticles. However, the matrix method described herein may require some
further modification if the oversized grains are exceptionally elongated or
rough.

MATRIX MODEL

To describe the matrix model, several definitions are necessary. The term
oversized refers to particles that are too large to be included in a particular
test apparatus, and therefore, the term is not associated with any fixed
dimension. A schematic diagram of a soil containing oversized particles is
shown in Fig. 1(a). The prototype (or total) soil is composed of oversized
particles and matrix material. The matrix material is defined as that part of
the prototype soil with particle sizes small enough to be tested with a par-
ticular test apparatus. The matrix soil itself can be divided into components.
One component, termed the near-field matrix, is composed of those particles
that exist in the immediate vicinity of the oversized particles. The second
component, called the far-field matrix, consists of soil grains that exist several
particle diameters away from the oversized particles.
In Fig. 1(a), the oversized particles are shown in a floating state. That
is, the oversized particles make up a small percentage (approximately 40%

Oversize
particles
o°0 Near-field
"Matrix

- Far-Hold
Matrix

•sUc
O nr> >

i
(a) Floating Case

(b) Non-floating Case

FIG. 1. Schematic Diagram of Soil with Oversized Particles

921

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 or less for the soil used in this study) of the prototype material (by mass),
and there is little to no contact among them. It is hypothesized that the
strength and deformation characteristics of a soil with oversized particles in
the floating state are dominated by the matrix material. Evidence for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

assumption that there is little contact between oversized particles when they
constitute small percentages of the mass of the total soil has been presented
by Siddiqi et al. (1987). On the other extreme, the oversized particles may
constitute such a large fraction of the total material (approximately 65% or
more for the soil used in this study) that the oversized particles are in contact
with one another. The matrix only fills in the voids created by the bridging
action between oversized particles. In this situation, termed the nonfbating
state, the volume of the prototype material equals the volume of the over-
sized particles [Fig. 1(b)]. In the nonfloating case, the strength and defor-
mation characteristics are dominated by the oversized material. In the in-
termediate state between floating and nonfloating, it is hypothesized that
both the matrix and oversized phases contribute significantly to the behavior
of the soil.
Siddiqi (1984) hypothesized that the static strength and deformation char-
acteristics of a soil with oversized particles in the floating state is governed
by the far-field matrix. Therefore, to determine the static strength of the
prototype soil, the oversized particles should be removed. The remaining
soil matrix should be prepared at the same void ratio that exists in the
prototype soil. To investigate this hypothesis, Siddiqi (1984) tested a pro-
totype material with a maximum grain size of 2.0 in. (50.8 mm), using a
12-in.-diameter (305-mm) triaxial specimen. Undrained tests were per-
formed and peak deviator stresses recorded. Since, at that time, methods
were not available to measure the far-field matrix density in the prototype
specimen, several tests were conducted on the matrix material compacted
to a range of densities. The results of these tests are shown in Fig. 2, It was
found that when the average matrix density was used for the specimen
density, the model test underpredicted the strength of the prototype soil.
When the matrix soil was compacted to near the 58% relative density of
the prototype soil, the model test overpredicted the undrained strength of
the prototype. The average value of these two strengths is approximately
equal to the strength of the prototype soil. Siddiqi concluded that, until a
method was found to compute the far-field matrix density, the strength of
a prototype soil with oversized particles could be approximated by testing
the matrix soil alone at a density equal to the average of: (1) The density
corresponding to the same relative density as the prototype material; and
(2) the average density of the matrix soil.
Recent work (Su 1989; Fragaszy et al. 1990) has shown that the presence
of oversized particles in the floating state affects the density of the matrix
material in specific and quantifiable ways. The near-field density is low
compared with the far-field density, due to the added void space at the
interface with the oversized particles. The relative density of the matrix
material as a whole is lower than the relative density of the prototype
material. These two findings support the conclusions by Siddiqi (1984), that
the use of the average matrix density leads to strengths that are too low.
The use of the same relative density as that of the prototype material leads
to strengths that are too high. However, of more practical significance was
the development of a method to determine the density of the far-field matrix.
The central hypothesis of the matrix method, that the far-field matrix density
controls the static strength, now can be tested.

922

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 Relative Density of Soil Matrix (%)
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

115 116 117 118 119 120

Dry Density ot Soil Matrix (pet)

FIG. 2. Undrained Strength versus Dry Density and Relative Compaction for 2.8
in. Specimen [after Siddiqi (1984)]

In the remainder of this paper the method of determining the far-field

matrix density is summarized, and the results of a series of drained triaxial
tests performed to test the matrix method are described.

DETERMINATION OF FAR-FIELD MATRIX DENSITY

When large particles are added to a matrix of finer soil, the additional
volume induced is greater than the summation of the individual volumes of
the added particles alone. Based on theoretical and experimental work, Su
(1989) has shown that surface and compaction effects in both the near- and
far-field matrices increase the void ratio of the matrix soil. The surface effect
is illustrated in Fig. 3. This figure shows a two-dimensional representation
of the additional void space, AVmo, created by the difference in grain size
between the oversized particles and the matrix soil. The magnitude of this
effect depends on the mean grain sizes as well as the grain size distributions
of the matrix and oversized particles and the particle shapes involved. It
also is influenced by the relative density of the soil. Previous studies (Siddiqi
et al. 1987) had hypothesized that the surface effect is independent of the
relative density of the soil.
To determine the far-field density, it was convenient to include AVmo
with the volume of the oversized particles. The volume displaced by the
addition of oversized particles to the soil matrix, therefore, equals the sum-
mation of the volumes of the individual oversized particles plus the added
void space. This total volume, (V), is defined as

V = (1)

923

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AVm

FIG. 3. Two-Dimensional Representation of Near-Field Soil Matrix

where Vso = the summation of the individual volumes of the oversized

particles alone; and a = a correction factor that takes into account the
added void space surrounding the oversized particles.
Based on theoretical and experimental work, it has been shown (Su 1989;
Fragaszy et al. 1990) that a has the general form
1
(1 + p K ) (2)

where (3 and K = density and characterization factors, respectively. The

value of K reflects the influence of relative density on a. As described by
Su (1989) and Fragaszy et al. (1990), the numerical value of p can be
determined from the following equation:
p = 1.333(e - 0.1) (3)
where e = the void ratio of the prototype soil.
The value of K reflects the physical properties of the oversized and matrix
soils, including, but not limited to, the grain shape, diameter, and size
distribution characteristics. To date, no method is available to compute K
based on direct measurements of these factors. Since K is assumed to be
unaffected by relative density, it can be evaluated at any one relative density,
then utilized for computations involving other relative densities, as described
by Fragaszy et al. (1990).
Once the correction factor, a, is known for a given prototype material
at a specific relative density, the far-field matrix density can be calculated
by the following equation (Fragaszy et al. 1990):
924

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 9mf ~ (4)
1
pt/ \OLG,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'opi

where p = the decimal fraction by mass of the oversize particles; pr = the

dry density of the prototype soil; and GopH, = the mass density of the
oversized particles. The computed value of p m/ is the average far-field matrix
density. Determination of actual variation of far-field density is likely to be
very difficult, if not impossible. However, it is believed that the average
value is sufficient for practical applications.

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

The material used in this study was obtained from Lake Valley Dam in
Northern California. The embankment material consisted of very coarse-
grained soils, up to cobble and boulder sizes. All particle sizes larger than
1.0 in. (25.4 mm) were removed to create the prototype material for this
study, which was predominantly sandy gravel with small amounts of silt.
Specific gravities ranged from 2.81 to 2.84 for the different particle size
groups. Soil particles ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.0 in. (12.7-25.4 mm) are
referred to as oversized particles, shown in Fig. 4; soil particles smaller than
0.5 in. (12.7 mm) are described as the soil matrix, shown in Fig. 5. The
oversized particles in the assumed prototype material constitute 30% by
mass and are smooth and subrounded to rounded. The grain size distribution
curves for the prototype soil, soil matrix (model), and oversized particles
are shown in Fig. 6. The physical characteristics of the prototype material
are presented in Table 1.
Two separate sets of triaxial equipment were used for this study: one for
prototype testing of 6-in.-diameter (152 mm) specimens, and one for model
testing of 2.8-in. (71.1-mm) specimens. Both sets used the same electro-
pneumatic loading system controlled by a microcomputer with a process
interface. The triaxial equipment used for testing 2.8-in.-diameter (71.1-
mm) specimens was developed at the University of California, Berkeley;
the equipment for testing 6-in. (152-mm) specimens was designed and built
at Washington State University. Both sets of equipment were calibrated by
using the same Ottawa sand, a standard uniform, clean sand. The two testing
systems were found to be compatible.

TEST PROCEDURE

The soils were prepared directly over the forming mold. To prevent
clogging of the bottom drainage line, a circular filter sheet was placed over
the porous stone and the bottom perforated plate. A membrane was stretched
on the inner wall of the forming mold and held in place by vacuum. Spec-
imens were then prepared by pouring in four (for 2.8 in.) or eight (for 6
in.) layers to achieve the desired relative density. Once inside the mold,
each layer of the blended material was leveled and vibrated for 2 min with
an electric vibrator. After compacting each layer, the height was measured
to ensure uniformity of density throughout the specimen. Following the
compaction of the top layer, the surface was leveled, and a filter sheet, a
porous stone, and a loading cap with a perforated plate were gently seated
on the specimen. A vacuum pressure of 50 kPa was applied to the bottom
925

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8
"* ; i - 4 v

J
*" '""IT" ^ - i * ^

% % .-Vj T
"^

FIG. 4. Photograph of Oversized Particles (12.7-25.4 mm)

FIG. 5. Photograph of Soil Matrix (Maximum Size 12.7 mm)

of the specimen as it was moved into the triaxial cell to saturate. Before
saturation, the actual height and diameter of the specimen were measured
and the initial dry density computed.
A cell pressure of 50 kPa was applied as the vacuum pressure was re-
moved. Then, carbon dioxide under very low pressure was introduced into
the specimen, followed by deaired water under a small gravity head. The
cell pressure and the back pressure were then slowly increased and an
effective stress of 50 kPa was maintained, until a back pressure of 200 kPa
was reached. The cell pressure was then 250 kPa. The pore pressure pa-
rameter B was then measured with an incremental change in cell pressure
of 50 kPa to check the degree of saturation. Testing did not commence until
a minimum B value of 0.95 was achieved.
926

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" rt.S"_3/4* 3/T 4 8 IS 30 50 ra 200

| y~tv _ S .... 1 1 W [
J J-kfl ' - -f —(- ... I Jit 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 s.:. I
I j_f i i SZ .:,. 1 H t
^-C3
1 J . L J \X • • ,._..zt...
tj£
- -+ !-••-
It 1
| 4-M \ \ 1
tjr
|r t t ILZ: ,.._& _. i ... tjr
jt
LL < A 4 4 ... 1
1 J_L_ . v-+- 1
1 Ittf
50 E
p 1> ... h,JiZf ...
• j - T an.... OSef ...
EZ .... . \._5i ...
1 w
•SI
L
i tc ft- ••- L J i l * - S
ill
i ]-t A r - - ^ J - "V,
J-t 11.... _5 's.J_ Hi
Jj 1 r -4. ' .:w H 1
9] 1 tt.... . h
s
J Z PI
_.ZEi . . . Jis^ J5
I •i-Z tt.... u
i I f
1 1"L ± ....
L±.... i
i _S,I-
1 1
0 ...
1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

A. Ovsrstza P&rticlts

B. Total Soil

a MahteSol

FIG. 6. Grain Size Distribution for Test Soil

After saturation, isotropic consolidation pressure was applied to the spec-

imen by increasing the cell pressure and keeping the back pressure at 200
kPa. Two consolidation stages were applied to achieve an effective confining
pressure of 150 kPa. For each consolidation stage, a set of volume change-
versus-time readings were obtained. The consolidation pressure was kept
on for a sufficient time to allow 100% consolidation, as observed by the
flatness of the volume change-versus-time curve. After consolidation, the
volumetric strain was measured, and the final dry density after consolidation
of the specimen was computed.
All the triaxial compression tests were performed using strain-controlled
loading. The axial deformation was applied at a rate of 0.1-0.2% vertical
strain (based on initial specimen height) per minute while the cell pressure
was kept constant. During compression, the deviator stress, axial strain,
and volumetric strain were measured and recorded until the specimen failed
or reached 20% axial strain.

RESULTS OF TRIAXIAL TESTS

To check the validity of the matrix method, two sets of comparison tests
were conducted on the Modified Lake Valley gravel. Each set consisted of
consolidated drained (CD) tests on 2.8-in.-diameter (71.1-mm) model spec-
imens and 6-in.-diameter (152-mm) prototype specimens compacted to rel-
ative densities ranging from 13.3% to 64%. All prototype specimens con-
tained 30% oversized particles by mass. The effective confining pressures
in the two sets of tests were 75 and 150 kPa. .
Fig. 7 presents the results of the 6-in. (152-mm) triaxial tests at an effective
confining pressure of 150 kPa in terms of peak deviator stress versus dry
927

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 1. Material Properties

Maxi- Minimum Maximum Percent
Mean grain Coeffi- mum dry dry Maximum Minimum grain of grams
uses size cient of Uniformity Specific Plasticity density density void void size >12.7
Origin Particle shape symbol (mm) curvature coefficient gravity index (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) ratio ratio (mm) mm
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
CD
oo (a) Prototype
River Rounded to GW 5.0 1.41 40 2.81 NP 2.24 0.487 0.254 25.4 30
gravel subrounded
(b) Model
River Rounded to SW-SM 2.2 1.09 33 2.84 NP 2.17 1.78 0.596 0.309 12.7

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

sand subrounded
 ' COMPUTED RESULTS
FROM MATRIX MOTip, t/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'

V _6A
PA'

700 r
/ .
/ /

D 6" SPECIMEN
- © 2.8" SPECIMEN
* MODEL PREDICTION

RELATIVE DENSITY OF MATRIX

0 50 100 (%)

RELATIVE DENSITY OF TOTAL SOIL

0 50 100 (%)
i . i . i .

1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3

Dry Density (Mg/m3)

FIG. 7. Comparison of Predicted Peak Deviator Stress with Test Results (150 kPa
Effective Confining Pressure)

density and relative density of the prototype (total) soil. These data are
shown as open squares, and the solid line is a linear fit to these test results.
The solid line presents the predicted relationship between peak deviator
stress and relative density for the model (matrix) soil. The relationship
between the two lines is illustrated by examining points A and A'. Point A
shows the strength of the prototype soil when it exists at a relative density
of 32% (pd approximately 2.01 Mg/m3). A specimen of this soil would have
a far-field matrix relative density of approximately 30% (pd approximately
1.90 Mg/m3), as determined by the method given by Fragaszy et al. (1990).
Point A' therefore has an x-coordinate of 1.90 Mg/m3. Because the matrix
method predicts that the strength of the prototype soil is governed by the
far-field matrix, point A' has the same y-coordinate as point A, approxi-
mately 740 kPa. The solid line is therefore a prediction of the relationship
between peak deviator stress and dry density for the matrix soil.
The solid circles in Fig. 7 present the model test results. The deviation
from the strength predicted by the matrix method is indicated by the vertical
distance to the solid line. The predicted values compare favorably with actual
test results on the matrix material. It is evident from Fig. 7 that at the same
absolute dry density, the strength of the matrix material is significantly
929

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 higher than that of the prototype material. Drained strength of the matrix
material alone is again greater than that of the prototype material when
they are both prepared at the same relative density. Results of a second set
of triaxial tests conducted at an effective confining pressure of 75 kPa are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

very similar (Su 1979).

A comparison of deviator stress-axial strain and volumetric strain-axial
strain behaviors of prototype and model soils also shows good agreement.
Figs. 8 and 9 show these comparisons for prototype test PD2 and model
test MD2. The far-field matrix density in prototype specimen PD2 is com-
puted to be 1.87 Mg/m3. The dry density of model test MD2 is 1.86 Mg/m3,

Axial S t r a i n ( % )

FIG. 8. Comparison of Deviator Stress versus Axial Strain Curves for Prototype
Test PD2 and Model Test MD2

~:

No. Df Dansrty Diam.

{%) (Mo/m*) (in)

• poa 29.1 1.93 6

a M02 264 1J« 2A
-
" i i ' i 1 i i i ! i i i 1 i i i 1 i i I 1 I i i 1 i i I n

Axial S t r a i n ( % )

FIG. 9. Comparison of Volumetric Strain versus Axial Strain Curves for Prototype
Test PD2 and Model Test MD4

930

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 almost identical to the computed value. The stress-strain curves for the
prototype and model specimens are nearly identical up to the peak strength,
then they diverge slightly, indicating softening of the model strength. The
volumetric strain behavior of both prototype and model soils is similar, with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the model soil undergoing larger positive and negative volumetric strain.
Figs. 10 and 11 present similar comparisons for prototype test PD3 and
model test MD4. In this case, the density of the model soil (1.92 Mg/m3)
is equal to the computed far-field matrix density of the prototype. The stress-
strain behavior is again nearly identical, with only minor differences in peak
deviator stress and fully softened strength. Volumetric strain behavior is

000

600

400

No. . Dr Density Dlam.

H
OPD3 47.1 2.04 6
200 O MD4 40.5 1,92 2.3

r 1 1 1 M i l 1 . i i
oi M i l I I i 1 i I I 1 I i

Axial S t r a i n ( % )

FIG. 10. Comparison of Deviator Stress versus Axial Strain Curves for Prototype
Test PD3 and Model Test MD4

Density Diam.

I •
O
P03
MM
*7.l
40.5
(MoVm3)

2.0*
1-92
(in)

>

Axial S t r a i n ( % )
FIG. 11. Comparison of Volumetric Strain versus Axial Strain Curves for Proto-
type Test PD3 and Model Test MD4

931

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 very similar to the point of maximum negative volumetric strain, but after
that the two curves diverge.
Additional comparisons presented by Su (1989) at both 75 and 150 kPa
effective confining pressure are similar to those presented previously. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

peak deviator stress and stress-strain behavior to peak strength have been
modeled well. Volumetric behavior of the prototype and model are quali-
tatively similar. However, quantitative differences are evident. A summary
of all test results is presented in Table 2.
Additional triaxial tests on the prototype soil have been conducted where
the percentage of oversized particles was varied between 10% and 100%.
The results of these tests, all conducted at 50% relative density, have been
compared with predicted results using the matrix model. This comparison
is shown in Fig. 12 along with a plot of dry density of both the prototype
and far-field matrix as a function of the percentage of oversized particles.
Good agreement is found between test results and predicted strength up to
approximately 40-50% oversized particles. This corresponds to the peak
in the total density curve. As the quantity of the oversized particles increases
to create a nonfloating state, the matrix model significantly underpredicts
the strength of the total soil, as expected.
Consolidated-undrained triaxial (CUTX) tests also were conducted as part
of this research project and are reported elsewhere (Siddiqi et al. 1989).
These tests confirmed the hypothesis that peak strength is controlled by the
far-field matrix density. Peak strengths obtained from five model tests were
all within 8% of the peak strengths of the corresponding prototype soil.
However, the axial strain at peak deviator stress in the CUTX tests was
significantly greater for the model soil, compared with the prototype soil.
COMMENTS

The development of a modeling criterion to evaluate the strength and

deformation characteristics of soils containing oversized particles is a sig-
TABLE 2. Triaxial Consolidated Drained Test Results
Diameter Percent Peak
of of Relative Dry Confining deviator Axial Volumetric
Test sample oversize density density pressure pressure strain a strain a
number (in.) particles (%) (Mg/m3) (kPa) (kPa) (%) (%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
PD1 6 30 13.3 1.93 150 633 9.10 -0.18
PD2 6 30 29.1 1.98 150 715 6.40 -0.07
PD3 6 30 47.1 2.04 150 772 6.50 -0.47
PD4 6 30 52.8 2.06 150 795 5.10 -0.48
PD5 6 30 64.0 2.10 150 860 4.20 -0.14
MD1 2.8 0 14.6 1.83 150 640 9.60 —
MD2 2.8 0 26.8 1.86 150 706 6.50 -0.08
MD3 2.8 0 35.1 1.90 150 770 5.50 -0.43
MD4 2.8 0 40.5 1.92 150 781 5.20 -0.31
MD5 2.8 0 53.7 1.97 ISO 842 5.00 -0.62
MD6 2.8 0 61.2 2.00 150 863 4.50 -0.52
SP1 6 30 29.0 1.98 75 388 4.10 -0.10
SP2 6 30 41.2 2.02 75 393 3.50 -0.70
SP3 6 30 50.0 2.05 75 408 3.70 -0.82
SP4 6 30 61.2 2.09 75 423 3.80 -1.20
SMI 2.8 0 38.0 1.91 75 370 4.29 0.02
SM2 2.8 0 50.0 1.96 75 426 4.30 -1.20
SM3 2.8 0 60.0 2.00 75 437 3.90 -1.00
a
At peak deviator stress.

932

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 Dr=50%
H 'I
B •""—-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

800

a --- - B !
\
<n 700 -
»\

600 -
- B - TEST RESULTS
\
— - PREDICTED BY MATRIX MODEL
i l . i . I . i . i .
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fraction of Oversize Particles

2.1

2.0 s ^ Dr=50%

I
1.9

1.8
Density

\°
1.7

o 1.6 \
' - e - DRY DENSITY OF TOTAL SOIL
1.5 "-•-DRY DENSITY OF
MATRIX SOIL

1.4 i \
I

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fraction ol Oversize Particles

FIG. 12. Comparison of Peak Deviator Stress Predicted by Matrix Model with CD
Test Results for Various Percentages of Oversized Particles

nificant but difficult, task. No method available to date has been shown to
provide accurate results for all situations. The data presented herein rep-
resent an attempt toward a new approach to this problem. Siddiqi's (1984)
matrix model takes into account the structure of a granular soil, particularly
the variations in density around and between large particles. From the data
presented previously, it appears that the void ratio of the far-field matrix
controls the strength and deformation characteristics of sandy gravels when
the oversized particles are smooth, rounded to subrounded, and exist in the
floating state within a matrix of finer particles. These conditions, though
limiting, are very common in geotechnical projects.
Postpeak volumetric behavior in the CDTX tests and axial strain at peak
strength in the CUTX tests are not modeled as well as peak strength. Model
specimens consistently underwent larger volumetric strains than did cor-
933

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 responding prototype specimens in the CDTX tests. Pore pressures were
consistently higher than in the corresponding prototype specimens in the
CUTX tests, and peak strength occurred at a larger axial strain in the model
specimens.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

These differences may be explained in terms of the different volumetric

change potential for the model and prototype soils. The minimum and
maximum density test results presented in Table 1 show that the model soil
has a larger difference between its minimum and maximum void ratios (both
absolute and as a percentage of the minimum void ratio) than does the
prototype soil. To undergo the same change in relative density, the model
soil must exhibit more volumetric strain than the prototype soil. This is
consistent with the larger volumetric strain at high axial strain and the larger
pore pressure generation in the model soil, compared with the prototype
soil.
The difference in axial strain at peak deviator stress in the CUTX tests
is a direct result of the different potentials for volume change. Because the
model soil develops higher pore pressures than the prototype, the effective
confining pressure is lower. This results in lower stiffness in the model soil
and higher axial strain at peak strength. The writers are working to derive
correction procedures for adjusting model test results to better simulate the
volumetric strain and pore pressure generation in the prototype. Preliminary
findings of collaborative work with Cambridge University indicate that mod-
ifications to the matrix model may be needed when the oversize particles
are unusually rough or elongated (Lee and Bolton 1990; Bolton et al. 1991).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As the use of fills containing gravel to boulder-size grains increases, so

does the need to accurately determine the strength and deformation char-
acteristics of these materials, which cannot be tested with standard-size
laboratory equipment. The matrix method described in this paper is based
on the assumption that large soil grains floating in a matrix of smaller
particles do not significantly influence the static strength and deformation
characteristics of the mixture. Therefore, the engineering behavior of such
a soil can be predicted by removing the oversize grains and testing a specimen
of the remaining soil prepared at the void ratio of the far-field soil matrix.
To test the validity of the matrix modeling method, CDTX tests were
performed on modified Lake Valley Dam material containing a maximum
grain size of 1 in. (25.4 mm). Six-in. (152-mm) triaxial specimens were used
to maintain an approximate 6:1 ratio between specimen diameter and max-
imum grain size. The specimens were compacted to dry densities between
1.93 Mg/m3 and 2.10 Mg/m3 (Dr between 13% and 64%) to determine the
relationship between peak deviator stress and dry density. The results of
these tests conducted on the prototype soil are compared with CDTX tests
performed on the model soil formed by removing all grains in the 0.5-1.0-
in. (12.7-25.4-mm) range and utilizing 2.8-in. (71.1-mm) test specimens.
Excellent agreement was found between the peak strength of the prototype
material and peak strength of the matrix material tested at the predicted
far-field dry density.
Comparison of stress-strain and volumetric strain-axial strain curves of
the prototype soil versus the model soil at approximately the predicted far-
field matrix density shows that the model test has successfully duplicated
the deformation characteristics of the prototype soil. It is believed that the
934

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935

 agreement is sufficiently close, up to peak strength, that material parameters
derived from tests on the model material can be used for numerical modeling
of the prototype material in drained conditions.
Based on the results presented herein, the following conclusions are drawn:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1. Large, subrounded-to-rounded smooth soil grains floating in a matrix of

finer matrix material do not significantly influence the peak strength and de-
formation characteristics of the prototype soil.
2. The peak strength of a soil containing subrounded-to-rounded smooth soil
grains floating in a matrix of finer matrix material can be accurately modeled
by removing the oversized particles and testing the remaining matrix soil at the
same void ratio as the far-field matrix in the prototype soil.
3. The deformation characteristics of soil containing subrounded-to-rounded
smooth soil grains floating in a matrix of finer matrix material are accurately
modeled to peak strength by the matrix material alone, tested at the same void
ratio as the far-field matrix in the prototype soil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation (grant num-
ber INT-87-11042). The N S F s support is gratefully acknowledged. The
writers feel greatly indebted to the late H . Bolton Seed for originally sug-
gesting the research program, and for his continual help and encouragement.
Robert M. Pyke is thanked for his interest and valuable suggestions. The
assistance of Devry Bell in conducting the triaxial tests is appreciated.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Bolton, M. D., Fragaszy, R. J., and Lee, D. M. (1991). "Broadening the specification
of granular fills." Preprint 91440, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C.
Donaghe, R. T., and Townsend, F. C. (1976). "Scalping and replacement effects
on the compaction characteristics of earth-rock mixtures." Soil Specimen Prepa-
ration for Laboratory Testing, ASTM STP 5999, American Society for Testing and
Mater., Philadelphia, Pa., 248-277.
Fragaszy, R, J., Su, W., and Siddiqi, F. H. (1990). "Effects of oversize particles on
density of clean granular soils." Geotech. Test. J., 12(2), 106-114.
Lee, D. M., and Bolton, M. D. (1990). Strength assessment of granular soil with
oversize particles. A.N. Schoefield and Assoc, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Marachi, N. D., Chan, C. K., Seed, H. B., and Duncan, J. M. (1969). "Strength
and deformation characteristics of rockfill materials." Report No. TE 69-5, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Siddiqi, F. H. (1984). "Strength evaluation of cohesionless soils with oversize par-
ticles," Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of California, Davis, Calif.
Siddiqi, F. H., Fragaszy, R. J., and Su, W. (1989). "Static stability analysis of earth
dams." Proc, Sixth Annual Conf. of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lexington, Ky,
Siddiqi, F. H., Seed, R. B., Chan, C. K., Seed, H. B., and Pyke, R. M, (1987).
"Strength evaluation of coarse-grained soils." Report No. UCBIEERC-87122, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Su, W. (1989). "Static strength evaluation of cohesionless soils with oversize parti-
cles," Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State Univ., Pullman, Wash.

935

View publication stats J. Geotech. Engrg., 1992, 118(6): 920-935