Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Triaxial Tests On Weakly Bonded Soil Wit
Triaxial Tests On Weakly Bonded Soil Wit
Triaxial Tests On Weakly Bonded Soil Wit
ON
WITH
CHANGES
INTRODUCTION
Natural materials are often structured because of weak
bonds between their particles. Although the bonded structure
may arise from different reasons, they present similar characteristics. An important consideration for bonded materials is
that their yield behavior is controlled by the bonded structure,
which can be independent of the previous stress history.
In the last 15 years, attempts have been made to extend the
theoretical models of soil behavior (which have largely been
developed from studying the behavior of remolded or reconstituted soils) and include the effects of bonded structure on
soil behavior. Malandraki and Toll (1994, 1996, 2000) have
put forward a framework that explains the behavior of an artificially weakly bonded soil under a range of different stress
path directions.
Conventially, soils are tested in the triaxial cell under conditions where the cell pressure 3 remains constant; for drained
tests this imposes a constant 3 stress path. However, in the
field, soils will be subjected to many different stress paths. For
example, an element of soil adjacent to an excavation will be
subject to a stress path where the horizontal stress decreases
(as adjacent soil is removed by excavation) but the vertical
stress remains constant. In a free-draining soil this will produce a reduction in effective horizontal stress but with a constant effective vertical stress (if the ground-water level is not
modified by the excavation process). This can be modeled in
a stress path triaxial cell as a constant 1 path. Such excavation
processes, combined with changes in external loading or
changes in ground-water level or both may produce complex
stress paths in the field, in some cases with distinct changes
in stress path direction. Therefore, this study examines the behavior of soil when subjected to such changes in stress path
direction partway through the shearing process.
Malandraki and Toll (1996) discussed the yield behavior of
weakly bonded soils, basing their ideas on the work of
Vaughan (1988) and Jardine (1992). They suggested incorporating a bond yield (originally referred to as second yield
by Vaughan and Malandraki and Toll). This point is in addition
1
PhD, Former Res. Asst., School of Engrg., Univ. of Durham, Durham,
DH1 3LE UK.
2
Sr. Lect., School of Engrg., Univ. of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE UK.
E-mail: d.g.toll@durham.ac.uk
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2001. 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 October 14, 1998; revised October 17, 2000. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 3, March, 2001. ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
01/0003-02820291/$8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No. 19447.
FIG. 1.
Conceptual Picture of Yield for Bonded Materials [after Toll and Malandraki (2000)]
FIG. 2. Failure Surfaces, Yield Surfaces, and Zones of Bonded Soil Behavior Defined from Drained Probing Tests [after Malandraki
and Toll (2000)]
landraki and Toll (2000) showed that, for constant p and constant 1 tests, the limits between the zones rotated to follow
the stress path direction but the values of p on the isotropic
axis that defined the zones were unchanged (Fig. 2).
Atkinson et al. (1990), from triaxial tests on reconstituted
clays, showed that shear and bulk moduli vary systematically
according to the relative angle developed between the recent
stress path trajectory and the direction of the perturbing path.
Jardine et al. (1991), using data from tests on overconsolidated
intact London clay, showed that the stiffness response depended on the recent stress path directions. Jardine (1994) concluded that the recent stress history has a strong effect on
stiffness within the nonlinear range.
In this paper the work of Malandraki and Toll (2000) is
extended by considering the effects of changes in stress path
direction during shear. The results of drained triaxial tests on
the artificially bonded soil with changes in the stress path direction during shear are analyzed to examine the effects of
FIG. 3.
Stress Paths for Triaxial Drained Tests with Changes in Stress Path Directions during Shear
previous shearing path history on the soils behavior with respect to strength, stiffness, and yield conditions.
TEST PROCEDURES
The artificial soil developed for this study was prepared using a method similar to that used by Maccarini (1987) and
Bressani (1990); the method of preparation has been described
by Toll and Malandraki (1993). Sand mixed with a small
amount of kaolin (13%) was fired at 500C for 5 h. Under
these conditions the kaolin changes in nature and forms a weak
bond between the sand particles. The samples described in this
paper were all prepared at the same void ratio (e0 = 0.6), the
same as that used for other series of conventional drained and
undrained tests and drained probing triaxial tests (Malandraki
1994; Malandraki and Toll 2000).
The study of the effects of the recent shearing path history
on the artificially weakly bonded soil was performed on 38mm-diameter, 76-mm-high triaxial samples. A stress path triaxial apparatus (Bishop and Wesley 1975) was used with a
computer control system (TRIAX) for the experimental work
(Toll 1993). The computer system controls the stress path cell,
so different shearing paths were followed with accuracy and
without great difficulty. A limitation was that axial strains were
measured using conventional external measurements rather
than sample mounted devices. This meant that small strain
behavior could not be captured well and the first yield points
were not always well defined.
A total of eight drained triaxial tests were carried out on
bonded samples. The samples were first isotropically consolidated to different confining pressures and then sheared initially along a constant 1 path. Shearing for seven of the tests
changed to a constant 3 path after the development of low
percentages of axial strain (0.20.45%). One test that was initially carried out under a constant 1 path changed to a constant p drained path at a > 0.25%. Control of shearing under
the different stress paths took place under a constant rate of
change of deviator stress of 50 kPa/h.
The name of each test indicates the stress paths followed
during shearing and the initial consolidation pressure. Thus,
indicates a sample consolifor example, test c1 (150)
3
dated at p0 = 150 kPa, sheared initially under a constant 1
path, and changed onto a constant 3 path; and test c1
p(300) indicates a sample consolidated at p0 = 300 kPa,
The stress paths for all the tests are plotted in Fig. 3. The
samples were sheared initially along a constant 1 path, followed by a change in direction at higher stresses. The change
in the path direction was initiated at different stress levels for
each test.
The deviatoric stressaxial-strain curves are plotted for all
the tests in Fig. 4. The points of change in the path direction
and the points at which the samples reach the maximum q/p
ratios are also included. Smooth stress-strain curves were followed during shearing along the different stress paths. The
samples showed strain softening behavior and developed shear
surfaces. Tests c1 (300)
and c1 p(300) followed
3
stress paths that finally came together in the effective stress
space, and the samples reached the same maximum value
of q.
EFFECT OF PREVIOUS SHEARING PATH HISTORY
ON TANGENTIAL STIFFNESS
In the following, the stiffness behavior will be shown in
terms of the tangent values of Youngs modulus Etan and shear
modulus Gtan. The stiffness values are normalized with respect
to the current value of mean effective stress p. For unbonded
soils, stiffness is related to stress level and normalization can
remove the effect of stress level. The same normalization is
used for the bonded material to aid comparison between different stress levels.
The development of Etan /p and Gtan /p for test c1
(70)
are shown plotted versus axial or shear strain in a log3
log graph in Figs. 5(a and b). The development of E/p and
G/p for a constant 1 test (which followed the same shearing
path for the first part of shearing) is also included in this graph
to allow comparisons to be made between the different tests.
A small key graph is also presented as an insert in Fig. 5 and
shows the stress paths followed for the two tests under consideration.
Test c1 (70)
presented initially high stiffness values,
3
similar to those presented by test c(70)
(Fig. 5). A first drop
1
FIG. 4.
test c1 (70)
are replotted in Fig. 6, and the development
3
of stiffness for two constant 3 tests, c(11)
and c(35)
, are
3
3
included in the same graph. It can be seen in the key graph
in Fig. 6 that the second part of shearing for test c1
(70)
took place in the stress space between the two conven3
tional drained tests.
During the first part of shearing, test c1 (70)
presented
3
higher E/p values than those developed from tests c(11)
3
and c(35)
[Fig. 6(a)] [similar to those for the equivalent test
3
c(70)]
. However, the G/p values for test c1 (70)
were
1
3
similar to those for c(35)
[Fig. 6(b)]. After the initial loss
3
in stiffness and the change in stress path direction, test c1
(70)
presented similar E/p values to the two conventional
3
drained tests [Fig. 6(a)]. For a > 0.2% the sample maintained
constant E/p values and presented a second drop at higher
strains, which coincides with the point at which bond yield
occurred for test c(11)
and is very close to that for
3
c(35)
. In terms of G/p [Fig. 6(b)], after the initial drop (and
3
then an increase when the path is changed), the values of
G/p became very similar to those for c(35)
and the position
3
of yield is very similar in both tests.
The development of stiffness for test c1 (150)
is plot3
ted versus strain in Fig. 7, and the results for test c(35)
are
3
also included. During the second part of shearing, test c1
(150)
followed a stress path very close to that of test
3
c(35)
. Initially the two samples presented similar E/p values
3
[Fig. 7(a)], although G/p values were higher for c(35)
[Fig.
3
7(b)]. A first drop in E/p was initiated for test c1
(150)
at a = 0.23% or s = 0.3% (similar to that for the
3
constant 1 tests), and stiffness continued to decrease up to a
lowing a constant 1 path. This is in agreement with the behavior of constant 1 tests, as can be seen by test c(70)
1
plotted in Fig. 9(b).
The yield points identified earlier from E/p and G/p plots
are shown by symbols in Fig. 9(a). The first drops in stiffness
(while following the constant 1 path) do not seem to show
very significant changes in volume strain behavior. Again this
is similar to the behavior shown by c(70)
[Fig. 9(b)]. How1
ever, slight changes in slope in the volume-strainaxial-strain
plots can be seen [except in c1 (600)]
.
3
As the stress path changes to constant 3 , a significant
change in volumetric behavior can be seen. The volume strain
changes direction in many tests, and the strain increments become contractive, except for c1 (300)
, which neverthe3
less still shows a significant reduction in dilative behavior.
This change in behavior is compatible with the contractive
behavior seen in the initial stages of the constant 3 tests
shown in Fig. 9(b) [c(11)
, c(35)
, and c(150)]
.
3
3
3
The yield points representing the second drop in stiffness
during the constant 3 part of the stress path also show a
distinct change in volumetric behavior. They coincide with
minimum points on the volume-strainaxial-strain plots [or
an upward change in slope for c1 (300)]
. This means
3
that the behavior up to these yield points is generally contractive but dilation is initiated at the point of yield. This is also
in agreement with the behavior observed in constant 3 tests
[Fig. 9(b)] where bond yield is close to the minimum point
representing a change from contraction to dilation.
These changes in volumetric behavior can also be seen in
Fig. 10, where the volume strains are plotted against p. The
constant constant
3 tests show dilative volume strains as
1
a result of reducing mean stress p. Test c1 (70)
shows
3
an identical stress-strain path to that followed by c(70)
up
1
to the point where the stress path changes for c1 (70)
.
3
At the point of change in the stress path direction, the volume
strain increments generally become contractive. When the
bond yield point is reached (when following the constant 3
path), dilative volume strains are induced. The shape of the
volumetric strain-p paths for the latter part of the test follows
the same pattern shown by the constant 3 tests. These initially
show contractive behavior and then dilate after bond yield occurs.
STRESS PATHS AND FAILURE SURFACE PLOTTED
IN STRESS SPACE
The stress paths for the constant constant
3 and con1
stant constant
p tests and the failure envelope for the
1
bonded soil defined from conventional drained and undrained
tests (Malandraki and Toll 2000) are plotted in Fig. 11. The
failure surface for the destructured soil (formed at the same
void ratio as the bonded soil) defined from triaxial drained and
undrained tests is also included.
The samples sheared at low mean stresses (reaching failure
at p < 120 kPa) reach the failure surface for constant 3 tests.
However, samples sheared at higher stresses (reaching failure
at p values between 120 and 460 kPa) sustained lower maximum q/p ratios than the constant 3 failure surface but still
above that defined for the destructured soil. For p > 460 kPa,
the bonded soil sheared under different stress path directions
sustained the same limiting stress ratios as those of the destructured soil.
FIRST AND SECOND LOSS IN STIFFNESS
PRESENTED IN STRESS SPACE
The points of the two major drops in E/p (and G/p) during
the constant constant
3 and constant constant
p tests
1
1
are plotted in stress space in Fig. 12. The failure and the yield
FIG. 10. Volume Strain versus Mean Effective Stress for Tests with Changes in Stress Path Direction from Constant 1 to Constant
,
3 Constant ,
1 and Constant
3 Tests
FIG. 11. Stress Paths and Failure Surface for Bonded Soil from Constant Constant
3 Tests and Constant Constant
p Tests
1
1
Compared to Constant 3 Tests and Destructured Soil
DISCUSSION
The pattern of behavior observed is similar for all the
bonded samples with a previous shearing path history. Initially
the development of stiffness in a constant constant
3 test
1
was similar to that for the equivalent constant 1 test. All the
samples passed through yield before the stress path direction
was changed. During the second part of shearing, the samples
developed E/p values below those presented during a constant
3 test carried out at the same stress level. A second drop in
E/p then occurred, generally, at a lower axial strain than that
at which bond yield takes place in the constant 3 test. Similar
behavior was also shown by the sample sheared along the
constant constant
p path.
1
FIG. 12.
FIG. 13.
same yield point as one that has been sheared entirely along
the final stress path. This would not be expected of a fully
kinematic surface that was being moved and changed by previous stress history. Therefore it is suggested that the bond
yield surface is an expandable/shrinkable surface rather than a
moveable surface. The initial bond yield is modified depending
on the direction of the strain increments. It can perhaps be
postulated that the yield surface expands when volumetric
strains are compressive and shrinks when the volumetric
strains are dilatent. This would be compatible with the results,
as the bond yield surface is larger for constant 3 tests (when
volume strains are contractive) and smaller for constant 1
tests (when volume strains are dilatent).
In practical terms, it is demonstrated that the position of the
bond yield surfaces are not affected by changing the stress
path direction during shear (Fig. 12). However, the failure envelope is very distinctly affected by the changes in the stress
path direction (Fig. 13). The strength available is reduced if
the soil is subject to a complex stress path. This suggests that,
if a structure was being designed (in or on bonded soil) where
the major requirement was limiting ground movements, data
from conventional triaxial tests might not be significantly in
error. However, if the design criteria was a limiting strength,
data from conventional triaxial tests could significantly overestimate the available strength, leading to an unconservative
design.
CONCLUSIONS
The behavior of the bonded soil is strongly influenced by
clockwise changes in the stress path direction during shearing.
Yield of the bonded structure of the soil occurs along each
stress path direction followed. Even after yield has occurred
when following one stress path direction, a further yield is
observed when the stress path direction is changed. This demonstrates that the process of bond breakdown is anisotropic
and not all bonds break when bond yield is initiated. Only
those bonds subject to shear stresses associated with the current stress path direction will break. Therefore, on rotating the
stress path direction, unbroken bonds are present that can still
resist shear stresses in the direction imposed by the new path
direction.
The position of yield was found to be independent of the
previous shearing path history of the soil and occurred at
points that corresponded to a yield surface defined for the current shearing path direction. However, the previous shearing
path history of the soil did significantly affect the failure envelope. The strength available was reduced if the soil was
subjected to a complex stress path. Therefore, for complex
stress paths that may be present in the field, bonding degradation should be considered if the design is based on a limiting
strength. In this case, data from conventional triaxial tests
could significantly overestimate the available strength, leading
to an unconservative design. However, if a structure is being
designed (in or on bonded soil) where the major requirement
is limiting ground movements, then data from conventional
triaxial tests might not be significantly in error.
It is suggested that the bond yield surface is kinematic, in
the sense that it is an expandable/shrinkable surface, but that
it is not a movable surface. It is postulated that the yield surface expands when volumetric strains are compressive and
shrinks when the volumetric strains are dilatent.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described in this paper was partially financed by an
E. C. Human Capital and Mobility fellowship.
APPENDIX.
REFERENCES
artificial soil. Proc., Int. Symp. on Pre-Failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, S. Shibuya, T. Mitachi, and S. Miura, eds.,
Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 315320.
Malandraki, V., and Toll, D. G. (1996). The defininition of yield for
bonded materials. Geotech. Geological Engrg., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 14(1), 6782.
Malandraki, V., and Toll, D. G. (2000). Drained probing triaxial tests
on a weakly bonded artificial soil. Geotechnique, London, 50(2), 141
151.
Toll, D. G. (1993). A computer control system for stress path triaxial
testing. Developments in civil and construction engineering computing, B. H. V. Topping, ed., Civil-Comp Press, Edinburgh, 107113.
Toll, D. G., and Malandraki, V. (1993). Triaxial testing of a weakly
bonded soil. Proc., Int. Symp. on Geotech. Engrg. of Hard Soils-Soft
Rocks, A. Anagnostopoulos, F. Schlosser, N. Kalteziotis, and R. Frank,
ed., Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 817824.
Toll, D. G., and Malandraki, V. (2000). The engineering behaviour of
structured soils. Proc., 1st Central Asian Geotech. Symp., Vol. 2, 629
634.
Vaughan, P. R. (1985). Mechanical and hydraulic properties of in situ
residual soilsGeneral Report. Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Geomechanics
in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic Soils, Brasilia, Vol. 3, Brasilian
Society for Soil Mechanics, 231263.
Vaughan, P. R. (1988). Characterising the mechanical properties of the
in-situ residual soil. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 469487.