SMALL STRAIN PROPERTIES OF SANDS WITH DIFFERENT CEMENT TYPES

Luling Yang Lynn Salvati

MWH Americas Jacobs Associates
Chicago, IL, USA Seattle, WA, USA

ABSTRACT

This research examines the small strain properties of Ottawa, Monterey and Michiana sands cemented in the laboratory with two
different cementing agents using flush mounted transducers, bender elements, and resonant column tests. Samples cemented with
higher strength cementing agents and higher cement contents had higher maximum shear modulus values and greater nonlinearity in
the shear modulus reduction and damping curves. Although confining pressure is a significant factor for the small strain stiffness of
uncemented sands, it did not affect the maximum shear modulus or the shear modulus reduction curves of the cemented sands tested.
The density of the cemented samples influenced the maximum shear modulus but had little effect on the nonlinearity of the shear
modulus reduction and damping curves. For a given level and type of cementation, the normalized shear modulus reduction curves fell
within a narrow band for the sands tested, indicating that these results could be used to predict the effects of cementation for other
siliceous sands.

INTRODUCTION
Most of the early research on cemented soils focused on large
strain properties, such as strength. The amount of data
available on the maximum shear modulus and the modulus
reduction with increasing shear strain for cemented sands is
limited. In addition, the accuracy of much of the available
data (Chiang and Chae 1972; Acar and El-Tahir 1986; Saxena
et al. 1988) is uncertain since the samples may not have been
adequately coupled to the resonant column devices (Lovelady
and Picornell 1990), or no detail is given about the coupling
between the sample and device (Chang and Woods 1992).
This limited database of small strain properties for cemented
sands needs to be improved so that geotechnical engineering
tools, such as those used to evaluate seismic hazard can be
extended to include cemented sands. Seismically induced
damage has occurred in naturally cemented sands, which are
found in many seismically active areas around the world.
Furthermore, cemented soils are becoming an issue around the
world with the increased use of deep soil mixing and chemical
grouting.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the influence
of cement content and type on the small strain properties of
sand. The samples were cemented in the laboratory using two
different types of cement, Portland Cement and gypsum, at
several different levels of cementation. The effects of void
ratio, confining pressure, and sand particle properties on the
small strain properties of cemented sands were also
investigated and compared to uncemented sands. Ultrasonic
transducers and bender elements were used to measure the
maximum shear modulus of the cemented and uncemented
sand, and a resonant column device was used to measure the
shear modulus reduction and damping increase with increasing
shear strain.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Ottawa, Monterey, and Michiana sands were used in this study
to provide a range in particle shape, particle size and gradation.
The tests investigating the effect of cement content and type
on the shear stiffness of the sands were performed on Ottawa
20/30 sand, Monterey 0/30 sand, and Michiana sand. The
index properties of these sands are given in Table 1.
Absorption values as determined by AASHTO T84 for each of
the sands are also included in Table 1. The absorption is
related to the saturated surface dry condition and is used to
determine the amount of water to add to the cemented sand
samples. To study the effects of the sand particle properties on
the maximum shear stiffness, different gradations of Michiana
and Ottawa sand were also used. The gradations of all the
sands tested are shown in Figure 1.
The cementing agents used in this study were Type III
Portland Cement (PC) and gypsum. The gypsum cement used

Paper No. 1.05a 1

was plaster of Paris, calcium sulphate hemihydrate, CaSO4·½ samples were prepared using the undercompaction method
H2O. These two cementing agents were employed so the effect since specimens prepared with this method tend to be more
of cement strength on the low-strain shear modulus of the reproducible than those made with vibration or pluviation
cemented sand could be examined. techniques (Ladd 1978). The specimens were cured in plastic
molds for three days, then taken out from the molds and sealed
in plastic bags. The cemented sand specimens for the test
Table 1．Index Properties of Sand program were prepared with target relative densities of 60%,
80% and 100% for the sand skeleton. For cemented sand, the
void ratio and relative density refers to the initial void ratio of
Ottawa Monterey the soil skeleton before cementation. For the samples with
Properties Michiana target relative density of 60%, the measured relative density
20/30 0/30
ranged from 58% to 63%. For 80% target relative density
sub-rounded to samples, the measured relative density ranged from 77% to
Particle shape rounded sub-rounded
sub-angular 82%. For 100% target relative density samples, the measured
relative density ranged from 95% to 99%. The amounts of
Maximum void cementation tested were 2.5%, 5%, and 7.5%, by weight of the
0.77 0.83 0.86
ratio dry sand for Type III Portland Cement. The levels of
Minimum void cementation for the gypsum cemented samples were 5% and
0.46 0.45 0.55 7.5% by weight of the dry sand.
ratio
Cu 1.16 3.31 1.28
The stiffness of the samples was measured over time to
D50(mm) 0.72 0.51 0.35
determine the appropriate curing time for each of the cements
Specific gravity 2.64 2.69 2.64 used. Samples cemented with Type III Portland Cement were
cured for at least 14 days and gypsum cemented specimens
Absorption(%) 2.31 2.88 2.71 were cured for at least 7 days.

TEST PROCEDURES AND SIGNAL PROCESSING

100
The maximum shear modulus of cemented sand samples was
measured using flush mounted S-wave transducers, while
80 bender elements were used to measure the maximum shear
Ottawa Sand modulus of the uncemented samples. The pulse transmission
system consists of a wave generator, amplifier, oscilloscope, a
Percent Finer (%)

20/30
pair of flush mounted wave transducers or bender elements
60 50/70 embedded in caps, and a computer.
Graded
Michiana Sand Different methods were selected for the cemented and
40 uncemented samples to provide the best contact between the
20/30 sample and the device. A reliable ultrasonic test requires a
50/70 good contact between the specimen and the ultrasonic
Michiana transducers (Leong 2004). To confirm that there was not a
20 significant difference in the results measured using the two the
Monterey Sand
different methods, both the flush mounted transducers and
0/30 bender elements were used to measure the stiffness of Ottawa
0 20/30 samples with a range of densities and cement contents.
0.1 1.0 10.0 The difference in shear wave velocities measured with the two
methods was less than 3% for the samples tested.
Particle Size (mm)
To ensure better coupling between the flush mounted S -wave
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution curves for sands tested transducers the cemented samples, test specimens were
trimmed flat at both ends and a thin layer of shear wave
To prepare the samples, first the amounts of sand and cement coupling gel was applied to ensure the full contact of the
needed for a specimen with a particular relative density and transducers with the test medium. For the flush mounted S -
cement content were thoroughly mixed. The amount of water wave transducers, the operating frequency and delay travel
used for the specimen was 50% of the dry cement weight plus time were determined by performing tests with the two platens
the corresponding absorption rate of the sand by weight. The placed in face-to-face contact with each other (Leong 2004).
water was added to the sand-cement mix and then the sand-
cement-water mixture was re-mixed thoroughly. All of the

Paper No. 1.05a 2

Signal stacking helps to reduce the random noise and improve
signal quality (de Alba and Baldwin 1991; Nakagawa et al.
1996); 32 signals were stacked to get rid of the random noise. 104

(MPa)
The stacked signal was then further processed with an (a) Ottawa 20/30
extended cosine bell window and passed through a low-pass,

max
fourth order butterworth filter. A two-pass infinite impulse
response filtering (Li 1997) was used to compensate for the

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

phase shift. Several excitation frequencies ranging from 10 103
kHz to 80 kHz were used and interpreted with first arrival and
second arrival methods. The average value, calculated from
the different frequencies and interpretation methods was taken
as the travel time through the soil sample and was used to 2
10
calculate the maximum shear modulus (Gmax), using the
following equation: Uncemented Gypsum, 5% PC, 5%
0.7atm 0atm 0atm
Gmax=ρVs2=ρ(L/Ts)2 (1) 3atm 3atm
1
3atm
10
where ρ is the density of the sample, Vs is the shear (S) wave 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
velocity, L is the length of the soil sample,and Ts is the S- Void Ratio, e
travel time through the sample.
104

(MPa)
Shear modulus and damping with increasing shear strain level (b) Monterey 0/30
was measured with a resonant column device. The tests were

max
performed on the resonant column device at the University of
Notre Dame, which uses cylindrical specimens fixed at the

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

base with torsional excitation applied to the top. The cemented 103
specimens were coupled to the end platens with Devcon 2-ton
epoxy which was allowed to harden for 12 hours to gain full
strength before testing. This method was determined to
provide rigid coupling between specimen and platens by
Lovelady and Picornell (1990). 102
Uncemented Gypsum, 5% PC, 5%
In this study, the confining pressures used refer to the gage
pressures rather than absolute pressures. The reported 1atm 0atm 0atm
5atm 5atm 5atm
damping values are obtained from log decrement method.
101
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Void Ratio, e
MAXIMUM SHEAR MODULUS
104
(MPa)

(c) Michiana
Void Ratio
max

Figure 2 shows the effect of density on the maximum shear

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

modulus of the cemented and uncemented samples of Ottawa 103

20/30, Monterey 0/30, and Michiana sand at two different
confining pressures. The results shown in Fig. 2 are for
cement contents of 5%, but the results for other cement
contents were similar. The increase in maximum shear
modulus with decrease in the void ratio of the cemented and 102
uncemented sands was similar. The effect of the void ratio on
the maximum shear modulus was also similar for the different Uncemented Gypsum, 5% PC, 5%
types of cement tested. 0.8atm 0 atm 0 atm
5atm 5 atm 5 atm
1
10
Confining Pressure 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65
Void Ratio, e
Figure 3 shows the maximum shear modulus of cemented and
uncemented samples of Ottawa 20/30, Monterey 0/30, and Fig. 2.Maximum shear modulus with varying void ratio for
cemented and uncemented sands

Paper No. 1.05a 3

 Michiana sand over a range of confining pressures. The
(MPa) 4
confining pressure has an effect on the maximum shear
10 modulus of the uncemented sands, but not on the maximum
(a) Ottawa 20/30 shear modulus of the cemented sand samples for the cement
types and cement contents tested. The results shown in Fig. 3
max

are for relative densities of or near 80%, but the results for
Maximum Shear Modulus, G

3 other relative densities were similar. For the samples tested in

10
this study, the confining pressures of up to 5 atm had little
effect on the maximum shear modulus of cemented sand.
However, at lower cement contents or higher confining
pressures, the influence of confining pressure might be greater
10
2 PC as seen in Fernandez and Santamarina (2001).
Gypsum Dr =80%
Uncemented Dr =80% 2.5%
Dr=70% Type of Cement and Cement Content
5% 5%
7.5% 7.5%
10
1
The two types of cementing agents used in the study, Type III
1 10 Portland Cement and gypsum, have significantly different
Confining Pressure (atm) strengths. The cube strength after 1 week is 50 MPa for Type
4 III Portland Cement and 14 MPa for gypsum. Figure 4 shows
(MPa)

10 the maximum shear modulus of the different sands cemented

(b) Monterey 0/30 with varying amounts of Type III Portland Cement and
gypsum. The results for the three different relative densities
max

tested at a given confining pressure are shown in Fig. 4. Since

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

3 the confining pressure did not significantly affect the stiffness

10
of the cemented samples, results from only one confining
pressure are shown. The maximum shear modulus values for
the specimens cemented with Type III Portland Cement were
much higher than those cemented with gypsum. The cement
2
10 PC content strongly affected the maximum shear modulus of the
Gypsum Dr =80% cemented sand for both cements used, but the increase in the
Uncemented Dr =80% 2.5% maximum shear modulus with cement content was much
Dr=72% 5% greater for the samples cemented with Portland Cement.
5%
1 7.5% 7.5%
10
1 10 Effect of Sand Particle Properties
Confining Pressure (atm)
4
To investigate the effects of the sand particle properties on the
(MPa)

10 increase in shear stiffness with cementation three gradations of

(c) Michiana Ottawa sand and three gradations of Michiana sand were
tested. The values of the maximum shear modulus of the
max

cemented sands normalized by the maximum shear modulus

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

3 of the uncemented sands (Gmax_cemented/Gmax_uncemented) were

10
compared for the different sands cemented with Portland
Cement. The results of tests performed at a confining pressure
of 1atm with relative densities of 60% and 100% are shown in
Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b respectively. The sands with the smallest
2
10 PC particle size had the greatest increase in maximum shear
Gypsum Dr =80% modulus with cementation. In the samples with smaller grain
Uncemented Dr =80% size, there would be more contact points, which the cement
Dr=80% 2.5%
5% would enlarge. This was also noted in Chang and Woods
5%
7.5% (1992), which found that D10 and Cu both influenced the effect
7.5%
1
10 of cementation. However, the results in this study do not
1 10 indicate that the Cu has a significant influence on the effect of
Confining Pressure (atm) cementation. Also, the results shown in Fig. 5 indicate that D90
may be a better measure than D10 for predicting the influence
Fig. 3. Effect of confining pressure on maximum shear of grain size on the effects of cementation. Particle shape was
modulus not shown to influence the effect of cementation in these tests.

Paper No. 1.05a 4

 (MPa) 5000
Gypsum, p=0atm PC, p=0atm 40
Dr=100% Dr=100% Michiana
max

4000 Dr=80% Dr=80% Michiana 50/70

35
Maximum Shear Modulus, G

max_uncemented
Dr=60% Dr=60% Michiana 20/30
3000 Ottawa Graded
Uncemented 30
p=0.7 atm Ottawa 50/70
2000 Dr=80% Ottawa 20/30

/G
25

max_cemented
1000
20
(a) Ottawa 20/30
0

G
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15
Cement Content, CC(%)
(a) Dr=60%
(MPa)

5000
10
Gypsum, p=0atm PC, p=0atm 1 10
Dr=100% Dr=100% Cement Content, CC(%)
max

4000
Dr=80% Dr=80% 40
Maximum Shear Modulus, G

Dr=60% Dr=60%
Michiana
3000
Uncemented 35 Michiana 50/70
p=0.8 atm max_uncemented
Michiana 20/30
2000 Dr=72%
Ottawa Graded
30
Ottawa 50/70
1000 Ottawa 20/30
/G

25
(b) Monterey 0/30
max_cemented

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20
Cement Content, CC(%)
G

5000
(MPa)

15
Gypsum, p=0atm PC, p=0atm
(b) Dr=100%
Dr=100% Dr=100%
max

4000 Dr=80% Dr=80% 10

Maximum Shear Modulus, G

Dr=60% Dr=60% 1 10
Cement Content, CC(%)
3000
Uncemented
p=0.8 atm
Fig. 5. Influence of sand particle properties on the increase in
2000 Dr=80%
maximum shear modulus with cementation

1000 MODULUS VARIATION WITH SHEAR STRAIN

(c) Michiana
0 Void Ratio
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Cement Content, CC(%) Figure 6 shows the effect of void ratio on the shear modulus
reduction and damping curves of uncemented Ottawa 20/30
Fig. 4. Effect of cement type and content on the maximum sand and Michiana sand cemented with Type III Portland
shear modulus Cement and gypsum. For uncemented sands the void ratio
affected the shear modulus reduction and damping curves, but

Paper No. 1.05a 5

 1 that was not the case for the cemented sand samples. The
Shear Modulus Reduction, Gsec/Gmax
(a) modulus reduction and damping curves for the three relative
densities of Michiana sand cemented with 2.5% Portland
0.8 Cement were very similar as were the two relative densities of
Michiana sand cemented with 5% gypsum.
0.6 Saxena et al. (1988) also found that the modulus reduction
curves of cemented sand were not significantly affected by the
0.4
relative density of the samples, for relative densities over 43%
at a confining pressure of 5.8 atm. Although there may have
been possible coupling issue between the samples and the
0.2 resonant column device in this study, the tests at higher
pressures, such at 5.8 atm, would be less affected than those
performed at lower confining pressures.
0

20
(b) Confining Pressure
Ottawa 20/30 Sand
Damping Ratio (%)

Uncemented, p=1atm
15 For uncemented sand the reduction in shear modulus and
Dr=92% increase in damping occurs at lower strains for samples tested
Dr=62% at lower confining pressures. An example of this effect is
10 shown in Figs. 7a and 7b for uncemented Ottawa 20/30 sand
with a Dr=92% tested at 1 and 5 atm. However the confining
5 pressure had little effect on the shear modulus reduction and
damping curves for the cemented sand tested. The shear
modulus reduction and damping curves for Michiana sand at a
0 -4
10 10-3 10-2 10-1 Dr=60% cemented with 5% gypsum tested under 1 and 5 atm
Shear Strain (%) were very similar to each other as were the results for
Michiana sand at a Dr=60% cemented with 2.5% gypsum
1 tested under 1 and 5 atm, as seen in Figs. 7c and 7d. The
max

(c) results from the samples tested at higher confining pressures

/G

by Saxena et al. (1988) showed similar results.

sec

0.8
Shear Modulus Reduction, G

Type of Cement and Cement Type

0.6
The shear modulus reduction and damping curves for Ottawa
0.4
20/30 sand cemented with 2.5%, 5%, and 7.5% Portland
Cement are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b. Figures 8c and 8d show
the results for the Ottawa 20/30 sand cemented with 5%, and
0.2 7.5% gypsum. The shear modulus for the gypsum cemented
sand changes more gradually at small strains, whereas the
shear modulus for sands cemented with Portland Cement
0 decreases significantly at smaller strain levels. The shear
modulus for samples with higher cement contents began to
20
Michiana Sand, p=0atm (d) decrease at lower strains than the shear modulus of samples
with lower cement contents for both cementing agents used, as
Damping Ratio (%)

PC, 2.5% Gypsum, 5%

15 Dr =60% Dr =60% seen in Figure 8. The results from the other sands cemented
Dr= 80% Dr =100% with Portland Cement and gypsum show the same trend.
Dr =100%
10
Effect of Sand Particle Properties
5
The sand particle properties did not significantly influence the
effect of cementation on the shear modulus reduction and
0 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10
Shear Strain (%)

Fig. 6. Effect of void ratio on shear modulus and damping

with increasing shear strain

Paper No. 1.05a 6

 1 1
Shear Modulus Reduction, Gsec/Gmax

Shear Modulus Reduction, Gsec/Gmax

(a) (a)
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Type III Portland Cement
Ottawa 20/30, p=0atm
0.2 0.2 CC=2.5%, Dr=80%
CC=5%, Dr=60%
CC=7.5%, Dr=60%
0 0
20 20
(b) (b)
Ottawa 20/30, Dr=92%

Damping Ratio, (%)

Damping Ratio (%)

15 Uncemented 15
p=1atm
10 10
p=5atm

5 5

0 0 -4
-4 -3 -2 -1 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain(%) Shear Strain, (%)
Shear Modulus Reduction, Gsec/Gmax

1 1
max

(c) (c)
/G
sec

0.8 0.8
Shear Modulus Reduction, G

0.6 0.6

0.4 Gypsum Cemented

0.4
Ottawa 20/30
Dr=100%, p=0atm
0.2 0.2 CC=5%
CC=7.5%
0 0
20
20
Michiana Sand, Dr=60% (d) (d)
Damping Ratio (%)

Damping Ratio (%)

15 Gypsum, 5% PC, 2.5%

15
p=0atm p=0atm
p=5atm p=5atm
10 10

5 5

0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain (%) Shear Strain, (%)

Fig.7. The effect of confining pressure on the shear modulus Fig. 8. Shear modulus and damping of samples cemented with
and damping with increasing shear strain different cement types and a range of cement contents

Paper No. 1.05a 7

damping curves. The results for Ottawa 20/30, Michiana, and 1

max
Monterey 0/30 sand with Dr=60% at a confining pressure of 5 (a)

/G
atm cemented with 5% gypsum are shown in Figure 9. The

sec
effect of the sand particle properties is not discernable within 0.8

Shear Modulus Reduction, G

these resonant column results.
0.6
CONCLUSION
0.4
This study investigated the small strain stiffness and damping
of cemented sand through laboratory testing. Density and
confining pressure have the greatest effects on the small strain 0.2
properties of uncemented sands, but their effects on the
cemented sands are limited. The void ratio did have a small 0
effect on the maximum shear modulus of the cemented sand
20
samples, but it did not have an effect on the shear modulus
Gypsum, CC=5% (b)
reduction curves. The confining pressure did not have an

Damping Ratio (%)

Dr=60%, p=5atm
influence on the cemented sand samples tested. However, the 15
small strain properties of cemented samples may be affected Ottawa 20/30
by the confining pressure at lower cement contents or higher Michiana
10 Monterey 0/30
confining pressures.

Both cement content and cement type had significant effects 5

on the maximum shear modulus, modulus reduction curves,
and damping curves of cemented sand. The maximum shear
modulus increased with increased cement content for both 0
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1
types of cement, but the increase was greater for the samples Shear Strain (%)
treated with Portland Cement. Reductions in shear modulus
occurred at lower strains in the cemented samples than 1
max

uncemented samples, and the effect was more pronounced for (c)
/G

the samples cemented with Portland Cement than those

sec

0.8
Shear Modulus Reduction, G

cemented with gypsum. Reductions in shear modulus also

occurred at lower strains as the cement content increased.
0.6
The sand particle size influenced the effect of cementation on
the maximum shear modulus of samples, with finer grained
0.4
sands achieving a greater increase in maximum shear modulus
with cementation. The sand particle properties did not affect
the shear modulus reduction and damping curves, however. 0.2
Based on these results regarding the sand particle properties,
the results of the tests presented in this paper can be used to
predict the response of other siliceous sands. 0
20
Portland Cement, CC=2.5% (d)
REFERENCES
Damping Ratio (%)

Dr=80%, p=0atm
15
Ottawa 20/30
Acar, Y.B., El-Tahir, A.E. [1986]. “Low strain dynamic Michiana
properties of artificially cemented sand”, J. Geotech. Engrg., 10 Monterey 0/30
Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1001–1015.

Chang, T. S. and Woods, R. D. [1992]. “Effect of particle 5

contact bond on shear modulus”, J. Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 118,
No. 8, pp.1216–1233. 0 -4
10 10-3 10-2 10-1
Chiang, Y.C. and Chae, Y.S. [1972] “Dynamic properties of Shear Strain (%)
cement treated soils”, Hwy. Research Record, No. 379, pp.
39–51. Fig. 9. Comparison of shear modulus and damping for
different sands
de Alba, P.A and Baldwin, K.C. [1991] “Use of bender

Paper No. 1.05a 8

elements in soil dynamics experiments”, in Recent advances in
instrumentation, data acquisition and testing in soil dynamics,
(S.K. Bhatia and G.W. Blaney, eds.) ASCE, Reston, Va.
pp. 86–101.

Fernandez, A.L. and Santamarina, C. [2001]. “Effect of

cementation on the small strain parameters of sands”, Can.
Geotech. J., Vol. 38, 191-199.

Ladd, R.S. [1978] “Preparing test specimens using

undercompaction”, Geotech. Testing J., Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 16-
23.

Li, X.S. [1997]. “Discussion of ‘Pulse transmission system for

measuring wave propagation in soils’”, J. Geotech. and
Geoenvir. Engrg., Vol. 123, no. 9, p. 883-884.

Lovelady, P. L. and Picornell, M. [1990]. “Sample coupling in

resonant column testing of cemented sands”, in Dynamic
Elastic Modulus Measurements in Materials, (A. Wolfenden,
ed.) ATSM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 180–193.

Leong, E.-C., Yeo, S.-H., and Rahardjo, H. [2004]

“Measurement of wave velocities and attenuation using an
ultrasonic test system," Can.Geotech. J., Vol. 41, No. 5, pp.
844-860.

Nakagawa, K., Soga, K., and Mitchell, J.K. [1996]. “Pulse

transmission system for measuring wave propagation in soils”,
J. Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 122, No. 4, pp. 302-308.

Saxena, S., Avramidis, A., and Reddy, K. [1988]. “Dynamic

moduli and damping ratios for cemented sands at low strains”,
Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 25, pp. 353-368.

Paper No. 1.05a 9