Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A nonlinear particle packing model for multi-sized granular soils

Zhang-Rong Liu a, Wei-Min Ye a,b,⇑, Zhao Zhang a, Qiong Wang a,c, Yong-Gui Chen a,
Yu-Jun Cui a,d
a
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
c
Institute for Advanced Study, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
d
Laboratoire Navier, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, France

h i g h l i g h t s

Nonlinear packing models in terms of void ratio for binary-, ternary- and multi-size granular soils were developed.

The void ratio was presented as a quadratic function of the volume fraction of each components.

The model parameters were power functions of particle size ratios.

The model showed good performance for granular soils with different particle shapes and testing methods.

Discrepancy could be induced by ignorance of particle interactions between dominant and non-dominant size classes.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Most of the existing particle packing models were linear or only applicable for binary-size/ternary-size
Received 16 September 2018 mixtures. In this study, based on the concept of dominant size class, a nonlinear packing model was
Received in revised form 3 May 2019 developed allowing prediction of the void ratio of granular soils with arbitrary particle size distributions.
Accepted 9 June 2019
Only two parameters (filling coefficient and embedment coefficient) were incorporated in the proposed
Available online 17 June 2019
model. Calibrations showed that both parameters were related to the particle size ratios between the
dominant and non-dominant size classes. The model was verified using the experimental results on
Keywords:
the crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite and several other granular materials from literature. Good agree-
Granular soils
Void ratio
ment was obtained between the predictions and measurements, showing the performance of the pro-
Particle packing model posed model.
Particle interactions Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Particle size distribution

1. Introduction particle size distribution. Unfortunately, it is often time and labor

Granular soils composed of soil particles of different sizes are
important engineering materials for constructing slopes, levees,
subgrade and embankment dams. Most of these soils are naturally
formed or artificially fabricated by crushing larger blocks. They are
often widely graded with large variations in particle size distribu-
tions. It has been well documented that the particle size distribu-
tion of granular soils significantly affect their void ratios and
hydro-mechanical behaviors [1–3]. In the fields of powder metal-
lurgy, concrete mixes, ceramic processing and chemical engineer-
ing [4,5], the void ratios of materials need to be optimized to
yield optimum performance. For this purpose, a large number of
laboratory tests were carried out for determining the optimum
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of
Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail address: ye_tju@tongji.edu.cn (W.-M. Ye).
consuming. Thus only limited and discrete measured results could
be obtained. An effective particle packing model representing the
relationship between the void ratio and particle size distribution
would be of great help.
A number of particle packing models have been already devel-
oped. Fundamentally, these predicting models can be divided into
two categories: empirical models and analytical ones. The empiri-
cal models were generally developed based on the experimental
data, by which the values of packing density (which was defined
as the ratio of the particle volume to the bulk volume of the
mixture and equal to 1 minus the inter-particle porosity) of
binary-size and ternary-size mixtures with various component
proportions could be predicted [6–10]. However, although these
empirical packing models are useful in engineering applications,
they do not give much insight into the packing mechanisms.
Therefore, a more popular way was to develop analytical pack-
ing models based on the packing mechanisms, which were usually

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.075
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282
illustrated from the perspective of particle interactions. As identi-
fied by many former researchers [11–13] and summarized by Chan
and Kwan [14], there are five kinds of particle interactions govern-
ing the packing density of granular materials including the filling,
loosening and wedging effects of fine particles, as well as the occupy-
ing and wall effects of coarse particles. Among them, the filling and
occupying effects would increase the packing density, while the
loosening, wall and wedging effects would decrease the packing
density. Some early developed analytical packing models only
accounted for the filling and occupying effects [15–17] and often
overestimated the packing density. In addition to the two funda-
mental effects, most of the existing models also involve the loosen-
ing effect and the wall effect by introducing the loosening effect
parameter and the wall effect parameter [11,18–22]. Most of these
2-parameter models are linear packing models, i.e., in which, the
packing density varies linearly with the change of volume fraction
of fine or coarse components. However, in some cases, the relation-
ship between packing density and volumetric fraction is nonlinear
[11,13,23]. In these cases, the predicted values by these linear 2-
parameter models were found to be significantly higher than the
measured ones, leading to unacceptable discrepancies.
To improve the accuracy of the 2-parameter models, de Larrard
[11] developed a compressible packing model (CPM) that incorpo-
rated a compaction index, which was dependent on the packing
procedures. Kwan et al. [13] identified the wedging effect and
accordingly developed a 3-parameter model for the binary-size
mixtures of spherical particles, the third parameter representing
the wedging effect. This 3-parameter model was later extended
to ternary-size mixtures of spherical particles by Wong and Kwan
[24] and to binary-size mixtures of angular particles by Kwan et al.
[25]. The predicted packing densities by these 3-parameter models
were in satisfactory agreement with the measured ones, but they
could hardly be extended to a concise expression for multi-size
mixtures. Other models including the 4-parameter model [26,27],
the geometrical model [28] and the dual-skeleton model [29] also
showed good performances, but their complicated mathematical
expressions make the predicting process rather tedious, impeding
their extensions to multi-size mixtures.
Most of the afore-mentioned particle packing models were
developed in terms of packing density. This concept was widely
used in the fields of powder metallurgy, concrete mixes, ceramic
processing and chemical engineering. However, in the field of
geotechnical engineering, void ratio is more commonly used
instead of packing density. Unfortunately, only a few of particle
packing models in terms of void ratio can be found in the literature.
Among others, Chang et al. [30–32] developed linear models for
predicting the void ratios of binary-sized and multi-sized sand-
silt mixtures, based on an assumption that the void volume change
was proportional to the solid volume of the added component.
However, their accuracy for some other granular soils such as
crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite require further improvement.
As shown in Fig. 1, the void ratios predicted by Chang et al. [30]
model do not seem to agree well with the measured ones in the
range from 25% to 55% for the volumetric fraction of fine particles.
These phenomena were also observed by Chang and Deng [29,33],
who attributed the discrepancies to the disability of the model of
Chang et al. [30] to capture the non-linear characteristics of void
ratio versus fines content. To overcome this shortage, Chang and
Deng [29] developed a dual-skeleton nonlinear model by consider-
ing the concept of effective dominant skeleton of a binary-size
mixture. This nonlinear model was later extended to multi-sized
particle mixtures by Chang and Deng [33].
In this paper, based on the concept of dominant size class and
the assumption that particle interactions only exist between the
dominant size class and non-dominant size class(es), an alternative
nonlinear packing model was developed allowing the void ratio for
275
1.0
Binary-size mixture of P7 & P0.5
0.9 Measured data
Predicted by Chang et al. (2015) model
0.8
0.7
Void ratio
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 Discrepancies
0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Volume fraction of fine particles
Fig. 1. Discrepancies of the linear particle packing model.
granular soils with arbitrary particle size distributions to be pre-
dicted. By analyzing the phase diagram of the mixtures dominated
by coarse and fine size classes, mathematical expressions for esti-
mating the void ratio of binary-size mixture were built and then
extended to ternary-size and multi-size mixtures. Finally, the pro-
posed nonlinear packing model was evaluated by the experimental
results on crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite and other granular
materials from literatures.
2. Development of a new model for binary-size mixture
The granular soils are discrete materials composed of porous
soil particles. There are voids within and between the soil particles,
namely intra-particle voids and inter-particle voids, respectively. It
should be noted that the void ratio (e) used in this paper only refers
to the inter-particle one, which was defined as the ratio of inter-
particle void volume to the particle volume. In other words, the
intra-particle voids were excluded from the void ratio (e).
In the field of geotechnical engineering, the particle size distri-
bution of granular soil is usually determined by sieving the soil
particles with a set of sieves from the largest size successively to
the smallest one. The particles retained on each sieve are collected
as a size class. Correspondingly, each size class has a limited parti-
cle size range from the lower sieve size to the adjacent upper one.
Since the size range of each size class is fairly narrow, the arith-
metic mean values of the upper and lower size of each class is
defined as its mean particle size, which is similar to the geometric
mean particle size recommended by de Larrard [11] and Kwan
et al. [25]. Hereafter, an individual size class is referred to as
mono-size mixture, though it is not truly mono-sized. Mixtures
composed of two, three and more than three size classes are ter-
med as binary-size mixture, ternary-size mixture and multi-size mix-
ture, respectively.
In this work, based on the concept of dominant size class, a non-
linear particle packing model was firstly developed for binary-size
mixture, then it was successively extended to ternary-size and
multi-size mixtures.
For a binary-size mixture consisting of two size classes, parti-
cles of size class 1 are coarser than those of class 2. The mean par-
ticle sizes of the two size classes are denoted as d1 and d2,
respectively. The volume of soil particles (including the intra-
particle voids) of two classes are denoted as Vs1 and Vs2, respec-
tively. The soil particle volume fractions of each size class are
denoted as y1 and y2, and the relationship y1 + y2 = 1 always holds.
The void ratios of each size class are denoted as e1 and e2, used to
estimate the void ratio (e) of the binary-size mixture.
276 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282

Firstly, size class 1 (coarse particles) is considered as the dom- Vv

inant size class. In the original scenario, the phase diagram of size
Vv2 Vv Vv
class 1 before being mixed with size class 2 is shown in Fig. 2(a),
where the void ratio can be expressed as e1 ¼ V v 1 =V s1 . With the
addition of size class 2 (fine particles) into size class 1, in an ideal Vs2 Vs2 Vs2
scenario (Fig. 2(b)), all the fine particles are added into the voids
among the coarse particles without any change of the original
structure of size class 1. Thus, the total volume of the mixture Vs1 Vs1
remains unchanged, while the void volume changed by (a) (b) (c)
DV v ¼ V s2 . However, in a general scenario (Fig. 2(c)), during the
addition of size class 2, the original structure of size class 1 would Fig. 3. Phase diagrams: (a) size class 2 (fine); (b) mixture of size class 2 and size
be altered and the void volume of the mixture would also be chan- class 1 (ideal scenario); (c) mixture of size class 2 and size class 1 (general scenario).

ged (Fig. 2(c)), leading to a void ratio which can be calculated as:
Vv V v 1 þ DV v
e1 ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
V s1 þ V s2 V s1 þ V s2
where number ‘‘1” marked at the superscript of e1 indicates that
size class 1 is the postulated dominant size class.
It can be observed that, with addition of size class 2, the void
ratio changes from e1 to e1 due to (i) the void volume changes by
DV v and (ii) the solid volume increase up to V s1 þ V s2 . In the linear
model developed by Chang et al. [30], the change of void volume
was assumed to be proportional to the solid volume of size class
2 added in the mixture, i.e., DV v ¼ aV s2 , where a is a material con-
stant. However, this linear packing model works poorly when the
fine content was around 25–55% (Fig. 1). According to the phase
diagram shown in Fig. 2, it is obvious that when coarse particles
are dominant, the void volume (V v ) of the binary-size mixture is
related to both the void volume of size class 1, V v 1 , and the solid
volume of size class 2, V s2 : the larger the V v 1 and the smaller the
V s2 , the larger the V v . By further considering the mass fractions
shared by size class 1 (y1) and size class 2 (y2), Eq. (2) can be
proposed:
V v ¼ ky1 V v 1 þ ay2 V s2
where k and a are coefficients related to particle interactions.
Note that when k ¼ y11 and a ¼  y12 , the void volume in Eq. (2)
becomes V v ¼ V v 1  V s2 , which corresponds to the ideal scenario
(Fig. 2(b)). For convenience, instead of a, another parameter a is
 
used: a ¼ a þ y1 . Thus, k ¼ y1 and a ¼ 0 correspond to the ideal sce-
2 1
nario (Fig. 2(b)). For simplification, it is postulated that k ¼ 1 for a
general scenario (Fig. 2(c)). With these assumptions, the void ratio
e1 in Eq. (1) for the general scenario can be expressed as a function
of e1 , y1 and y2 :
 greater value is more close to the ‘real’ one, due to a looser packing
e1 ¼ e1 y21 þ a y22  y2
 estimated void ratio of the binary-size mixture can be finally deter-
where a is a parameter related to particle interactions.
Oppositely, size class 2 (fine particles) is considered as the dom-
inant size class. For the original scenario in Fig. 3(a), the void ratio
can be expressed as e2 ¼ V v 2 =V s2 . With the addition of size class 1
(coarse particles) into size class 2, in an ideal scenario Fig. 3(b), all
the added coarse particles are discretely embedded in the matrix
Vv
Vv
Vv1
Vs2 Vs2
inducing no void volume change of size class 2 [30]. Thus, the void
volume (V v ) of the mixture should still be V v 2 , but the total volume
of the mixture increases by V s1 . However, in a general scenario
Fig. 3(c), during the addition of size class 1, the original structure
of size class 2 would be altered and the void volume of the mixture
would also change, leading to a void ratio that can be calculated as:
Vv V v 2 þ DV v
e2 ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
V s1 þ V s2 V s1 þ V s2
where number ‘‘2” marked at the superscript of e2 indicates that
size class 2 is the postulated dominant size class.
Similarly, it is assumed that when fine particles are dominant,
the void volume (V v ) of the binary-size mixture is related to both
the void volume of size class 2 (V v 2 ) and the solid volume of size
class 1 (V s1 ):

V v ¼ jy2 V v 2 þ b y1 V s1 ð5Þ

where j and b are coefficients related to particle interactions.

Note that when j ¼ y12 and b ¼ 0, the void volume V v ¼ V v 2 ,
ð2Þ
which corresponds to that of the ideal scenario (Fig. 3(b)). For sim-
plification, it is postulated that j ¼ 1 for the general scenario. With
these assumptions, the void ratio e2 in Eq. (4) can be expressed as a
function of e2 ,y1 and y2 :
 
e2 ¼ e2 y22 þ b y21 ð6Þ

where b is a parameter related to particle interactions.
Therefore, for a binary-size mixture with a given component
proportion (y1 ,y2 ), two values of void ratio can be estimated, one
from Eq. (3) and the other from Eq. (6). It is believed that the
ð3Þ structure that requires less energy to be reached [30,31]. Thus, the
mined by:
e ¼ maxðe1 ; e2 Þ ð7Þ
1 2
where e and e are calculated from Eqs. (3) and (6), respectively.
As shown in Eqs. (3) and (6), for a given component proportion
 
(y1, y2), the larger the parameter a (or b), the larger the calculated
e1 (or e2 ). However, it has been widely documented that the void
ratio increases with the increase of the mean particle size ratio
(d2 =d1 ) [11]. Therefore, it appears that the values of the two param-
 
eters (a and b) increase as the mean particle size ratio (d2 =d1 )
 

Vs1 Vs1 Vs1 increase. The lower limit of a and b should be 0 corresponding to
the ideal scenario, which will take place only when d2 =d1 is not lar-
ger than a certain value, R. However, when the mean particle size
(a) (b) (c) of the two classes are identical (i.e., d2 =d1 ¼ 1), the void ratio of
the mixture should be constant. In this case, there are the relation-
Fig. 2. Phase diagrams: (a) size class 1 (coarse); (b) mixture of size class 1 and size 
class 2 (ideal scenario); (c) mixture of size class 1 and size class 2 (general scenario). ships: e1 ¼ e2 ¼ e1 ¼ e2 with a ¼ ð2e2 þ 1  e2 y2 Þ=y2 and
 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282

b ¼ ð2e1  e1 y1 Þ=y1 (solved from Eqs. (3) and (6)). Thus, the values
 
of a should be between 0 and ð2e2 þ 1  e2 y2 Þ=y2 , while b between
 
0 and ð2e1  e1 y1 Þ=y1 . For convenience, the values of a and b are
normalized to be included between 0 and 1. The two normalized
parameters can be expressed as:
 mixtures dominated by size class 1 can be written as follows:
a y2
a12 ¼ 1 
ð2e2 þ 1  e2 y2 Þ
and

b y1
b12 ¼1
ð2e1  e1 y1 Þ
The subscripts of a12 and b12 represent the interactions between
size classes 1 and 2. Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eqs. (3) and
(6) gives:
e1 ¼ e1 y21  e2 y22 þ 2e2 y2  a12 ð2e2 þ 1  e2 y2 Þy2
and
e2 ¼ e2 y22  e1 y21 þ 2e1 y1  b12 ð2e1  e1 y1 Þy1
The two parameters, a12 and b12 , are termed as filling coefficient
and embedment coefficient, respectively, similar to those given by
Chang et al. [30]. Their values are between 0 and 1. Value a12 ¼ 1
indicates that all fine particles can be filled into the voids without
any disturbance on the original structure formed by coarse parti-
cles. This will only take place in an ideal scenario that the fine par-
ticles are small enough to fit the pores among coarse particles (i.e.,
d2 =d1 6 R). Value a12 ¼ 0 means that no fine particles can be filled
into the voids among coarse particles. This will take place in the
case that the particle size of fine size class is almost the same as
that of the coarse size class (i.e., d2 =d1 ¼ 1). Value b12 ¼ 1 indicates
that all coarse particles are discretely embedded in the fine particle
matrix without any change of void volume of the fine particles.
This will only take place in the ideal scenario that the fine particles
are extremely smaller than the coarse particles (i.e., d2 =d1 6 R).
Value b12 ¼ 0 means that no coarse particles can be embedded in
the fine particle matrix without any change of void volume of
the fine particles. This will take place in the case that the particle
size of fine size class is almost the same as that of the coarse size
class (i.e., d2 =d1 ¼ 1). For the particle size ratio between these
two limits (i.e., R < d2 =d1 < 1), both the values of a12 and b12 are
between 0 and 1. The relationships between a12 , b12 and d2 =d1 will
be discussed later.
3. Extension of the model for ternary-size and multi-size
mixtures
For a ternary-size mixture composed of three size classes: size
classes 1, 2 and 3 with decreasing mean particle sizes d1 ,d2 and
d3 , it is assumed that there is always one dominant size class. Par-
ticle interactions only exist between the dominant size class and
the remaining non-dominant size classes. The equation derivation
for predicting the void ratio for a ternary-size mixture is similar to
that for a binary-size one.
When size class 1 is dominant, in the general scenario, the addi-
tion of size classes 2 and 3 will inevitably alter the initial pore
structure and therefore the void volume of size class 1. The void
volume of the mixture can be described as:
V v ¼ ky1 V v 1 þ a2 y2 V s2 þ a3 y3 V s3
where k,a2 and a3 are coefficients related to particle interactions
between size classes 1 and 2, as well as classes 1 and 3, respectively.
277
Similar to Eq. (3), Eq (13) can be proposed to describe the void ratio
of the ternary-size mixture:
 
e1 ¼ e1 y21 þ a2 y22 þ a3 y23  y2  y3 ð13Þ
 
where a2 ¼ a2 þ y1 , a3 ¼ a3 þ y1 . Through a process of normalization
2 3
similar to Eq. (10), the final estimation equation for ternary-size
ð8Þ
e1 ¼ e1 y21  e2 y22  e3 y23 þ 2ðe2 y2 þ e3 y3 Þ  ðe2 þ e3 Þy2 y3
a12 ½2e2 þ 1  e2 ðy2 þ y3 Þy2  a13 ½2e3 þ 1  e3 ðy2 þ y3 Þy3
ð14Þ
 
ð9Þ where a12 and a13 are normalized from a2 and a3 , respectively.
Parameter a12 is related to particle interactions between size classes
1 and 2, a13 is related to particle interactions between size classes 1
and 3.
Similarly, the equations for the estimation of void ratio of
ternary-size mixtures dominated by size classes 2 can be written
ð10Þ as:
e2 ¼ e2 y22  e1 y21  e3 y23 þ 2ðe1 y1 þ e3 y3 Þ  ðe1 þ e3 Þy1 y3
ð11Þ b12 ½2e1  e1 ðy1 þ y3 Þy1  a23 ½2e3 þ 1  e3 ðy1 þ y3 Þy3
ð15Þ
and that dominated by size classes 3:
e ¼ e3 y23  e1 y21  e2 y22 þ 2ðe1 y1 þ e2 y2 Þ  ðe1 þ e2 Þy1 y2
3
b13 ½2e1  e1 ðy1 þ y2 Þy1  b23 ½2e2 þ 1  e2 ðy1 þ y2 Þy2
ð16Þ
where b12 is related to particle interactions between size classes 1
and 2, a23 is related to particle interactions between size classes 2
and 3, b13 is related to particle interactions between size classes 1
and 3, b23 is related to particle interactions between size classes 2
and 3. For a given component proportion (y1, y2 and y3), the greatest
value calculated from Eqs. (14)–(16) is selected as the estimated
void ratio for the ternary-size mixture, i.e.:
e ¼ maxðe1 ; e2 ; e3 Þ ð17Þ
Similarly, for a multi-size mixture composed of n-size classes: 1,
2, . . . , i, . . . and n, with decreasing mean particle sizes d1 ,d2 , . . . ,
di ,. . . anddn , the void ratio of such multi-size mixture dominated
by size class i can be estimated by:
P P P P
ei ¼ ei y2i  nj¼1 ej y2j þ 2 nj¼1 ej yj  nj¼1 nk¼1 ðej þ ek Þyj yk
j–i j–i j–i k–i;j
Pi1 Pn Pn P
 j¼1 bij ð2ej  ej j¼1 yj Þyj  j¼iþ1 aij ð2ej þ 1  ej nj¼1 yj Þyj
j–i j–i
ð18Þ
where i denotes the dominant size class, j denotes the non-
dominant size class. Parameter bij is related to particle interactions
between size classes i and j for i > j, aij is related to particle interac-
tions between size classes i and j for i < j. ‘a’ is used when the size of
non-dominant particles is smaller than that of dominant particles,
‘b’ is used when the size of non-dominant particles is larger than
that of dominant particles. For a given particle size distribution
(y1, y2, . . . , yn), the greatest value calculated from Eq. (18) is selected
as the estimated void ratio for the multi-size mixture, i.e.:
e ¼ maxðe1 ; e2 ;    ; ei ;    ; en Þ ð19Þ
As mentioned in the introduction section, Chang and Deng [33] also
developed a nonlinear packing model in terms of void ratio. How-
ever, it was much different from the present model: (i) the Chang
ð12Þ and Deng [33] model was developed based on the assumption that
the change of void volume was proportional to the amount of the
fine component, while the present model was developed based on
the assumption that the void volume of the mixture was related
278 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282

to the void volume of the dominant size class and the solid volume Table 1
of non-dominant size class(es) (Eqs. (2) and (5)); (ii) in Chang and Components and particle size distributions of the tested mixtures.

Deng [33] model, an effective dominant size (v) which could vary Mixtures Components Particle size
with fines content (y2) continuously was proposed to represent distribution
the state of the dominant packing skeleton of the mixture, while Binary-size (i) P15 and one of the size classes The volume
in the present model, each component of the mixture was consid- mixture of P10, P7, P5, P2, P0.9, P0.5, fraction of each
ered as the dominant size class individually and the remaining size P0.25, P0.075; size class varies
(ii) P10 and one of the size classes from 10% to 90%
classes were considered as the non-dominant size classes; (iii) the
of P7, P5, P2, P0.9, P0.5, P0.25, with a step of 10%
Chang & Deng (2018) model was a power nonlinear model with P0.075;
respect to yj , while the present model was a quadratic nonlinear (iii) P7 and one of the size classes
model with respect to yi and yj (Eq. (18)). of P5, P2, P0.9, P0.5, P0.25,
P0.075;
(iv) P5 and one of the size classes
of P2, P0.9, P0.5, P0.25, P0.075.
4. Verification of the proposed model
Ternary-size (i) P7 & P0.9 & P0.25; The volume
mixture (ii) P7 & P2 & P0.25. fraction of each
4.1. Parameter calibration size class varies
from 10% to 90%
4.1.1. Crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite with a step of 10%
Multi-size (i) Size classes from P15 to CPFT = (d/
In order to validate the proposed model, a serials of packing mixture P0.075; dmax)n  100,
tests were carried out on crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite which (ii) Size classes from P10 to where n values
was selected as the candidate buffer/backfill materials in the P0.075; from 0.1 to 0.9
Chinese geological disposal program of high-level radioactive (iii) Size classes from P7 to with a step of 0.1
P0.075;
waste (HLW).
(iv) Size classes from P5 to
The pellets used were crushed from high-dry density P0.075;
(1.94–1.95 Mg/m3) bentonite blocks which were statically com- (v) Size classes from P2 to
pacted from GMZ bentonite powder with initial water content P0.075.
w = 10.6%. The as-crushed pellet mixture was sieved into nine size
classes with particle size ranges of 15–10 mm, 10–7 mm, 7–5 mm,
5–2 mm, 2–0.9 mm, 0.9–0.5 mm, 0.5–0.25 mm, 0.25–0.075 mm vibrated on a cam-driven vertically vibrating table. More details
and less than 0.075 mm, respectively. For convenience, hereafter can be found in Liu et al. (2019) [36]). The mass (m) and bulk vol-
they were denoted in turn by P15, P10, P7, P5, P2, P0.9, P0.5, ume (Vtotal) of the mixture was weighed by an electronic balance
P0.25 and P0.075. Their mean particle sizes, taken as the arithmetic and determined by measuring the height of the sample after vibra-
mean value of the upper and lower sieve sizes, were 12.5 mm, tion, respectively. Accordingly, the packing dry density of the mix-
8.5 mm, 6 mm, 3.5 mm, 1.45 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.375 mm, 0.1625 mm ture qdry;m was calculated by dividing the mass (m) to the
and 0.0375 mm, respectively. The dry densities of the single pellets production of bulk volume (Vtotal) and (1 + w): qdry;m ¼ V mð1þwÞ.
(qdry;p ) of P15, P10, P7 and P5 were measured using the liquid
total

The packing dry density was then converted to inter-particle void

paraffin method based on the Archimede’s principle [34]. A value ratio according to the definition of the void ratio (e) and the phase
of 1.95 Mg/m3 was obtained, almost the same as the value of com- relationships:
pacted blocks. Thus, the dry densities of the single pellets (qdry;p ) of
the other size classes were considered as 1.95 Mg/m3. This was V v;interp V v  V v;intrap etotal  eintrap
e¼ ¼ ¼
supported by their comparable MIP (mercury intrusion porosime- Vp V s þ V v;intrap 1 þ eintrap
try) curves with those of P7 and P5 (Fig. 4). The components and ðGs =qdry;m  1Þ  ðGs =qdry;p  1Þ qdry;p
particle size distributions for binary-size, ternary-size and multi- ¼ ¼ 1 ð20Þ
1 þ ðGs =qdry;p  1Þ qdry;m
size mixtures are shown in Table 1. For each mixture, the packing
dry density was determined through a procedure similar to Method
where V v;interp and V p stand for the volume of inter-particle voids
2A specified in the ASTM D 4253 standard [35]: the particles were
and the volume of particles, respectively. V v , V s and V v;intrap stand
mixed and placed into the container scoop by scoop and then
for the volume of total voids, the volume of solid phase and the vol-
ume of intra-particle voids, respectively. etotal and eintrap stand for
0.25 the total void ratio and the intra-particle void ratio, respectively.
P7 Gs is the specific gravity: Gs ¼ 2:66 for GMZ bentonite [37]. qdry;m
P5 and qdry;p denote the dry densities of the mixture and a single pellet,
0.20 P2
respectively. In Eq. (20), the first three ‘=’ hold according to the def-
Intruded void ratio, ei

P0.9
inition of void ratio and the phase relationships, the fourth ‘=’ holds
P0.5
0.15 according to the well-known relationship between void ratio and
dry density.
Experimental results of binary-size mixtures composed of P5
0.10 and one of the size classes P2, P0.9, P0.5 and P0.25 were analysed
by the proposed model (Eqs. (7), (10) and (11)) correspondingly
0.05 (Fig. 5). Results show that values of R2 for all the calculation results
were higher than 0.95, indicating a good performance of the pro-
posed model.
0.00 0 For clarity, the test results of binary-size mixtures composed of
10 101 102 103 104 105 106
Pore diameter, d (nm) other size classes are not presented here. However, the measured
data of all the binary-size mixtures (Table 1) were analysed by
Fig. 4. Pore size distribution curves of pellets from P7, P5, P2, P0.9 and P0.5. the proposed model. The parameters a12 and b12 versus particle
 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282 279

1.0 and maximum discrepancy between predicted and measured void

P5 & P2, R2=0.959 ratios are about 2.0% and 11.1%, respectively.
0.9 P5 & P0.9, R2=0.996
P5 & P0.5, R2=0.988 4.1.2. Granular materials from literature
0.8 P5 & P0.25, R2=0.990 In order to further examine the accuracy of the proposed model,
the test results of binary-size mixtures of spherical glass beads
Void ratio

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Volume fraction of fine size class
Fig. 5. The measured and fitted void ratios for binary-size mixtures of GMZ pellets.
size ratio (d2/d1) are presented in Fig. 6. It can be observed that,
with the decrease of particle size ratio, the values of both parame-
ters increase and finally stabilize at constant values. Therefore, the
relationships between a12 and d2/d1 and between b12 and d2/d1 can
be depicted by a power function of particle size ratio, d2/d1, as
follows:
p ferent values of parameters A and B in Table 2 for different materi-
a12 ¼ Að1  d2 =d1 Þ
and
s
b12 ¼ Bð1  d2 =d1 Þ
where A and B are the maximum values of a12 and b12 when d2/d1
tends to decrease down to zero, respectively. Parameters p and s
are filling and embedment indexes, respectively.
Using Eqs. (21) and (22), the values of parameters A, B, p and s
were calibrated by best fitting the values of a12 and b12 at different
particle size ratios (d2/d1). The best fitting curves are shown in
Fig. 6 and the resulted parameters are: A = 0.718, B = 0.654,
p = 2.384 and s = 2.233. Using these fitted values, parameters a12
and b12 with different particle size ratios can be determined by
Eqs. (21) and (22). Therefore, the void ratios for all the binary-
size mixtures can be computed. The predicted and measured void
ratios are compared in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the predicted val-
ues are in good agreement with the measured ones. The average
[13], Pasabahce silica sand [10] and crushed granite rock aggregate
[25] were analyzed. The particle shapes of the three materials were
spherical, sub-angular and angular, respectively. The tests for
determining the maximum packing density of spherical glass
beads and crushed granite rock aggregate were carried out follow-
ing the British Standard BS 812-2:1995 [38]: the particles were
thoroughly mixed and placed into the container spoon by spoon
without compaction. The minimum void ratio of Pasabahce silica
0.8 1.0 sand was measured following Method 2A stipulated in ASTM D
4253 standard [35]: the particles were mixed and placed into the
container scoop by scoop and then vibrated under
13.8 kPa ± 0.1 kPa stress on the top of the sample. According to
the maximum packing density, the minimum void ratio was calcu-
lated and compared to the predicted ones. The fitted filling coeffi-
cient a12 and embedding coefficient b12 versus particle size ratio for
different binary-size mixtures are presented in Table 2 and plotted
in Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. It can be observed that regardless
of the differences in particle shape and test method, the values of
a12 and b12 from different works can also be well described by
power functions of particle size ratio (Eqs. (21) and (22)). The dif-
ð21Þ
als indicate that the model parameters are particle properties
(shape, surface roughness, etc.) and test method dependent. The
relationships between them need to be investigated further.
ð22Þ
4.2. Model verification
4.2.1. Crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite
With the experimental results of crushed pellets of GMZ ben-
tonite, the proposed model was verified with respect to the
binary-size, ternary-size and multi-size mixtures.
For binary-size mixtures, Fig. 7 shows good agreement between
the predicted results and the measured ones. For ternary-size mix-
tures of P7 & P0.9 & P0.25 and P7 & P2 & P0.25, the measured and
predicted void ratios are compared in Fig. 9. The average discrep-
ancies between the predicted and measured results for ternary-
size mixtures of P7 & P0.9 & P0.25 and P7 & P2 & P0.25 are 9.2%
and 7.1%, respectively. These discrepancies might be induced by
ignoring the particle interactions between non-dominant size

1.0
1.2
y=0.718(1-x)2.384
1.1 Binary-size mixtures
R2=0.97
0.8
Parameters a12 and b12

1.0
0.9
0.6
Predicted

0.8
y=0.654(1-x)2.233
R2=0.93 0.7
0.4
0.6
Parameter a12
Fitted trend of a12
0.5
0.2 0.4
Parameter b12
Fitted trend of b12 0.3
0.0 0.2
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Particle size ratio (d2/d1) Measured

Fig. 6. The fitted parameters a12 and b12 versus particle size ratio for binary-size Fig. 7. Comparison of the measured and predicted void ratios for binary-size
mixtures of GMZ pellets. mixtures of GMZ pellets.
280 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282

Table 2
Parameters for different granular materials.

Materials a12 b12 References

2 2
A p R B s R
Spherical glass beads 0.670 2.508 0.974 0.700 2.065 0.938 [13]
Pasabahce silica sand 0.820 2.039 0.977 0.681 2.190 0.976 [10]
Crushed granite rock aggregate 0.622 3.198 0.893 0.552 2.832 0.956 [25]
Crushed GMZ pellets 0.718 2.384 0.970 0.654 2.233 0.933 Present work

1.0 1.0
(a) (b)

Embedding coefficient b12

0.8 0.8
Filling coefficient a12

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Kwan et al.(2013) Kwan et al.(2013)
Yilmaz (2009) Yilmaz (2009)
0.2 Kwan et al.(2015) 0.2 Kwan et al.(2015)
Present work Present work
0.0 0.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle size ratio (d2/d1) Particle size ratio (d2/d1)

Fig. 8. The fitted parameters a12 and b12 versus particle size ratio for different binary-size mixtures from literatures: (a) Parameter a12; (b) Parameter b12.

1.0 0.8
P7 & P0.9 & P0.25 Mult-size mixtures
0.9 P7 & P2 & P0.25 dmax= 15 mm
0.7
0.8 dmax= 10 mm
0.6 dmax= 7 mm
0.7
Predicted

Predicted

dmax= 5 mm
0.6 0.5 dmax= 2 mm
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2 0.2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Measured Measured

Fig. 9. Comparisons of the measured and predicted void ratios for ternary-size Fig. 10. Comparisons of the measured and predicted void ratios for multi-size
mixtures of P7 & P0.9 & P0.25 and P7 & P2 & P0.25. mixtures of GMZ pellets.

(10) and (11)), as shown in Fig. 11. The average discrepancies

classes. For multi-size mixtures, the measured void ratios of
crushed pellets of GMZ bentonite composed of 9, 8, 7, 6 and 5 size
classes were used to verify the model. The particle size distribution
of each multi-size mixture was determined by the Andreason
equation [39], as shown in Table 1. The measured and predicted
results for these multi-size mixtures are compared in Fig. 10. It
can be seen that for high void ratios the predicted values are on
the whole consistent with the measured results, while as the void
ratio decreases, the discrepancy between the predicted values and
measured ones increases. The average discrepancy between the
predicted and measured results for all the multi-size mixtures is
about 10.1%.
4.2.2. Granular materials from literature
The void ratios of binary-size mixtures of spherical glass bead
[13], Pasabahce silica sand [10] and crushed granite rock aggre-
gates [25] were also predicted by the proposed model (Eqs. (7),
between the predicted and measured results for spherical glass
beads, Pasabahce silica sand and crushed granite rock aggregates
are 1.1%, 2.7% and 1.0%, respectively, indicating an excellent accu-
racy of the model for binary-size mixtures.
With the experimental results on the mixtures of coarse-
medium-fine rounded sands [15] and the mixtures of B1-B3-B5,
B1-B2-B6, B1-B3-B6 and B1-B5-B6 [24], the proposed model (Eqs.
(14)–(17)) was examined for ternary-size mixtures. The predicted
values and measured results are plotted in Fig. 12. The predicted
values appear to be in good agreement with the measured ones.
The average discrepancies between the predicted and measured
results for each mixtures are 7.6%, 8.7%, 9.1%, 7.0% and 7.3%,
respectively. This suggests a good performance of the model for
the ternary-size mixtures.
In order to further examine the applicability of the proposed
model for the mixtures composed of particles with different
shapes, the experimental data on binary and ternary mixtures of
 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282 281

1.0 1.2
Kwan et al.(2013) y1, y2, y3
0.9 Yilmaz (2009) 1, 0, 0
0.8 Kwan et al.(2015) 1.0 0, 1, 0
0, 0, 1
0.7 0.28, 0.72, 0
Predicted

Predicted
0.8 0.28, 0, 0.72
0.6 y1, y2, y3
0.5 0.72, 0.28, 0
0.6 0.72, 0, 0.28
0.4 0, 0.28, 0.72
0.3 0, 0.72, 0.28
0.4
1/3, 1/3, 1/3
0.2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Measured Measured

Fig. 11. Comparisons of the measured and predicted results for different binary- Fig. 14. Comparisons of the measured and predicted void ratios for ternary-size
size mixtures from literatures. mixtures of cylinder & sphere (3 mm) & sphere (1 mm) [40].

0.8 6.6%, respectively, indicating a good performance of the model

Westman and Hugill (1930) for the mixtures with particles of different shapes.
B1-B3-B5 (Wong and Kwan, 2014)
0.7 B1-B2-B6 (Wong and Kwan, 2014) The verifications conducted above suggest that the proposed
B1-B3-B6 (Wong and Kwan, 2014) model is feasible for binary-size, ternary-size and multi-size mix-
B1-B5-B6 (Wong and Kwan, 2014)
0.6 tures of different granular materials. It should be however noted
that the discrepancy between the predicted values and measured
Predicted

0.5 ones increases as the amount of size classes increases. The increas-
ing discrepancy may be attributed to the ignorance of the particle
0.4 interactions between non-dominant size classes. In fact, there are
particle interactions between each two size classes, but not just
0.3 between the dominant and non-dominant ones. Ignorance of the
particle interactions between non-dominant size classes in the
0.2
proposed model leads to the overestimation of void ratio. As the
amount of components increases, the amount of non-dominant
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 size classes increases too, giving rise in the increase of discrepancy.
Therefore, the particle interactions between non-dominant size
Measured
classes are important to be accounted for. However, the inclusion
Fig. 12. Comparisons of the measured and predicted void ratios for different of such integrations will make the model too complicated to be
ternary-size mixtures from literature. used in practice. Thereby, from a practical point of view, albeit
some discrepancies, the proposed model provides an useful alter-
native approach for predicting the void ratio of granular soils with
glass cylinders and spheres [40] were analysed. The predicted and arbitrary particle size distribution.
measured results are plotted in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. Note
that in the tests, the cylinders were 30 mm in length and 4 mm in
diameter. The spheres had diameters of 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm and 5. Conclusions
4 mm. For these binary and ternary mixtures, the average discrep-
ancies between the predicted and measured results are 2.8% and Based on the concept of dominant size class network and the
assumption that particle interactions only exist between the dom-
inant and non-dominant size class (es), a nonlinear particle pack-
1.2 Sphere diamater
ing model was developed for predicting the void ratio of granular
1 mm R2=0.98
1.1 soils with arbitrary particle size distributions. The main features
2 mm R2=0.98 of the proposed model are that the intricate particle interactions
1.0 3 mm R2=0.97 are described by two parameters (filling coefficient and embed-
4 mm R2=0.98
Void ratio

0.9 ment coefficient) which are related to the particle size ratio. The
predicted void ratio varies nonlinearly with the volumetric fraction
0.8 of each size class.
0.7 With the experimental results on the crushed pellets of GMZ
bentonite and on other granular materials from the literatures,
0.6 the proposed model was verified with respect to binary-size,
0.5 ternary-size and multi-size mixtures. Comparisons showed that
the predicted results were in good agreement with the experimen-
0.4 tal ones. The average discrepancies for binary-size, ternary-size
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
and multi-size mixtures of GMZ pellets are 2.0%, 7.1%, and 10.1%,
Volume fraction of spheres
respectively. The average discrepancies for binary-size and
Fig. 13. The measured and predicted void ratios versus volume fraction of spheres ternary-size mixtures of other materials are also less than 10%.
for binary-size mixtures of cylinder & sphere [40]. Although some discrepancies exist, which can be attributed to
282 Z.-R. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 221 (2019) 274–282
the ignorance of the particle interactions between non-dominant
size classes, the proposed model provides an useful alternative
approach for predicting the void ratio of granular soils with arbi-
trary particle size distribution.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There are no conflicts of interest to this work.
Acknowledgements
The financial supports of the National Nature Science Founda-
tion of China (41527801, 41672271 and 41807237) and the Shang-
hai Pujiang Program (18PJ1410200) are greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] L.D.O. Trani, B. Indraratna, The use of particle size distribution by surface area
method in predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of graded granular
soils, Géotechnique 60 (12) (2010) 957–962, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.9.
T.014.
[2] N.H. Minh, Y.P. Cheng, A DEM investigation of the effect of particle-size
distribution on one-dimensional compression, Géotechnique 63 (1) (2013) 44–
53, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.058.
[3] Z. Zhang, W.M. Ye, Z.R. Liu, B.C. Chen, Y.J. Cui, Influences of PSD curve and
vibration on the packing dry density of crushed bentonite pellet mixtures,
Constr. Build. Mater. 185 (2018) 246–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.07.096.
[4] M.S. Meddah, S. Zitouni, S. Belâabes, Effect of content and particle size
distribution of coarse aggregate on the compressive strength of concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (4) (2010) 505–512, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2009.10.009.
[5] A.K.H. Kwan, P.L. Ng, K.Y. Huen, Effects of fines content on packing density of
fine aggregate in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 61 (61) (2014) 270–277,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.022.
[6] J.E. Ayer, F.E. Soppet, Vibratory compaction: I, compaction of spherical shapes,
J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 48 (4) (1965) 180–183, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-
2916.1965.tb14708.x.
[7] J.E. Ayer, F.E. Soppet, Vibratory compaction: II, compaction of angular shapes, J.
Am. Ceram. Soc. 49 (4) (1966) 207–210, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-
2916.1966.tb13235.x.
[8] R.F. Fedors, R.F. Landel, An empirical method of estimating the void fraction in
mixtures of uniform particles of different size, Powder Technol. 23 (2) (1979)
225–231, https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(79)87011-4.
[9] J. Zheng, W.B. Carlson, J.S. Reed, The packing density of binary powder
mixtures, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 15 (5) (1995) 479–483, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0955-2219(95)00001-B.
[10] Y. Yilmaz, A study on the limit void ratio characteristics of medium to fine
mixed graded sands, Eng. Geol. 104 (3) (2009) 290–294, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.11.009.
[11] F. de Larrard, Concrete Mixture Proportioning: A Scientific Approach, Taylor &
Francis, London, 1999.
[12] M. Alexander, S. Mindess, Aggregates in Concrete, Taylor & Francis, New York,
2005.
[13] A.K.H. Kwan, K.W. Chan, V. Wong, A 3-parameter particle packing model
incorporating the wedging effect, Powder Technol. 237 (3) (2013) 172–179,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2013.01.043.
[14] K.W. Chan, A.K.H. Kwan, Evaluation of particle packing model by comparing
with published test results, Particuology 16 (5) (2014) 108–115, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.partic.2013.11.008.
[15] A.E.R. Westman, H.R. Hugill, The packing of particles, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 13 (10)
(1930) 767–779, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916. 1930.tb16222.x.
[16] C.C. Furnas, Grading aggregates I – mathematical relations for beds of broken
solids of maximum density, Industr. Eng. Chem. 23 (9) (1931) 1052–1058,
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50261a017.
[17] W. Toufar, E. Klose, M. Born, Linear packing density model of grain mixtures,
Powder Technol. 48 (1) (1977) 1–12.
[18] T. Stovall, F. de Larrard, M. Buil, Linear packing density model of grain
mixtures, Powder Technol. 48 (1) (1986) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-
5910(86)80058-4.
[19] A.B. Yu, N. Standish, Porosity calculations of multi-component mixtures of
spherical particles, Powder Technol. 52 (3) (1987) 233–241, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0032-5910(87)80110-9.
[20] A.B. Yu, R.P. Zou, N. Standish, Modifying the linear packing model for
predicting the porosity of nonspherical particle mixtures, Industr. Eng.
Chem. Res. 35 (10) (1996) 3730–3741, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie950616a.
[21] A.B. Yu, J. Bridgwater, A. Burbidge, On the modelling of the packing of fine
particles, Powder Technol. 92 (3) (1997) 185–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0032-5910(97)03219-1.
[22] Y. Knop, A. Peled, Packing density modeling of blended cement with limestone
having different particle sizes, Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016) 44–50, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.09.063.
[23] A.E.R. Westman, The packing of particles: empirical equations for intermediate
diameter ratios, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 19 (1–2) (1936,) 127–129, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1151-2916.1936.tb19809.x.
[24] V. Wong, A.K.H. Kwan, A 3-parameter model for packing density prediction of
ternary mixes of spherical particles, Powder Technol. 268 (1) (2014) 357–367,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2014.08.036.
[25] A.K.H. Kwan, V. Wong, W.W.S. Fung, A 3-parameter packing density model for
angular rock aggregate particles, Powder Technol. 274 (2015) 154–162,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2014.12.054.
[26] G. Roquier, The 4-parameter Compressible Packing Model (CPM) including a
new theory about wall effect and loosening effect for spheres, Powder Technol.
302 (2016) 247–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2016.08.031.
[27] G. Roquier, The 4-parameter Compressible Packing Model (CPM) for crushed
aggregate particles, Powder Technol. 320 (2017) 133–142, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.powtec.2017.07.028.
[28] J.M.V. Prior, I. Almeida, J.M. Loureiro, Prediction of the packing porosity of
mixtures of spherical and non-spherical particles with a geometric model,
Powder Technol. 249 (2013) 482–496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
powtec.2013.09.006.
[29] C.S. Chang, Y.B. Deng, A particle packing model for sand–silt mixtures with the
effect of dual-skeleton, Granul. Matter 19 (4) (2017) 80, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10035-017-0762-1.
[30] C.S. Chang, J.Y. Wang, L. Ge, Modeling of minimum void ratio for sand-silt
mixtures, Eng. Geol. 196 (2015) 293–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2015.07.015.
[31] C.S. Chang, J.Y. Wang, L. Ge, Maximum and minimum void ratios for sand-silt
mixtures, Eng. Geol. 211 (2016) 7–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2016.06.022.
[32] C.S. Chang, Y.B. Deng, Z.N. Yang, Modeling of minimum void ratio for granular
soil with effect of particle size distribution, J. Eng. Mech. 143 (9) (2017)
04017060, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001270.
[33] C.S. Chang, Y.B. Deng, A nonlinear packing model for multi-sized particle
mixtures, Powder Technol. 336 (2018) 449–464, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
powtec.2018.06.008.
[34] J.J. Bensch, H.J. Brynard, New approach to density measurements using
Archimedes’s principle, Nat. Phys. Sci. 239 (1972) 96.
[35] ASTM D 4253-00, Standard test method for maximum index density and unit
weight of soils using a vibratory table, American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, 2002.
[36] Z.R. Liu, W.M. Ye, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, Y.G. Chen, Y.J. Cui, Particle size ratio and
distribution effects on packing behaviour of crushed GMZ bentonite pellets,
Powder Technol. 351 (2019) 92–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
powtec.2019.03.038.
[37] W.M. Ye, N.C. Borrell, J.Y. Zhu, B. Chen, Y.G. Chen, Advances on the
investigation of the hydraulic behavior of compacted GMZ bentonite, Eng.
Geol. 169 (6) (2014) 41–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.003.
[38] British Standards Institution, BS 812: Testing Aggregates: Part 2, Methods of
Determination of Density, BSI, London, 1995.
[39] A.H.M. Andreasen, J. Andersen, Relation between grain size and interstitial
space in products of unconsolidated granules, Kolloid-Zeitschrift 50 (1930)
217–228.
[40] A.B. Yu, R.P. Zou, N. Standish, Packing of ternary mixtures of nonspherical
particles, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 75 (10) (1992) 2765–2772.