Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1970
Recommended Citation
Gullic, Robert Clyde, "Multi-stage shear testing of a cohesionless soil" (1970). Masters Theses. 7188.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7188
This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an
authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution
requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
MULTI-STAGE SHEAR TESTING
OF A COHESIONLESS SOIL
BY
ROBERT CLYDE GULLIC, 1946-
THESIS
submitted to the faculty of
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - ROLLA
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
Rolla, Missouri T2486
c.l
1970 132 pages
18799(J
ii
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT t , ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . ' . . . . . .
~ . .. . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES .. . ....... ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS . .. . . .. " X
I. INTRODUCTION . 1
III. MATERIALS . . . . . . 17
A. Equipment .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 25
B. Sample Preparation . . . 25
c. Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . 28
1. Procedure "A" . . . 29
2. Procedure "B" . . . . . . .. . 29
3. Procedure "C" . . . . .. .. . 32
4. Procedure "D" . . . . . 32
5. Procedure "E" . . . . . . 32
1. Conventional Tests 36
2. Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained/
Multi-Stage Tests . . . . . . . . . 36
E. Comparison of Results . . . . . . . . . . 59
v
Page
VI. TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTS/CONSOLIDATED
DRAINED . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 72
A. Equipment . . . . .. .. . 72
B. Sample Preparation ............. 72
C. Testing Procedures . . .. . . 76
D. Test Results 77
1. Conventional Tests . . . . 77
2. Multi-Stage Tests 82
E. Comparison of Results . 82
VII. TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTS/CONSOLIDATED
UNDRAINED . . . . , , . . . , . . . . . 90
A. Equipment . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B. Sample Preparation 90
C. Testing Procedure . .. . .. . . . . 90
D. Test Results . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 91
E. Comparison of Results . 92
VIII. CONCLUSIONS 97
IX. APPENDICES . 99
1. DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES - DIRECT SHEAR/
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED . . . . . . . . . . 100
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 119
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Idealized Representation of Nunez's
Multi-Stage Procedure 14
2. Grain Size Distribution Curve 18
3. Relationship Between Dry Density and
Relative Density . . 21
4. Back Pressure - Volume Change Apparatus 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Soils Used in Multi-Stage Testing by
Other Investigators . . . . . . . . . . 7
LIST OF SYMBOLS
MS multi-stage
1
I. INTRODUCTION
~eBeer (1950) Boon Clay CH 94.0 58.7 ----- "Cell" Organic content:
I 5%
Fine Sand SP ---- ---- ----- "Cell"
Clay CH 90.6 59.6 ----- "Cell"
Silt ML 26.4 8.3 ----- "Cell"
Peat OH 320.0 65.5 ----- "Cell" Organic content:
82%
:
-...]
TABLE I continued
St. Catha-
rines CL 46.0 25.9 0.43 TX/CU Sensitivity
2
Wallaceburg CL 40.5 17.2 0.57 TX/CU Sensitivity
4
Allanburg CL 28.5 15.0 <0.50 TX/CU Sensitivity
3
Schmertmann Ottawa SP ---- ---- ---- CPS
(1962 &1963) Sand
95% ML 29 4 0.07 CPS
Kaolinite I
00
TABLE I continued
\0
10
,-..
'M
U)
~=!..
..__.
Stage 1 _ _ _ _ _ __,,_.1,._ St~ge 2~Stage 3-+
(!)
~
I I cr (3)
:::s
U)
U)
(!)
~ 1 Consolidation
~=!..
~ ~----------~----~
bll
s::
M : a 3 (1) llcr3
s::
'M \r-1--------~ _l_
4-1
s::
0
u
0
,-.,
M
tf)
~=!..
'--'
(!)
~
:::s
tf)
tf)
(!)
~
~=!..
(!)
~
0
~=!..
____r
Time (Min.)
FIGURE 1. Idealized Representation of
Nunez's Multi-Stage Procedure
15
dilatancy.
Lumb feels that the most important information sought
from triaxial testing is the soil strength. For the soils
16
III. MATERIALS
100
"'~'~
.j.J
...c:: 80
I'
b.O
..-l
Q)
:s:
:>-. 60
~
!-<
Q)
!=:
..-l
I:.L.
40
.j.J
!=:
Q)
u
!-<
Q) \
20
~
\
0
10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05
'- 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
TABLE II
Physical Properties of Lane Spring Sand
Relative Density %
120
-+..J
.
4-!110
::s
--
u
..0
M
>-.100
-+..J
r-1
!/)
s:::
Q)
Q
Lane Spring Sand
t; 90
Q
80 ~--~--~----L----L--~----~---L--~----._--~
0.751 0.698 0.646 0.594 0.541 0.487
Void Ratio
A. Equipment
All direct shear tests in this investigation were per-
formed with a Karol~Warner Direct Shear machine (Model KW580).
The normal load is applied to the sample by an air piston.
Shear loads are applied either by hand or motor drive. In
this investigation, the motor drive was used. The speed of
the motor is controlled by a Karol-Warner variable speed
drive (Model KWDV-3). The shear loads were monitored by a
strain gauge load cell of 500 lb. capacity in conjunction
with a Budd strain indicator (Model HW-1).
Figure 5 shows the equipment used in the direct shear
testing. Item A in the figure is on the Karol-Warner Direct
Shear machine. The letter A is just below the water
reservoir holding a sample inside ready for testing. Item
B denotes the variable speed drive which controls the speed
of the motor C. The Budd strain indicator is marked D
which monitors the strain gauge load cell at item E. The
direct shear machine with sample in place ready for testing
is shown in Figure 6.
B. Sample Preparation
Samples for the direct shear test were cylindrical in
shape. The diameter is 2.493 inches by 1.016 inches in
height. The following procedure is used to prepare samples
of desired density. The upper and lower frames or rings of
26
loading device.
C. Testing Procedure
The first stage of a multi-stage test is the same as
that of the conventional test. The sample is placed in the
machine and consolidated under a predetermined normal load.
29
St ~g e 1_ __,.,,..1-EE-- Stage 3
1
I
Conso~hear ~Consol~ Shear Consol.~ Shear ~
Ul
Ul I
Q)
!-<
.f-1
C/)
~ ~------------------~
s!-<
0
z
0~------~--------------------------------------------~
Ul
Ul
Q)
!-<
.j...)
C/)
!-<
cd
Q)
..r:l
C/)
0~----~~----~----------------~----------------~
Ul
Ul
Q)
!-<
.f-1
C/)
0~----~------~--------------~--------------~
r--lr::::
cd 0
.f-Jr-1
r::::.j...)
0 u
N Q)
r-1 r--i
!-<4-i
OQ)
::c:~
oiL-----~~----~--------------------------------~
Time
FIGURE 7. Idealized Representation of
Procedure "A"
31
I
Stage 2 __,...~ Stage 3
1 1 I
Reverse Sheqrin~------4-------------
0~------------------------------------------~----------~
!/)
!/)
<!)
H
~
U)
....-!
cd
~ r-i
1=:+-l
0
N <!)
r-i ....-!
H4-i
0 <!)
::r::~
Time
FIGURE 8. Idealized Representation of
Procedure nB"
32
3. Procedure "C"
This procedure is the same as procedure "B" except at
failure when the shearing is stopped, the normal force is
completely released, The plates are then pushed back to
the zero horizontal deflection. The new normal force is
then applied, the sample allowed to consolidate, and the
shearing repeated. See Figure 9.
4. Procedure "D"
After reaching failure, the normal force is left on
the sample and the shearing force is reversed as in "B".
The plates are pushed back to the point that there is no
shear force on the sample. The normal force is then
increased to a predetermined level and the sample allowed
to consolidate. The shearing is then repeated. See
Figure 10.
5. Procedure "E"
This is the same as procedure "D" except that the
normal force is decreased instead of increased. The first
stage is run at the highest normal force and decreased
with each following stage. See Figure 11.
D. Test Results
In order to evaluate the usefulness of the multi-stage
test, test results are compared to results from conventional
tests. The conventional and multi-stage tests were run at
various relative densities (40, 60 and 80 percent) and up
to four different normal stresses (15, 27, 56 and 112 psi).
33
~oe-- Stage 1
I
.,.I .. Stage 2
J
Stage 3
-
Reverse SheJring
I .
I
I
IJ)
IJ)
(1.) (1.)
1--< 1--<
~~
tl) tl)
1--<.-i
m m
(1.) s
..C:J...<
ti)O
z
0
.-il::
mo
~M
~~
0 u
N (1.)
'M r l
1--<4-1
0 (1.)
::r::Q
0
Time
FIGURE 9. Idealized Representation of
Procedure nc"
34
Stage 1 Stage 2
'I Stage 3
I
I
I
Reve,rse Shectri g
J
I
I
0~----~------------------------~--------------------~
OL---~~----~------~--------------------------~
Time
FIGURE 10. Idealized Representation of
Procedure "D"
35
Stage 2 J~ Stage 3
Revarse Shefri. g I
I I
I I
I
I
0~------------~--------------------------~~--------~
Cfl
Cfl Cfl
Cfl (J)
(J) $-.<
$-.<~
~t:J)
t:J)
....-1
$-.< Cii
C1:l
(J)
s$-.<
,.J::!O
t:J)Z
....-11=!
Cii 0
~ r-1
!=!~
0 u
N (J)
r-1 ....-1
l--<4-1
0 (J)
::r::t=l
0
Time
FIGURE 11. Idealized Representation of
Procedure "E"
36
V-1
00
TABLE III continued
'
155 40 MS D o.646 I o.633 0.632 0.06 15 12.0 38.6 1
VI
1.0
TABLE III continued
81 60
I MS A 0.594
0.589
0.586
0.587
0,586
0.589
0.04
0.07
15
27
13.5 42.0
23.2 140.6
0.589 0.586 0.587 0.09 56 42.4 37.1
I
0.588 0.583 0.583 0.13 112 74.6 33.6
~
0
TABLE III continued
27 29.2 47.2
78 80
I Con. 0.541 0.525
0.533
0.539
0.540
0.08
0.05 27 28.1 46.1
114 80 Con. 0.541
-!:>
......
TABLE III continued
+:>.
N
43
Q)
r-1
.015
p...
scO
(/)
.010
'-H
0
.j..)
...c: .005
b.O
r-1 (+)
Q)
::r:: 0
~
r-1 (-)
Q)
b.O
.005
~
cO
...c:
u .010
Horizontal Deflection (in.)
52
Tests
50
,--...
0
'---'
Q) 48
1-<
;::::$ Symbol Normal
M
r-i
Stress (psi)
Cl$ 46
J:..I.. 0 15
.j..)
Cl$
'V 27
44 0
s:: 56
0
r-i 0 112
.j..)
u 42
r-i
1-<
~
J:..I..
M 40
Cl$
s:: \.
1-<
Q)
.j..) 38 "
H
s::
''
4-l
0 36 ' '
Q)
M
b.O
s:: 34
~
Initial Void Ratio
4-l 32 ---- Void Ratio at Failure
-e-
30 .soo .520 .540 .560 .580 .600 .620 .640 .660 .680
Void Ratio
I I
80 60 40
Relative Density (%)
FIGURE 13. Relationship Between Angle of Internal
Friction and Void Ratio
45
....-1
cO
cO 1::
~
Q)
8 0. 4
U) z
0.2
Test No, 81
.
,..-._
0.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
~
r-1
"-'
Q) 0.01
....-1
p..,
1::
cO 0.01
U)
f.H
0
~
0.005
~
bl) ( +)
r-1
Q)
::r:: 0.0 0.20
~ (-)
r-i
Q)
bl)
~
cO
~
u
Horizontal Deflection (in.)
tJl
tJl tJl
tJl (l) o-o Symbol Normal Stress
(l) !--<
!--< ~ (psi)
~ (/)
(/)
,.....,
0 15
!--< 1:'0
1:'0 e
6 56
(l) !--<
~ 0
112 0 112
(/) z
Test No. 35
0.15 0.20
0.15 0.20
r-:' 0.015
~
M
'--'
(!)
r--i
p...
0.010
@
U)
~
0
~
.f-)
0.0
"M
b.O
(-)
0.15 0.20
(!)
::r::
~
"M
~0.010
~
cO
,..c::
u
Horizontal Deflection (in.)
FIGURE 16. Typical Test Results Using
Procedure C
49
en
en en
en (J)
(J) 1-1
1-1 ..j-J
..j-J [f.)
[f.)
...-l Symbol Normal Stress
1-1 ttl (Psi)
~
ttl
~
(J)
0 0 15
[f.) ;z;
~ 27
EJ 56
.
,--...
0 112
~ 0.2
rl
'--' Test No. 89
(J) 0.0
...-l
0.. 0.15 0.20
sttl
[f.)
0.015
I.H
0
.j...l
...c: 0.010
b(\
rl
(J)
::r:: 0.005
~
rl (+)
~ 0. 0
0.20
(-)
~
u 0.005 Horizontal Deflection (in.)
.. D--..
ov
en
en en
en(])
Q) !--l
'
!--l.j....)
.j....)U)
U)
o-i
!--let!
ctl ~
Q) !--l Symbol Normal Stress (Psi)
...c1o
U):Z:
0 15
~ 27
c:J 56
0 112
,.-..,
. Test No, 85
!=:
r-t
'--'
Q)
o-i
p.. 0.15 0.20
~
ctl
U)
0.015
1+-1
0
.J..J
...c1 0.010
bO
r-t
(])
::r:: 0.005
!=:
r-t (+)
~ 0. 0 0.10 0.15 0.20
!=:
ctl (-)
...c1
u 0.005
Horizontal Deflection (in.)
0.1
0.1
+.J
cO
!=:
0
o-1
+.J
u
(]) 0.08
r-1
~
(])
~
Average Values
0.06 Symbol Procedure
0 Conventional
8 A
!;!] D
0.02
0 00 0~----~2~o------~4~o----~6~0~----~8~0-----1~o~o~--~1~2o
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 19. Relationship Between
Horizontal Deflection at Failure and Normal Stress
For 40% Relative Density
53
0.16r------.-----.------~-----.----~-------
s:::
r-1
"'----'
0.12
(!)
!-<
;j
....-f
r-1
cti
~
-!-)
0.10
cti
s:::
0
r-1
-!-)
u 0.08
(!)
....-f
4-1
(!)
0
....-f
cti 0.06
-!-)
s:::
0
.....,
N
Average Values
!-<
::r:: 0.04
0
Symbol Procedure
0 Conventional
b A
0.02 0 B
9 c
0.16r------.------~------r-----~------~------
Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained
DR= 80% ei = 0.541
0.14
,.....-.,
.....,
~
'---'
Cl.l 0.12
!-<
;:j
.
r-i
/.,
....,
~
ttl '/
.j-) 0.10
ttl
~
.0....,
.j-)
u
Cl.l 0.08 '//
r-i
tH f"'-
I~
Cl.l
r::=i
r-i
ttl
.j-)
0.06
~
0
.....,
N
!-<
0
::r:: 0.04
qf Average Values
Symbol Procedure
0 Conventional
6 A
0.02 D
E
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 21. Relationship Between
Horizontal Deflection at Failure and Normal Stress
For 80% Relative Density
55
6.Ht. (V- 2)
L\.Hor.
20r-----~r-----.------~-----r----~~-----
>--
u
~
ro
10
.j..J
ro
r-1
r-i
~
60 80 100
Average Values
20 Symbol Procedure
,--..
0 Conventional
"''"'
'--'
6 A
0
0 EJ D
r-1
><
C/1
C/1
Q)
!--<
>-- .j..J 10
u 8
~
ro
ro
.j..J
ro s
r-1 !--<
r-i 0
---------------8
~z
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 22. Relationship Between Dilatancy and Normal Stress
For 40% Relative Density
57
20r-----~-----.------T-------------------J
Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained
DR= 60% ei = 0.594
15
10
0
20 40 60 80 100
Symbol Procedure
20 0 Convention
6 A
,-..
o\O
c:J B
'--'
0 c
0
0
,.....;
><
U')
U')
Q)
~
10
:>-.. .j..)
u
~
ro
.j..) ro
ro s
1'"""i ~
r-1 0
0 z
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 23. Relationship Between Dilatancy and Normal Stress
For 60% Relative Density
58
,.--,.
.,..., 15
Ul
p.
"-.b
...__, '7'-..
:>--
u
~
ctl 10
+-l
ctl
,....;
.,...,
~
'-..V
/'-... '~ ~/
0
40 / 100
20
,.--,.
...__,
o\"'
0
0
,....;
><
Ul
Ul
Cl)
~
:>-- +-l 10
u C/)
~
ctl ,....;
~
ctl
ctl
s '-../ Symbol Procedure
,....; ~
.,..., /.'-..
~z
0 0 Conventional
6 A
0 D
'-.,/
/'-.. E
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
.68~------r-----~------~----~~----~----~
.66
40
.64
A 61 ,--..
.62
-- - - - - - Q D 48
"''""
'--'
>-
.j..l
r-1
0 til
r-1
.j..l .60 s::
Q)
cd 0
0::: 60 Q)
"ij
r-1
f'.... >
r-1
0 .....................
-- --
.j..l
> I cd
..__ -- """........._ A 62 ..-l
Q)
~
--- ~
r.. " ...........
.......
........... (:)
1 ':Y c 63
L_
-- - - - - 0 B 35
- -a---- .~
--,____ A 82 80
.540
..,J ---
~-.-...---
D 89
~-....-:.=: E 85
520 ol------2J0-------4~0------6~0-------8L0------1~0-0-----1~20
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 25. Relationship Between
Void Ratio and Normal Stress
100~------~------~------~-------T------~------~
<!)
f.,
;::$
60
,....;
.4
(ij
ll-.
.jJ
(ij
(/)
(/)
40
<!)
f.,
.jJ
tf) Average Values
f., Symbol Procedure
(ij
<!)
,..c;
tf) 2J 0
6
Conventional
A
0 D
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 26. Mohr Failure Envelopes For 40% Relative Density
0\
f-l
100
I
Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained
DR = 60% e. = 0.594
1
80
l
r-.
r-i
Ill
p...
\._.)
Q)
1-<
;j
r-1
60
rl
t\l
~
+-l
t\l
Ill
Ill
Q)
40
1-<
+-l
Average Values
~
(/)
1-<
ro Symbol Procedure
~
Q)
(/)
2J 0
6
Conventional
A
[] B
0 c
20 40 60 80 100 120
t~ormal Stress (psi)
(!)
!--<
;::J
rl
r-1
ro
~ 60
.j-J
ro
(/)
(/)
(!)
!--<
.j-J
t.f) 40 Average Values
!--<
ro
(!)
Symbol Procedure
..c:
t.f) 0 Conventional
8 A
20 0 D
0 E
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 28. Mohr Failure Envelopes For 80% Relative Density 0\
lN
64
,.....,
M
Vl
p.
"-.)
(!) 60
1-<
;j
,.....,
M
ro
IJ..<
~
ro 40
Vl
Vl
(!)
Average Values
/
1-<
~
tl)
Symbol Procedure
1-<
ro 0 Conventional
(!) 20
...!=:
tl) #' 8 A
[] D
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 29. Mohr Failure Envelopes Corrected For Dilatancy
For 40% Relative Density 0\
tJ1
100------~-------r------.-------r------.------,
,-..
.-1 Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained
VI
p. DR= 60% ei = 0.594
\._J
Corrected for Dilatancy
a> 80
~
::s
...-1
.-1
ro
~
+->
ro
VI 60
VI
a>
~
+->
U)
~
ro
a> 40
...c::
U)
Average Value
Symbol Procedure
20 0 Conventional
8 A
0 B
0 c
O V: I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 30. Mohr Failure Envelopes Corrected For Dilatancy For 60% 0\
Relative Density 0\
lOOr-------~------r-------~------~------------~
(!)
h
~ 60
~
(Tj
~
.j..)
(Tj
IJ)
IJ)
(!) 40
h
.j..)
Average Values
r.J)
Symbol Procedure
h
(Tj
(!)
0 Conventional
..c!
r.J) 6 A
20 0 D
0 E
0 ~------L-------~------L-------~------~----~
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 31. Mohr Failure Envelopes Corrected For Dilatancy
For 80% Relative Density
0'1
'-.I
100--------------~-------.------,-------~----~
~ 80
(])
~
~
r-i
r-1
cd
u.. Conventional
.j-)
cd
60
Vl Proc. A
Vl
(])
~
.j-) D
Cl)
~
cd
40
(])
..c:
Cl)
20
Uncorrected for Dilatancy
------ Corrected for Dilatancy
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 32. Summary of Corrected and Uncorrected Mohr Failure Envelopes
For 40% Relative Density
0\
00
Direct Shear/Consolidated Drained
DR= 60% ei = 0.594
80
r-"\
r-1
Ul
p.,
Conventional
\..-)
Q)
I
1-4
::I
60
...-i I Proc. B
r-1
td
~
+J
td
//~ "'-~"' .___Proc. C
Ul
Ul
40 1
Q)
1-4 I /// /.~ '-Proc. A
.j..)
C/)
1-4
td
Q)
...c:
C/) 201 /~/ Uncorrected for Dilatancy
- - - Corrected for Dilatancy
40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 33. Summary of Corrected and Uncorrected
Mohr Failure Envelopes
For 60% Relative Density
0'1
\0
100 I ~
80
,....., Proc. D
r-l
til
P<
'-..)
Cl)
~
Proc. E
:::l
.-1
60 Conventional
r-l
ell
~
+..l
CIS
til
~ 40
~
+..l
C/)
~
CIS
Cl)
..c:
r.n 20 Uncorrected for Dilatancy
Corrected for Dilatancy
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (psi)
FIGURE 34. Summary of Corrected and Uncorrected Mohr Failure Envelopes
For 80% Relative Density
........
0
71
in an engineering analysis.
Seed and Lee (1967) observed that the drained shear
strength is a function not only sliding friction and
dilatancy but also a function of particle crushing and
rearranging. The additional energy required for the
crushing should increase the friction angle to a value
larger than the correction for dilatancy indicates. The
effect of crushing and rearranging increases as the
confining pressure increases. To see if particle
crushing was taking place in the multi-stage test, sieve
analyses were run on the tested material at various times
during the study. No appreciable particle crushing was
found.
72
A. Equipment
The triaxial cell used for the drained tests was manu-
factured by Wykeham Farrance (Model T67). The tests were per-
formed on a Geonor triaxial machine developed by the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Anderson and Simons, 1960).
A complete description of the testing apparatus is given in
the Geonor manual St. 22/63-AA/as. Application of the cell
pressure and determination of the volume changes were made
by using the apparatus previously discussed on page 22. The
deviator load and axial deflection were measured respectively
by a Mercer loading ring (No. 63260) and a Lufkin 0.001 inch/
division dial gauge. The equipment set up and ready for test-
ing is shown in Figure 35.
B. Sample Preparation
Specimens used in the triaxial test were approximately
3.64 centimeters (1.43 inches) in diameter by approximately
8.40 centimeters (3.31 inches) long. The following procedure
was used to prepare saturated samples of predetermined
densities. This procedure is much like that presented by
Lee (1965). Approximately 150 c.c. of deaired water is placed
in a 500 c.c. volumetric flask. The flask and water is then
heated over a bunsen burner until the neck of the flask be-
comes hot to the touch. The flask is then removed from the
heat and to it is added a known weight of oven dry sand. The
flask and contents are then placed under a vacuum and allowed
to boil. The vacuum is left on the sample for at least
73
density is obtained.
75
The cell base with sample is then removed from the water
tank and the dimensions of the sample are taken. Recorded
are the diameter of the sample, measured at the top, middle
and bottom, and the height of the sample. The rest of the
cell is assembled and is ready for filling with deaired water.
C. Testing Procedures
The first stage of the triaxial compression/consolidated
drained/multi-stage (TX/CD/MS) procedure is the same as a
conventional triaxial (TX/CD) test. The soil sample is
placed in a triaxial cell and positioned within the loading
machine. After the sample is consolidated to a predetermined
cell pressure, it is sheared at a constant rate of 0.012
inches per minute until failure. Volume changes are
measured throughout the test. Failure is defined as the
crl
point at which the maximum principal stress ratio Ccr-)max
3
or the maximum deviator stress (crd = cr 1 - cr 3 )max is reached.
In a drained test, they occur at the same time. Only one
procedure was used in the multi-stage triaxial tests.
After reaching failure in the first stage, the shearing
process is stopped and the vertical load is removed from
the sample. The cell pressure is changed to a second
level and the sample is allowed to consolidate under
isotropic conditions. Different sequences of applying the
cell pressures were used in this study. After consolidation
the sample is again sheared to failure. The procedure is
then repeated for the desired number of stages. Details
77
Test
No.
DRo9! Type
e1
Void Ratio
ec ef
0"3
(Psi)
(crl'/cr3')f I (J"d
(Psi)
e:f% <Pf
87 I I TX/CD/MS I 0.594
60 I 0.582 0.612 35 4.81 133.4 3.62 41.0
0.611 0.626 17 5.12 70.0 4.83 42.0
0.623 0.637 8 5.28 34.2 5.43 42.9
88 I 60 I TX/CD/MS I o.594 I o.512 0.613 8 4.85 30.8 4.22 41.1
0.593 0.610 17 4.66 62.2 5.13 40.2
0.595 0.610 35 4.47 121.6 6.34 39.4
91 I 60 I TX/CD/MS I o.596 I o.589 0.610 8 4.88 31.0 2.45 41.3
0.598 0.617 17 4.67 62.3 3.98 40.7
0.601 0.610 35 4.41 119.4 4.60 39.0
92 I 80 I TX/CD/MS I 0.541 I 0.537 0.572 8 5.38 35.0 3.32 43.4
0.553 0.572 17 5.17 70.8 4.23 42.5
0.556 0.571 35 4.84 134.5 5.14 41.0
112 I 80 I TX/CD/MS I o.541 I o.521 0.549 17 5.05 68.9 3.64 42.0
0.533 0.549 35 4.82 133.7 4.86 42.1
0.546 0.559 8 5.78 38.2 5.16 45.0
"'
1.0
80
!-<
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated
0 Drained
+J
ctl,-.. Conventional Test
~~
!>Vl
Test No. 75 DR = 80%
Q)P,
~ '-'
,....,Vl
cOVl
P,Q)
o--o--o,----0
~ !-<
U+J
~CJ)
~
!-<
0..
2 3 4 5
,....,
ctl
p.
~ 0
U~
~+J
5 0---0---0
~ ctl
!-<~
0..
Q)
!>
~
+J 3
u
Q)
4-1
4-1
~
1
,...., 4 5
0
Q)Vl 4
s ~
;:::.1 0
,...., u
0 3
> !-<
Q)
~ +J
~ 2
o::r:
Q)
Q)
~ s
ctl ;:::.1 1
,J:! ,....,
u 0
> 0 5
-1
Strain (%)
FIGURE 36. Typical Results From Conventional
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated Drained Tests
120
r--.
r-l 80
V)
p..
'-'
V)
V)
~
lo-4 60
I Mohr Failure
Envelope
.jJ
Test No. 84
r.J)
lo-4
I /
ctl
~
..c: 40
r.J)
20
Test No. 112
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 180
Confining Pressure (psi)
occur simultaneously.
E. Comparison of Results
Conventional and multi-stage triaxial compression/
r---.
0
'-----'
(J)
l-<
;:i
...-1
..-{
cti
[:.I.;
.j...)
cti
~
I=:
..-{
0 40
.j...)
u
..-{
l-<
[:.I.;
...-1
cti
I=:
l-<
(J)
.j...)
I=:
H
4-!
0 Symbol Confining Pressure (psi)
(J) 35 0 8
...-1
bl)
I=:
c::r:
6 17
0 35
30~----~~----~------~------~------~------~~
. 52 .54 .56 .58 .60 .62 .64
Void Ratio at Failure
I I
80 60 40
Relative Density (%)
FIGURE 38. Relationship Between the Angle of Internal
Friction at Failure and Void Ratio at Failure
84
r-..
~
~l6or-------r-------r-------r-------r-----~r-----~
P-1
'-J
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated Drained
~
~
Multi~Stage
C]) DR = 80% e.1 = 0.541
]:120
U) Test No. 92
~
0
+-J
= 35 psi
ro
~
:>
80
C])
0 cr 3 = 17 psi
0
~
.j..l
0
ro 2 5
0:::
~
~
C])
~
.j..l 5
C/)
..--i
ro
p..
~
u 3
~
~
~
p..,
1
1 2 5
4
1
o-- /
(+)
0
(-) 3 4 5
1
Strain (%)
FIGURE 39. Typical Multi-Stage Test Results
85
Kf-line.
P-q diagrams are shown on Figures 41 and 42 for
conventional and multi-stage TX/CD tests for 60 and 80
percent relative density, respectively. The Kf-line is
also curved at high confining pressures as is the Mohr
failure envelope shown in Figure 37. The relationship
between the angle of internal friction (~f) from the Mohr
sin ~f = tan ~f
(VI-1)
140
,-...
r-i
tJ)
p..
'-'120
Q)
1-<
;:::s
~
r-i
~ 100
tJ)
tJ)
~ 80
~
U)
1-<
0
~
cd
r-i 60
?
Q)
~
= 35
p~
(J
3
40
-------1..:.~ ---:....___ 6
'CBr-----o-
20 0 Conventional Test
6 Multi -Stage Test
0
.52 .54 .56 .58 .60 .62 .64
Void Ratio at Failure
I I
80 60 40
Relative Density (%)
FIGURE 40. Relationship Between the Deviator Stress at
Failure and Void Ratio at Failure
87
100'r-------~--------~--------~------~--------~---
80
II
cr' 40
20
~ Conventional
--6---- Multi-Stage
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
crl + cr3
p 2 (psi)
lOOr--------r------~,-------.-------~--------~--,
,--.
r-i
Ul
0..
~
60
t.t")
b
N
..-I
b
II 40
0'
20
0 Conventional
~ Multi-Stage
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
p = (psi)
A. Equipment
D. Test Results
As difficulty was encountered in running triaxial
compression/consolidated undrained (TX/CU) tests with pore
pressure measurements, only a limited number was performed.
The multi-stage tests were performed using various sequences
of confining pressures. Conventional and multi-stage
triaxial compression/consolidated undrained tests are
compared in this study for a relative density of 60 percent
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated Undrained
160 Typical Test - Test No, 108
DR= 60% ei = 0,594
r-..
o-1 120
Vl
p.
\....!
~lII
80
Effective
0"'
Confining Pressure
(psi)
40 0 8
11::, 17
0 35
cr I + cr I
pI : 1 3 ( ps1. )
2
FIGURE 43. Stress Path Representation of
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated Undrained Test 1.0
t.N
94
200 r--------.--------,-------~~-------r--------
Triaxial Compression/Consolidated Undrained
DR = 60% ei = 0.594
160
,--.._
r-1
VI
p..
"-'
120
::~
II
0"'
80 /
/
40 0 Conventional
8 Multi-Stage
0
40 80 120 160 200
p' cr 1 ' + cr 3 ' (psi)
= ------
FIGURE 44. p-q Diagram For 60% Relative Density, TX/CU
95
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
granular materials.
7. Valuable time can be saved by using multi-stage
test procedures to evaluate the shear strength parameter,
~f. Within the time of approximately two hours, a
multi-stage test with three to four stages can be
completed, the data plotted and the shear strength
parameters evaluated. The savings to a soil mechanics
laboratory and to a client could be substantial.
99
IX. APPENDICES
100
APPENDIX 1
DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES ~
repeated.
Procedure "B"
15. The shearing is stopped, horizontal and vertical
deflection and shear force readings are taken.
16. The variable speed drive is then turned to the
reverse position thus causing the motor to turn
in the opposite direction. The force is then
tending to push the bottom ring back to its
original position.
17. Two "C" clamps must be used to hold the ring
stop lugs, which hold the top ring, to the base
106
Procedure "C"
15. The shearing is stopped and readings are taken.
The normal force is then released. This is done
by closing the toggle valve between the bellows
and air regulator and opening the air pressure
relief valve.
16. The procedure is this continued the same as
steps #16 through #20 of Procedure "B".
Procedure "D"
Steps #15 through #17 the same as Procedure "B".
18. The reversing force is continued to the point
107
Procedure "E"
Steps same as #15 through #18 of Procedure "D".
19. The normal force is then decreased to a pre-
determined level and the sample allowed to come
to equilibrium.
The procedure is then continued the same as #19 and
APPENDIX 2
DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES ~
of stages.
112
APPENDIX 3
DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES -
TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION/CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED
continues.
k. Raise the back pressure, i.e. crBP = 10 psi
and open the drainage allowing the sample to
115
12. The loading arm and loading ring are then raised
sample to consolidate.
of stages.
117
APPENDIX 4
BACK PRESSURE - VOLUME CHANGE APPARATUS
~H ~ 0.64 p 0 55 (IX-2)
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
/ ,._,
NUNEZ, E., (1963), "Los Parametros De Corte Obtenidos A
Partir De Los Ensayos Triaxiales Excalonados"
Second Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechani~s
and Foun~ation Engineerinf, Associacao Brasileira
de Mecan1ca dos Solos, Vo . 2, Sao Paulo, Brasis,
pp. 123-12 9.
,,...,
NUNEZ, E., (1970), Personal Communication, April 16, 1970.
PARRY, R. H. G., (1963), "Testing Small Undisturbed Sample",
Proceedings of Fourth Australia-New Zealand
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, University of Adelaide, South
Australia, pp. 61~68.
SCHMERTMANN, J. H., (1962), "Comparisons of One and
Two-Specimen CFS Tests", Journal of The Soil
Mechanics and Foundation D1vision, A.S.C.E.,
Vol. 88, No. SM6, Proc. Paper 3372.
SCHMERTMANN, J. H., (1963), ''Generalizing and Measuring
the Hvorslev Effective Components of Shear
Resistance", Laboratory Shear Testing of Soils,
ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 361,
American Society for Testing and Materials
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 147-157.
,
121
VITA