TECHNICAL

NOTE

Sitharam G. Thallak,l T. S. Nagaraj,l and Prakash Yaliga'.

A Simplified Behavior

Method of Rockfill

for

Assessment

of Volume

Change

Material

REFERENCE: Thallak, S. G., Nagaraj, T. S.. and Yaligar. P., "A Simplified MetiMJd ror Assessment or Volume Change Behavior or Rockfill MateriaJ. " Geotechnical Testing Journal. GT10D1. Vol. 21, No.2.1une 199~ pp. 144-152.

ABSTRACT: 1= this paper an attempt was made to generalize the results of laboraI:ry tests on modeled rockfill materials so as to evolve a simplified meth.-.j for assessment of their bulk mechanical propenies from minimum :-~t data with an acceptable degree of confidence. Examination of~ experimental data of the modeled rockfill materials from different Sl:.~ revealed that the plots of logarithm of strain at failure against 1"f-Jrithm of confining pressure are linear. A trend of increase in failur: sn-ain with increase in confining pressure and maximum size of paru:ie is also observed. The simplified approach highlights prediction of volume change propenies of rockfill materials during isotropic =olidation and triaxial state of stress over a range of confining pres=es and panicle sizes. This approach is based on the results of onl:- tWo tests carried out at two different confining pressures for a selec~ maximum panicle size on modeled rockfill material with the use of th: parallel gradation technique. The two-test approach and its applicati04 in engineering design of rockfill materials is illustrated by means of selected experimental data available in the literature. KE\"VORDS: ro:kfill materials. parallel gradation techniques. volume change beha\ior, granular materials

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the use of rockfill materials for the construction of various types of rockfill structures and con.lete face high embankment dams. Thus, the assessment of mca.c.ingful strength and compressibility characteristics of rockfill ~rials forms an important aspect. Characterization of mechanical behavior of rockfill materials has been developed mostly from laboratory experiments. To arrive at a meaningful strengtt. and volume change property of a rock mass, the laboratory tests should simulate the field behavior as closely as possible. Howe...er. experimental investigations on prototype rockfill materials '--: difficult because the particle sizes of these materials dictate th: use of larger specimens that cannot be accommodated in most 1a..."--0ratory facilities. Hence, techniques have been devised to evalua~ the properties of the field rockfill materials based on the infon:ation from laboratory tests conducted on the modeled smaller fr~tion (Lewis 1956; Leslie 1963; Marsa11967,
I Assistant tively, galore professa: .professor, and fonner Indian graduate Institute student, respecBan-

1973; Marachi et al. 1972; RamamUI1hy and Gupta 1980; Gupta et al. 1995; Venkatachalam 1993). In the process of relating smaller fractions to evaluate the properties of the field prototype materials. different modeling techniques like modeling with parallel gradation technique (Lowe 1964) and quadratic grain distribution (Fumagalli 1969) have been adopted. Although the laboratory tests on rockfill are difficult and expensive because of the size of the equipment involved. Marachi et al. ( 1972) and Ramamurthy and Gupta ( 1980) have shown that techniques are available to pennit reliable and realistic evaluation of the shear strength of typical rockfills used for dam construction. Similarly, many researchers have attempted to investigate the mechanical behavior of rockfills by carrying out experiments on reduced particle sizes and distributions using larger experimental setups than conventional testing facilities (Lewis 1956; Leslie 1963; Marsal 1967, 1973; Marachi et al. 1972; Gupta et al. 1995). The technique. which is presented in the literature, is popularly known as the .'parallel gradation technique'. and involves the modeling of grain-size distribution of field material and fonning the laboratory specimens with size distributions almost parallel to that of the field material by reducing the maximum particle size of the field material to sizes that could be handled in the laboratory . In the quadratic grain-size distribution technique, the material is graded in accordance with quadratic gt::!!!n-size curves expressed in weighted percentages by p = lOO\lDm= in which Dmax of 20 mm was chosen (Fumagalli 1969). The results of these experiments on reduced particle sizes were then extrapolated to obtain the behavior of the field material. This method involves exhaustive testing with different maximum particle sizes. and in many cases it is not feasible to carry out as many tests as might be required to predict the mechanical behavior of prototype rockfill materials. In view of the above discussions, it is evident that simplifications for the present methods of assessment of rockflll properties need urgent attention, particularly when considering the considerable difficulty encountered in testing the prototype field materials. Reduced scale tests on the prototype material show that the investigated phenomenon can be simulated satisfactorily when the similitude of grain-size curve, percentage of voids of the sample at the beginning of the test, and shape coefficient of the material are complied with. The question addressed in the present study is: ..How few laboratory tests are needed to predict the volume change behavior of the field rockfill material with a sufficient degree of @ 1998 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
144

Department 560012,

of Civil

Engineering,

of Science,

India.

THALLAK

ET AL. ON BEHAVIOR

OF ROCKFILL

MATERIAL

145

confidence?" The available data in the literature are examined in this regard so as to evolve a simplified method for characterization of the field rockfill behavior based on the parallel gradation technique.

Literature

Review

Despite the remarkable advances in the field of geotechnical engineering in the past three decades, such as the application of computers to the analysis of complex stress distribution, stability problems, and geotechnical equipment, the geotechnical engineer is still faced with a major uncertainty in some areas, such as in predicting the strength and volume change behavior of rockfill materials. Shear strength and compressibility of rockfill material need to be correctly evaluated/assessed in the design of rockfill structures. To arrive at meaningful rock properties, laboratory tests should simulate the field conditions as closely as possible. Since the rockfill in practice may consist of particles over a wide range, for property characterization triaxlaJ/oedometer specimens of formidable dimensions are needed. Because exhaustive testing of these specimens is not possible in many cases, techniques have been developed to evaluate the properties of the field rockfill materials on the basis of laboratory tests conducted on modeled material. In the process of relating smaller fractions to evaluate the properties of the field prototype materials, different modeling techniques, namely the scalping technique (Zeller and Wulliman 1957), modeling with parallel gradation (Lowe 1964 ), and quadratic grain distribution (Fumagalli 1969) have been adopted. In the attempts to shift the field gradation curve down to the laboratory scale,

many investigators have noticed that varying the maximum particle size does not influence the stress-strain characteristics, whereas a change in the gradation has a profound effect. Even Marachi et al. (1972) have shown that the frictional and deformational characteristics of assemblages of particles should not be size dependent, provided the contacts are not stressed beyond their elastic limits. Thus Marachi et al. (1972), Ramamurthy and Gupta (1980), and Venkatachalam (1993) have conducted detailed studies to study the effect of gradation on the strength and deformation characteristics of the rockfil1 material and have evolved a method for the prediction of field rockfill properties based on laboratory tests. However, one needs to carry out a large number of tests to be able to predict the actual strength of the field rockfill material, which may not be feasible all the time. The development of a simple method capable of predicting the volume change behavior of field rockfill material, subjected to isotropic and triaxial states of stress, with a sufficient degree of confidence is felt necessary and hence the present investigation.

Analysis

of the Data

From analysis of the laboratory tests, it is found that there exists a unique pattern of rock mass behavior when reckoned with respect to confining pressure and size of the specimen. Figure I shows the log-log plot of volumetric strain at the end of isotropic consolidation as a function of confining pressure for all maximum sizes for the three dam materials considered, viz., Ranjit Sagar dam material (Venkatachalam 1993), pyramid dam material (Marachi et al. 1972), and Ranganadi dam material (Venkatachalam 1993).

146

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL particle siu in the parallel gradation technique with minimum grain size the same is due mainly to a different initial fabric, which makes them behave differently under identical loading conditions. The fact that the failure strains increase with confining pressure for each of the dam materials and increase marginally with particle size indicates the possibility of two levels of normalization. The two levels of normalization are: one with respect to confining pressure and other with respect to maximum particle size. The reference values for these normalizations can be chosen in the range of values of Dmax and the confining pressures for a chosen material tested in the laboratory . I. In this study, a confining stress of 7 kg/cm2 is taken as a normalization parameter for most of the data, and using multiple regression analysis of the data for all diameters for a particular dam material, the resulting equation is of the form:

It may be noted that the strains at failure increase with increase in the confming pressure for each dam material and increase marginally with the m.1Ximum panicle size. A similar trend of results can be observed for axial strains at failure and strains due to shearing. Figure 2 pre~nts the log-log plot of the axial strains at failure at different confining pressures for the three different dam materials gathered from the literature, viz., Ranjit Sagar dam material and Tipaimukh dam material (Venkatachalam 1993) and pyramid dam material (Ma."3chi et al. 1972). Figure 3 presents the plots of total volumetric strains at failure for Ranjit Sagar dam, Ranganadi darn, and Tipaimukh dam materials (Venkatachalam 1993). It is interesting to note that the failure strains increase with an increase in confIning pressure and maximum panicle size. Nimbkar (1995\ carried out two-dimensional numerical experiments on disk assemblages with different panicle sizes and gradations using the discrete element modeling approach. The study explored the physi~ of exactly parallel gradation and parallel gradation with the same minimum grain size to study both the effects of panicle size and gradation. It has been shown that an increase in the size of the p:lrticles (in exactly parallel gradation) results in a marginal inc~ in the angle of internal friction and a volume change at any given confining pressure. However, a change in the gradation to a ~i.i:.r range keeping the minimum grain size the same results in a decrease in the angle of internal friction, and the change is even more significant with volume change characteristics. These trends of results are in conformity with the experimental results of Mara.:hi et al. ( 1972). From the above discussion, it is clear that the effect of maximum

e.. -= e..,
where

a + b log(a3)

+ c(Dmax)

(I)

Ev = volumetric

strain at the end of consolidation

for

confining pressure (0'3), Dmax = maximum particle size in mm, 0"3 = confining pressure, in kg/cm2, and a, b, c = constants that depend on the type of the material. Table I shows Coefficients a, b, and c for different dam materials arising out of the normalization as per Eq I. It may be noted that

Q/ L:I
a

a .= a LI/)
a .)(

101 I

81

S Confining FIG. 2-Plot of axial pressure strain

10 (~) confining in kPa

30
pressure.

versus

THALLAK

ET AL. ON BEHAVIOR

OF ROCKFILL

MATERIAL

147

8-

~ -

I I

c
0 L... III

.~

L... GI E ;:) 0

61

>
0

0 ..-

5 Confining
FIG. 3-Total volumetric

7 pressure
strain versus

tO (0'"3)
confining

20
in kPa
pressure.

T ABLE

l-Coefficients

a. b.

and

c for

different

dam

materials.

TABLE

2-Coefficients

al, bl, and Cl for

the difftrent

dam materials.

Material Ranjitsagar dam material pyramid dam material Ranganadi dam material

Coefficient, a
.111

Coefficient. b -0.055
-0.241

Coefficient. c
0.000001

EITOr of Estimate 1.43e-4

Material Ranjitsagar dam material pyramid dam material Ranganadi dam material

Coefficient, al

Coefficient, bl -0.001

Coefficient, Cl
-O.1XXJO4

Error of Estimate 2.58e-4

1.015
,006

.495 1.357

-0.000056
-0.000014

6.4Oe-3 8.70e-5

-0.005 0.0056

-O.1XXJO76
-0. (XX)()6 7

7.00e-3
7.00e-5

-0.184

1.006

in Eq 1 the volumetric strain ratios dependence on size of particles with reference to confining pressures is negligible. This is in agreement with the earlier works of Marachi et al. ( 1972). Thus, the last term in Eq I may be neglected and can be rewritten as:
~ ~ = a + b log(J"3)

E"D =

volumetric

strain for the specimen with

maximum size of D mm, E",., = volumetric strain for the specimen with maximum size of 25 mm, 0"3 = confining pressure in kg/cm2, :md al, b1, Cl = constants. Table 2 shows Coefficients al, b1, and Cl for the three dam materials. It may be noted further that the strain ratios, when expressed with respect to particle size, are confining pressure independent. This is indicated by the fact that the s..-condterm in Eq 2 becomes negligibly small after multiplication of coefficient b1 with log (J"3,and thus Eq 2 can be rewritten as:
Eva ,;". Eu,., al + cl(Dmax)

(la)

2. As discussed earlier, a Dmax of 25 mm is chosen as the normalization parameter for most of the data, and values of strains at failure for different maximum particle sizes are normalized v 'ith respect to strains for this size, which resulted in a functional relationship of the form:
~ Eu,., where = al + b1log(cr3) + cl(Dmax:

(2)
In the above equation,

(2a)
indicating

the value

of cJ is also small,

...

148

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

that the particle size effect is also insignificant. However, when compared to the second term in Eq 2, the contribution of a third term in Eq 2 is significant and thus retained in the equation. These normalizations enable us to predict, for each of the selected dam materials in this study, the values of volumetric strains at failure at any confining pressure and for any size, based on the value of ..volumetric strain arrived at by one test conducted on the modeled material of 25-mm size at a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2. Using the respective values of failure strains on a 25-mm specimen at 7 kg/cm2 confining pressure for the three dam materials in question, the predicted values of volumetric strains at other confining pressures and sizes are superposed on the experimental values in Fig. 4. It is interesting to note the close agreement between the experimental and predicted volumetric strains. These results indicate clearly that the frictional and deformational characteristics of rockfill materials are not size dependent provided the contact breakages are minimum. The behavior is due mainly to different initial packing of the rockfill materials of different gradations under identical confining pressures.

strength. and consequent particle breakage aspects at the contacts. Coefficients a and b, which encompass these parameters, are unique to a material. To predict the strength behavior of the prototype rockfill, for which no earlier test results are available. a simplified approach is proposed. It is proposed to derive Eq la for the material in question based on the results of two tests on the modeled laboratory specimens of any size at two confining pressures, instead of one test. Figures Sa and Sb depict the development of the two-test approach. If 0"1 is the confining pressure with respect to which nonnalizations is to be carried out, and 0"2 is any other confining pressure, then slope (b) and intercept (a) of Eq la can be written as follows (refer to Fig. Sa):

F F F

3a)
a = 1 -b IOg(O"I)

(3b)
for two

\
tl o v. si aI a

Further. by deriving

the variation

of strains

with

size may be accounted out on specimens as (refer with

Eq 2a by two tests carried pressure. for Eq 2a may be written

Simplified

Approach

sizes at the same confining (a I) values

The slope ( b I) and intercept to Fig. 5b ).

In this analysis, the behavior of each material and hence the corresponding equations obtained are distinctly different for each material. It may be enunciated that the initial state of the rock mass and its subsequent response to stress is a complicated function of many parameters such as particle shape, orientation of the particles,

IOg(E,,)D2bl = iOg(E:>;;; -D-;Dl

(4a)

T, Vi

.~

~-

I ~--~-

THALLAK

ET AL. ON BEHAVIOR

OF ROCKFILL

MATERIAL

149

1. a

a
r3}1

(03)2
Log (OJ)
.

FIG. Sa. Variations of strains with confining pressure.

It)

D, Specimen FIG. SbVariations of strains with size maximum

02
particle size.

TABLE

3-The

va/ues

of Coefficients materia/.

a and

bfor

different

dam

TABLE

4-The

values

of Coefficients material.

al and Cl for

different

dam

Coefficient,

c I

-0.00033 -0.00066 -0.00193

a'

bl(D!

(4b)

Validation

of Simplified

Approach

To verif~ the validity of the simplified approach in arriving at the values of slope and intercept of Eq la, the experimental values of volumetric strains at 7 and 14 kg/cm2 for the 25-mm sample were used. Further, for deri\ing Eq 2a, the experimental values of strains for 25 and 50-mm sizes at a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used. The resulting values of Coefficients a and b as well as al and Cl for each of the materials considered are tabulated in Table 3 and Table 4, respecri\"ely. Figure 6 shows the predicted values of failure strains by the simplified approach against the

experimental values. The close agreement between the predicted and experimental values indicates the validity of the approach. Analysis on similar lines for axial strains and total volumetric strains yields equations for the prediction of the same with single input test data. The corresponding coefficients for the resulting equations are not presented due to space constraints. However, the predicted values of failure strains in each case are presented in Tables 5 through 10. The three values lifted in Tables 5 through 10 under each confining pressure and size refer to the experimental values, the predicted values by regression analysis of each data individually, and by the simplified approach, respectively. It is interesting to note the close agreement between experimental results and predicted values. It is also interesting to note that the simplified approach, which reduces the number of laboratory tests

150

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 6-Plots approach.

of volumetric strain due to isotropic

consolidation

versus confining pressure-experimental

data and predictions

by the simplified

TABLE

5-Total

strains

at failure:

Ranjit

Sagar

dam

material.

TABLE

6-Total

strains

at failure:

Tipaimukh

dam

material.

Confining

Pressure, Kg/cm2 11.0 14.0 O.OS17G O.OS16b O.OS22c

Size,mrn

Confining 3.5

Pressure, Kg/cm2

Size. mm
10

3.5

7.0 0.0489 0.0485 0.0493 0.0508

7.0 0.0531

11.0 0.0556 0.0566 0.0565 0.0600 0.0592 0.0594 0.0623 0.0624 0.0630

14.0
0.0582" 0.0582b 0.0583'

0.0457 0.0461 0.0462 0.0482 0.0478 0.0477 0.0503 0.0507 0.0503 0.0536 0.0541 0.0537

0.0511 0.0502 0.0509 0.0525 0.0525 0.0527

0.0552 0.0552 0.0553

25

0.0490 0.0498 0.0485 0.053 0.0532 0.0525 0.0556 0.0561 0.0548

25

0.0540 0.0536 0.0538 0.0563 0.0567 0.0567 0.0600 0.0610 0.0602

50

0.0572 0.0566 0.0559

0.0596 0.0597 0.0593

0.0621 0.0619 0.0613

50

0.0538 0.0535 0.0535 0.0570 0.0574 0.0570

80

0.0633 0.0652 0.0649

80

0.0593 0.0592 0.0589

NOTE: Values at a maximum particle size of 25 mm and a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. a Experimental. b Predicted by regression. " Predicted by simplified technique.

NOTE: Values at a maximum particle size of 25 mm and a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. QExperimental. b Predicted by regression. c Predicted by simplified technique.

THALLAK ET AL. ON BEHAVIOR OF ROCKFILL MATERIAL

T ABLE 7-Total strains at failure: Ranganadi dam material. TABLE IO-Axial strains at failure: Confining p)'ramid Pressure, dam Kg/cm2 material.

151

Confining

Pressure, Kg/cm2

Size, mm
25

4.0
0.0572

6.0 0.0674 0.0685 0.0692 0.071 0.072 0.073 0.0760 0.0762 0.0770

7.0 0.0735 0.0746 0.0749 0.0778 0.0772 0.0705 0.0811 0.0815 0.0820

8.0 0.0795" 0.0783b 0.0794" 0.0847 0.0834 0.0835 0.0861 0.0866 0.0878

Size, mm
12

7.0
0.115 0.114 0.115

14.0 0.135 0.137 0.138 0.160 0.159 0.149 0.175 0.176 0.175

21.0

30.0
0.170"' 0.164b 0.170'"

0.160 0.152 0.155 0.175 0.175 0.171

0.190 0.192 0.194

50

0.0604 0.0598 0.0605 0.064 0.0635 0.0648

50

0.135

0.180 0.189 0.181

0.200 0.207 0.210

80

150

0.1500 0.1504 0.1490

NOTE: Values at a maximum particle size of 25 mm and a confining pressure of 4 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. a Experimental. b Predicted by regression. c Predicted by simplified technique.

NOTE: Values at a maximum particle size of 50 mm and a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. a Experimental. b Predicted by regression. c Predicted by simplified technique.

T ABLE

S-Axial

strains

at failure:

Ranjit

Sagar

dam material.

for the prediction of rock mass behavior, is valid and can be used with confidence.
14

Confining

Pressure. Kg/cm2
II

Size. mm
10

3.5

7.0 0.0800 0.0813 0.0823 0.085

Conclusions Examination of the experimental data of the modeled rockfill materials from different sites revealed that the plots of logarithm of strain at failure against logarithm of confining pressure are linear and that strain at failure increases with increase in confining pressure and maximum particle size. The simplified approach highlightS the prediction of volume compressibility of rockfill materials subjected to isotropic and triaxial state of stress over a range of confining pressures and particle sizes based on the results of only two tests carried out at two different confining pressures with the use of the parallel gradation technique. A two-test approach and its application in engineering design of rockfill materials is illustrated by means of selected experimental data available in the literature. The data available for evolving the generalized equations are very limited. hence more work needs to be initiated in this direction, and an attempt towards generali.zation of the bulk behavior with respect to confining pressure and maximum particle size needs to be explored.

0.0700 0.0710 0.0705 0.0750 0.0745 0.0730 0.0800 0.0788 0.0767

0.090 0.086 0.082

0.0850 0.0879 0.0870

0.090 0.0918 0.0940

0.095" 0.092b 0.097"

0.100 0.096 0.100

25

50

0.090 0.089 0.089 0.0950 0.0966 0.0945

0.095 0.0967 0.098 0.105 0.104 0.104

0.105 0.101 0.104

0.110 0.108 0.110

80

NoTE: Values at a maximum particle size of 25 mm and a confining pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. a Experimental. b Predicted by regression. ..Predicted by simplified technique.

T ABLE

9-Axia/

stains

at fai/ure:

Tipaimukh

dam

materia/.

References Fumagalli, E., 1969, "Tests on Cohesionless Materials for Rockfill Darns," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SMl, pp. 313-332. Gupta, K. K, Rarnarnurthy, T., and Venkatachalarn, K., 1995, "StressStrain Response and Volume Changes of Rockfills," Proceedings. Water & Energy 2001, International R&D Conference, 1995, New Delhi, India. pp. 416-427. Leslie, D. E., 1963, "Large Scale Triaxial Tests on Gravelly Soils," Proceedings, Second Pan Am Conference on Soil Mechanics'and Foundation Engineering, University of South Wales, pp. 181-202 Lewis, J. G., 1956, "Shear Strength of Rockfill," Proceedings. Second AusIralia-New Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, University of South Wales, pp. 50-52. Lowe. John III., 1964, ' 'Shear Strength of Coarse Embankrnent Darn Materials," P-oceedings. Eighth Congress on Large Dams, R. 11 Q. 31, Purdue University, Canberra, Australia. West Lafayette, IN, pp. 745-761. Marachi, N. D, Chan. C. K., and Seed, H. B.. 1972, "Evaluation of Properties of Rockfill Materials," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division. ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SMl, pp. 95-114. Marsal, R. J., 1967, "Large Scale Testing of Rockfill Materials," Journal

Confining

Pressure, Kg/cm2 11.0 14.0

0.090"' 0.089b 0.090c

Size, mm
25

3.5

7.0 0.080

0.0750 0.0748 0.0712 0.0800 0.0791 0.0760

0.085 0.086 0.086 0.0900 0.0907 0.0942 0.0950 0.0960 0.0945

0.0850 0.0845 0.0840

0.0950 0.0938 0.0942

0.100 0.099 0.099
and a confining

80

0.0850 0.0842 0.0790

0.090 0.08.9 0.089

NOTE: Values at a maximum panicle size of 25 mm pressure of 7 kg/cm2 are used as reference values. a Experimental. b Predicted " Predicted by regression. by simplified technique.

152

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

of Rockfill Materials," Proceedings, Third Australia -New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 13-18. Venkatachalam, K.; 1993, "Prediction of Mechanical Behaviour of Rockfill Materials," Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, UT, Delhi, India. Zeller, I. and Wulliman, R., 1957, "The Shear Strength of the Shell Material for the Goschenenalp Dam, Switzerland,' , Proceedings 1957, FoUnb Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 399-404. Vol. 2, pp.

of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM2, pp. 27-43. Marsal, R. J., 1973. ..Mechanical Properties of Rockfill," Embankment Dam Engineering. Casagrande Volume, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 109. Nimbkar, M., 1995. ..Constitutive Behaviour of Coarse Grained Soils: A Discrete Element Approach, ., M.Sc. (Engg.) thesis submitted to the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. Ramamurthy, T. and Gupta, K. K., 1980, ..Prediction of the Behaviour

-1

J.

j I