i ' i i SM 1 DISCUSSION 349 grain sizes aregrayto varicolored, and uniform textured to alternate textured, Use of the classification as proposed by Underwood would leave them essen- tially unrecognized. E. B. Burwell, Jr., former Chief Geologist of the Corps of Engineers, helped thewriter in 1936-1937 to classify and subsequently ciefine the foundation conditions of numerous damsites in these rocks by suggesting that these shales be distinguished on the basis of grain size, as observed on the freshly broken surface of the rock. This was a criterion which Burwell had used successfully in the Zanesville Distriet probably as early as 1934, ‘Thus, the fine grained nonlightreflecting surface was designated as clay shale, The infrequently reflecting coarser grained surface was designated as a silt shale and the surface with grains, most of which reflected light, was designated as a sandy shale. Because of the great utility of classification based on grain size or texture, it is believed that the grain size characteristics should be extended into the “rock-like” shale onthe basis of fundamental need and long time usage in classification, ‘The need for recognition of the “soil-like” versus “rock-like* difference would be very well met by designating the “soil-like” shales as subshales as Shrock’ has done. They are a generally different type of rock than the “rock- like" shales and as sugh deserve a recognizably different name but one which is still close enough to the old name so that it is understandable and easily remembered, Therefore, the name subshale is formally proposed for the “soil-like” shales, ‘The source of certain data in Table 2, column 11, attributed to the Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District is in fact the Ohio River Division Laborato ries, Mariemont, Cincinnati, 0, DRAINED STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF SANDS* Discussions by Rail J. Marsal, and P. W. Rowe and Laing Barden RAUL J. MARSAL,” F. ASCE.—The comprehensive research presented by Lee and Seed is a valuable contribution to the study of granular soils. It 1s worth noting the parallelism in the behavior of sands tested at high confining pressures and that of rockfill materials are reported by the writer (2). Based on working hypotheses briefly discussed later herein, the drained shear strength of sands will be analyzed, This is an altemgt to explainthe complex phenomena of the statistical nature underlying the behavior of cohesionless soils, ‘Assume that; (1) Thetangential and normal forces, 7) and Nj, ou any grain qaNovember, 1967, by Kenneth L. Lee ané H. Bolton Seed (Proc. Paper 6561). Research Prof., Instituto de Ingenier(a, UNAM, México.30 January, 1969 SM 1 contact must verify Tj fNj, f being a statistical property of the granular soil (this is Coulomb’s hypothesis applied to particle contacts); and (2) the material fails along the average path followed by the grains near failure [this path does not necessarily coincide with the plane for which the inclination of the resultant stress is maximum (Mohr’s criterion)]. 160, Sacramento River Sand] rial vols ratio = 0.8% | | trinsic shecrstranat Strength curve eran ny fi [ ] ZA & > RC I .% Ti 3} 100 £ '6C)Sccramento River Sond] —] sd Initiol void ratio # 0,87 4 fe cuit, ad Kae NC Ae mse_soecinens ssiem?| gine | dooees| hain 30] 880] ea] erz] 20 tos | 425] 219] 649] 127 200| 395] 396] 6x2 | 200 40.1 | 3.30 70.8] sea} «or w20.0 | 3.40] 216.0] 529} 120.0 a] 7 FIG, 25,~STRENGTH CURVES AND INTRINSIC SHEAR STRENGTH OF SACRAMENTO RIVER SAND The first invariant of stresses, I, = 0, + dy + Gz = 30g, is proportional to average normal contact force N; the relationship between mean normal stress og and N is given by we 4:52, S2bitg Ne RE cree Hla 14 Fatt ++ @) the num- in which N, = the average number of contacts per particle; and ber of grains cut by a plane, per unit of total area (1). Then, the intrinsicSM 1 DISCUSSION: 351 shear strength of the granular soil may be expressed R= fo 1) ‘This strength is produced by sliding friction, has the direction of the grain paths, and opposes the action of shear forces along said paths. Assumptions Land 2 plus Eq. 7 are the set of. working hypotheses. Measurements in plane straintests with discs have shown that the average inclination, 6, of paths to the major principal plane is related to Poisson’s ratio. Failure occurs when t, = f dg, in which Ty = the shear stress ina plane at angle &. Therefore, T) = (1/2) (9, ~ ¢,) sin (7 - 26). By expressing 68 Secramente River Sond © Dense specimens,e, * 0.61 Loose specmens,e, 0.87 65|— t i Angle @ in degrees 55. fat 54 FIG, 26.—PRINCIPAL STRESS RATIO VERSUS ANGLE @ (Note: Values of 9 were oom- puted using Eq. 7. Numbers attached to points correspond to those used for Mohr's circles of Fig. 25.) 79 and 0, interms of principal stress ratio 7 = 0,/0, at failure, it follows that rel _2 f r+2° 3 sin - wy For constant volume tests, @ is an invariant and equal to 63.5°. Conse- quently, the principal stress ratio is also constant. This conclusion agrees with the experimental fact reported by the authors in Fig. 19(a) for Sacramento River sand, the angle of friction, » = 37°. By means of constant value triaxial tests, itis possibleto compute the value (@) rok pal ee ee +7)cha neeiinaieanntii nite titi caidas ata 352 January, 1969 SM 1 For Sacramento River sand, y = 4.0, therefore, f = 0.60. Based on data presented in Figs. 3 and 4 values of the intrinsic shear strength R for Sacramento River sand were estimated and points of the strength curve determined (see Fig. 25). These points connected with the center of corresponding Mohr circles permit the measurement of angles 8, which ac- cording to hypotheses set before, arethe average inclination of particle paths at failure. Values of @ varyfrom 67° to 56° for specimens placed at e; = 0.61, and from 60° to 85° for those having an initial void ratio of 0.87 (see Fig. 26). Further studies have to be made to predict the dependence of @ upon the soil grading and its transformation during the loading process, the void ratio and the stress level. It appears that an experimental relationship like the one plotted in Fig, 26 for Sacramento River sand, may exist for each material. Note that @ = 7/4 for o,/a, = 3.0, which seemsto be a limiting value of 9,/c, for this sand, However, values of @ > 68° are not expected sinceo,/c, < 5.0 (see Fig, 10). ‘The working hypothesis proposed hereinpermits the presentation of the fol- lowing remarks: 1. ‘The shed strength, s, ofa granular materialis given by the stress curve defined by points 1, 2, 3, ete., in Fig. 25, In general, this curve will be close to the Mohr’s envelope. ‘The straight line inclined an angle ) = arc tan f, is the lower boundof s; this represents the intrinsic shear strength that develops in the soil, in terms of the average applied normal stress, 04. 2. The intrinsic shear strength is provided by sliding friction along the grain paths, Dilatancy, particle crushing, and rearranging are factors that influence the grain paths by modifying the solid skeleton and its gradation. They also imply signifigant variations in the stress-strain behavior of the soil, since energy is required to relocate and break particles, besides that demanded by grain friction. 3. Constant volume triaxial tests comply with Mohr-Coulomb theory, al- though the angle of the envelope, 9, does not coincide with the average value, }, of interparticle friction, ‘To compare results obtained with different types of triaxial tests (compression, extension, plane strain), both the mean normal pressure and the average grain path at failure must be taken into account. 4. To explain the peak and residual strength that occur in dense granular soils tested under low confining pressures, it has to be recognized that slip planes develop after reaching the peak strength. Up to this stress level, grain paths are connected to Poisson's ratio, A collapse of the grain skeleton inthe zone of the slip plane takes place alterwards, due to a critical reduction in the number of contacts of particles involved, From this moment onwards, the specimen strength depends on the grain paths in the slip zone. For practical applications, a method will be required todetermine the flow pattern of grains inthe prototype and to estimate the average normal stresses, Appendix. —References. 1, Marsal, Radi J., "Comtuct Forces in Soil and Rockfill Materials," Proceedings of the 2nd Pau American Conference on Soil Mechanics, Brazil, 1963, 2. Marsal, Rail J., “Large Seale Testing of Rockfill Materials,” ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanies and Foundations Division, No. SM2, Proc. Paper $128, March, 1967.M1 DISCUSSION 353 P. W. ROWE* AND LAING BARDEN.**—The authors are to be congratulated ontheir comprehensive study of sands in the drained state over an exceptionally wide range of pressure. The authors have referred to the work of Casagrande® and state that, “He defineda critical void ratio to describe the particular state of density at which a sand will shear with no volume changes and he further demonstratec® that the critical void ratio decreases as the confining pressure acting on the sand is increased.” ‘They later describe a“more direct approach to determine the strength characteristics of the sand under essentially constant volume conditions® in which by trial they find an initial cell pressure 0,,, which for a chosen void ratio after consolidation e, causes a zero over-all volume change at pt ceviator stress in a drained triaxial compression test. ‘They add, “by definition the void ratio ¢, is also the critical void ratio for this sample tested at this confining pressure.” No clear distinction is made between the two types of critical void ratio as proposed by Casagrande.* Referringtothe stress-strain curve for a drained FIG, 27.-R VERSUS « FIG. 28.—~COMPARISON OF CRITICAL vorps RATIOS direct shear test on a dense sand he wrote’ “the shearing stress reaches a maximum Sp . . . and if the deformation is continued the shearing stress drops again to a smaller value Sy, at which value itremains constant forall further displacement. During thisdropin shearing stressthe sand continues to expand : finally reaching a critical density at which continuous deformation is pos- sible at the constant shearing stress S;.” He also wrote, “the curves repre- senting volume changes during shearing tests on material inthe dense anc the loose state must meet at the critical density when the stationary condition is established.” ‘Owingto the experimental difficulty in reaching the critical voids ratio state, Casagrande later introduced an arbitrary definition of the “Lower Critical Void Ratio” which is associated with zero over-all volume change at peak de- viator stress and he found that this decreases with increase in confining pres- sure. This lower ratio provided a conservative estimate of the true critical prof, of Soll Mech., Univ. of Manchester, Manchester, England. * Senior Lecturer, Untv. of Manchester, Manchester, England.354 January, 1969 sM1 void ratio in the sense that sands compacted to the lower critical void ratio would still be safe against liquefaction, Taylor’ includes several definitions of critical void ratio but where in par- ticular he refers to the “Casagrande critical void ratio” he refers in fact to the “Lower Critical Void Ratio.” ‘The data in Figs.13, 15, 17 indicate that the authors have used the “Lower Critical Void Ratio,” following Taylor. They imply recognition of the dif- ference between this and thetrue Critical Void Ratioby the adoption of theterm “shearing strength in drained tests at essentially constant volume.” Although Casagrande appreciated that the critical void ratio was dependent upon the applied pressure, it was the Cambridge school that demonstrated a unique relationship between voids ratio and pressure in the critical state (4) ‘Thewriters reserve the term critical voids statefor the original Casagrande definition of deformation at constant shear stress and constant volume and ac- cept the unique voids ratio-pressure concept by Roscoe and his colleagues. For clarity inthe following discussion it is necessary first to consider the significance of the difference between “essentially constant volume” and“actual constant volume?, at the “Lower” and “True” critical void ratio respectively. FIG. 29.-COMPARISON OF FIG. 30.—CONSTANT VOL- RVERSUS ¢ UME TEST The relation between the voids ratio and pressure in Fig. 13 refers to samples which show no over-all volume change from the start of the test to the failure point in that drained test, and which are.in fact still dilating at the peak, as shown in Fig. 27. [fat point C, where AV = 0, the test were to be continued at constant volume with du = 0 af all further stages, maintaining the same void ratio eg, pressures a would have to be raised. Ultimately the true critical voids ratio state would be achieved with no further change in shear strength, or change in effective stress ratio with strain and 9, > ,¢ would then be on the critical state line (Fig. 28). The authors’ [Fig. 13(c)] 9, relation must be, therefore, to the left of the true critical state line. For a chosen constant cell pressure in adrained test Fig.28 shows that the true critical voids ratio ishigher thanthat given by the authors. If this higher voids ratio is chosen and 2 drained test is run, curves (2) of Fig. 29 would be obtained in place of curves (1) of the authors’ procedure. The stress ratio at failure would be Ke, = tan? (45 + $¢o/2), in which ¢¢y = the Coulomb angle associated with the critical state. From Fig. 8, for sand in the loose state, this would appear to be about $4°, Fig. 13 shows.¢ = 37° at point P, whichSM 1 DISCUSSION 355 would be expected to be several degrees higher as the critical state had not been achieved. Taylor" (see page 354) defined the critical voids ratio as that “at which pre- vention of volume change leads to no strength change” and oy Eon o Halesnceceleinneetes KAO) d(o, - 0) _ doz aR idler Tay if aE Te ae, & + de" . + (a) By strength Taylor meant failure strength and at fatlure alo, - @) Ae, = 25) We ol u ++ (12) ao} aR 853 ip. ea and ae ® H+ if ed ate @ lites id sit ee ate oie! ead} One special condition is when ao ak Ger and FE=0.. Me besreeveteiuaclel M4) which occurs at the critical state point (Fig. 29). Inthe authors’ special drained test condition, dR/de, = 0, but doj/de, + 0 if volume change at the peak were to be prevented. At the same time Taylor’ (see page 357, Table 14.1) has referred to other forms of critical void ratio which appear to conform more closely with that adopted by the authors when they state that “the void ratio e, = 0,584 is also the critical void ratio.” Some clarification is required for the meaning of the term “the critical void ratio.” In seeking a relation between the Coulomb strength parameter in the case of the constant cell pressure and constant volume tests use has been made of the Bishop and Rowe energy equations. It appears to have been appreciated by the authors that these equations were not contradictory to one another, and that their use leads to modified values denoted by gy, and $y, respectively, which have different meanings. Reference (3) was also made to the work of Bishop and Eldin who deron- strated a close experimental agreement between theangledenoted then by and now by ¢" and the modified drained angle denoted by ¢4,. The present in- vestigation supports existing knowledge but the authors pursued the question as to whether ¢, might indicate the value of 9" in an undrained test. The writershave shown™ that $y < ¢g, atstates other than the critical and, therefore, angle gy cannot equal ¢'/(as evidenced by the test data), but never- theless tite Rowe equation has a proper place in the correlation sought by the authors. However, that correlation constitutes a small part of the total prob- lem associated with the prediction of undrained strength from drained test data. ‘To explain these statements it is convenient first to mentionthe relevant con- ditions associated with the Bishop and Rowe equations before considering how these could be applied to interpret the test data, Bishop Equation.—Bishop* derived the energy equation for a ‘drained tri- axial compression test in which the cell pressure is held constant during the test” and considered the work done during a small increment of strain“ oc- curring at failure.” At this stress point the principal effective stress sum356 January, 1969 sM1 remains constant. When Bishop and Eldin compared 9, obtained this way with ym (0) they included a footnote that “the relation of shear strain to axial strain differs in the two tests owing to dilatancy and exact agreement cannot be expected.” Rowe Equation.—The writers applied this equationto a sandelement at any point on a stress path with the proviso that the incremental volume change referstothe dilatancy component, du, due to interparticle slips," as distinct trom the “ elastic” component du,, During a stress path subject to increasing stress ratio dug is negligible but under a constant stress ratio path, with large increments of mean principal stress, dv, is by no means negligible. In an undrained test av = Y (dv, + due) but in general dv, ¥ 0. ‘The same applies to adrained sand failing at the authors’ critical yold ratio. At failure, whereas AV = 0 from the origin, the slope of the volume change curve at the instant of failure, which in this case is du,/dé,_ (as eo 0) > 0, Both the Bishop and the Rowe equations when applied to this special drained strength, as inthe case of any drained test, would give reduced ¢ values such that for sands in a dilatancy state a Be secede MAS as vee (18) This condition is not the same as that of a sand test at constant volume throughout its stress path, Thereis a danger of confusion between the following “constant volume” and “critical void ratio” conditions: 04 > Sar > Of ors 1, Shear at constant stress level and constant volume with zero volume change rate dV,/d¢, as at large strains in a perfectly run drained test giving eu in which cv is sometimes considered to stand for either constant volume oF eritical voids. 2, Shear at increasing stress level at constant volume, to a peak effective stress ratio or a peak deviator stress as in an undrained test of a saturated sand having an inextensible pore fluid, in which du,/de,, > 0 but dv/de, = 0 and which results in ¢' 2 ¢¢y. 3. Shear at constant cell pressure ina drained test at the instant where the total volume change from the origin is zero and the peak deviator stress is reached but the volume change rate dv,/de, = dv/de, > 0 givinga special 04 value, which one might call ggy9- fil The writers reserve the term critical voids state for condition 1. For the high pressure tests conducted by the authors or for failure at large strains the Rowe equation should yield 9y = Oc, (€.8., ¥ey = 34° from the slope of the lowest line in Fig. 14), In general, apart from condition 1 taco: 815 bau | sfoceoertpeld eM seed MIE SUEY Comparing Eqs. 16 and 17, it is clear that, gy. being a special case of 94, 9" then might be a special case of 94,, both < dgyo and > Of = Sow Avery narrow range. For example, from Fig. 13, ¢gyo = 37°, and from Fig. 14, oy = 94°. Both gg, and ¢' must be < 37° and > 34° and g' = 36° is recorded.$$$ iit. sM1 DISCUSSION 387 Inthe writers? opinion, 9" associated with the peakeffective stress ratio in the constant volume test 2 is only equal to ¢4, deduced from a type 3 test ona sample at the same void ratio, provided the state of the sandand therefore the value of gy is independent of the previous stress path. Following the writers’ notation with all strains positive in compression and rewriting the basic energy equationto include for a change in cell pressure do} during a small increment of strain de, Hy @! de, + F dof de, + 2 0 de + doy de = dw (oj ~ a), de, , (28) or (eh a) + of BE + Fatal - 01) + F aay 2» (ot - apy is obtained. If do} = 0 and a(o, - 0,) = 0 Bishop's equation is obtained. How- ever, the previous energy balance is also valid at all stages of a stress path and as the applied strain increment tends to zero at a given stress point the equation tends to (0} - 03) + 03 (dv/de,) = (, - Oy. For the special con- dition, dv/de, = 0 the measured value (0, - ¢,) at all times equals (0, - %),. i In the previous energy balance the components du and de, refer to total ©) increments, namely to ship plus elastic strains. Under the special condition of do} = Oat peak as stipulated by Bishop, dv = dug, but this is not a neces- ' sary condition. It is of interest to compare the behavior ofa sampleduring adv = 0 stress path condition 2 with that in a corresponding drained test at the same stress level, condition 3, when v = 0. In a constant volume test 2, Fig. 30, move along path abc in an imaginary infinite series of small dilatant steps dv, followed by a cell pressure increased do, leading to dv, = -dv, whereas in test type 3 move along path ade. It will be assumed that the state of the element is iden- tical at c independent of the path. The sample at ¢ is tending to dilate at rate dv,/de,, in test 2 and actually dilates by du /de,, in test 8. In test 2 imagine that dilatancy du, is allowed and then suppressed by an increased do, leading tovdv, (as it is imaginary there is no energy loss due to reversal of friction forces). Since o,4v, = -0,dv,, the work done by the sample on the surrounding, fluid is put back into the sample. It is the same work done if the state of the sample at c isthe same inthetwo cases. Whether dilatancy is allowed and the work done is calculated and deducted from the total, or whether the energy expended is put back by raising the cell pressure makes no difference to the effective stress ratio for that given state when no volume change actually oc- curs. Writing ta (48 - $) nan undzatne te Ray = tan? (3 + 4) 2 Rayo ~ tas* (45 + *2) in constant volume drained rest sy tat (48 + $) maratne teat iva Fev taat (45 4 ) p(s B)358 January, 1969 SM 1 Rowe's equation gives R = D K at the peak of a drained test and for special reasons in an undrained test, ¢y = 9¢y as shown by the authors and Le yore Datat Boul pvetrerestnatlcticldis lal fiele Malaita ol slantitett C0) ‘Then, according to Bishop Rar = Ravo + (1 - Davo) ++ : seeee sees eedies QI) According to the writers, assuming path independence Rag wR oes ueeaatis « Ae bee (aj In which R= Rayo + (1- Dayo) s+ + Es. @s) Eliminating Dgyo from Eqs. 20 and 23 R : Hd RBM RE HBRTT Ly 1 = Ravs (1 - Es)? 1 Thus substituting $j, = 37 and ¢,y = 34 gives R' = 3.9 giving 9' = 36.3 compared with 36° reported, On page 129 the authors state, “The Bishop and Rowe expressions for dija- tancy effects provide one method of estimating the effective angle of internal frietion for conditions of shear at constant volume.” Thereafter, the authors appear to have treated the equations as providing two alternative methods but Eq. 24 provides a singular correlation involving the use of both these expres- sions. If it can be contended that the sand state at point C is different after the two stress paths it must remain that Eq. 24 provides a very close state- ment of R! interms of the basic parametric K,, whose value under these con- ditions should equal that at the critical volds state. The excellent prediction of the undrained strength from drained tests proves the consistency of the testing technique and indicates the insensitive influence of stress path. However, the correlation between R' and Ryyo is a necessary but minor step in the actual problem of the prediction of undrained strength. Given two identical samples both consolidated at the same cell pressure and the one tested to failure drained and the other undrained, it is necessary to predict or know the influence of pressure increase onthe peak effective stress Tatio. In addition, the actual increases in cell pressure to suppress dilatancy depend on the compressibility properties of the sample. Itis necessary to turn to the separation of the components du, and du, and the laws governing their variation under various stress systems. This is true also for a more funda mental development of Eq. 24. For example ina constant volume test dog + dug = 0 ate 2, te a ae, ae, ° ' Using Rowe’s equation du, Ravo (: i) Kev (26) Eliminating Rgyo from Eq. 24sM1 DISCUSSION 359 1 1 dv wa( aga) tes (1+ Be) oa Ri = Key + 22 (Key = 1) Now de, = de, + de, in which de, = principal strain increment due to in- terparticle slips; and de, = principal strain increment due to elastic strain ‘Therefore f HPSHEeT 1 Experiments showthat the ratio du,/de,, < 3 at the peak. However, the value of R'is dominated by the fundamental Kz, value as determined from stress dilatancy, and by the ratio of de, /d@,,, namely by the ratio of the compress- Iility of the sample with respect to particle slips de, /odR tothe compress- ibility with respect to elastic compression d¢,, /o,dR. As the ratio de, /de,, must be large at the peak, (ina drained test at the peak it would be infinite), R" could not greatly exceed Key. Appendix, References. 3.Seed, Bolton H., and Lee, K. L., “Undrained Strength Churucteristies of Cohesionless Suil," ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundaiions Division, Vol. 93, SM6, November 1967, pp. 333 360. 4. Schofield, A. N., and Togrol, E., "Cusagrande’s Concept of Critical Density, Hvorslev's Equa tion for Shear Strength, and the Cambridge Concept of Critical States of Soil,” Bulletin of the Technical University of Istanbul, Vol. 19, 1966.