Direct Shear Testing On A Rockfill Material

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237664736
Direct shear testing on a rockfill material
Article in ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING October 2009
CITATIONS READS
20 604
2 authors, including:
Abbas Soroush
Amirkabir University of Technology
73 PUBLICATIONS 328 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reliability assessment of slopes View project
Numerical Analysis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abbas Soroush on 14 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mozhgan Asadzadeh and Abbas Soroush
DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ON A ROCKFILL MATERIAL

Mozhgan Asadzadeh
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Tehran, Iran
m.asadzadeh@aut.ac.ir
and
*Abbas Soroush
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Tehran, Iran
soroush@aut.ac.ir
:

.
.
.
- )
( . .
) (triaxial
). (triaxial
*Corresponding author:
Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., Amirkabir University of Technology
No. 424, Hafez Ave., Tehran, Iran
P.O.Box: 15875-4413,
Tel. +98 (21) 64543009; Fax: +98 (21) 66414213
E-mail: Soroush@aut.ac.ir
Classification: Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Material Behavior
Paper Received January 29, 2009; Paper Revised April 18, 2009; Paper Accepted May 27, 2009
October 2009 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 2B 379
ABSTRACT
In order to investigate the possible effects of two main factors (stress level and wetting) on a rockfill material, a
number of medium-scale direct shear tests have been conducted with different stress levels in dry, saturated, and dry-
saturated conditions. The results suggest that despite the similar trend of the strength and stiffness parameters related
to the stress level in the three conditions, wetting decreases the strength and stiffness parameters of the material. In
addition, the results of the dry-saturated tests showed that saturation of the dry specimens (modeling the first
impounding of dry-constructed rockfill dams) decreases shear stresses and imposes sudden settlements on the
material. This phenomenon is named saturation collapse in the literature. In addition, a comparison of the tests
results with the results of the triaxial tests conducted on the same material indicates comparatively higher predictions
by the direct shear tests.
Key words: direct shear test, rockfill material, shear strength, normal stress level, saturation collapse, particle
breakage
380 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 2B October 2009
DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ON A ROCKFILL MATERIAL
1. INTRODUCTION
The vast application of rockfill materials in geotechnical engineering, as in rockfill dams, makes the precise
knowledge of the behavior of these materials indispensable. Testing large sizes of prototype rockfill materials is
difficult and expensive. Therefore, to conduct a feasible test, the size of these materials must be scaled down. For
this purpose, two major points should be considered: 1) determination of the maximum particle size, and 2) selection
of a proper gradation modeling technique. In a laboratory specimen, the maximum particle size (d) is determined
according to the minimum dimension of the specimen (D). For materials with broad gradations, D/d=4 [1] and for
materials with narrow gradations, D/d=6 [2] are proposed. The specimen gradation can be selected by one of the four
modeling techniques: scalping [3], parallel gradation [4], quadratic grain-size distribution [5], and replacement
technique [6].
Laboratory tests have shown that the behavior of rockfill materials depends on a variety of factors such as stress
level, void ratio, gradation, amount of fine particles , maximum grain size, moisture content, mineral composition,
and particle shape. As the stress level increases, dilation and compressibility decrease [7,8]. whereas initial
settlement and creep rate increase [9]. Failure envelopes of rockfill materials are usually non-linear, for which
particle breakage is responsible [2]. The breakage, depending on the individual particles specifications, can occur
even at relatively low stresses. Several factors responsible for the amount of particle breakage are proposed: stress
level, stress path, particle size, relative density, particle angularity, mineral hardness, and water presence [10]. The
particle breakage increases as the stress level increases [5].
Saturation degrades the strength parameters and deformation modulii of rockfill materials [11,12]. This
degradation is due to (1) weakening of particles leading to their breakage [8], and lubrication effects of water which
acts on the grain-to-grain contacts [13,14].
It is evident in the literature that large-scale laboratory tests such as triaxial, plane strain, direct shear, and
odometer tests have been employed for studying the behavior of rockfill materials. In this paper, the main focus is on
the saturation collapse phenomenon. For this purpose, a medium-scale direct shear apparatus is employed and
several tests are conducted on dry, saturated, and dry-saturated specimens of a rockfill material. In the dry-saturated
tests, the materials are compacted dry and subjected to normal stress and sheared; then, they are saturated in a
specific shear stress level and thereafter shearing is continued. Having considered the effect of normal stress level,
most of the tests were conducted with five different normal stress levels. The results of the dry and saturated tests
were compared together to probe the effects of stress level and wetting. Furthermore, the results of the saturated tests
were compared with the results of Consolidated Drained (CD) triaxial tests conducted on the material.
2. APPARATUS, MATERIAL, AND TESTING PROCEDURE
2.1. Apparatus
A medium-scale direct shear apparatus (30x30x15 cm) was used for testing. The apparatus had an upper and a
lower shear box, and the sample was sheared strain-controlled by pushing the lower shear box horizontally. Two
gauges were used to measure vertical displacements and shearing forces.
2.2. Rockfill Material
For the present research, rockfill materials were obtained from an under-construction rockfill dam. The material
has a maximum particle size of 800 mm. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the material along with the standards
employed for their determination. A number of point load tests were carried out on dry and saturated particles of the
material (Table 2). According to Table 2, saturation does not have considerable effects on the material properties.
The average uniaxial compression strength of the material is estimated to be about 84 MPa from correlations with
the average results of the point load tests (Table 2). The geomechanical classification of rockfill materials by point
load testing results [15] shows that this material is classified as pretty hard.
Table 1. Rockfill Material Characteristics
Water Point Load Los Angeles
Mineralogy Shape Water Content Gs
Absorption Index Abrasion
0.1% 3% 2.75 4 40%
Limestone Angular ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM
(D2216-92) (C127-128) (C127-128) (D5731-95) (C535-96)
Table 2. Results of Point Load Tests
W1 W2 D W P De2 Is Is(50) c
Test F
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm2) MPa MPa MPa
1 28 32 30 30 5 1146 4.4 0.84 3.7 72.9

2 32 43 30 37.5 7 1433 4.9 0.88 4.3 88.9
3 38 39 32 38.5 6.5 1569 4.1 0.90 3.7 78.1
4 23 46 40 34.5 5 1758 2.8 0.92 2.6 56.1
Dry
5 36 51 31 43.5 8 1718 4.7 0.92 4.3 91.0

6 38 41 37 39.5 7 1862 3.8 0.94 3.5 75.8
7 32 35 33 33.5 7 1408 5.0 0.88 4.4 89.8
8 32 54 28 43 3 1534 2.0 0.90 1.8 36.5
9 46 37 39 41.5 7 2062 3.4 0.96 3.3 71.3
10 45 36 34 40.5 9.5 1754 5.4 0.92 5.0 106.7
Saturated
11 36 42 30 39 8.5 1490 5.7 0.89 5.1 105.4

12 47 41 31 44 8 1738 4.6 0.92 4.2 90.3
13 31 41 36 36 5 1651 3.0 0.91 2.8 58.2
14 46 40 44 43 7.5 2410 3.1 0.99 3.1 69.7
W1 + W2 P D
0.45
W = Is = F = e
2 De2 50
4 DW I s (50) = F * I s
De2 = c = (14 + 0.175De ) I s (50)

W1 W2: Specimen width perpendicular to the loading direction
D: Distance between platen contact points
P: Failure load
Is : Point load index
F: Size correction factor
Is(50): The size corrected point load index for D= 50 mm
c: Uniaxial compression strength
The gradation curve of the material is shown in Figure 1, for which the values of the coefficient of uniformity
(Cu) and the coefficient of curvature (Cc) are 17 and 1.7, respectively.
2.3. Modeled Rockfill Material
Testing the prototype rockfill material was almost impossible because of its coarseness and the limitations of the
shear box dimensions. Therefore, the laboratory test specimens were scaled down (in terms of particle sizes) by some
degrees. The prototype gradation was broad (Figure 1); so, based on the literature, the maximum particle size of
about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) was selected by using D/d=4 and the scalping method [3] was employed for modeling the
gradation curve.
In order to exclude the existence of an excess amount of fine particles in the specimens that may impede drainage
during shearing, it was necessary to eliminate the lower end of the gradation curve (particles under 0.075 mm which
were about 3%). The gradation of the modeled rockfill material is presented in Figure 1; this gradation has Cu=19
and Cc=1.2.
100
90 modeled materials
Original materials
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 1. Prototype and modeled rockfill gradation curves

Figure 2 shows the individual coarse particles of different sizes of the material (Figure 2a) along with a guide for
the particle shape identification (Figure 2b). A comparison of these two figures suggests the angularity of the
particles.
3 1 3 1
1 #4
4 2 8 4
a
b
Figure 2. a) Coarse particles used based on individual sieve size
b) Identification and classification of soils and rocks
2.4. Experimental Procedure

The quantity of various sizes of the materials required to achieve the modeled gradation for preparing the
specimen at the specified density, d=2 gr/cm, was determined by weight. The individual fractions were divided into
three parts and each part was mixed thoroughly (in order to achieve a more homogenous sample) and compacted in
the shear box to achieve the required density. After the specimen was prepared, it was first subjected to the selected
normal stress and then sheared by applying horizontal load at a rate of 0.5 mm/min. This rate was in the range of the
rate proposed by ASTM D3080, i.e., 0.0025 to 1.0 mm/min, and was selected based on the relatively high
permeability of the material. Some extra tests on this material proved that the rate of shearing has no meaningful
effect on the results.
For the saturated shear tests, the specimens were compacted dry in the shear box and then saturated for 48 hours.
In the dry-saturated tests, the specimen was first sheared (in dry conditions) up to 90 percent of the minimum shear
strength of the dry tests in the same stress level; then, the test was stopped, the specimen was saturated for three
hours, and shearing was continued. Five normal stress levels (111, 222, 444, 666, 777 kPa) for the dry and saturated
conditions, and three normal stress levels (444, 666, 777 kPa) for the dry-saturated condition were applied. In order
to verify the reproducibility and repeatability of the results, the dry and saturated tests in each normal stress were
repeated. Also in the dry-saturated condition, the test with 777 kPa normal stress was carried out twice.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Dry Tests
Figure 3 presents the shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal displacement
behavior of the dry specimens. In this figure, TD stands for the dry condition, the first number is the test number,
and the last three digits represent the normal stress value in kPa. In TD1-111 and TD2-111, the final horizontal
displacements were less than the others because the shear stress stabilized sooner and the tests were stopped. In this
figure and hereafter, dilation is considered positive. It can be seen that all of the tests show post-peak softening
behavior and in all of the normal stress levels, the materials dilate after initial contraction.
TD1-111
TD2-111
900 TD1-222
TD2-222
800 TD1-444
TD2-444
700 TD1-666
TD2-666
Shear Strength (kPa)
600 TD1-777
TD2-777
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
a) Horizontal Displ. (mm)
6
TD1-111
TD2-111
5 TD1-222
TD2-222
TD1-444
4 TD2-444
Vertical Displ. (mm)
TD1-666
TD2-666
3 TD1-777
TD2-777
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-1
-2
b) Horizontal Displ. (mm)
Figure 3. a) Shear stress-horizontal displacement b) vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of dry specimens
3.2. Saturated Tests
Figure 4 shows the shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal displacement
behavior of the saturated specimens. TS stands for the saturated condition, the first number is the test number, and
the last three digits represent the normal stress value in kPa. Again, TS1-111 and TS2-111 were stopped at less
horizontal displacements like TD1-111 and TD2-111. Similar to the dry tests, the materials show post-peak softening
behavior after reaching a peak and dilate after the initial contraction.
900 TS1-111
TS2-111
800 TS1-222
TS2-222
TS1-444
700 TS2-444
TS1-666
Shear Strength (kPa)
TS2-666
600 TS1-777
TS2-777
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
a) Horizontal Displ. (mm)
6
TS1-111
TS2-111
5 TS1-222
TS2-222
TS1-444
TS2-444
4 TS1-666
TS2-666
Vertical Displ. (mm)
TS1-777
3 TS2-777
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-1
-2
b) Horizontal Displ. (mm)
Figure 4. a) Shear stress-horizontal displacement b) vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of saturated

specimens
3.3. Dry-Saturated Tests
The dry-saturated shear tests in this research were carried out to simulate the saturation collapse phenomenon.
Saturation collapse is a complex phenomenon involving settlement and shear strength reduction in constant stress
levels due to wetting (saturating) of dry granular materials. Three reasons can be found responsible for the saturation
collapse: 1) sudden reduction in confining pressure, 2) easier sliding of particles because of the lubrication effect of
water, and 3) particle breakage due to interaction of water and surficial microcracks (if any) of the particles.
Saturation collapse during first impounding of rockfill dams imposes relatively large displacements on the upstream
shell of the dams which are constructed dry [16].
Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal
displacement behaviors of the specimens tested under 444, 666, and 777 kPa normal stresses in the dry-saturated
condition. The results are compared in these figures with the average results of their corresponding dry and saturated
tests. Here, TDS refers to the dry-saturated condition and the last three digits again indicate the normal stress level in
kPa.
Figure 5. Shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of the specimen
with 444 kPa normal stress in dry-saturated condition compared with the dry and saturated average results
Figure 6. Shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of the specimen with
666 kPa normal stress in dry-saturated condition compared with the dry and saturated average results
Figure 7. Shear stress-horizontal displacement and vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of the specimens
with 777 kPa normal stress in dry-saturated condition compared with the dry and saturated average results
The above figures show that in the first part of dry-saturated shearing (which is in dry condition), the shear
stress-horizontal displacement behavior is pretty similar to the shear stress-horizontal displacement behavior of the
material tested in dry conditions. This similarity was expected and further supported the repeatability of the tests
results. After saturation, shear stresses reduce about 30% in a constant horizontal displacement. This sudden
reduction recovers about 50% within about 1 mm horizontal displacement. After that, shear stresses reach their peak
and then show a post-peak softening behavior. Likewise, the vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior
of the material in the first part of the dry-saturated tests is similar to its corresponding behavior in the dry tests. The
saturation causes sudden settlements. After that, the vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior is more
or less similar to their corresponding behavior in the saturated tests.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Figure 8 shows the variations of peak shear strength (p) and peak friction angle (p) of the material versus
normal stresses (n) for the dry, saturated, and dry-saturated tests. The peak friction angle, assuming c=0, is
calculated as
p
p = tan 1
(1)
n
Turning to Figure 8, it is seen that the failure envelopes (p:n) are non-linear. The non-linearity is more evident
in low stress levels. The shear strength of the saturated material is less than that of the dry material, and their
difference increases as the normal stress increases. The peak friction angle (p) decreases as the normal stress (n)
increases. p ranges between 57 and 48 for the dry specimens and between 56 and 46 for the saturated
specimens. The peak friction angle in the dry-saturated tests is less than that of the saturated tests; however, the
difference is not considerable.
1200 60
1000 50
800 40
p (deg)
p (kPa)
600 30
400 20
TD
TS
TDS
TD
200 TS 10
TDS
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
n (kPa)
Figure 8. Peak shear strength and peak friction angle versus normal stress in dry, saturated and dry-saturated conditions
Figures 3 and 4 show that the residual shear strength (res) versus normal stress (n) in the dry and saturated tests
has the same trend as peak shear strength versus normal stress (it increases as normal stress increases). Moreover, the
residual shear envelope was again non-linear.
A comparison of p and res values versus normal stress for the dry and saturated tests is presented in Figure 9.
The average difference between p and res is about 6 degrees for both of the dry and saturated specimens.
60
p-TD
p-TS
55 res-TD
res-TS
p-TD
50 p-TS
(deg)
res-TD
res-TS
45
40
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000
n (kPa)
Figure 9. Comparison of p and res versus normal stress in dry and saturated conditions
With reference to Figures 3 to 7, a maximum dilation angle (max) during shearing can be defined according to
the following equation:
d v
max = tan 1
(2)
d h max
where dv, and dh represent the vertical and horizontal displacements increments, respectively. Variations of max
versus n (normal stress) are shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that max decreases as n increases; max reduces
from 17 to 7 in the dry tests and from 16 to 6 in the saturated tests. For the dry-saturated tests, max is
approximately 2 to 3 degrees less than those of the saturated tests.
20
15
max (deg)
10
TD
TS
5 TDS
TD
TS
TDS
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
n (kPa)
Figure 10. Maximum dilation angle versus normal stress in dry, saturated and dry-saturated conditions
Plots of the Marsals particle breakage index (Bg) [2] versus normal stress (n) for the tests are shown in Figure
11. The breakage index used here involves the changes in individual particle sizes between the pre-test and post-test
grain-size distributions. The difference in the percentage retained is computed for each sieve size. This difference
will be either positive or negative. Marsals breakage index (Bg) is the sum of the differences having the same sign.
10
TD
TS
8 TDS
TD
TS
TDS
6
Bg (%)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
n (kPa)
Figure 11. Particle breakage index versus normal stress in dry, saturated and dry-saturated conditions
Figure 11 shows that Bg increases almost linearly with increasing of n. The figure also shows that the breakage
in dry conditions is more than the breakage in saturated conditions. In the saturated tests, the easier sliding of
particles due to the lubrication effect of water may have been responsible for the comparatively lower particle
breakages. The particle breakage in the dry-saturated tests is generally less than those of the dry tests and more than
those of the saturated tests.
In order to evaluate the stiffness of materials in the direct shear tests, the following equation may be applied.
p
G * peak = (3)
( h ) p
For the dry and saturated tests, horizontal displacement values corresponding to the peak shear strength [(h)p]
and their corresponding G*peak values are presented in Table 3. It is seen that (h)p increases almost linearly as n
increases. For both conditions, G*peak, however, increases with n; in other words, the increase of normal stress
generally makes the materials stiffer. In addition, the dry materials have higher G*peak values than the saturated
materials.
Table 3. Horizontal Displacements Corresponding to the Peak Shear Strength [(h)p] and G*Peak for Different
Normal Stresses
n p (h)p G*peak
(kPa) (kPa) (mm) (kPa/mm)
111 181 14 13
222 321 16 20
Dry
444 563 21 27
666 771 21 37
777 838 25 34
111 163 13 12
Saturated
222 293 17 18
444 531 20 26
666 717 22 33
777 810 25 32
values are in average
As mentioned before, in the dry-saturated condition, saturation imposes a sudden settlement collapse (Dv) on
the rockfill materials. The values of this settlement are cited in Table 4, which reveals that the settlement increases
almost linearly with the increase of normal stress.
Table 4. Values of Saturation-Induced Settlement (dv) in Dry-saturated Tests
n Dv
(kPa) (mm)
444 0.33
666 0.55
777 0.61
4.1. Failure Envelope
According to Figure 8, the material has non-linear failure envelopes. This non-linearity can be explained by the
reduction of dilation rate, which is a function of particle breakage, related to the stress level increase [17,18].
Therefore, the Mohr-Coloumb linear criterion is inappropriate to define the behavior of this material. In this regard,
different equations have been suggested in the literature (Charles and Watts, 1980; Sarac and Popovic, 1985;
Indraratna, 1994) [3,19]. Charles and Watts (1980) [3] presented the following equation:
p = A nb (4)
where A and b depend on the type of the material. This equation is simple enough and can predict the behavior of
rockfill materials fairly well [17]. Based on the results (Figure 8), Equation 4 for the material of this research will be
as follows:
p = 3.72 n0.821 dry condition (5)
p = 3.4 n0.824 saturated condition (6)
4.2. Internal Friction Angle

Among the reported equations in the literature for predicting the friction angle of rockfill materials, equations
suggested by Gharavy (1996) [17] seem to be simpler than the others and involve fewer parameters. These equations
are:
D
n
p = 0 (7)
Pa
n
p = 0 BLog (8)
Pa
where D and B are constants related to the material type and 0 is the materials friction angle corresponding to n
equal to one atmospheric pressure. Table 5 shows the calculated values of 0 and D (Equation 7) and 0 and B
(Equation 8) for the tested materials.
Table 5. Values of the Parameters Related to Friction Angle (Equations 7 and 8)

Equation 7 Equation 8
Test Condition
0 D 0 B
Dry 58.8 0.093 58.6 11.27
Saturated 56.8 0.096 56.6 11.30
4.3. Dilation Angle

The following correlation between the peak friction angle (p) and the maximum dilation angle (max) can be
proposed for all of the dry, saturated, and dry-saturated tests.
maxp-40 (9)
4.4. Residual Shear Strength

The results of all of the tests in dry and saturated conditions are considered together to correlate the residual and
peak shear strength. Based on the correlation, a linear relationship is defined as follows:
res = 0.867 p 24.8 (10)
5. COMPARISON OF DIRECT SHEAR AND TRIAXIAL TESTS RESULTS

The results of the dry and saturated tests carried out in this research are compared with the results of the triaxial
tests on the same material (in saturated conditions) carried out by the Building and Housing Research Centre
(BHRC). Moreover, the results are compared with the direct shear and triaxial tests results conducted on two other
rockfill materials: 1) triaxial and direct shear tests on angular basalt materials with two different gradations G1 and
G2 [17], and 2) triaxial and direct shear tests on an angular limestone material [20]. The characteristics of these tests
are introduced in Table 6, where DS and TR stand for direct shear and triaxial tests, respectively. The gradations of
the above tests are shown in Figure 12.
100
DS-TD, DS-TS
90
TR-B
80 DS-G1, TR-G1
DS-G2, TR-G2
70
DS-R
60 TR-R
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 12. Gradation curves of different material used for comparison
Table 6. Characteristics of Rockfill Materials and Tests Compared in This Research

Apparatus Maximum Relative Rate of
Test
Reference Symbol Dimensions Mineralogy Particle Density Shearing
Condition
(cm) Size (mm) (gr/cm) (mm/min)
This DS-TD Dry Angular
30x30 38.1 2 0.5
Research DS-TS CD limestone
Angular
BHRC TR-B CD Dia.=30 50.8 2.1 0.5
limestone
Rayhani DS-R 30x30 Angular 25.4
CD Dr=0.95 0.5
(2000) TR-R Dia.=30 limestone 50.8
Gharavy DS-G1 30x30 Angular 0.275
CD 37.5 G1=2
(1996) TR-G1 Dia.=20 basalt 0.254
Gharavy DS-G2 30x30 Angular 0.275
CD 37.5 G2=1.84
(1996) TR-G2 Dia.=20 basalt 0.254
Figure 13 shows the shear strength envelopes resulting from the above tests. According to this figure, the shear
strength envelope resulting from the direct shear tests of this research (DS-TS) stands generally at a higher level than
the shear strength envelope resulting from the triaxial tests (TR-B). The same conclusion is evident for the other two
materials [17,20]. Different stress paths and different boundary conditions (direct shear test versus triaxial test) are
responsible for this difference in the behavior [21].
1200
DS-TD
DS-TS
1000 TR-B
DS-G1
DS-G2
TR-G1
800
TR-G2
DS-T
p (kPa)
TR-T
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
n (kPa)
Figure 13. Maximum shear strength versus normal stress in different tests
For all of the above tests, Figure 14 compares the variations of the peak friction angle values versus normal
stress. This figure evidences that the friction angle (p) values decrease at decreasing rates. Also, the figure indicates
that p values resulting from the direct shear tests are generally larger than their corresponding p values resulting
from the triaxial tests.
70
DS-TD
DS-TS
65 TR-B
DS-G1
60 DS-G2
TR-G1
TR-G2
p (deg)
55 DS-T
TR-T
50
45
40
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
n (kPa)
Figure 14. Peak friction angle versus the normal stress in different tests
The literature suggests that the peak friction angle values of rockfill materials from direct shear tests are
generally about 3 to 4 degrees higher than those from triaxial tests [20]. On the other hand, the maximum difference
between p values resulting from plane strain tests and those resulting from triaxial tests is about 8 degrees (ps
tr+8) [2]. Therefore, owing to the fact that the stress conditions in the field is generally more similar to plane strain
conditions, direct shear tests may suggest more realistic values for peak friction angle of rockfill materials.
Figure 15 illustrates the Marsals breakage index (Bg) versus normal stress for some of the above tests. The
results of particle breakage for the other references were not available. The figure shows that the particle breakage in
TR-B is more than the particle breakage in DS-TS, which are, respectively, triaxial and direct shear tests on the same
material. Most probably, the difference in the gradations (Figure 12), stress paths, and boundary conditions are
together responsible for the above different Bg values.
10
6
Bg (%)
DS-TD
4 DS-TS
TR-B
TR-G1
2 TR-G2
Linear (DS-TD)
Linear (DS-TS)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
n (kPa)
Figure 15. Marsals breakage index versus normal stress in different tests
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A medium-scale direct shear apparatus has been employed to investigate the mechanical behavior of an angular
rockfill material in dry, saturated, and dry-saturated conditions at five normal stress levels. The effects of stress level,
wetting, and saturation collapse were explored. Finally, some of the results were compared with the results of triaxial
tests having been carried out on the same material.
The tests results on the dry specimens showed that stress level affects the behavior of the rockfill material. The
shear strength of the material increased non-linearly as the normal stress increased. Therefore, a non-linear
relationship should be applied for defining the failure envelope of this material. The increase of the normal stress
reduced the peak friction angle (in decreasing rates) and the dilation angle. Also, the comparison of the materials
gradations before and after the tests showed that particle breakage occurred during the tests and the breakage
amounts increased with increasing the normal stress. A number of correlations have been suggested to estimate the
behavior of this material as well.
A similar trend was observed in the saturated specimens; however, wetting reduced the strength parameters
values. The shear strength, peak friction angle, dilation angle, and particle breakage of the saturated specimens were
less than those of the dry specimens.
Although the trend was the same in the dry-saturated tests, the strength parameters were less, but the particle
breakage was more than those of the saturated tests. In these tests, also, saturation induced sudden settlement and
shear stress reduction.
Moreover, the comparison of the results of these tests with the results of the triaxial tests on the same material
showed that the shear strength and peak friction angle from the direct shear tests were higher than those of the
triaxial tests.
Overall, in order to properly design a rockfill structure (e.g., a rockfill dam), it is of crucial importance to think
over the type of the tests and pay close attention to the two significant factors (stress level and wetting), and their
effects on the mechanical behavior of rockfill materials. Also, saturation collapse phenomenon should be considered
as far as the behavior of dry-constructed rockfill dams is concerned.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The tests were performed at the soil mechanics laboratory of Amirkabir University of Technology. The authors
are grateful to Mr. T. Bahrami and Mr. R. Javadi (the laboratory staff) for their useful comments and help in
conducting the tests.
REFERENCES
[1] A. D. M. Penman, Rockfill, Building Research Station. Paper 151, BRE, Garston, Watford, 1971.
[2] R. J. Marsal, Mechanical Properties of Rockfill, Embankment Dam Engineering. New York, Casagrande vol.
Wiley, 1973, pp. 109200.
[3] J. Zeller and R. Wullimann, The Shear Strength of the Shell Materials for the Go-Schenenalp Dam, Switzerland,
Proc 4th J. on SMFE, London, 2(1957), pp. 399404.
[4] J. Lowe, Shear Strength of Coarse Embankment Dam Materials, Proc., 8th Int. Congress on Large Dams,
3(1964), pp. 745761.
[5] E. Fumagalli, Tests on Cohesionless Materials for Rockfill Dams, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, ASCE, 95(SMI)(1969), pp. 313330.
[6] R. J. Frost, Some Testing Experiences and Characteristics of Boulder-Gravel Fills in Earth Dams, ASTM, STP
(1973), pp. 523, 207.
[7] J. A. Charles and K. S. Watts, The Influence of Confining Pressure on the Shear Strength of Compacted Rockfill,
Geotechnique, 30(4) (1980), pp. 353367.
[8] R. J. Marsal, Large Scale Testing of Rockfill Materials, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div.,
ASCE, 93(SM2)(1967), pp. 2743.
[9] M. Aghamajidi, Laboratory Investigation of Creep in Rockfill Materials, MSc thesis, Tarbiat Modarres
University, Tehran, Iran, 2004, (in Persian).
[10] P. V. Lade, J. A. Yamamuro, and P. A. Bopp, Significance of Particle Crushing in Granular Materials, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 122(4)(1996), pp. 309316.
[11] E. Alonso, Exploring the Limits of Unsaturated Soil Mechanics: The Behavior of Coarse Granular Soil and
Rockfill, The Eleventh Spenser J.Buchanan Lecture, Collage Station, TX77840 USA, 2003.
[12] A. Soroush and A. Aghaei Araei, Analysis of Behavior of a High Rockfill Dam, Proceeding of the Institution of
Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, 159(GEI)(2006), pp. 4959.
[13] I. W. Farmer and P. B. Attewell, The Effect of Particle Strength on the Compression of Crushed Aggregates,
Rock Mechanics, 5(1973), Springer-Verlag, pp. 237248.
[14] B. N. Touileb, S. Bonelli, P. Anthiniac, A. Carrere, O. Debordes, G. LA Berbera, A. Bani, and G. Mazza,
Settlement by Wetting of the Upstream Rockfills of Large Dams, Proc. of the 53rd Canadian Geotechnical
Conf., Montreal, 1(2000), pp. 263270.
[15] Z. T. Beiniawski, Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses, Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ. Engrs. 15(1973),
pp. 335343.
[16] A. Soroush and A. Aghaei Araei, Uncertainties in Mechanical Behavior of Rockfills During First Impounding of
Rockfill Dams, 73rd Annual Meeting of Icold, Tehran, Iran, 2005.
[17] M. Gharavy, Experimental and Numerical Investigations into the Mechanical Characteristics of Rockfill
Materials, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Dep. of Civil Engineering, U.K., 1996.
[18] B. Indraratna, D. Ionescu, and H. D. Christie, Shear Behavior of Railway Ballast Based on Large-Scale Triaxial
Tests, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvirnomental Engineering., 124(5)(1998), pp. 439449.
[19] K. J. Douglas, The Shear Strength of Rock Masses, Ph.D. thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia, 2002.
[20] M. H. T. Rayhani, Investigation of the Behavior of Earth and Rockfill Dam Shell Materials Based on Triaxial and
Direct Shear Tests, MSc thesis, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran, 2000 (in Persian).
[21] S. H. Liu, D. Sun, and H. Matsuoka, On the Interface Friction in Direct Shear Test, Computers and Geotechnics,
32(5)(2005), pp. 317325.
View publication stats

Direct Shear Testing On A Rockfill Material

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Direct Shear Testing On A Rockfill Material

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See

Direct shear testing on a rockfill material

Article in ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING October 2009

Reliability assessment of slopes View project

Numerical Analysis View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ON A ROCKFILL MATERIAL

DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ON A ROCKFILL MATERIAL

Table 2. Results of Point Load Tests

1 28 32 30 30 5 1146 4.4 0.84 3.7 72.9

5 36 51 31 43.5 8 1718 4.7 0.92 4.3 91.0

11 36 42 30 39 8.5 1490 5.7 0.89 5.1 105.4

Figure 1. Prototype and modeled rockfill gradation curves

2.4. Experimental Procedure

Figure 4. a) Shear stress-horizontal displacement b) vertical displacement-horizontal displacement behavior of saturated

p = 3.72 n0.821 dry condition (5)

p = 3.4 n0.824 saturated condition (6)

4.2. Internal Friction Angle

Table 5. Values of the Parameters Related to Friction Angle (Equations 7 and 8)

Dry 58.8 0.093 58.6 11.27

Saturated 56.8 0.096 56.6 11.30

4.3. Dilation Angle

4.4. Residual Shear Strength

5. COMPARISON OF DIRECT SHEAR AND TRIAXIAL TESTS RESULTS

Figure 12. Gradation curves of different material used for comparison

Table 6. Characteristics of Rockfill Materials and Tests Compared in This Research

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

View publication stats

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi