1519

NOTE
Small strain stiffness for granite residual soil: effect of stress ratio
Xianwei Zhang, Xinyu Liu, Lingwei Kong, Gang Wang, and Cheng Chen
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Huazhong University of Science and Technology on 07/27/22

Abstract: Most previous studies have focused on the small strain stiffness of sedimentary soil, while little attention has been
given to residual soils with different properties. Most studies also neglected the effects of the deviator stress, which is extensively
involved in civil engineering. This note considers the effects of the deviator stress on the small strain stiffness of natural granite
residual soil as established from resonant column tests performed under various stress ratios. Although increasing the stress
ratio results in a greater maximum shear modulus for both natural and remolded residual soils, remolded soil is more sensitive
to changes in the stress ratio, which highlights the effects of soil cementation. The data herein offers new insights to understand
the stiffness of residual soil and other weathered geomaterials.
Key words: granite residual soil, small strain stiffness, resonant column, stress ratio, weathering, cementation.
Résumé : Les analyses précédentes se sont concentrées sur la rigidité à petite déformation des sols sédimentaires, mais peu
d’attention a été portée aux sols résiduels aux propriétés différentes. Ces études ont en outre négligé les conséquences de la
contrainte de déviation, qui est pourtant très présente dans le domaine du génie civil. La présente publication examine les
effets de la contrainte déviatrice sur la rigidité aux petites déformations d’un sol résiduel granitique, telle qu’elle a été établie à
partir d’essais de colonne résonante effectués sous différents rapports de contrainte. Une augmentation du rapport de contrainte
résulte en un module de cisaillement maximal plus élevé pour les sols résiduels naturels et remoulés, cependant le sol remoulé est
davantage sensible aux changements du rapport de contrainte, ce qui souligne les effets de la cimentation du sol. Les résultats pré-
sentés ici permettent de mieux comprendre la rigidité des sols résiduels et d’autres géomatériaux altérés. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
For personal use only.

Mots-clés : sol résiduel granitique, rigidité à petite déformation, colonne de résonance, rapport de contrainte, altération,
cimentation.

1. Introduction
The small strain stiffness of sedimentary soils, as expressed by
the shear modulus G and damping ratio D, have been extensively
studied through resonant column tests (Novak and Kim 1981; Park
and Kishida 2019). It is currently accepted that the soil stiffness is
highly nonlinear, even at relatively small strains, and variations of
the stiffness with the soil state have been well studied (Hardin and
Drnevich 1972). However, less attention has been given to the stiff-
ness of residual soil, which is the product of in situ rock weathering
and is widely distributed in many regions, such as Porto (da Fonseca
and Coutinho 2008), Hong Kong (Rocchi and Coop 2015), and the
south of China (Liu et al. 2022). Previous investigations under iso-
tropic conditions revealed the nonlinear stiffness of residual soil
and the critical role of cementation among soil particles (Pineda
et al. 2014). Nevertheless, natural residual soil is inevitably sub-
jected to deviator stresses, whose effects on the small strain stiff-
ness of residual soil have not been well addressed. Although there
are some investigations on sedimentary soil, the applicability of
these results to residual soil is not yet confirmed as many studies
have indicated that the behavior of residual soil does not entirely
fit the framework of sedimentary soil (da Fonseca and Coutinho
2008; Okewale and Coop 2017). Instead of the stress history that
is believed to be decisive for sedimentary soil, the properties of
residual soil are dominated by the parent rock and the weather-
ing conditions.
Although triaxial tests with local strain measurements can mea-
sure the small strain modulus and damping properties under vari-
ous stress ratios (Tatsuoka et al. 1999), these require transducers
with relatively high resolutions and slightly complicated opera-
tional procedures. This note investigates the effects of the stress
ratio on the small strain stiffness of granite residual soil (GRS)
by adopting a modified resonant column that more conveniently
applies the deviator stress to specimens. The soil structure was also
considered by comparing the behaviors of natural and remolded
soils. The provided data offers some new insights into weathered
geomaterials. This note only focuses on the shear modulus in terms
of Gvh, as specified by Jardine (2014). The influence of the anisotropy
and radial effective stress variations on Gvh are recognized, but
such investigations are not the main focus of this work.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Principles of modified resonant column test
The adopted resonant column apparatus is shown schemati-
cally in Fig. 1a. The specimen is isolated using an inner cell filled
with deaired water to avoid air effusion. An axial compressive
stress is applied with a 2 mm diameter thin cable made of high-
resistance steel. The cable extends vertically through the inner
cavity (di = 2 mm) of the specimen, passes through the bottom
base of the cell, and is attached to the axial loading weights. The
stress ratio h is taken between the deviator stress q and mean

Received 15 June 2021. Accepted 16 December 2021.

X. Zhang, L. Kong, and C. Chen. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China.
X. Liu and G. Wang. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
Corresponding author: Xinyu Liu (email: liuxinyu17@mails.ucas.ac.cn).
© 2021 The Author(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from copyright.com.

Can. Geotech. J. 59: 1519–1522 (2022) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2021-0308 Published at www.cdnsciencepub.com/cgj on 20 December 2021.
 1520 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 59, 2022

Fig. 1. Principles of the modified resonant column apparatus: (a) schematic of apparatus; (b) consolidation paths; (c) stepwise loading during
anisotropic consolidation. [Color online.]

Outer cell 350

(a) Air pressure input η=0 η = 0.2 (b)
η = 0.4 η = 0.6
250 η = 0.8 η=1
LVDT Air pressure output η = 1.1 η = 1.2
Accelerometer

q (kPa)
Coil Driving plate Magnetic η = 1.3 η = 1.4
Top cap with 150
Digital signal controller Pneumatic regulator
thin-cable fixture Isotropic consolidation
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Huazhong University of Science and Technology on 07/27/22

Screw
Air pressure output 50
Balance weight
Start of test
Supporting frame Power amplifier Air compressor -50
0 50 100 150 200 250
p' (kPa)
Sample Backpressure controller
Inner cell 200
Piston Keypad Distilled water in/out (c)
Deaired water Stepper motor
O-ring
Pressure transducer 150

100 ∆q

q (kPa)
Membrane
∆p'
50
Pressure cylinder
PWP transducer
0
Thin cable Tube for deaired water p'0
(d = 2 mm) -50
Axial loading Line for electrical signal
0 40 80 120 160 200
weights p' (kPa)
Tube for compressed air

effective stress p 0 , in which q = s 1 – s 3 and p0 ¼ 1=3ðs 01 þ 2s 03 Þ.

For personal use only.

The prepared samples were saturated under backpressure and

Thus, the addition of weights to the thin cable and changing the
cell pressure allows varying the axial compressive stress and
subjects the soil samples to different stress ratios for resonant
column tests. The apparatus calibration is accomplished by substi-
tuting the specimen with metal calibration bars of known mechan-
ical properties, according to the apparatus manual, Li et al. (2018),
and Clayton et al. (2009). The data interpretation follows the proce-
dures reviewed by Santamarina and Cascante (1996), who also indi-
cated that the effect of the loading rod on the shear modulus and
the damping ratio of the sample are negligible.
2.2. Studied soil and test details
The studied soil is GRS with a weathering grade of VI, which
was determined from the classification system for weathered
granite in the south of China, including Hong Kong (Rocchi and
Coop 2015; Okewale and Coop 2017). This grade is also consistent
with that based on BSI (1990). Soil blocks were manually sampled
at 17.5–18.5 m in Xiamen, Fujian Province, in China. The studied soil
is sandy clay with a density of 1.81 g/cm3, water content of 36.1%,
and specific gravity of 2.72. The liquid and plasticity limits are 52.1%
and 24.2%, respectively, and the plasticity index is 27.9. The triaxial
CIU tests indicate the effective cohesion and internal friction angle
are 20.5 kPa and 39.4°, respectively. An in situ at rest coefficient
of earth pressure K0 value of 0.4 was estimated using both SDMT
and advanced triaxial tests according to da Fonseca and Almeida
e Sousa (2001). More details can be found in the Supplementary
data.1 Natural and remolded specimens (referred to as NGRS and
RGRS) with outer diameters of 50 mm and heights of 100 mm
were used. The intact specimen was developed from a standard
triaxial specimen with an inner cavity formed through manual
drilling to accommodate the thin cable. The detailed procedures
can be found in the Supplementary data.1 The remolded specimens
with the same dimensions, water content, and void ratio as those
of the intact specimens were prepared directly on the base pedestal
using the trimmings of natural soil by following Ladd (1978).
isotropically consolidated to an initial effective mean stress p00
(Fig. 1b). Axial loading was then applied stepwise to the specimen
to vary the stress ratio. The deviator stress increment Dq is pre-
ferred to be lower than 5 kPa (Fig. 1c) to avoid damaging the speci-
men. Then, the consolidated specimens were subjected to resonant
column tests at a constant p 0 = 200 kPa and varying stress ratios
ranging between 0 and 1.4, which were set to cover the in situ stress
ratio.
3. Test results and analysis
The small strain stiffness of NGRS and RGRS obtained under
various h are given in Fig. 2. The shear modulus G remains rela-
tively constant when the shear strain g is below a threshold but
decreases rapidly at larger g (Figs. 2a and 2d). The damping ratio
D exhibits a trend that is nearly the opposite of G, with Figs. 2c
and 2f showing that D generally increases with the shear strain.
The G– g relationships can be fit using the model proposed by
Hardin and Drnevich (1972):
1
ð1Þ G ¼ Gmax
1 þ g =g r
where Gmax is the maximum shear modulus and g r is the reference
strain corresponding to G/Gmax = 0.5.
The results in Fig. 2 indicate the significant effect of the stress
ratio on the G and D of the studied soil, but h affects the NGRS
and RGRS differently. A critical stress ratio of h cr = 1.0 is found
for the NGRS (Figs. 2h and 2i). When h < h cr, h has a lesser impact
on the NGRS stiffness. As indicated by Fig. 2h, Gmax increases
gradually with h . When h > h cr, Fig. 2h shows that the inclina-
tion of G/1000p 0 – h at h > h cr is significantly steeper than that at
h < h cr. In contrast, the effect of the stress ratio on the shear
modulus of the RGRS is consistent, with a higher h correspond-
ing to a greater shear modulus. In addition, the damping ratio

1
Supplementary data are available with the article at https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2021-0308.

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. Resonant column test results under various stress ratios: (a)–(c) results for natural soil; (d)–(f) results for remolded soil; (h)–(i) values of
G and c0.7 under various h . [Color online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Huazhong University of Science and Technology on 07/27/22
For personal use only.
is consistently affected by the stress ratio with higher values
of h leading to an overall lower D– g curve in Figs. 2c and 2f for
both NGRS and RGRS.
Such a difference between the small strain stiffnesses of NGRS
and RGRS is likely due to the altered cementation as h increases.
Liu et al. (2021) revealed that soil was featured by a cemented
structure formed during weathering. The effects of cementation
on stiffness behaviors under isotropic conditions have long been
known (Rinaldi and Santamarina 2008; Liu et al. 2021). It is believed
that cementation makes soils stiffer and less affected by external
loads (Liu et al. 2021). Rinaldi and Santamarina (2008) proposed the
concept of regions controlled by either cementation or stress.
The cementation in NGRS results in the presence of a critical
stress ratio h cr. When h < h cr, the effect of soil cementation domi-
nates, and the soil is less susceptible to variations in the stress ratio.
This is equivalent to the cementation-controlled region. However,
as h increases, the soil is subject to larger deviator stresses, and
the cementation among soil particles is gradually damaged. Under
such circumstances, the soil is within the stress-controlled region
and its stiffness is more sensitive to the stress ratio. This is also the
case for the RGRS as the cementation is destroyed during the remold-
ing process.
Variations in the G/Gmax– g curves with h pose challenges in
expressing the stiffness degradation of GRS in a unified way
(Figs. 2b and 2e). Santos and Gomes Correia (2000) found the
G/Gmax– g / g 0.7 relationship is unique for soils under isotropic
conditions. Here g 0.7 is corresponding to G/Gmax = 0.7 and g 0.7 = 3/7g r.
1521
This study, as an extension of these pioneering works, reports
that the G/Gmax– g / g 0.7 relationship is still unique even when
obtained from various stress ratios (Fig. 2g) and it provides a unified
approach to describing the shear modulus degradation of NGRS
under different stress ratios. Furthermore, this unique relation-
ship is unaffected by the soil structure, indicating that it can
describe both intact and remolded residual soils (Fig. 2g).
4. Conclusions
Given that the small strain stiffness of residual soil formed by
weathering is less studied, this note studied the effect of stress
ratio through resonant column tests. An effective method to pre-
pare hollow-cylinder residual soil specimens is proposed. The
value of Gmax increases with stress ratio, but h affects the NGRS
and RGRS differently, which reflects the effect of cementation.
The stiffness properties of RGRS vary monotonically with h ,
whereas those for NGRS are more affected by h when h > h cr
than h < h cr. This could be explained by extending the concepts
of the cementation- and stress-controlled regions proposed by
Rinaldi and Santamarina (2008). We also extended the work of
Santos and Gomes Correia (2000) to anisotropic stress conditions
and found that the G/Gmax– g / g 0.7 relationships are unique regard-
less of the stress ratios, which applies to both NGRS and RGRS.
This study enhances the understanding of how the cementation
affects the small strain stiffness of the residual soil.
Published by Canadian Science Publishing
 1522
Acknowledgement
Financial support is gratefully acknowledged from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 41972285, 12102312), the
Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS (Grant No. 2018363),
the opening fund of State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention
and Geoenvironment Protection (Grant No. SKLGP2020K024), Science
Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Hubei Province (2020CFA103),
and CRSRI Open Research Program (CKWV2021884/KY).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by Huazhong University of Science and Technology on 07/27/22
References
BSI. 1990. BS 1377: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.
British Standards Institution (BSI), London, UK.
Clayton, C.R.I., Priest, J.A., Bui, M., Zervos, A., and Kim, S.G. 2009. The Stokoe
resonant column apparatus: effects of stiffness, mass and specimen fixity.
Géotechnique, 59(5): 429–437. doi:10.1680/geot.2007.00096.
da Fonseca, A.V., and Almeida e Sousa, J. 2001. At rest coefficient of earth
pressure in saprolitic soils from granite. In Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istan-
bul, Turkey, 27–31 August 2001. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
pp. 397–400.
da Fonseca, A.V., and Coutinho, R. 2008. Characterization of residual soils.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Site Characteriza-
tion (ISC’3), Taipei, Taiwan, 1–4 April 2008. CRC Press, London, UK. 54 pp.
Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils:
design equations and curves. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 98(7): 667–692. doi:10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001760.
Jardine, R.J. 2014. Advanced laboratory testing in research and practice: the 2nd
Bishop Lecture. Geotechnical Research, 1(1): 2–31. doi:10.1680/geores.14.00003.
Ladd, R.S. 1978. Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 1(1): 16–23. doi:10.1520/GTJ10364J.
Li, H., He, H., and Senetakis, K. 2018. Calibration exercise of a Hardin-type
resonant column. Géotechnique, 68(2): 171–176. doi:10.1680/jgeot.16.P.214.
For personal use only.
Liu, X.Y., Zhang, X.W., Kong, L.W., Li, X.M., and Wang, G. 2021. Effect of ce-
mentation on the small-strain stiffness of granite residual soil. Soils and
Foundations, 61(2): 520–532. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2021.02.001.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 59, 2022
Liu, X.Y., Zhang, X.W., Kong, L.W., Yin, S., and Xu, Y.Q. 2022. Shear strength
anisotropy of natural granite residual soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 148(1): 1–13. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0002709.
Novak, M., and Kim, T.C. 1981. Resonant column technique for dynamic testing
of cohesive soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18(3): 448–455. doi:10.1139/
t81-049.
Okewale, I.A., and Coop, M.R. 2017. A study of the effects of weathering on
soils derived from decomposed volcanic rocks. Engineering Geology, 222:
53–71. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.03.014.
Park, D., and Kishida, T. 2019. Shear modulus reduction and damping ratio
curves for earth core materials of dams. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
56(1): 14–22. doi:10.1139/cgj-2017-0529.
Pineda, J.A., Colmenares, J.E., and Hoyos, L.R. 2014. Effect of fabric and
weathering intensity on dynamic properties of residual and saprolitic
soils via resonant column testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 37(5).
doi:10.1520/GTJ20120132.
Rinaldi, V.A., and Santamarina, J.C. 2008. In Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, IS-Atlanta
2008, Atlanta, Ga., 21–24 September 2008. Edited by S.E. Burns, P.W. Mayne,
and J.C. Santamarina. IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Fairfax,
Va., USA. pp. 267–273.
Rocchi, I., and Coop, M.R. 2015. The effects of weathering on the physical
and mechanical properties of a granitic saprolite. Géotechnique, 65(6):
482–493. doi:10.1680/geot.14.P.177.
Santamarina, J.C., and Cascante, G. 1996. Stress anisotropy and wave propa-
gation: a micromechanical view. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(5):
770–782. doi:10.1139/t96-102-323.
Santos, J.A., and Gomes Correia, A. 2000. Shear modulus of soils under cyclic
loading at small and medium strain level. In 12WCEE 2000: Proceedings
of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, 30 January–4 February 2000. New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. pp. 1–8.
Tatsuoka, F., Jardine, R.J., Lo Presti, D., Di Benedetto, H., and Kodaka, T.
1999. Characterising the pre-failure deformation properties of geomaterials.
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 6–12 September 1997.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 2129–2164.
Published by Canadian Science Publishing