366

NOTE / NOTE

Arching effect in fine sand due to base yielding

Jamshid Sadrekarimi and Alireza Abbasnejad

Abstract: This paper presents results of an experimental work on the arching effect in loose and dense sand. The appara-
tus comprises concentric circular trapdoors with different diameters that can yield downward while stresses and deforma-
tions are recorded simultaneously. As the trapdoor starts to yield, the whole mass of soil deforms elastically. However,
after a specified displacement that depends on the trapdoor diameter and soil relative density, the soil mass behaves plasti-
cally. This behavior, which is due to flow phenomenon, continues until the stress applied onto the trapdoor decreases to a
minimum value. Then the stress carried by the trapdoor shows an ascending trend. This indicates the gradual separation of
the yielding mass from the whole soil body. Finally, the flow process creates a stable arch of sand. This process is called
the arching mechanism. Depending on the trapdoor diameter, there is a critical relative density at and beyond which the
test leads to the formation of a stable arch. The results are also compared with Terzaghi’s theory and the assumption of an
upper boundary solution is discussed.
Key words: arching effect, embankment, relative displacement, stress distribution.
Résumé : Cet article présente les résultats de travaux expérimentaux sur les effets d’arche dans des sables lâches et den-
ses. L’appareil est fait de portes circulaires et concentriques avec des diamètres différents qui peuvent atteindre leur limite
élastique en direction verticale pendant que les contraintes et déformations sont enregistrées simultanément. Lorsque la
porte atteint sa limite élastique, la masse entière du sol se déforme élastiquement. Cependant, suite à un déplacement spé-
cifique qui dépend du diamètre de la porte et de la densité relative du sol, la masse de sol se comporte de façon plastique.
Ce comportement, qui est dû au phénomène d’écoulement, continue jusqu’à ce que la contrainte appliquée sur la porte di-
minue à sa valeur minimale. Ensuite, la contrainte portée par la porte démontre une tendance à la hausse. Ceci indique
une séparation graduelle de la masse ayant atteint sa limite élastique de l’échantillon total de sol. Finalement, le processus
d’écoulement fait en sorte qu’une arche stable de sable est établie, ce qu’on appelle « mécanisme d’arche ». Selon le dia-
mètre de la porte, à une valeur égale ou au-dessus d’une densité relative critique il y a formation d’une arche stable. Les
résultats de cette étude sont aussi comparés à la théorie de Terzaghi, et les suppositions pour obtenir la solution à la fron-
tière supérieure sont discutées.
Mots-clés : effet d’arche, remblai, déplacement relatif, distribution des contraintes.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction Bg
½3 sv ¼ ð1  eK tan4 z=B Þ for c ¼ 0; q ¼ 0
The essential features of arching were demonstrated by K tan4
Terzaghi (1943) performing experiments on sand with a
yielding trapdoor. The equations he proposed for stress due where B is the trapdoor radius, g is the soil density, c is the
to arching effect considering plastic behavior are as follows: coefficient of cohesion, K is the lateral earth pressure coeffi-
cient, 4 is internal friction angle, z is depth from the soil
B½g  ðc=BÞ surface, and q is the surcharge pressure.
½1 sv ¼ ð1  eK tan4 z=B Þ
K tan4 Finn (1963) modified the plastic behavior assumption of
for c > 0 ; q ¼ 0 Terzaghi (1943) and developed experiments assuming the
soil is linearly elastic. Burghignoli (1981) studied the arch-
Bg ing effect in the soil over a flexible trapdoor and obtained
½2 sv ¼ ð1  eK tan4 z=B Þ þ qeK tan4 z=B expressions based on relative stiffness between the trapdoor
K tan4 and the soil. Getzler et al. (1968) used models composed of
for c ¼ 0; q > 0 aluminum blocks with various shapes that were buried in
Received 4 July 2007. Accepted 8 September 2009. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on 8 March 2010.
J. Sadrekarimi and A. Abbasnejad.1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, East Azerbaijan, Iran.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: abbasnejad_ar@yahoo.com).

Can. Geotech. J. 47: 366–374 (2010) doi:10.1139/T09-107 Published by NRC Research Press
Sadrekarimi and Abbasnejad
coarse sand and a uniform pressure was applied to the sand
surface. Hoeg (1968) designed a model tunnel with a rigid
steel cylinder split longitudinally into 12 segments. Clough
and Duncan (1971) applied the finite element method to an-
alyze retaining wall behavior using various assumptions re-
garding characteristics of the wall–backfill interface.
Atkinson and Potts (1977) examined the behavior of shal-
low tunnels in dry sand using a tunnel model lined with a
thin rubber membrane in two laboratory situations: under
gravity and in a centrifuge with 75g acceleration. Then they
compared the experimental results with the upper and lower
boundary theory. The results showed that the upper and
lower boundary theory has proper accuracy to estimate the
loads applied to the lining of a tunnel. Koutsabeloulis and
Griffiths (1989) studied the stress distribution around a trap-
door due to the arching effect using the finite element
method. Ono and Yamada (1993) studied the arching effect
in a soil mass around a tunnel and behind a retaining wall
using a rubber membrane filled with air under pressure
equal to that applied from the soil, then the pressure was de-
creased until the air was extracted.
Hashash and Whittle (2002) presented a detailed interpre-
tation of the evolution of stresses around a braced excavation
in a deep layer of soft clay. The boundaries of the arching
zones for both single tunneling and parallel tunneling were
determined by Lee et al. (2004). The prediction of
tunneling-induced ground movements during excavation of a
soft-ground tunnel has been carried out using various meth-
ods, including empirical methods derived from field observa-
tions (Clough and Schmidt 1981) and centrifuge modeling
(Mair 1979; Wu and Lee 2003) or numerical methods (Lee
and Rowe 1991). Park and Adachi (2002) performed model
tests under 1g acceleration conditions to simulate tunneling
events in unconsolidated ground with various levels of in-
clined layers. Stone and Newson (2002) presented the results
of a series of centrifuge tests designed to investigate the ef-
fects of arching on the soil–structure interaction.
Continuum approaches describing the stress dip under
sand piles can be found in Wittmer et al. (1997), Savage
(1997), and Didwania et al. (2000); and a comprehensive re-
view of continuum efforts was presented by Savage (1998).
Michalowski and Park (2004) focused on the limit analysis
approach and admissible radial stress fields in prismatic
sand piles. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, in spite
of the presence of a vast amount investigations on soil arch-
ing, there is no ample study into the parameters affecting the
arching mechanism in a soil mass and the stress and strain
path. This paper presents results of an experimental work in
which variations of the normal stress in a soil mass carried
out using circular trapdoors were monitored while the trap-
doors were yielding gradually.
Procedure
Soil properties
The test soil was natural cohesionless silty sand with
100% and 9% passing the No. 10 and No. 200 sieves, re-
spectively. The coefficient of curvature, Cc, coefficient of
uniformity, Cu, and specific gravity of the solid particles
were 1.1, 5.3, and 2.61, respectively. The natural moisture
content of soil mass was 3% and at this moisture content
367
the soil mass was in a surface dry state. The soil was classi-
fied as SP-SM in accordance with the Unified Soil Classifi-
cation System (ASTM 2006). The maximum and minimum
dry densities were 16.77 and 12.26 kN/m3, respectively. To
determine shear strength parameters corresponding to the
relevant stress levels, direct shear tests under 1.62 and
11.23 kPa surcharges were carried out. The results are illus-
trated in Figs. 1 and 2. The magnitude of the internal fric-
tion angle, 4, depends on the magnitude of the state of
stress for a particular soil (Atkinson and Potts 1977). The
lower the normal load, the higher the 4 angle.
Model properties
A device comprising a sand container with circular trap-
doors at its base was designed and constructed by the au-
thors. The whole system is shown schematically in Fig. 3.
The sand container was 0.358 m3 in volume and 60 cm in
height with an octagonal horizontal cross section with a cir-
cumferential circle of 98 cm diameter. The container was
made of a 4 mm thick steel plate strengthened with stiff-
eners. As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, three concentric circular
trapdoors were mounted under the base of the container.
The trapdoors — 10, 20, and 30 cm in diameter — could
yield downward separately by a very sophisticated compu-
terized system as shown in Figs. 3–5. The magnitude of the
load supported by each trapdoor was measured using a load
cell. Displacement of the trapdoors as well as the surface of
the soil mass due to trapdoor yielding were all monitored
using a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) in-
stalled under the platform and over the soil surface. The sys-
tem was designed to allow each trapdoor to yield separately
by unscrewing the holding nuts.
Test procedure
The container was filled with loose sand using a sand
raining device. To produce dense sand, the container was
filled with layers of sand while they were compacted evenly
with a 4.54 kg rammer. Each layer of soil was 5 cm in
thickness. The falling height of the rammer and number of
blows varied depending on the expected densities. This stage
was very time-consuming and several tests were carried out
to make sure the soil density was identical throughout the
sand mass. After filling the container with sand, the nuts
holding the trapdoor were unscrewed while the upward pres-
sure on the trapdoor was being adjusted to ensure that the
trapdoor did not displace. This was a final stage of the test.
At this stage the recorded stress was very close to the geo-
static pressure, s0 = gh, where g is the density of the sand
and h is the height of the sand mass in the container. Fol-
lowing this stage, the trapdoor was slowly yielded down-
ward by loosening the load cell major screw. This trend
was continued until the load displayed by the load cell
tended towards a constant value.
Results
The test results with 10, 20, and 30 cm diameter trapdoors
are depicted in Figs. 6–8, respectively. In these figures, s/s0
is the ratio of normal stress that is applied onto the trapdoor
during any stage of yielding to the same stress at the initial
stationary state. This stress ratio defines the stress reduction
Published by NRC Research Press
368 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Fig. 1. Internal friction angle, 4, versus relative density, Dr. R2, regression squared; sn, normal stress.

Fig. 2. Dilation angle, n, versus relative density, Dr.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of apparatus. All dimensions in centimetres.

Published by NRC Research Press

Sadrekarimi and Abbasnejad
Fig. 4. Detail of trapdoors, load cell, and displacement gauge.
Fig. 5. General view of the test system.
level due to the arching effect. DH is the trapdoor down-
ward yield value.
Discussion
Main aspects of the phenomenon
Referring to Figs. 6–8, it is observed that at the early
stage of the tests the stress applied against the trapdoor de-
369
creases sharply as the trapdoor yields. At this stage the
whole mass of sand behaves mostly elastically. As the trap-
door yield continues, the stress ratio decreases and tends to-
ward a minimum value and then increases again until it
reaches an ultimate constant level. This trend is true for all
the trapdoors. However, as the diameter of the trapdoor in-
creases and (or) the relative density of the test soil de-
creases, the minimum and ultimate stress ratios both
Published by NRC Research Press
370
Fig. 6. Stress ratio–yield plots for 10 cm diameter trapdoor.
Fig. 7. Stress ratio–yield plots for 20 cm diameter trapdoor.
increase. This behavior may be justified as follows. As the
trapdoor yield starts, the overlying soil weight that is carried
by the trapdoor is transmitted gradually onto the container
base surrounding the trapdoor. For this reason at initial stage
of the test, in which the sand mass behaves mostly elasti-
cally, a minute yield is followed by a sharp decrease in the
stress carried by the trapdoor. As the trapdoor yield pro-
ceeds, random plastic points in the sand mass are estab-
lished. At this stage, stress adjustment due to trapdoor
yielding is not immediate and occurs with some amount of
time lag. This is attributed to the flow phenomenon that oc-
curs due to the plastic behavior of the yielding sand mass.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
Then, continuing the downward displacement and decreas-
ing the stress ratio to a minimum value, failure occurs. At
failure state, depending on the trapdoor diameter, relative
density, and dilation angle of the sand, the failing sand
mass dilates and imposes further stress onto the trapdoor.
This phenomenon continues until the failure surface is de-
veloped and the yielded mass of sand departs from the
whole mass. Following this stage there is no longer any
stress or mass exchange between two parts. Accordingly,
the load cell displays a constant value. It was observed that
as the relative density of the test soil was decreased to a
specified value, no stable arch was established and the fail-
Published by NRC Research Press
Sadrekarimi and Abbasnejad
Fig. 8. Stress ratio–yield plots for 30 cm diameter trapdoor.
Fig. 9. Stable arch for 20 cm diameter trapdoor.
ure surface developed up to the surface of the sand mass. A
representative stable arch for the 20 cm diameter trapdoor
and relative density Dr = 38.60% is shown in Fig. 9. Fig-
ure 10 shows the collapse of soil mass caused by an unsta-
ble arch for the same trapdoor diameter and Dr = 16.52%.
Referring to Figs. 6–8, the ultimate stresses applied onto
the trapdoor are determined and plotted against relative den-
sity in Fig. 11. It is observed that the ultimate stress ratio
generally decreases as the relative density increases. How-
ever, up to a certain Dr value, say 28% for the 20 cm diam-
eter trapdoor, no stable arch is established. As the relative
density increases the failure mode changes from sand flow
to arch formation. Line B may be adopted as the stable and
unstable arch boundary. As the relative density increases the
stress approaches a minimum value. At this relative density
the pressure applied against the buried trapdoor is at a mini-
mum. Then, further increase in soil relative density increases
the stress carried by the trapdoor until it tends toward an
asymptote. In other words, the relative density increment no
371
longer causes any effect on the stress applied onto the trap-
door. Line A may be accepted as a line that defines the min-
imum stress ratio. It shows that at Dr = 39% the stress ratio
tends to be a minimum value. This is probably due to the
fact that as the Dr value exceeds 39%, the soil density in-
creases and causes a heavier mass of soil to collapse. Fig-
ure 12 shows the pressure imposed on the trapdoor versus
the relative density of the test soil. In this case, similar to
the ultimate stress case, the critical and minimum relative
densities may be defined.
Comparison of experimental results with Terzaghi’s
theory
Referring to the Terzaghi’s (1943) procedure explained
above, the stress ratios applied onto the trapdoors were cal-
culated for different relative densities and the results are
shown in Fig. 13. Equation [3] was employed to carry out
calculations; and, for each test, sv was obtained from this
equation. The coefficient of cohesion, c, was set to zero and
Published by NRC Research Press
372 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010

Fig. 10. Unstable arch for 20 cm diameter trapdoor.

Fig. 11. Ultimate stress (sUltimate) ratio – relative density plots.

Fig. 12. Minimum stress (sminimum) ratio – relative density plots.

Published by NRC Research Press

Sadrekarimi and Abbasnejad 373

Fig. 13. Stress applied onto the trapdoor obtained from Terzaghi’s (1943) theory.

Fig. 14. Comparison of cones with 2n and 24 vertex angles with test results.

there was no surcharge pressure on the sand, therefore q = 0.
Note that according to Trezaghi’s method, the soil mass
resting above 2.5 times the trapdoor diameter was assumed
as surcharge. Referring to Fig. 13, it is seen that the stress
ratio s/s0 increases as the relative density increases. Also,
comparing Fig. 13 with Figs. 6–8 reveals that the stress val-
ues obtained from Terzaghi’s theory correspond to the stress
values measured at low strains, say DH << 0.1 mm.
Comparison of results with the upper boundary theory
Lower boundary theory assumes that the soil behaves
elastically and there is no failure zone in the soil mass.
However, in upper boundary theory a complete failure in
the soil mass is assumed so that the failure surface above
tunnel shapes a cone with 2n vertex angle, in which n is the
dilation angle of the soil (Atkinson and Potts 1977). In
Fig. 14, the separated soil cones with 2n and 24 vertex an-

Published by NRC Research Press

374
gles and those obtained from the current experiment are de-
picted, in which 4 is internal friction angle. It is seen that
the theoretical cones with a 2n vertex angle are very conser-
vative, as they are quite distinct from the experimental
vaults. It appears that if the vertex angle is taken as 24
rather than 2n it would be more justifiable, although with a
24 angle the load due to arching is underestimated some-
what.
Summary and conclusions
The relative density of soil and trapdoor diameter are both
dominant factors affecting the formation of a stable arch. As
the trapdoor yields, following a small initial mostly elastic
strain, the soil mass deforms plastically with larger strain
rates and pressure applied onto the trapdoor decreases to a
minimum value. Then, as the trapdoor yield continues, de-
pending on the dilation angle and relative density of the test
soil, the stress level on the trapdoor increases gently and fi-
nally tends toward a constant value. At this stage the yield-
ing sand mass separates from the whole mass.
There is a critical relative density below which no stable
arch is formed. Also, there is an optimum relative density
at which the stress applied onto the trapdoor is at a mini-
mum value. Beyond this density, the stress level gently in-
creases and ultimately tends toward a constant value
(Figs. 11, 12).
As the trapdoor yields, a lower and upper boundary for
the stress applied onto the trapdoor can be defined.
From Terzaghi’s (1943) theory, the stress ratio s/s0 in-
creases as the relative density increases. However, the cur-
rent work proves that the ultimate stress decreases as the
soil relative density increases. This may be attributed to the
fact that the stress values obtained from Terzaghi’s theory
correspond to very low displacements.
Comparing the results with the upper boundary theory, it
is seen that the theoretical cones with 2n vertex angle are
conservative, as they are quite distinct from the experimen-
tal vaults. It appears that it would be more justifiable if the
vertex angle was taken as 24 rather than 2n.
References
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classification of soils for engi-
neering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM
standard D2487. American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, Pa.
Atkinson, J.H., and Potts, D.M. 1977. Stability of a shallow circu-
lar tunnel in cohesionless soil. Géotechnique, 27(2): 203–215.
doi:10.1680/geot.1977.27.2.203.
Burghignoli, A. 1981. Soil interaction in buried structures. In Pro-
ceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 15–
19 June 1981. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 2,
pp. 69–74.
Clough, G.W., and Duncan, J.M. 1971. Finite element analyses of
retaining wall behavior. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(12): 1657–1673.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 47, 2010
Clough, G.W., and Schmidt, B. 1981. Design and performance of
excavation and tunnels in soft clay. In Soft clay engineering.
Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 600–634.
Didwania, A.K., Cantelaube, F., and Goddard, J.D. 2000. Static
multiplicity of stress states in granular heaps. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London, Series A, 456: 2569–2588.
Getzler, Z., Komornik, A., and Maturik, A. 1968. Model study on
arching above buried structures. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 94(5): 1123–1141.
Hashash, Y.M.A., and Whittle, A.J. 2002. Mechanism of load trans-
fer and arching for braced excavation in clay. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(3):
187–197. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:3(187).
Hoeg, K. 1968. Stresses against underground structural cylinders.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
94(4): 833–858.
Koutsabeloulis, N.C., and Griffiths, D.V. 1989. Numerical model-
ing of the trapdoor problem. Géotechnique, 39(1): 77–89.
doi:10.1680/geot.1989.39.1.77.
Lee, K.M., and Rowe, R.K. 1991. An analysis of three-dimensional
ground movements: the thunder bay tunnel. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 28(1): 25–41. doi:10.1139/t91-004.
Lee, C.J., Chiang, K.H., and Kou, C.M. 2004. Ground movement
and tunnel stability when tunneling in sandy ground. Journal of
the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 27(7): 1021–1032.
Finn, W.D. 1963. Boundary value problems of soil mechanics.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
89(SM5): 39–72.
Mair, R.J. 1979. Centrifugal modeling of tunnel construction in soft
clay. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Michalowski, R.L., and Park, N. 2004. Admissible stress fields and
arching in piles of sand. Géotechnique, 54(8): 529–538. doi:10.
1680/geot.54.8.529.52008.
Ono, K., and Yamada, M. 1993. Analysis of arching action in gran-
ular mass. Géotechnique, 43(1): 105–120.
Park, S.H., and Adachi, T. 2002. Laboratory model tests and FE
analyses on tunneling in the unconsolidated ground with in-
clined layers. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
17(2): 181–193. doi:10.1016/S0886-7798(02)00003-2.
Savage, S.B. 1997. Problems in the statics and dynamics of granu-
lar materials. In Powders and Grains ’97, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference, Durham, N.C., 18–23 May
1997. Edited by R.P. Behringer and J.T. Jenkins. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 185–194.
Savage, S.B. 1998. Modeling and granular material boundary value
problems. In Physics of dry granular media. Edited by H.J. Herr-
mann, J.-P. Hovi, and S. Luding. Kluwer Academic Press, Inc.,
Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp. 25–95.
Stone, K.J.L., and Newson, T.A. 2002. Arching effects in soil–structure
interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Physical Modeling in Geotechnics – ICPMG 02, St. John’s,
Nfld., 10–12 July 2002. Edited by R. Phillips, P.J. Guo, and
R. Popescu. A.A. Balkema, Lisse, the Netherlands. pp. 935–939.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Wittmer, J.P., Cates, M.E., and Claudin, P. 1997. Stress propaga-
tion and arching in static sand piles. Journal de Physique. I,
7(1): 39–80. doi:10.1051/jp1:1997126.
Wu, B.R., and Lee, C.J. 2003. Ground movements and collapse
mechanisms induced by tunneling in clayey soil. International
Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 3(4): 13–27.
Published by NRC Research Press