International Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2(8) August 2013, Pages: 421-426

TI Journals
ISSN
2306-6474

International Journal of Engineering Sciences

www.tijournals.com

Estimation of Shear Strength of Prototype Rockfill Materials

Sharma Pankaj *1, Mahure NV 2, Gupta SL 3, Dhanote Sandeep 4, Singh Devender 5
1-5

Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi, India.

AR TIC LE INF O

AB S TR AC T

Keywords:

Rockfill material is the most readily available and the most flexible material for the construction of dams especially
in the seismic prone regions. The material is obtained either by blasting available rock or is collected from the
alluvial deposits of the river. The properties of the materials cannot be ascertained directly due to their
large size. The sizes are thus modeled down to reduce the sizes suitable for testing in the laboratory.
Further these results are extrapolated to the actual sizes available in the field. Present studies have been
carried out to ascertain the validity of extrapolation technique. Materials for the studies were collected from the
alluvial deposits of the river and also by blasting available rock. Consolidated drained triaxial shear tests have
been conducted on the modeled samples with 20 mm, 40 mm, 60 mm and 80 mm maximum particle size. The
test data have been analyzed to obtain shear parameters for sample with 80 mm maximum particle size by
extrapolating results of shear parameters for sample with 20, 40 and 60 mm maximum particle size. The
extrapolated value is compared with the actual shear parameter value for sample with 80 mm maximum
particle size obtained experimentally.

Rockfill materials
Consolidated drained triaxial shear tests
Particle size
Strength parameters
Breakage factor
Extrapolation

2013 Int. j. eng. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1.

Introduction

Construction of dams using rockfill (RF) material is becoming increasingly more common because of self realigning capacity of the
materials. This makes RF dams more stable even in the seismic zones. The abundant availability of such materials in the vicinity of
proposed dam construction sites makes dams construction more economical. The materials consist primarily of angular to sub-angular
particles obtained by blasting parent rock (QRF) or rounded / sub-rounded particles obtained from terrace alluvial deposits of the river
(RBRF). Testing and understanding the behaviour of the rockfill material have been a challenging task to geotechnical engineers. Some
kind of modeling technique is often used to reduce the size of particles so that the samples prepared with smaller size particles can be
tested. The material parameters obtained from the tests are generally used to get the parameters for large size prototype material by
extrapolation.

2.

Review

The behaviour of rockfill materials is often studied by performing triaxial tests on modeled rockfill materials because actual rockfill
material is large in size. Modeling techniques viz. scalping technique [1], parallel gradation technique [2], quadratic grain size distribution
technique [3] and replacement Technique [4] are available for testing of rockfill materials. Investigations conducted on rockfill materials
indicate that the magnitude of the particle breakage during loading is directly related to maximum particle size. These empirical factors
either cause the variation of grain diameter [5, 6] or the shift of the whole grain size distribution curve [7, 8]. The results of tests conducted
by Marachi [9] show a variation of the angle of internal friction with the grain size distribution. High pressure causes considerable particle
breakage [6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. There are several factors that affect the amount of particle breakage in a geological material [5, 8, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]

3.

Material used for testing

QRF and RBRF materials are collected to prepare sample with maximum particle size d(max) 20, 40, 60 and 80 mm.
3.1 Quarried Material from Kol Dam Project, H.P.
The parent rock at this project site is either dolomite or limestone. The QRF materials (Figure 1) possess the following mechanical
properties;
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Los Angeles Abrasion Value
Aggregate Impact Value
Aggregate Crushing Value
* Corresponding author.
Email address: pan2256@gmail.com

:
:
:
:

37.1 MPa to 40.4 MPa

48.1%
42.3%
41.2%.

Sharma Pankaj et al.

422

Int ernational Journal of Engi neering Sc iences, 2(8) Au gust 2013

Figure 1. Quarried material

Figure 2. River bed material

3.2 River Bed Material from Kol Dam Project, H.P., (RBRF)
The material mainly composed of quartzite and dolomite/ lime stone. The RBRF materials (Figure 2) possess the following mechanical
properties;
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Los Angeles Abrasion Value
Aggregate Impact Value
Aggregate Crushing Value

4.

:
:
:
:

42.7 MPa to 50.1 MPa

44.2%
39.8%
37.9%.

Methodology and experimental investigations

Out of all the modeling techniques, parallel gradation technique is considered to be more appropriate and as such it is widely used [26].
Four modeled gradation curves (Figure 3 and Figure 4) having a maximum particle size (d max ) of 20, 40, 60 and 80 mm both for QRF as
well as RBRF are derived using John Lowes parallel gradation modeling technique. Using these modeled grain size distribution curves, the
required quantities of various fractions of rockfill materials have been calculated. Consolidated drained triaxial tests have been conducted
using a large size triaxial shear apparatus at 3, 6, 9 and 12 kg/cm2 confining pressures on the modeled materials.
Consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests have been conducted on the modeled rockfill materials. A specimen size of 381 mm diameter by
813 mm long was used for testing. For testing, a dry density corresponding to 87% of relative density was adopted. Samples were
isotropically consolidated under four different confining pressures (3), kg/cm2 in the range between 3 kg/cm2 to 12 kg/cm2 for each
modeled rockfill material. In accordance with the modeled gradation curves the total quantity of various fractions of rockfill materials
required to achieve the specified density was determined by weight. The computed quantity of fractions was thoroughly mixed and
moistened with 3 to 4% water by weight for maintaining reasonably uniform composition as per physical observations based on pilot test.
The mixed sample was compacted in a split mould in six equal layers by vibratory compaction. The sample was saturated by allowing
water to pass through the base of the triaxial cell and using a top drainage system for removing air from the voids. CD tests were
conducted.

Kol H.E. Project, H.P.

Quarried Material

20 40 60 80

Percent finer (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01

0.1

1
10
Grain size (mm)

100

Figure 3. Modeled gradation curves for QRF material

1000

Estimation of Shear Strength of Prototype Rockfill Materials

423

Internati onal Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(8) Au gust 2013

Kol H.E. Project, H.P.

River Bed Material

20 40 60 80

Percent finer (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01

0.1

Grain size (mm)

10

100

1000

Figure 4. Modeled gradation curves for RBRF material

4.1 The Apparatus

The tests are conducted using triaxial cell of 381 mm dia and 813 mm height. The sectional elevation of triaxial cell is shown in Figure 5.
The test assembly includes axial Loading Unit, Confining Pressure Unit to maintain and control the applied confining pressure through an
air-water pressure system and strain measurement unit. To isolate the sample from cell water two sleeves (1 mm thick inner sleeve and 3
mm thick outer sleeve) are used.

Figure 5. Sectional elevation of triaxial cell

Sharma Pankaj et al.

424

Int ernational Journal of Engi neering Sc iences, 2(8) Au gust 2013

Drained Triaxial Tests Preparation and Setting up of SpecimenIn accordance with the model gradation curves, the total dry weight
required for achieving 87% of relative density are computed for each of the specimens to be tested. The quantity of individual fractions is
moistened with 4-5% moisture, thoroughly mixed and packed in 6 layers inside a split mould using vibrating compactor.
The specimen is saturated by allowing the water to pass through from the base connection of the cell and using the top drainage system for
removing the air voids till full saturation is achieved. The cell is filled with water by connecting it to the water supply source. The bottom
water outlet of the specimen is connected to burette for volume change measurement.
Consolidation and Shearing the specimenConstant confining pressure is generated using air-water pressure system. Sample is then
consolidated at desired confining pressure. The deviatoric load is applied on the specimen using hydraulic pressure unit under drained
condition at a low constant rate of deformation of 1 mm per minute till failure.

5.

Experimental Results

The pq plots for QRF and RBRF materials for the samples with d(max) 20, 40, 60 and 80 mm for are presented in Figure 5 and 6
respectively.

6.

Discussion of Results

The angle of internal friction decreases with increasing particle size for quarried material while increases with particle size in case of river
bed material [23, 27, 28]. From figures 5 and 6 it is observed that the value of the angle of internal friction (), in degrees for QRF
materials is found to decrease from 45.08o to 42.99o as the d(max) increased from 20 to 80 mm while for RBRF material it is found to
increase from 44.90o to 49.31o as the d(max) increased from 20 to 80 mm.
6.1 Angle of Internal Friction for Prototype Material by Extrapolating the Experimental Results
The values of angle of internal friction obtained for tested samples with d(max) 20, 40 and 60 mm for QRF and RBRF are plotted on a loglog scale and are presented in figure 8 and 9 respectively. Equation for the power line for both QRF and RBRF is obtained which is applied
to predict value for sample with d(max) 0f 80 mm. The same are presented in figure 8 and 9.
6.2 Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Value of
From table 1 it is evident that the difference in the predicted and experimental value of is less than 1% in both cases.

d(max) = 40 mm

50

50

= 45.08 degree

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

y = 0.6949x + 0.3957
40

Kg/sqcm

40

Average Shear Stress,

y = 0.7081 + 0.3754

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

d(max) = 20 mm

= 44.02 degree

30
20
10
0

60

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

d(max) = 60 mm

20

30

40

50

60

d(max)
D(max) ==80
80mm
mm

50

50

= 43.69 degree

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

y = 0.6819x + 0.2198
40

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

y = 0.6908 x + 0.2795

40

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

10

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

= 42.99 degree

30
20
10
0
0

Average Normal Stres s , Kg/s qcm

10

20

30

40

50

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

Figure 6. pq plots for samples with d(max) 20, 40, 60 and 80 mm QRF material

60

Estimation of Shear Strength of Prototype Rockfill Materials

425

Internati onal Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(8) Au gust 2013

50

= 44.90 degree

30
20
10
0

y = 0.7312 x + 0.07
= 47.12 degree

40

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

y = 0.7059 x + 0.0154

40
Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

d(max) = 40 mm

d(max) = 20 mm

50

30
20
10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

30

40

50

60

d(max) = 80 mm
50

= 48.11 degree

30
20
10

y = 0.7565 x + 0.379

40

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

y = 0.7444 x + 0.1701

= 49.31 degree

30
20
10
0

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

10

20

30

Expe rimental [for d(max) = 80 mm] = 42.99 de gree

Predicte d
[for d(max) = 80 mm] = 43.26 degre e

100

y = 49.144x

-0.0291

10
1

10

100

1000

Particle Size, mm

Figure 8. Extrapolation of values for modeled QRF material

Experime ntal [for d(max) = 80 mm] = 49.31 de gree

Predicte d
[for d(max) = 80 mm] = 49.08 degree
100

y = 37.159x0.0635

10
1

10

100

1000

Particle Size, mm

Figure 9. Extrapolation of values for modeled RBRF material

Table 1. Percent drift in the experimental and predicted value of
Material
QRF
RBRF

40

50

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

Figure 7. pq plots for samples with d(max) 20, 40, 60 and 80 mm RBRF material

Angle of Internal Friction, degree

Angle of Internal Friction, degree

Kg/sqcm

Average Shear Stress,

d(max) = 60 mm
50
40

20

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

Average Normal Stress, Kg/sqcm

D(max) = 80 mm
(experimental)
(predicted)
42.99o
43.26o
o
49.31
49.08o

% drift
0.63
0.47

60

426

Sharma Pankaj et al.

Int ernational Journal of Engi neering Sc iences, 2(8) Au gust 2013

7.

Conclusion

Prototype rockfill material generally contain particle of large dimensions. There is no direct method to obtain strength parameters as the
laboratory testing facilities are inadequate to test for such materials. As such the approach of extrapolation for predicting strength
parameters is being widely followed. Above study clearly shows that the difference in the predicted and actual experimental value obtained
for sample with d(max) of 80 mm is less than 1%. As such the extrapolation technique provides a promising method for prediction of
values of for prototype rockfill materials.

Acknowledgements
The authors extend sincere thanks to Director, Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi for the constant encouragement
extended by him. We gratefully acknowledge and thank the Rockfill Division of CSMRS, New Delhi and the authorities of Kol Dam
Project, Himachal Pradesh, India for the support extended by them. We extend our sincere thanks to Dr. N.P. Honkanadavar, Scientist D
CSMRS and Dr. Sameer Vyas, Assistant Research Officer, CSMRS for extending valuable suggestions from time to time. Sincere gratitude
are extended to all the authors whose publications provided us directional information from time to time.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Zeller, J. and Wullimann, R. (1957). The Shear Strength of the Shell Materials for the Go-Schenenalp Dam, Switzerland. Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. on
SMFE, London, 2, 399-404.
Lowe, J. (1964) Shear Strength of Coarse Embankment Dam Materials, Proc. 8th International Congress on Large Dams, 3, 745-761.
Fumagalli, E. (1969). Tests on Cohesionless Materials for Rockfill Dams. J. of SMFE, ASCE, 95, SM 1, 313-332.
Frost, R.J. (1973). Some Testing Experiences and Characteristics of Boulder-Gravel Fills in Earth Dams. ASTM, STP 523:207.
Lee, K.L. and Farhoomand, I. (1967) Compressibility and Crushing of Granular Soil in Anisotropic Triaxial Compression, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 4, 1: 68- 99.
Lade, P.V., Yamamuro, J.A. and Bopp, P.A. (1996) Significance of Particle Crushing in Granular Materials, J. of Geotech. Engg., ASCE, 122(4) 309
-316.
Marsal, RJ. (1967) Large Scale Testing of Rockfill Materials, J. of Soil Mech. and Foundations Division, ASCE, 93(2), 27-43.
Hardin, B.O. (1985) Crushing of Soil Particles, J. Geotech. Engg. , ASCE, 111(10), 1177 -1192.
Marachi, N.D. Chan C.K and Seed H.B. (1972) Evaluation of Properties of Rockfill Materials, J. of SMFE, ASCE, 98, SM1, 95-114.
Becker, E. (1972) Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Rockfill Materials under Plane Strain Conditions, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
California, Berkley.
Murphy, D.J. (1987) Stress, Degradation and Shear Strength of Granular Material, Geotech. Modeling and Applications, S.M. Sayed, Ed., Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, Tex.: 181-211.
Colliat-Dangus, J.L., Desrues, J. and Foray, P. (1988) Triaxial Testing of Granular Soil under Elevated Cell Pressure. Advanced Triaxial Testing of
Soil and Rock, ASTM-STP977, ASTM, Philadelphia: 290-310.
Fukumoto, T. (1990) A Grading Equation for Decomposed Granite Soil, Soils and Foundation, Tokyo, Japan, 30(1) 27-34.
Hagerty, M.M., Hite, DR., Ullrich, C.R. and Hagerty, D.J. (1993) One Dimensional High Pressure Compression of Granular Media, J. Geotech.
Engg., ASCE, 119(1).
Daouadji, A. and Hicher, P.Y. (1997) Modelling of Grain Breakage influence on Mechanical Behaviour of Sands Proc. Numerical Models in
Geomechanics, Pietruszczak and Pande (Eds.) Balkema, Rotterdam, 69-74.
Ramamurthy, T. (1969) Crushing Phenomena in Granular Soils, J. of Indian National Society of SMFE, 8(1), 67-86.
Murphy, D.J. (1971) High Pressure Experiments on Soil and Rock, Proc. 13th Symp. Rock Mech., 691-714.
Billam, J. (1971) Some Aspects of the Behaviour of Granular Materials at High Pressure, Proc. Roscoe Memorial Sym. on Stress-Strain Behaviour of
Soils, Cambridge University, Foulis, Henley, 69 -80.
Lo, KY, and Roy, M. (1973) Response of Particulate Materials at High Pressure, Soils and Foundations, Tokyo, Japan, 13 (1), 1-14.
Ramamurthy, T., Kanitkar, V.K and Prakash, K (1974) Behaviour of Coarse Grained Soils Under High Stresses, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 4(1),
39-63.
Gupta, KK. (1980) "Behaviour of Modelled Rockfill Materials under High Confining Pressures, Ph.D. Thesis, IIT. Delhi.
Kjaernsli, B., Valstad, T. and Hoeg, K. (1992) "Rockfill Dams-Design and Construction, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Div. Of Hydraulics
Engg., N-7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Venkatachalam, K. (1993) Prediction of Mechanical Behaviour of Rockfill Materials, Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Delhi.
Lade,P.V. and Yamamuro, J.A. (1996) "Undrained Sand Behaviour in Axisymmetric Tests at High Pressures, J. Geotech. Engg., ASCE, 122(2), 120129.
Sharma Pankaj, Mahure N.V. and Murari Ratnam (2011) Influence of Different Stress Conditions on the Behavior of Rockfill Materials, J. of
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, 29(6), 10351048.
Ramamurthy, T. and Gupta, K.K. (1986). Response Paper to How Ought One to Determine Soil Parameters to be used in the Design of Earth and
Rockfill Dams. Proc. IGC, 2, 15-19.
S.M. Abbas, Testing and Modeling the Behaviour of Quarried and Rockfill Materials, Ph.D. Thesis, I.I.T. Delhi, 2003.
N.P. Honkanadavar, Testing and Modeling the Behaviour of Modeled and Prototype Rockfill Materials, Ph.D. Thesis, I.I.T. Delhi, 2010.