Cherif Taiba Et Al. - GTJ - 2018

Geotechnical Testing Journal
Experimental Investigation into the Influence of Roundness

and Sphericity on the Undrained Shear Response of Silty
Sand Soils
Fo
Journal: Geotechnical Testing Journal
Manuscript ID GTJ-2017-0118.R1
Manuscript Type: Technical Note

r
Date Submitted by the Author: 15-Aug-2017

Re
Complete List of Authors: BELKHATIR, Mostefa; University of Chlef, Civil Engineering

CHERIF TAIBA, Abdellah; Chlef University, Civil Engineering
MAHMOUDI, Youcef; Chlef University, Civil Engineering
Schanz, Tom; Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Foundation Engineering, Soil and
vi
Rock Mechanics
ASTM Committees and F42.05 Materials and Processes < F42 Committee on Additive
ew
Subcommittees: Manufacturing Technologies
Surface and Subsurface Characterization, Geophysics, Sampling and

Keywords:
Related Field Testing for Soil Evaluations
Particle shape represents one of the key-parameters influencing

On
significantly the mechanical response, shear strength, deformation and

settlement characteristics of cohesionless soil deposits when subjected to
static or dynamic loading conditions. Shear behavior of coarse grained soils
(gravel, gravelly sand, sandy gravel, sand, silty sand or sandy silt)
depends heavily on the two essential particle shape characteristics termed
ly
roundness and sphericity. However, there are limited published studies

available in the literature dealing solely with the effects of particle shape.
Therefore, the veritable role of the particle shape parameter on soil
behavior remains incomplete and requires further investigation. The
present research work attempts to investigate the effects of particle shape
on shear response of different categories of sand-silt mixtures under static
Abstract: triaxial loading conditions. For this purpose, a series of undrained
compression triaxial tests were carried out on mixtures of Chlef (Algeria)
rounded sand, Fontainebleau (France) sub-rounded sand and Hostun
(France) sub-angular sand mixed with low plastic (Ip = 5%) rounded silty
fines. All the sand-silt mixture samples were reconstituted at an initial
relative density (Dr = 52%) and subjected to a constant confining pressure
(P’c = 100kPa). The evaluation of particle shape characteristics of the
tested Materials (sand and silt) is performed using a digital microscope
device. Two new indexes termed combined roundness and combined
sphericity based on the combination of sand and silt to account for coupled
effects of particle shape and fines content were proposed. The test results
are used to correlate the undrained shear strength of the tested silty sand
soils to the particle shape characteristics. Therefore, particle shape appears
https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/astm-gtj
Page 1 of 39 Geotechnical Testing Journal
1
2
3
4 as important soil index property that needs to be adequately identified,
particularly for silty sand-silt mixture soils. The systematic identification of
5
particle shape characteristics leads to a better understanding of silty sand
6 behavior
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Geotechnical Testing Journal Page 2 of 39
1
2
3 Experimental Investigation into the Influence of Roundness and
4
5 Sphericity on the Undrained Shear Response of Silty Sand Soils
6
7 Abdellah Cherif Taiba1, Youcef Mahmoudi1, Mostefa Belkhatir1,2*, Tom Schanz2
8 1
Laboratory of Material Sciences & Environment, University of Chlef (Algeria)
9 2
Laboratory of Foundation Engineering, Bochum Ruhr University (Germany)
10 (*) Corresponding author e-mail: abelkhatir@yahoo.com
11
12
13 Abstract: Particle shape represents one of the key-parameters influencing significantly the
14
mechanical response, shear strength, deformation and settlement characteristics of cohesionless
15
16 soil deposits when subjected to static or dynamic loading conditions. Shear behavior of coarse
17
18 grained soils (gravel, gravelly sand, sandy gravel, sand, silty sand or sandy silt) depends
Fo
19
heavily on the two essential particle shape characteristics termed roundness and sphericity.
20
21 However, there are limited published studies available in the literature dealing solely with the
22
r
23 effects of particle shape on shear-strain characteristics and shear behavior of granular soil
24
deposits. Therefore, the veritable role of the particle shape parameter on soil behavior remains
Re
25
26 incomplete and requires further investigation. The present research work attempts to
27
28 investigate the effects of particle shape on shear response of different categories of sand-silt
vi
29
mixtures under static triaxial loading conditions. For this purpose, a series of undrained
30
31 compression triaxial tests were carried out on mixtures of Chlef (Algeria) rounded sand,
ew
32
33 Fontainebleau (France) sub-rounded sand and Hostun (France) sub-angular sand mixed with
34
low plastic (Ip = 5%) rounded silty fines. All the sand-silt mixture samples were reconstituted
35
36 at an initial relative density (Dr = 52%) and subjected to a constant confining pressure (P’c =
On
37
38 100kPa). The evaluation of particle shape characteristics of the tested Materials (sand and silt)
39
is performed using a digital microscope device. Two new indexes termed combined roundness
40
41 and combined sphericity based on the combination of sand and silt to account for coupled
ly
42
43 effects of particle shape and fines content were proposed. The test results are used to correlate
44
the undrained shear strength of the tested silty sand soils to the particle shape characteristics.
45
46 Therefore, particle shape appears as important soil index property that needs to be adequately
47
48 identified, particularly for silty sand-silt mixture soils. The systematic identification of particle
49
shape characteristics leads to a better understanding of silty sand behavior.
50
51
Keywords: Particle shape, combined roundness, combined sphericity, fines content, shear behavior, silty sand
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Nomenclature
4
5 a, c: Coefficients of equation
6 B: Skempton’s pore pressure parameter
7
8 Cu: Coefficient of uniformity
9
10 Cc: Coefficient of curvature
11 D: Diameter of the sample
12
13 Dmax: Maximum diameter of the grains
14
15 D10: Effective grain diameter
16 D30, D60: Grain size corresponding to 30% and 60% finer, respectively
17
18 D50: Mean grain size
Fo
19
20 Dr: Initial relative density
21 emax: Maximum global void ratio
22
r
23 emin: Minimum global void ratio

24
Fc: Fines content
Re
25
26 Gs: Specific gravity of solids
27
28 H: Height of the sample
vi
29
30 H/D: Height to diameter ratio of the sample
31 Ip: Plasticity index
ew
32
33 ML: Low plastic silt
34
35 P‘c: Initial confining pressure
36 qpeak: Peak shear strength
On
37
38 R: Roundness
39
40 Rcom: Combined roundness of mixtures
41
ly
Rhs: Roundness of host sand

42
43 Rf: Roundness of silt
44
45 S: Sphericity
46 Scom: Combined sphericity of mixtures
47
48 Shs: Sphericity of host sand
49
50 SP: Poorly graded sand
51 USCS: Unified soil classification system
52
53 εa: Axial strain
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 1. Introduction
4
5 Soils represent one of the most widely encountered materials in geotechnical
6 engineering work. Because of their heterogeneity, anisotropic nature, and non-linear stress-
7
8 strain curves, characterization and prediction of the engineering behavior of soils is a
9
10 challenging task requiring a significant experimental work and good sense of judgment. Many
11 Civil Engineering and Hydraulics structures are either made of soil material or they are
12
13 founded on soils. The design and stability of these structures (embankments, slopes, dams,
14
15 bridges, tunnels, retaining walls, buildings) depends heavily on the shear strength
16 characteristics of soils involved that, in turn, are greatly influenced by their geotechnical
17
18 engineering properties (grain size distribution, grain pore distribution, grain size and shape,
Fo
19
20 fines content, void ratio...etc.)
21 The influence of low plastic fines fraction got an increasing attention by researcher
22
r
23 during the last four decades, particularly when assessing the undrained shear strength
24
(liquefaction resistance) response of sand-silt mixture soils. However, published literature
Re
25
26 revealed contradictory results on the effect of low plastic fines content on the liquefaction
27
28 susceptibility of soil deposits (Pitman et al. 1994; Lade and Yamamuro 1997; Thevanayagam
vi
29
30 et al. 2002; Chu and Leong 2002; Georgiannou 2006, Belkhatir et al 2010, 2012, 2014,
31 Mahmoudi et al. 2015b). The controversial or even contradictory views and results in the
ew
32
33 literature indicate that the influence of low plastic fines remains an area of great difficulties
34
35 and uncertainties Yang et al. (2012). The effects of silty fines on the monotonic and cyclic
36 shear strength of sand-silt mixtures have also been studied in the laboratory. The majority of
On
37
38 laboratory tests show that at similar void ratio, the presence of fines up to at least about 30%
39
40 of the total weight decreases the cyclic strength (Polito and Martin 2001; Belkhatir et al.
41
ly
2012; Cherif Taiba et al. 2016). However, other published data indicate an increase of the
42
43 shear strength with the increase of low plastic fines fraction Yasuda et al. (1994). Moreover,
44
45 other researchers found that the liquefaction resistance increases with the increases of low
46 plastic fines for the most empirical relationships derived from in situ tests Seed et al. (1983).
47
48 Particle shape represents one of the most important parameters that are able to govern
49
50 the undrained shear strength characteristics, the stress-strain behavior of a granular material
51 and also its permeability by altering the grain size distribution and pore size distribution.
52
53 Gilboy (1928) reported that any means of analysis or classification of soil
54
55 neglecting the effective role of the shape parameter is incomplete and erroneous due to
56 the importance of grain shape and its effect on the shear behavior of granular materials
57
58 for practicing engineers and researchers to identify soil behavior. (Cho et al. 2006;
59
60
1
2
3 Georgiannou et al. 2006; Tsomokos et al. 2009) confirmed that particle shape is a key
4
5 parameter in controlling the behavior of sands and silty sands, therefore, it must be correctly
6 identified. (Wadell 1932, Krumbein 1941; Rittenhouse 1943; Powers 1953; Youd 1973)
7
8 discussed more detailed explanations on particle shape parameter. Two independent
9
10 properties are typically employed to identify the shape of a soil particle: (i) Roundness which
11 is the measure of the extent to which the edges and corners of the particle have been rounded.
12
13 (ii) Sphericity that describes the overall shape of a particle; it is a measure of the extent to
14
15 which a particle looks like a sphere in shape. (Wadell 1932; Krumbein 1941; Powers 1953;
16 Krumbein and Sloss 1963; Barrett 1980) reported that sphericity (S) is quantified as the
17
18 diameter of the largest inscribed sphere relative to the diameter of the smallest circumscribed
Fo
19
20 sphere and roundness (R) is quantified as the average radius of curvature of surface features
21 relative to the radius of the maximum sphere that can be inscribed in the particle. The
22
r
23 relationship between the sphericity and roundness can be further defined and evaluated in the
24
form of dimensionless parameters as shown in Figure 1.
Re
25
26 In literature, there were some studies about the influence of particle shape on shear
27
28 strength of soils; (Holtz and Gibbs 1956) indicated that angular quarry materials have higher
vi
29
30 shear strength than sub-angular and sub-rounded river materials. Yoginder et al. (1985) found
31 that substantial decrease in liquefaction resistance occurred with increase in confining
ew
32
33 pressure for rounded and angular sands; also rounded sands showed a rapid build-up of
34
35 resistance against liquefaction with increasing density while angular tailing sand, in contrast,
36 showed such rapid increase only at low confining pressures. However, angular material is
On
37
38 more resistant to liquefaction at low confining pressures. Probably, the breakage of the
39
40 corners of the angular particles in tailings induces a drop in resistance at high confining
41
ly
pressures. Vaid et al. (1985) found that at the same relative density, angular sands exhibited
42
43 higher resistance to liquefaction at smaller confining pressures in comparison to higher
44
45 confining pressures where angular sands had a lower resistance than rounded sands.
46 (Santamarina and Cho 2001) and (Holtz and Kovacs 1981) found that the stress-strain
47
48 response of sands is influenced by the angularity and the increase of angularity resulting a
49
50 higher peak shear strength due to the increase contact forces between the sand particles. Cho
51 et al. (2006) studied correlations between particle shape, packing density, stiffness and shear
52
53 strength of sands through the consideration of sphericity and roundness parameters to identify
54
55 the eventual influence of the particle shape on the mechanical response of different sandy
56 samples. Cho et al. (2006) observed through systematic analysis of microphotographs of sand
57
58 particles and oedometer tests that the increase in angularity of particles causes an increase in
59
60
1
2
3 the constant volume critical state friction angle and recommended that particle shape
4
5 characteristics should be identified and included in the classifications and therefore in the
6 standards, especially for coarse-grained soils. Their study revealed that increasing irregularity
7
8 causes an increase in emax, emin, Ie; compressibility under zero-lateral strain loading; and
9
10 critical state friction angle, as well as a decrease in small-strain stiffness. Guo et al. (2007)
11 observed from drained triaxial tests on two sands with different confining pressures and void
12
13 ratios that inter-particle forces induce an increase of the angularity of sand particles which
14
15 tends to increase the peak friction angle, and affects the sand dilatancy characteristics.
16 Tsomokos et al. (2009) indicated from compression and torsion tests on samples at loose to
17
18 medium relative density that the angular grains showed a more stable response in comparison
Fo
19
20 to the rounded sands that showed a significant reduction in strength. In addition, they found
21 that an increasing in the consolidation stress to values greater than 2000 kPa for the triaxial
22
r
23 compression leads to crushing of angular grains and therefore, modified the behavior of the
24
sand in contrast to the small consolidation stress values. Yang et al. (2012) found that the rate
Re
25
26 of variation of the critical state friction angle with fines content appeared to be most
27
28 significant for the mixture composed of coarse and fine particles that were both rounded,
vi
29
30 whereas it may be least significant for the mixture of coarse and fine particles that were both
31 angular. (Wei and Yang 2014) experimentally studied the role of particle shape in the
ew
32
33 liquefaction of clean sand and sand-silt mixtures. They showed that the average shape of
34
35 particles in both coarse and fines phases played an important role in liquefaction vulnerability
36 of sand-silt mixtures. Yang et al. (2015) indicated that the rounded shape sand exhibited a
On
37
38 significant higher shear resistance compared to angular sand shape. Moreover, they found that
39
40 the rounded shape sand mixed with angular silt achieved an extremely low resistance
41
ly
compared to the angular sand mixed with angular silt.

42
43 The objective of the present research work aims to evaluate the effects of the particle
44
45 shape using the parameters of roundness and sphericity to explain the observed differences in
46 the mechanical behavior of three different sandy soils (rounded sand, sub-rounded sand and
47
48 sub-angular sand). The relationship between the particle shape characteristics in terms of
49
50 combined roundness and combined sphericity with the undrained shear behavior of three
51 tested materials samples is studied with the goal of developing simple equations that would
52
53 permit the prediction of the undrained shear strength of tested soil based on the parameters of
54
55 roundness and sphericity considering the initial following conditions: (Dr = 52%, P’c =
56 100kPa).
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Figure 1: Particle shape determination (Sphericity S and Roundness R) chart
4 (Modified from Krumbein and Sloss 1963) (Illustrated by Cho et al. 2006).
5
6
2. Experimental program
7
8 2.1 Index properties of tested materials
9
10 The laboratory tests were conducted on sand-silt mixtures of three different materials
11
Chlef rounded sand (R = 0.439 and S = 0.753), Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand (R = 0.390
12
13 and S = 0.749) and Hostun sub-angular sand (R = 0.319 and S = 0.676) mixed with low
14
15 plastic Chlef silty rounded fines (“R = 0.626 and S = 0.513) content of Fc = 0%, 10%, 20%,
16
30% and 40%. In this investigation, roundness (R) and sphericity (S) are quantified using
17
18 digital processing technique as defined by (Cho et al 2006):
Fo
19
20
R=
∑ ri / N (1) and S=
rmax −in
(2)
21
rmax −in rmin −in
22
r
23 Where R: is the roundness, S: is the sphericity, ri: is the diameter of inscribed circle
24
Re
25 tangent to the edge of particles, N: is the number of inscribed circle, rmax-in: is the diameter of
26
27 the largest inscribed circle and rmin-in: is the diameter of the smallest inscribed circle (Figure
28 1). In addition, 15 samples were analyzed for each type of soil (Chlef rounded sand,
vi
29
30 Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand, Hostun sub-angular sand and Chlef rounded silt) and the
31
ew
32 average value was considered to identify and determine the magnitude of roundness and
33 sphericity of soil particles. The microscopic views of tested materials are shown in Figure 2.
34
35 The index properties of the materials under study are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The
36
grain size distribution curves of the tested silty sand samples are shown in Figure 3. As it can
On
37
38 be seen, the granulometric curves lie in between those proposed by Tsuchida (1970) classified
39
40 as liquefiable soils. The maximum void ratio (emax) corresponding to the loosest state of the
41
ly
42 soil sample and minimum void ratio (emin) corresponding to the densest state of the soil
43 sample were determined according to ASTM D4253 and ASTM D4254 standards for 0–100%
44
45 range of fines content (Fc).
46
Table 1: Index properties of tested sands and silt
47
48 Table 2: Index properties of sand-silt mixtures under study
49
50 Figure 2: Microscopic view for determination particle shape of tested materials
51 (a)-Chlef sand (b)-Chlef silt (c)-Fontainebleau sand (d) - Hostun sand
52
53 Figure 3: Grain size distribution curves of tested materials
54 (a) - Chlef sand-silt mixtures (b) -Fontainebleau sand-silt mixtures (c) - Hostun sand-silt mixtures
55
56 2.2 Evaluation of particle shape characteristics of tested sand-silt mixtures
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 The particle shape characteristics of tested materials (roundness and sphericity) of
4
5 sand and silt were measured using a digital microscope device named (ESM “Electron
6 Scanning Microscope”) based on the geometry of grains as it is shown in (Figure 1 and 2).
7
8 Based on the calculated values of the two parameters (roundness and sphericity), a graphical
9
10 comparison for the tested materials is shown in Figure 4. It is clear from the bar chart diagram
11 (Figure 4a) that the Chlef silt is the most rounded "R = 0.626"material followed by Chlef sand
12
13 "R = 0.439", Fontainebleau sand "R = 0.390" and Hostun sand "R = 0.319". In addition, it can
14
15 be seen from Figure 4b that the Chlef sand has the highest sphericity (Chlef sand, S = 0.753)
16 compared to the other tested materials. To allow better understanding for the coupled effect of
17
18 shape characteristics in terms of roundness (R) and sphericity (S) and fines content (Fc), new
Fo
19
20 indexes referred to as combined roundness and combined sphericity were introduced. Indeed,
21 the roundness and sphericity of sand-silt mixtures were determined using the combined
22
r
23 particle shape characteristics of host sands and those of silt according to the following
24
relations:
Re
25
26 Rcom = Rhs (1-Fc) + Rf *Fc (3)
27
28 Scom = Shs (1-Fc) + Sf *Fc (4)
vi
29
30 Where Rcom: combined roundness, Scom: combined sphericity, Shs: host sand sphericity, Rhs:
31
ew
32 host sand roundness, Sf: fines sphericity, Rf: fines roundness, Fc: fines content.
33
34 Figure 4: Evaluation of particle shape characteristics of tested materials
35 (a)- Roundness (b)-Sphericity
36 2.3 Sample Preparation
On
37
38 It is well known that one of the most important factors affecting the mechanical
39 behavior of cohesionless soils is the sample preparation, which influences directly the void
40
41 ratio. Principally, under similar conditions, wet deposited samples exhibit higher void ratios
ly
42
43 and consequently lower shear strength in comparison to dry funnel pluviated samples from the
44 same origin Mahmoudi et al. (2015a, 2016a, b). Numerous studies have reported that dry
45
46 funnel deposition is the most suitable sample preparation technique to evaluate the
47
48 liquefaction resistance characteristics of sands and silty sands (Della et al. 2011; Belkhatir et
49 al. 2012; Cherif Taiba et al. 2016, 2017a, b). All the samples have been reconstituted with the
50
51 diameter of 100 mm and height of 200 mm (H/D = 2). The samples were prepared with the
52
53 help of a mold comprising two semi-cylindrical shells. The two shells can easily be joined or
54 embossed one with the other with the help of a hose clamp. In order to maintain the cuff made
55
56 of latex along the partitions of the mold, four aspiration ducts are pierced in the conducted
57
58 shells. These ducts communicate with the inside of the mold by rows of small holes. They are
59
60
1
2
3 joined to flexible hoses that are assembled in a single tube. This last one can be connected to a
4
5 vacuum pump. The mass of sand-silt mixture was poured into the mold through a funnel was
6 calculated referring to the initial relative density expressed by the following equation:
7
8
9 Dr = (emax – e) / (emax – emin) (5)
10
11 Where e: target global void ratio, emax: maximum global void ratio and emin: minimum
12
13
global void ratio.
14 2.4 Sample saturation
15
16 The saturation phase represents an important stage to highlight qualitatively the
17
18
undrained loading response of the tested samples. To achieve the full saturation of samples,
Fo
19 the carbon dioxide technique elaborated by (Lade and Duncan 1973) was used. This technique
20
21 consists of making the carbon dioxide circulate through the circuits of drainage and the
22
sample at low debit during a certain time, in order to occupy all the voids and chase the air
r
23
24 contained in the sample. Then, allow deaerated and demineralized water circulates to chase
Re
25
26 the interstitial gas and occupy its place. In spite of the passage of water, some voids remain
27
28 occupied by the carbon dioxide. As the solubility of CO2 compound to air was raised, water
vi
29 can dissolve what remains of the carbon dioxide after its passage; it generally permits to
30
31 obtain a full saturation of the sample. In this study, after doing necessary measurements, the
ew
32
33
samples have been first subjected to CO2 for at least 30 min and then saturated by de-aired
34 water. The control of the degree of saturation was done by means of Skempton’s pore
35
36 pressure parameter B measurement. The samples have been considered to be fully saturated if
On
37
38
B was at least equal to or greater than 0.98. In this study, a back pressure of 200 kPa has been
39 applied during all the tests to achieve the saturation state.
40
41
ly
42 2.5 Consolidation and shear loading

43
44 After the saturation process, the samples were subjected to the confining pressure for
45
46 consolidation. During consolidation, the difference between confining pressure and
47 backpressure has been arranged such that for each sample, the effective consolidation pressure
48
49 was fixed equal to 100 kPa. In this study, all the undrained triaxial tests were conducted at a
50
51 constant strain rate of 0.2 mm per minute, which was slow enough to allow pore pressure
52 change to equalize throughout the sample with the pore pressure measured at the base of the
53
54 samples.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 3. Undrained monotonic triaxial test results
4
5 A series of undrained monotonic compression triaxial tests were conducted on three
6 materials named Chlef rounded sand, Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand and Hostun sub-
7
8 angular sand mixed with Chlef low plastic rounded fines content ranging between Fc = 0 %,
9
10 and Fc = 40% and subjected to a constant confining pressure of (P’c = 100 kPa) are presented
11 in Figures 5-9. In general, the parameter of the particle shape has a significant influence on
12
13 the undrained shear strength response of silty sands. For sands without low plastic fines (Fc =
14
15 0%), the Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand exhibits the highest undrained shear strength (qpeak
16 = 863.5 kPa) compared to the Hostun sub-angular sand (qpeak = 716.8 kPa and Chlef rounded
17
18 sand (qpeak = 363.5 kPa for the same initial relative density (Dr = 52%). This behavior can be
Fo
19
20 attributed to the intergranular forces produced by the sub-rounded and sub-angular shape of
21 particles to increase the interlocking and dilation phase leading to a more resistant structure of
22
r
23 the samples. The higher shear strength of Fontainebleau sand compared to the sub-angular
24
Hostun sand and the rounded Chlef sand shear strengths is in good agreement with the finding
Re
25
26 of (Liu et al. 2003; Rouse et al. 2008 and Guo et al. 2007).
27
28 However, for the Fc = 10%, 20% and 30% sand-silt mixtures the inverse tendency is
vi
29
30 observed, where the Hostun sand (sub-angular) mixed with Chlef low plastic fines (rounded)
31 presents the highest shear strength compared to the Chlef (rounded) sand-silt mixtures and
ew
32
33 Fontainebleau (sub-rounded) sand-silt mixtures. This can be attributed to the role of the
34
35 rounded fines particles to fill up the gaps between sub-angular particles of Hostun sand and
36 increase the inter-particle contact forces leading to the most stable samples in comparison to
On
37
38 the other two mixtures: Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-Chlef rounded silt mixture and Chlef
39
40 rounded sand-Chlef rounded silt mixture. In addition, the low plastic fines create a sufficient
41
ly
adhesion between the sub-angular Hostun sand particles and consequently leading to a
42
43 significant increase of the Hostun sand-silt mixtures stiffness compared to Chlef sand-silt
44
45 mixture and Fontainebleau sand-silt mixture samples for the range of fines content (Fc=10%,
46 20% and 30%). Indeed, the low plastic Chlef silt characterized by rounded shape particles fill
47
48 up the gaps and edges of sub-angular particles of Hostun sand and create more contacts
49
50 between coarser grains inducing a significant adhesion between the Hostun sub-angular sand
51 particles. However, the low plastic fines act as compressible grains, therefore, they do not
52
53 participate in the increase of contacts between grains of the Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand
54
55 and the Chlef rounded sand respectively. For Fc = 40%, the Chlef rounded sand-rounded silt
56 mixture shows the highest shear strength (qpeak = 54.5 kPa) in comparison with Fontainebleau
57
58 sub-rounded sand- rounded silt mixture (qpeak = 38.9 kPa) and Hostun sub-angular sand-
59
60
1
2
3 rounded silt mixture (qpeak = 37.0 kPa). This can be attributed to the compressibility nature of
4
5 Chlef rounded fines to participate in the force chain in the case of Chlef rounded sand-silt
6 mixtures and continue to act as compressible voids playing a major role within the
7
8 Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-silt and Hostun sub-angular sand-silt mixtures Cherif Taiba
9
10 al. (2016). Moreover, the sufficient amount of low plastic rounded Chlef silty fines plays a
11 major role in a way that contribute to limit the capacity of sub-rounded Fontainebleau sand
12
13 and sub-angular Hostun sand particles to get denser arrangement in comparison to rounded
14
15 Chlef sand particles for the higher fines content (Fc=40%). In addition, the shape of particles
16 influences also the generation of excess pore water pressure of the different sand-silt mixture
17
18 samples. For (Fc = 0%, 10% and 20%), it can be seen that the excess pore water pressure of
Fo
19
20 Chlef rounded sand-silt mixtures is the highest in comparison to Fontainebleau sub-rounded
21 sand-silt and “Hostun sub-angular sand-silt mixtures. This behavior results from the role of
22
r
23 the rounded sand particles to amplify the excess pore water pressure compared to sub-rounded
24
and sub-angular sands. The mixtures of sub-rounded and sub-angular sands with rounded
Re
25
26 fines exhibit a higher excess pore water pressure compared to the rounded sand-silt mixtures
27
28 for 30% and 40% fines content. In this case, the increase of excess pore water pressure is due
vi
29
30 to the fact that silty particles reduce intergranular contact forces. Moreover, the amount and
31 shape of the rounded Chlef silty fines play a significant role resulting in a reduction of the
ew
32
33 inter-particle forces of sub-rounded sand and sub-angular sand particles compared to rounded
34
35 sand particles leading to an increase of the pore water pressure and consequently a decrease in
36 the undrained shear strength of the materials under consideration for the selected fines content
On
37
38 (Fc=30% and Fc=40%). The stress path in the plane (p', q) shows clearly the role of the
39
40 combined effects of the particle shape and presence of low plastic fines in increasing or
41
ly
decreasing the mean effective pressure and maximum deviatoric stress of the different sand-
42
43 silt mixtures under study. In addition, the obtained tendencies do not agree with those found
44
45 in published literature stated that the higher the angularity the higher shear strength according
46 to several researchers. This can be attributed to the influence of different initial conditions
47
48 considered in the published literature and those considered in this study. For example,
49
50 Tsomokos et al. (2009) used four different sands with similar or identical grading curves (D50
51 ranges between 0.15mm and 0.29mm) tested in torsional hollow cylinder using the water
52
53 pluviation method. They found that angular sand exhibited higher resistance compared to
54
55 rounded shape. In contrast, Yang et al. (2015) indicated that the rounded shape sand exhibited
56 a significant higher shear resistance compared to angular sand shape. Moreover, regarding
57
58 this study, the Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand exhibit higher resistance in comparison to the
59
60
1
2
3 Hostun sub-angular sand and the Chlef rounded sand at medium relative density (Dr = 52%)
4
5 and initial confining pressure (P’c=100kPa) using dry funnel pluviation.
6 Table 3 presents the summary of the undrained monotonic triaxial compression tests.
7
8
9 Table 3: Summary of monotonic triaxial tests and particle shape characteristics of sand-silt mixtures
10
11 Figure 5: Undrained monotonic response of sand-silt mixtures (Fc = 0%, P’c = 100kPa)
12 (a):Devitor stress versus axial strain
13 (b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain
14 (c): Deviator stress versus effective mean pressure
15
(c): Deviator stress versus effective mean pressure
Fo
19
r

24
Re
26 (a): Devitor stress versus axial strain
vi
29
(a):Devitor stress versus axial strain
31
ew
(b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

33
34
4. Effect of particle shape characteristics on undrained peak shear strength
35
36
For the purpose of analyzing the effects of particle shape characteristics (Rcom and
On
37
38 Scom) on peak shear strength (qpeak) of three mixtures (Chlef rounded sand-silt mixture,
39
40 Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-silt mixture and Hostun sub-angular sand-silt mixture),
41
ly
42 Figure 10 reproduces the test results obtained from the current study (Figures 5-9). As it can
43 be seen from the plot, the particle shape characteristics (Rcom and Scom) combined roundness
44
45 and combined sphericity have a remarkable influence on the peak shear strength of different
46
47 graded sand-silt mixture samples. The overall soil trend indicates that the effects of the
48 particle shape characteristics are clearly observed for Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-silt and
49
50 Hostun sub-angular sand-silt mixtures and become very pronounced for Chlef rounded sand-
51
52 silt mixture (Figure 10). Figure 10a indicates that the undrained peak shear strength decreases
53 logarithmically with the increase of combined roundness and fines content of tested materials.
54
55 The observed undrained shear strength response is a result of the fact that the increase of the
56
57 combined roundness due to the increase of fines content induces contractive behavior to the
58
59
60
1
2
3 different graded sand-silt mixtures leading to softening soil sample structures. In addition, the
4
5 Chlef rounded silt characterized with higher value of roundness (R = 0.626) plays an effective
6 role that contribute in a decrement of the contact forces between sand grain leading to a
7
8 decrease of the undrained shear strength. Indeed, the higher roundness of Chlef silt (R =
9
10 0.626) contribute significantly in the decrease of inter-particles contacts of the rounded grains
11 of Chlef sand in comparison to the Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand and the Hostun sub-
12
13 angular sand where the silt shape play a limited role in increasing the inter-particle contacts.
14
15 The opposite trend is observed regarding the effects of the combined sphericity on the
16 undrained peak shear strength (Figure 10b). This tendency is due to the lower sphericity of
17
18 Chlef silt (S = 0.513) that decreases the combined sphericity of sand-silt mixtures and
Fo
19
20 consequently leading to a decrease of the inter-particle contacts between sand particles
21 inducing a significant decrease of the undrained shear strength of the materials under study.
22
r
23 Moreover, it can be seen that the particle shape characteristics of Chlef silt in terms of
24
roundness and sphericity play a remarkable effect in changing the undrained shear strength
Re
25
26 tendencies of the different sand-silt mixtures. Figure 10 indicates that the relationship between
27
28 undrained peak shear strength (qpeak) and particle shape characteristics (Rcom and Scom) is well
vi
29
30 established (0.69 ≤ R2 ≤ 0.96) for the different graded sand-silt mixtures (rounded, sub-
31 rounded and sub-angular materials). The undrained peak shear strength could be related to the
ew
32
33 particles shape characteristics for the tested soil samples through the following equation:
34
35 Log (qpeak) = a*log (Rcom, Scom) + c (6)
36
On
37
38
Table 4 shows the coefficients a, c and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R2) for
39 the selected material under consideration:
40
41 Table 4: Coefficients a, c and R2 for equation (6)
ly
42
43 Figure 10: Peak shear strength versus particle shape characteristics of silty sand
(a)-Combined roundness (b)-Combined sphericity
44
45
46 5. Conclusion
47
48 This experimental study is based upon a series of undrained monotonic compression
49
50
triaxial tests to evaluate the influence of particle shape characteristics in terms of combined
51 roundness and combined sphericity of three different types of grain shapes materials (Chlef
52
53 rounded sand, Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand and Hostun sub-angular sand). The samples
54
55
were reconstituted with the same initial relative density (Dr = 52%) and subjected to a
56 constant confining pressure (P’c = 100 kPa) for the range of fines content (0% ≤ Fc ≤ 40%).
57
58 The main conclusions of this study are summarized below:
59
60
1
2
3 1. Undrained monotonic triaxial compression test results showed that the particle shape
4
5 characteristics in terms of combined roundness and combined sphericity control the undrained
6 shear behavior of silty sand samples under consideration.
7
8
9 2. The of Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-silt mixture and Hostun sub-angular sand-silt
10 mixture exhibit higher undrained peak shear strength than Chlef rounded sand–silt mixture for
11
12 lower fines content (Fc = 0%). For fines content ranging between 10% and 30%, the Hostun
13
14 sub-angular sand-silt mixture presents higher liquefaction resistance compared to the other
15 two sand-silt mixtures (Chlef rounded sand-silt mixture and Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-
16
17 silt mixture). However, the inverse tendency is observed for higher fines content (Fc = 40%).
18
Where, the Fontainebleau and Hostun sand–silt mixtures exhibit lower undrained shear
Fo
19
20 strength in comparison to Chlef sand-silt mixtures. These behaviors indicate clearly that the
21
22 particle shape of sand and silt may affect significantly the undrained shear strength response
r
23
24 of soils as the fraction of sand or fines increases or decreases. Our results are in good
Re
25 agreement the findings of Cherif Taiba al. (2016).

26
27
28 3. The outcome of this laboratory study indicates that particle shape characteristics (combined
vi
29 roundness and combined sphericity) have a remarkable impact on the undrained shear
30
31 strength characteristics of Chlef rounded sand-silt, Fontainebleau sub-rounded sand-silt and
ew
32
33
Hostun sub-angular sand-silt mixtures and confirm the existence of relationships between
34 undrained shear strength characteristics (qpeak) and particle shape characteristics (Rcom and
35
36 Scom) for the different graded sand-silt mixtures (rounded, sub-rounded and sub-angular
On
37
38
materials). This is parallel to the findings of (Wei and Yang 2014 and Cherif Taiba al. 2016).
39
40
41 Acknowledgments This research work was supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) through
ly
Georg Forster Research Program grant funded by the German government for the third author. The tests were
42
carried out in the Laboratory of Foundation Engineering. Soils & Rocks Mechanics at Ruhr University of
43
Bochum (Germany). The authors acknowledge the technicians Werner Müller and Michael Skubisch who
44 effectively contributed to the achievements of this experimental program.
45
46 Compliance with ethical standards
47
48 Disclosures The manuscript, or its content, in any form has not been published previously by any of the authors.
49
50 Conflict of Interest There is no potential and actual conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other
51 nature with people or organizations.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 6. References
4
5 ASTM D 4253-00, 2002: “Standard test method for maximum index density and unit weight
6
7 of soils using a vibratory table,”. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American Society for
8
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 1–14. www.astm.org
9
10 ASTM D 4254-00, 2002: “Standard test method for minimum index density and unit weight
11
12 of soils and calculation of relative density,”. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American
13
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 1–9. www.astm.org
14
15 Barrett, P. J., 1980, “The shape of rock particles, a critical review,”. Sedimentology. Vol. 27,
16
17 pp, 291-303.
18
Belkhatir, M., Arab, A., Della, N., Missoum, H., Schanz, T., 2010, “Influence of inter-
Fo
19
20 granular void ratio on monotonic and cyclic undrained shear response of sandy soils,”.
21
22 Comptes. Rendus. Mecanique., Vol. 338, pp,290–303
r
23
Belkhatir,M., Schanz, T., Arab., 2012, “Effect of fines content and void ratio on the saturated
24
Re
25 hydraulic conductivity and undrained shear strength of sand–silt mixtures,”,

26
27 Environmental. Earth. Sciences., ISSN, 1866-6280.
28
Belkhatir, M., Schanz, T., Arab, A., Della, N., Kadri, A., 2014, “Insight into the effects of
vi
29
30 gradation on the pore p ressure generation of sand–silt mixtures,”. Geotechnical. Testing.
31
ew
32 Journal., Vol 37, No. 5, pp. 1–10.

33
Cherif Taiba, A., Mahmoudi, Y., Belkhatir, M., Kadri, A., Schanz, T., 2016, “Insight into the
34
35 effect of granulometric characteristics on static liquefation sucseptibility of silty sand
36
On
37 soils,” Geotech. Geol. Eng., DOI 10.1007/s10706-015-9951-z

38
Cherif Taiba, A,. Mahmoudi,Y., Belkhatir, M., Kadri, A., and Schanz, T., 2017a,
39
40 “Experimental Characterization of the Undrained Instability and Steady State of Silty
41
ly
42 Sand Soils under Monotonic Loading Conditions,” International. Journal. of

43
Geotechnical. Engineering., DOI: 10.1080 /19386362.2017.1302643
44
45 Cherif Taiba, A., 2017b, “Laboratory Study on Susceptibility of Liquefaction of Silty Sand
46
47 Soils: Effect of Size and Shape of Grain,”, PhD.Thesis, University of Chlef, Algeria.
48
Cho, G.C., Dodds, J., Santamarina, J.C., 2006, “Particle shape effects on packing density,
49
50 stiffness, and strength: natural and crushed sands,”. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
51
52 Vol, 132 No.5, pp, 591–602.
53
Chu, J., Leong, WK., 2002, ”Effects of fines on instability behaviour of loose sand,”.
54
55 Geotechnique., Vol, 52, No. 10, pp, 751–755.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Della, N ., Arab, A.. Belkhatir, M., 2011, “Effect of confining pressure and depositional
4
5 method on the undrained shearing response of medium dense sand,” Journal. of Iberian.
6 Geology., Vol, 37, No.1, pp, 37-44
7
8 Georgiannou, V. N., 2006, “The undrained response of sands with additions of particles of
9
10 various shape sand sizes,”. Geotechnique., Vol, 56, No.9,pp, 639–649.
11
12 Gilboy, G., 1928, “The compressibility of sand–mica mixtures,” Proceedings of A.S.C.E. Vol
13 2, pp, 555–568.
14
15 Guo, P., Su,X., 2007, “ Shear sterngth, interparticle locking, and dilatancy of granular
16
17 materials,” Can. Geot. J ., Vol, 44, No. 5,pp 579-591.
18 Holtz, W,G., Gibbs, H,J., 1956, “Triaxial shear tests on previous gravelly soils,”. J. Soil.
Fo
19
20 Mech. Found., Div ASCE Vol 820, No.1 pp, 1–22.
21
22 Holtz, R,D., Kovacs, W,D., 1981, “An introduction to geotechnical engineering,”. Prentice-
r
23 Hall, Inc. Englewood cliffs.

24
Re
25 Krumbein, W. C., 1941, “Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of
26
27 sedimentary particles,”. Journal. of Sedimentary. Petrology., Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 64-72.
28
Krumbein, W, C., and Sloss, L, L., 1963, “Stratigraphy and Sedimentation,”, 2nd ed., W.H.
vi
29
30 Freeman, San Francisco.
31
ew
32 Lade, P.V., & Duncan, J.M., 1973, ”Cubical triaxial tests on cohesionless soil,”.Journal. Soil.
33
Mech. And Found. Eng., Div. ASCE, Vol. 99, pp.793-812.
34
35 Lade, P. V., & Yamamuro, J. A., 1997, “Effects of Nonplastic Fines on Static Liquefaction of
36
On
37 Sands,”. Canadian. Geotechnical. Journal., 34, 918 - 928.

38
Liu, S., and Matsuoka, H., 2003, “Microscopic interpretation on stress-dilatancy relationship
39
40 of granular materials” Soils. and foundations., Vol, 43, No. 3, pp, 73-84.
41
ly
42 Mahmoudi,Y., Cherif Taiba, A., Hazout, L., Belkhatir,M., and Schanz, T., 2015a,
43
“Laboratory Study on Shear Behavior of Overconsolidated Sand: Effect of the Initial
44
45 Structure, ” 13th Arab. Structural. Engineering. Conference. ,Blida, Algeria
46
47 Mahmoudi,Y., Cherif Taiba, A., Belkhatir,M., and Schanz, T., 2015b, “Experimental
48
investigation on shear strength of overconsolidated soils: Effect of fines content, ”, 7th
49
50 Symposium. on construction. in seismic. zones., Chlef, Algeria.
51
52 Mahmoudi, Y., Cherif Taiba, A., Belkhatir, M., Schanz, T., 2016a, “Experimental
53
investigation on undrained shear behavior of overconsolidated sand-silt mixtures: Effect
54
55 of sample reconstitution,” Geotechnical. Testing. J., DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20140183
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Mahmoudi, Y., Cherif Taiba, A., Belkhatir, M., Arab, A., and Schanz, T., 2016b, “Laboratory
4
5 study on undrained shear behaviour of overconsolidated sand–silt mixtures: effect of the
6 fines content and stress state,” International. Journal. of Geotechnical. Engineering.,
7
8 DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2016.1252140
9
10 Pitman T.D., & Roberston P.K., & Sego D.C., 1994, “Influence of fines on the collapse of
11 loose sands,”, Canadian. Geotechnical. Journal., Vol. 321, pp,772-792.
12
13 Polito P.C., Martin Jr II., 2001, “Effect of nonplastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of
14
15 sands,” Journal. of Geotechnical. and Geoenvironmental. Engineering., ASCE, Vol, 127,
16 No, 5, pp,408–415.
17
18 Powers, M. C., 1953, “A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles”. Journal of
Fo
19
20 Sedimentary. Petrology., Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 117-119.
21 Rittenhouse, G., 1943, “Relation of shape to the passage of grains through sieves,” Ind.
22
r
23 Eng.Chem. (Anal. Edition) Vol.15 pp,153-155

24
Rousé, P.C., Fannin, R.J., and Shuttle, D.A., 2008, “Influence of roundness on the void ratio
Re
25
26 and strength of uniform sand,” Géotechnique.,Vol,58, No, 3 pp, 227-231
27
28 DOI:10.1680/géot 2008.58.3.227
vi
29
30 Santamarina, J. C., & Cho, G. C., 2001, “Determination of critical state parameters in sandy
31 soils: simple procedure,”. Geotech. Test. J., Vol, 24, No. 2, pp, 185–192.
ew
32
33 Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., Arango, I., 1983, “Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field
34
35 performance data,”. Journal. of Geotechnical. Engineering., ASCE; Vol, 109, No. 3, pp,
36 458–82.
On
37
38
Thevanayagam, S., & Martin, G. R., 2002, “Liquefaction in silty soils-screening and
39
40 remediation issues,”. Soil. Dynamics. and Earthquake. Engineering., Vol, 22, pp, 1035 -
41
ly
42 1042.
43
44 Tsomokos, A., & Georgiannou, V.N., 2009, “Effect of grain shape and angularity on the
45
46 undrained response of fine sands,” Canadian. Geotechnical. Journal., Vol. 47, No.5.pp,
47 539- 551.
48
49 Tsuchida, H., 1970, “Prediction and Countermeasure Against the Liquefaction in Sand
50
51 Deposits,”. Abstract of the Seminar in the Port and Harbor Research Institute Vol, 3.pp,
52 13-33.
53
54 Vaid, Y. P., & Chern, J. C., 1985, “Cyclic and monotonic undrained response of sands. In
55
56 Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic loading conditions,” proceedings of the
57 ASCE convention, Detroit (ed. V. Khosla), New York, NY, USA: ASCE, pp. 120–147..
58
59
60
1
2
3 Wadell, H., 1932, “Volume, Shape, and roundness of rock particles,”. Journal. of Geology.,
4
5 Vol. 40, pp. 443-451.
6 Wei L.M., Yang J., 2014, “On the role of grain shape in static liquefaction of sand-fines
7
8 mixtures,” Géotechnique., Vol 64, No 9, pp, 740-750.
9
10 Yang, J., and Wei, L.M., 2012, “Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of
11 particle shape,” Geotechnique., Vol 62, No. 12, pp, 1111–1125
12
13 Yang, J., and Wei L.M., 2015, “Static Liquefaction of Granular Soils: The Role of Grain
14
15 Shape and Size,” Geomechanics. and Geoengineering., DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13506-
16 9_29
17
18 Yasuda, S., Wakamatsu, K., Nagase, H., 1994, “Liquefaction Of Artificially Filled Silty
Fo
19
20 Sands” Ground Failures Under Seismic Conditions,” Geotechnical. Special. Publication.,
21 No. 44, pp. 91-104.
22
r
23 Yoginder, P.. Vaid, J.C., and Haidi, T., 1985, “Confining pressure, grain angularity and
24
liquefaction,” Journal. of Geotechnical. Engineering., Vol. 111, No. 10, pp. 1229-1235
Re
25
26 Youd, T. L., 1973, “Factors controlling maximum and minimum densities of sands.” ASTM
27
28 Spec. Tech. Publ., 98–112.
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 List of Figures
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21 Figure 1: Particle shape determination (sphericity S and roundness R) chart.
(Modified from Krumbein and Sloss 1963) (Ilustrated by Cho et al 2006).
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
(a) (b) (c) (d)
40
Figure 2: Microscopic view for determination particle shape of tested materials
41
ly
(a)-Chlef sand (b)-Chlef silt (c)-Fontainebleau sand (d)- Hostun sand

42 ASTM ASTM
100 100
43
44 90 90
45 80
P erce n t P as sin g b y W e ig h t (% )
80 Fontainebleau sand-silt mixtures

P ercen t P assin g by W eig h t (% )
Chlef sand-silt mixtures

46
70 Chlef sand (Fc=0%) 70
47 Fontainebleau sand (Fc=0%)
48 60 Fc=10% 60 Fc=10%
49 50
Fc=20% 50 Fc=20%
50 Fc=30%
40
40 Fc=30%
51 Fc=40%
52 30 30 Fc=40%
Chlef silt (Fc=100%)
53 20 Sandy gravel (Tsuchida, 1970) 20 Sandy gravel (Tsuchida, 1970)
54 10 Silt (Tsuchida, 1970) 10 Silt (Tsuchida, 1970)
55
0 0
56 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
57 Soil Particle Diameter (mm) Soil Particle Diameter (mm)
58 (a) (b)
59
60
1
2
ASTM
3 100
4 90
5
80
P e rc e n t P a s sin g b y W e igh t (% )
6
7 70 Hostun sand-silt mixtures
8 60 Hostun sand (Fc=0%)
9 Fc=10%
50
10 Fc=20%
11 40
Fc=30%
12 30
Fc=40%
13 20
Sandy gravel (Tsuchida, 1970)
14
10 Silt (Tsuchida, 1970)
15
16 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
17 Soil Particle Diameter (mm)
18 (c)
Fo
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38 (a) (b)
39
40 Figure 4: Evaluation of particle shape characteristics of tested materials
41 (a)- Roundness (b)-Sphericity
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 1000 150 Sand-silt mixtures (Fc=0%, P'c=100kPa)
Sand-silt mixtures (Fc=0%, P'c=100kPa)
4
100 Chlef sand
5 ec=0.789
Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

6 800 Fontainebleau sand
50
Deviator Stress, q (kPa)
7 Hostun sand
8 ec=0.885
0
600
9 -50
10 ec=0.653
11 ec=0.653
-100
400
12 ec=0.885
13 -150
Chlef sand
14 -200
200 Fontainebleau sand
15 ec=0.789
16 Hostun sand -250
17
0 -300
18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fo
19 Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)
20 (a) (b)
21 1000
22
r
23
24 800
ec=0.653
Re
25 ec=0.789
26 ec=0.885
27 600
28
vi
29
30 400
31 Chlef sand
ew
32
33
34 Hostun sand
35
0
36 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
On
37 Effective Mean Pressure, P' (kPa)

38 (c)
ly

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
4
Chlef sand
5 ec=0.761 100

6 600 Fontainebleau sand
7 50
8 ec=0.694 Hostun sand
9 0
10 400 ec=0.553
11 ec=0.553
-50
12
13 Chlef sand -100 0.694
14 200
15 Fontainebleau sand ec=0.761
-150
16 Hostun sand
17
0 -200
18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fo
20 (a) (b)
21
22 800
r
23
24
Re
25
600
26
ec=0.553
27 ec=0.694
28 ec=0.761
vi
29 400
30
31
ew
32 Chlef sand
33 200
35 Hostun sand
36
On
37 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
39 (c)
ly

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
4
5 ec=0.652
75
0.463

6 300
Chlef sand
8 50
Hostun sand
9
ec=0.613 ec=0.652
10 200 25 ec=0.613
11
12 ec=0.463
13 0
Chlef sand
14 100
-25
16 Hostun sand
17
0 -50
18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fo
20 (a) (b)
21
22 400
r
23
24
Re
25
300
26
ec=0.463
27 ec=0.613
28 ec=0.652
vi
29 200
30
31
ew
32 Chlef sand
33 100
35 Hostun sand
36
On
37 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
39 (c)
ly

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
4 ec=0.556
Chlef sand
5

6 Fontainebleau sand ec=0.586
90 ec=0.453
75
7 Hostun sand
8
ec=0.586
9 ec=0.453
10 60 50
11
12 Chlef sand
14 30 25
ec=0.556 Hostun sand
15
16
17
0 0
18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fo
20 (a) (b)
21
22 150
r
23
24 ec=0.453
Re
25 Chlef sand
ec=0.556
26
Fontainebleau sand
100 ec=0.586
27
Hostun sand
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32 50
33
34
35
36
On
37 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
39 (c)
41 (a): Devitor stress versus axial strain
ly

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 60 100
Sand-silt mixtures (Fc=40%, P'c=100kPa) ec=0.618
4
5

ec=0.516
6 75 ec=0.516
7 ec=0.572
40
8
9 ec=0.572
10 50
11 ec=0.618
12 Chlef sand
20
13 Chlef sand Fontainebleau sand
14 25
Fontainebleau sand Hostun sand
15
16 Hostun sand Sand-silt mixtures (Fc=40%, P'c=100kPa)
17
0 0
18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fo
20 (a) (b)
21
22 75
r
23
24
Chlef sand
Re
25
26
Deviator Stress,q (kPa)
Fontainebleau sand
27 50
28 Hostun sand
vi
29
30
31
ew
32 25
ec=0.516
33
ec=0.572
34
35 ec=0.618
36
On
37 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
39 (c)
ly

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 1000 Sand-silt mixtures
Sand-silt mixtures
4 Chlef sand 1000

Chlef sand
Fontainebleau sand
6 Peak Shear Strength, qpeak (kPa) 800 Fc=0% Hostun sand

Hostun sand
Peak Shear Strength, qpeak (kPa)

7 Effect of particle shape
800
8 Fc=0%
9 600 Fc=10%
Fc=10%
10 Effect pf particle shape
600
11
12 400
13 400
Fc=20%
14 Fc=20%
15 200 200
16 Fc=30% Fc=30%
17
Fc=40% Fc=40%
18 0 0
Fo
19 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
20 Combined Roundness, Rcom (-) Combined Sphericity, Scom (-)
21 (a) (b)
22
Figure 10: Peak shear strength versus particle shape characteristics of silty sand
r
23 (a)-Combined roundness (b)-Combined sphericity

24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 List of Tables
4
Table 1: Index properties of tested materials
5
6 Index properties Materials
7 of materials Chlef sand Fontainebleau sand Hostun sand Silt
8 Gs 2.652 2.642 2.650 2.667
9 Dmax (mm) 2.000 1.000 0.630 0.080
10 D10 (mm) 0.266 0.204 0.258 0.003
11 D50 (mm) 0.596 0.558 0.369 0.032
12 D30 (mm) 0.431 0.381 0.313 0.018
13 D60 (mm) 0.700 0.646 0.397 0.038
14 Cu (-) 2.634 3.157 1.536 12.66
15 Cc (-) 0.999 1.099 0.960 2 .84
16 emax (-) 0.795 0.950 1.021 1.563
17 emin (-) 0.632 0.645 0.646 0.991
18 Ip (%) - - - 5.0
Fo
19 USCS SP SP SP ML
20 Grain Shape Rounded Sub-rounded Sub-angular Rounded
21
22 Table 2: Index properties of sand-silt mixtures under study
r
23
24 Properties Chlef sand-silt mixtures Fontainebleau sand-silt mixtures Hostun sand-silt mixtures
Fc (%) 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Re
25
Gs 2.654 2.655 2.657 2.658 2.645 2.647 2.649 2.652 2.651 2.653 2.655 2.657
26
D10 (mm) 0.078 0.023 0.010 0.003 0.08 0.023 0.019 0.012 0.120 0.022 0.009 0.003
27
D30 (mm) 0.369 0.235 0.087 0.065 0.288 0.240 0.237 0.231 0.292 0.144 0.109 0.102
28
D50(mm) 0.549 0.488 0.420 0.236 0.492 0.457 0.455 0.451 0.353 0.249 0.223 0.218
vi
29
D60(mm) 0.643 0.614 0.535 0.394 0.593 0.566 0.564 0.560 0.384 0.301 0.281 0.276
30
Cu (-) 8.202 27.24 54.32 120.5 6.920 24.015 28.417 45.923 3.197 13.13 28.76 84.442
31 Cc (-) 2.699 3.997 1.438 3.300 1.639 4.337 5.039 7.835 1.855 3.038 4.355 11.573
ew
32 emax (-) 0.704 0.697 0.687 0.759 0.931 0.919 0.897 0.921 0.910 0.873 0.838 0.862
33 emin (-) 0.536 0.458 0.449 0.505 0.573 0.551 0.538 0.552 0.604 0.592 0.576 0.603
34
35 Table 3: Summary of monotonic triaxial tests and particle shape characteristics of sand-silt mixtures
36
On
37 Properties
38 Materials Fc Rcom Scom qpeak
39 (%) (-) (-) (kPa)
40 0 0.439 0.753 363.5
41 Chlef sand- 10 0.457 0.729 328.2
ly
42 silt mixtures 20 0.476 0.705 118.5

43 30 0.495 0.681 57.5
44 40 0.514 0.657 54.5
45 0 0.390 0.749 863.5
46 10 0.414 0.725 606.6
47 Fontainebleau 20 0.437 0.702 317
sand-silt 30 0.461 0.678 42.5
48
mixtures 40 0.484 0.655 38.9
49
50 0 0.319 0.676 716.8
51 10 0.350 0.660 679.9
Hostun sand- 20 0.380 0.643 351.2
52 silt mixtures 30 0.411 0.606 101.7
53
40 0.442 0.593 37.0
54
Chlef silt 100 0.626 0.513 -
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Table 4: Coefficients a, c and R2 for equation (6)
4
5 Particle shape
6 characteristics Materials a c R²
7 Chlef sand -14.03 -7.84 0.92
8 Combined roundness Fontainebleau sand -16.36 -10.62 0.90
9 Hostun sand -9.48 -6.09 0.90
10 Chlef sand 16.21 8.28 0.92
11 Combined sphericity Fontainebleau sand 26.48 12.37 0.91
12 Hostun sand 22.64 13.42 0.96
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 List of Figures
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22 Figure 1: Particle shape determination (sphericity S and roundness R) chart.
23 (Modified from Krumbein and Sloss 1963) (Ilustrated by Cho et al 2006).
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42 (a) (b) (c) (d)
43 Figure 2: Microscopic view for determination particle shape of tested materials
ly
44 (a)-Chlef sand (b)-Chlef silt (c)-Fontainebleau sand (d)- Hostun sand

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 (a) (b)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21 (c)
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42 (a) (b)
43
ly
44
Figure 4: Evaluation of particle shape characteristics of tested materials
45
(a)- Roundness (b)-Sphericity
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23 (a) (b)
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42 (c)
ly

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 Sand-silt mixtures P'c=100kPa)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR
25 (a) (b)
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43 P’c
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40 (c)
41 Figure 6: Undrained monotonic response of sand-silt mixtures (Fc = 10%, = 100kPa)
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR

28
29
ev
(a) (b)
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40 (c)
41 Figure 7: Undrained monotonic response of sand-silt mixtures (Fc = 20%, )
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR

28
29
ev
30 (a) (b)
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40 (c)
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
(a): Devitor stress versus axial strain
22
(b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain
23
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43 P’c = 100kPa
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22 (a) (b)
23
24
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43 (c)
ly

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
P’c = 100kPa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fo
21
22 (a) (b)
23
24
rR
Figure 10: Peak shear strength versus particle shape characteristics of silty sand (a)-
25
Combined roundness (b)-Combined sphericity
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Cherif Taiba Et Al. - GTJ - 2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cherif Taiba Et Al. - GTJ - 2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geotechnical Testing Journal

Experimental Investigation into the Influence of Roundness

Manuscript Type: Technical Note

Date Submitted by the Author: 15-Aug-2017

Complete List of Authors: BELKHATIR, Mostefa; University of Chlef, Civil Engineering

Subcommittees: Manufacturing Technologies

Surface and Subsurface Characterization, Geophysics, Sampling and

Particle shape represents one of the key-parameters influencing

significantly the mechanical response, shear strength, deformation and

roundness and sphericity. However, there are limited published studies

23 emin: Minimum global void ratio

Rhs: Roundness of host sand

compared to the angular sand mixed with angular silt.

42 2.5 Consolidation and shear loading

23 (c): Deviator stress versus effective mean pressure

(b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

25 agreement the findings of Cherif Taiba al. (2016).

25 hydraulic conductivity and undrained shear strength of sand–silt mixtures,”,

32 Journal., Vol 37, No. 5, pp. 1–10.

37 soils,” Geotech. Geol. Eng., DOI 10.1007/s10706-015-9951-z

42 Sand Soils under Monotonic Loading Conditions,” International. Journal. of

23 Hall, Inc. Englewood cliffs.

37 Sands,”. Canadian. Geotechnical. Journal., 34, 918 - 928.

23 Eng.Chem. (Anal. Edition) Vol.15 pp,153-155

(a)-Chlef sand (b)-Chlef silt (c)-Fontainebleau sand (d)- Hostun sand

80 Fontainebleau sand-silt mixtures

Chlef sand-silt mixtures

Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

37 Effective Mean Pressure, P' (kPa)

42 (c): Deviator stress versus effective mean pressure

Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

42 (b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

42 (b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

42 (b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

42 (b): Excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

4 Chlef sand 1000

6 Peak Shear Strength, qpeak (kPa) 800 Fc=0% Hostun sand

Peak Shear Strength, qpeak (kPa)

23 (a)-Combined roundness (b)-Combined sphericity

42 silt mixtures 20 0.476 0.705 118.5

44 (a)-Chlef sand (b)-Chlef silt (c)-Fontainebleau sand (d)- Hostun sand

44 (a):Devitor stress versus axial strain

25 (a):Devitor stress versus axial strain

25 (a):Devitor stress versus axial strain

44 Figure 9: Undrained monotonic response of sand-silt mixtures (Fc = 40%, )

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen