You are on page 1of 11

Soil parameters for deformation analysis of sand masses

P. M. BYRNE,H. CHEUNG,AND L. YAN


Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C., Canada V6T 1 W5
Received November 13, 1985
Accepted March 18, 1987
Meaningful stress and deformation analysis of soil structures requires an adequate stress-strain law. Herein are presented
guidelines for selection of parameters for a simple incremental hyperbolic stress-strain law for sand based upon a tangent
stiffness that varies with stress level. The parameters are obtained from an examination of laboratory and field measurements
available in the literature, and are presented in terms of both penetration value and relative density. The laboratory results
indicate the importance of first-time or primary loading versus repeated loading on modulus values. Back analysis of field
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

observations for monotonic loading conditions indicates that primary loading modulus values obtained from triaxial tests are
appropriate at low relative density, whereas perhaps higher values, in the repeated loading range, are appropriate at high
relative densities.
Key words: sand, deformation, analysis, hyperbolic, tangent stiffness, modulus, relative density, monotonic loading,
repeated loading.

Une analyse significative en contrainte-dtformation des structures de sol requiert une loi adkquate de comportement
effort-dCformation. L'on prksente dans cet article des directives pour le choix de paramktres pour une loi incrkmentale hyper-
bolique simple d'effort-dCformation pour le sable, baske sur la tangente de rigiditt qui vane avec le niveau de contrainte. Les
paramktres sont obtenus en partant de l'examen des mesures en laboratoire et sur le terrain disponibles dans la littkrature, et
prksentks en fonction tant de la valeur de pCnCtration que de la densite relative. Les rCsultats de laboratoire indiquent l'impor-
tance du premier chargement par rapport au chargement rCpCtC sur les valeurs du module. L'analyse h rebours des observations
sur le terrain pour les conditions de chargement monotonique indique que les valeurs de module correspondant au premier
chargement telles qu'obtenues par des essais triaxiaux sont adequates aux faibles densitCs relatives, alors que peut-&tre des
valeurs plus ClevCes, dans le domaine de chargement rCpCtC, sont adkquates pour des densites relatives plus ClevCes.
For personal use only.

Mots elks : sable, dkformation, analyse, hyperbolique, tangente de rigiditC, module, densite relative, chargement mono-
tonique, chargement rkpCt6.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. Geotech. J . 24, 366-376 (1987)

Introduction stress-strain relations are defined by two independent elastic


T h e finite element method provides a powerful technique for parameters. The most commonly used parameters are the
stress and deformation analysis of soil-structure systems. Young's modulus, E , and Poisson's ratio, k. The shear modu-
However, if the results of such analyses are to be representative lus, G , and the bulk modulus, B , are more fundamental param-
of field behaviour, then a stress-strain relationship giving a eters because they separate shear or distortional and volumetric
reasonably accurate description of soil response is necessary. components of strain and would, in principle, be the most
This is difficult because the stress-strain relations of soil are desirable ones to use. However, the shear modulus is difficult
extremely complex, being nonlinear, inelastic, and stress level to obtain directly in the laboratory and for this reason Duncan
dependent. Herein, a relatively simple stress-strain model for et 01. (1980) used the Young's modulus and the bulk modulus.
sand that incorporates most of these complexities is used and The Young's modulus is very similar to the shear modulus, a s
parameters are evaluated from both laboratory tests and field both are a measure of distortional response. In this study the
observations available in the literature. two parameters E and B , proposed by Duncan et al. , are used.
An incremental liqear elastic and isatropic stress-strain T h e appropriate E and B for a given sand depend upon the
model as described by Duncan et 01. (1980) is used. In this level of stress, as shown in Fig. 1, and can be obtained from
model the shear stress-strain curves are assumed to b e hyper- laboratory tests. In the interpretation of such tests it is common
bolic, as first proposed by Kondner and Zelaski (1963), and the to express the distortional response in terms of modified hyper-
volumetric stress-strain relations are assumed to follow a bolas, as first proposed by Kondner and Zelaski (1963), and the
power law. The formulation results in tangent Young's and volumetric response in exponential form. In this way the appro-
bulk moduli that vary with both stress level and relative den- priate tangent Young's modulus, E, is given by
sity. Duncan et al. determined modulus values from the results
of laboratory tests alone. This work is reviewed and additional Rr(l - sin +)(a;
[I] E=[l-
test data added. Because it is difficult to obtain undisturbed
samples of granular materials, laboratory tests may not be
2 4 sin +
representative of field conditions and hence such values may where
not give reliable predictions for field conditions. For this rea-
son, parameters for the model were also assessed from back
analysis of field measurements of foundation movements, and
the results compared with the values obtained from laboratory and
tests.

Incremental linear elastic model


In an incremental linear elastic and isotropic approach the T h e tangent bulk modulus, B , is given by
BYRNE ET A L
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

i FIG. 1. Stress-strain curves for drained triaxial tests on sand, after Varadarajan and Mishra (1980).
For personal use only.

I. Average values of soil parameters from


TABLE study suggests the average values for sand constants in terms of
laboratory tests relative density, D,, given in Table 1. There was considerable
scatter in their data, as will be shown later, but no trend with
D, k/ n k/, Nl (t), A+ R, particle size or shape was discernable.
25 350 0.5 200 0.25 33 0 0.9 Much additional test data in the literature from dynamic and
50 600 0.5 350 0.25 36 2 0.8 k, compression tests and from the results of field measurements
75 880 0.5 500 0.25 41 4 0.7 could be added to the Duncan et a / . data. These will now be
100 1120 0.5 700 0.25 50 9 0.6 examined.

Dytz~zmicor cyclic loading


2. Dynamic k ,
TABLE Considerable data on shear modulus are available from reso-
nant column tests. These tests give a direct measure of shear
modulus at very low strain levels, from which the Young's
modulus number, kE, and exponent, n , can be evaluated.
Based on such tests together with it1 situ measurements, Seed
and Idriss (1970) suggested the following equation for the
maximum shear modulus, GI,,;,,:

[51 G,,;,, = 1000k2,Ill,X(ab)"" (in psf)


or
in which Ei = the initial Young's modulus at low strain level; 112
161 21.7k2 .,.,, ,P;, - (in same units as P,)
k, = the Young's modulus number; tz = the Young's modulus
exponent; k, = the bulk modulus number; rn = the bulk mod-
G,,,,, =
( )
ulus exponent; P, = atmospheric pressure; al = the major where a:, is the mean normal effective stress and k2,,,,,,depends
principal effective stress; cr.4 = the minor principal effective upon D,, and can be expressed as
stress; R f = the failure ratio; 4 = the peak friction angle at the
confining stress in question; = the peak friction angle at a
confining stress of 100 kPa; A+ = the decrease in friction angle
for a 10-fold increase in confining stress. The method of ob- where D , = the relative density in percent.
taining these parameters from laboratory tests is described in Since E and G are related through Poisson's ratio as follows:
detail by Duncan et 01. (1980) and Byrne and Eldridge (1982).

Soil constants from laboratory and field tests


and since p = 0.1 at low strain levels,
A comprehensive analysis of standard laboratory triaxial test
data was undertaken by Duncan et al. (1980). A review of their [9] E-2.2G
CAN. CEOTECH 1. VOL. 21, 1987

TABLE
3. Comparison of static and
dynamic k,-

Static Dynamic -
Dynamic
Dr k~ k~ Static
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

0 0 .I 0.2 0.3
0 ( O/o )
FIG.3. Loading and unloading response in a conventional triaxial
path, after Negussey (1984). @ primary loading; A unloading;
+ reloading; A (Ei)loi,ding
= 220 MPa; B (Ei)rclondi,,g
= 340 MPa;
C = 460 MPa; D , = 50%; o; = 350 kPa.
For personal use only.

-(q- m 3 )
FIG.2. Initial and repeated loading.

Combining [6] and 191 and realizing that a; = a:, for triaxial
tests at low levels of deviator stress,

from which
[I I] k, - 50(0.6Dr + 15)
Values of k , for various relative densities are shown in FIG.4. A comparison between E,,,., and various initial moduli E i ,
Table 2. after Negussey (1984). E,,,,,, resonant column; 0 E , , triaxial;
The values of Young's modulus number, k , , from static and A triaxial initial loading (primary), (Ei)loading= 220 MPa; B triaxial
reloading, (Ei)re~oading= 340 MPa; C triaxial un!oading, (Ei)unlonding
-
-
dynamic tests are compared in Table 3. It may be seen that the
k , values from dynamic or cyclic tests are 3-4 times the values 460 MPa; D , = 50%.
from static tests.
The major reason for the difference is illustrated in Fig. 2. on Ottawa sand as shown in Fig. 3. It may be seen that unload
The k, from static tests is based upon an E i computed from and reload curves are considerably stiffer than the curve for
extrapolation of data obtained at relatively high strain level, as primary loading. Negussey also obtained initial Young's mod-
shown by the dashed line in Fig. 2. The actual stress-strain ulus values, E i , from uniaxial tests over a range of confining
curve at low strain for first-time or primary loading will be stress and maximum Young's modulus values from resonant
quite different, as indicated by the solid line, so that E , and the column tests over the same range, and these are shown in
consequent k , from static tests are just fictitious initial values Fig. 4 together with the modulus values obtained from the tests
that define the stress-strain curve at higher strain values for in Fig. 3. It may be seen that the En,;,, from resonant column
primary loading conditions. Upon repeated loading the k , val- tests are about 2.2 times higher than the E , values from primary
ues obtained from triaxial tests are much higher, as shown in loading uniaxial tests. The E , value from unloading (E,),,
Fig. 2, and are in reasonable agreement with the dynamic (point c) is about the same as that obtained from the resonant
values. column while the reloading E i is somewhat lower than (Ei)".
Support for this hypothesis is given by Negussey (1984), This finding is in reasonable agreement with Duncan et a/.,
who conducted loading, unloading, and reloading uniaxial tests who suggest that the unload and reload moduli are about the
BYRNE ET AL.

TABLE
4. Primary loading-Lambe and TABLE
7. D'Appolonia et 01. data'"
Whitman (1968, Table 12.3)
Virgin Reload Virgin Reload
ka a{ tn, x lo-' tn, x 10 ' M M

Soil type Loose Dense


Angular, breakable
particles 280 700
Hard, rounded
particles 1100 2100 "Units are tons and feet ( 1 ton = 1.02 Mg; 1 ft =
0.305 rn).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

TABLE5. Repeated loading-Lambe and TABLE8. Gould field data


Whitman (1968, Table 12.4)
Average measured
k~ Classification compressive strain (%)
Soil type symbol at 690 kPa (100 psi)
Soil type Loose Dense
Silty gravel and
Screened crushed quartz, coarse silty sand GM-SM-GP 0.9- 1.4
fine angular 1100 2000 Fine silty sand and
Screened Ottawa sand, low-plasticity silt SM-ML 1.3-2.1
fine rounded 1800 3000 Clayey gravel and
Ottawa standard sand, clayey sand
medium rounded 2000 3500 Clay of low to
Screened sand, medium plasticity CL-ML 2.8-4.2
medium subangular 1400 2400 Rockfill* I .5-6.5
Screened crushed quartz,
For personal use only.

medium angular 1200 1800 "Wilson data


Wel I-graded sand,
coarse 1000 1900
k o consolidation-D'Appolonia et al.
D'Appolonia et al. (1968) presented the results of a founda-
tion study o ~ s a n d d f r o mwhich k , and m can be evaluated.
TABLE6. Cornforth data Both field and laboratory data are presented in their study.
Results of laboratory one-dimensional virgin and reload tests
were presented in terms of the coefficient of compressibility,
m,, where

and M = the constrained modulus. Values of m , and M are


shown in Table 7. Based on analysis shown in the appendix, k g
= 440 and 820, respectively, for virgin and reload conditions.
same, and are 1.2-3 times higher than the primary loading The exponent m is 0.5 for virgin loading and 0.25 for reload
initial modulus. The factor of 3-4 between static and dynamic conditions. 'The sand in question had relative densities of
k , values shown in Table 3 is not unreasonable in this light. 65 -70%.
The reload values of modulus were found by D'Appolonia to
Primary and repeated loading-Lumbe and Whitman predict values of settlement that were in close agreement with
Based on data presented by Lambe and Whitman (1968), k , the average of the measured values.
values for primary loading are as given in Table 4. These
values were computed by correcting the secant modulus values k B values from field measurements
given by Lambe and Whitman in accordance with the hyper- Gould (1954) has presented data on the compression behav-
bolic formulation. For repeated loading k , values are as given iour of 20 large earth dams in the United States from which the
in Table 5. bulk modulus numbers k g and m can be evaluated. His data
together with data from Wilson (1973) are shown in Table 8.
ko consolidation tests-Cornforth Based od analyses shown in the appendix, the data indicates
Cornforth (1974) conducted a series of k , consolidation tests k , = 350-540 for sandy material having relative densities of
using a triaxial apparatus from which the bulk modulus param- about 50%.
eters k g and m can be computed. The tests were conducted on Additional k , values were computed from tests on Ottawa
a medium sand having a uniformity coefficient of about 4 and sand reported by Negussey (1984) and on angular tailings sand
relative densities ranging between 12 and 74%. Analysis of his reported by Chern (1984), and these values will be shown in
data, shown in the appendix, indicates that m = 0.5 and k , figures to be presented later.
varies with relative density as shown i r ~ T a b l e 6 These
. values A summary of all k , values is shown in Fig. 5. It may be seen
that the k , values are highly dependent on particle angularity
and whether primary or repeated loading conditions prevail.
C A N . GEOTECH. J . VOL. 24. 1987

C o r r e c t i o n F a c t o r , CN
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

veroge
uncon et 0 1 .
N, = N C N
FIG. 7. Correction factor CNfor penetration tests after Peck et al.
lor Breokoble
(1974). ( 1 ton/ft2 = 101 kPa.)

01 I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relotive Density , Dr
For personal use only.

FIG. 5. kc values from monotonic and cyclic loading tests. Dun-


can et al. (1980), primary loading; + Seed and Idriss (1970), repeated
loading; 0Lambe and Whitrnan (1968), primary loading; D Lambe
and Whitrnan (1968), repeated loading.

/
/

000-
Cornforth 6" *a

\,/ **veroge
\

Observed Settlement ( m m )

0
0
I
20 40
. 60 80
I
100
FIG. 8. Observed and predicted settlements, after Meyerhof
(1965).

Observed settlements and penetration values


R e l o t ~ v e D e n s ~ t y, Dr 'The chart presented by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) for pre-
FIG. 6. k , values from laboratory and field tests. Duncan et al. dicting allowable footing pressures from a settlement point of
(1980); 0Cornforth (1974); + D' Appolonia et 01. (1968); D Could view is based upon the following equation (Parry 1978):
(1954); X VesiE and Clough (1968); A Negussey (1984), rounded
Ottawa sand; Chern (1984), angular tailings sand.

The values of k , that were shown in Table 1 correspond to the where Aq = the applied loading pressure (kPa); N = the stand-
average line from Duncan et al. in Fig. 5 , and would be appro- ard penetration value; p, = the predicted settlement (mm) and
priate for primary loading. is set to 25 mm by Terzaghi and Peck; b = the width of the strip
A summary of all k , values is shown in Fig. 6. It may be seen footing (m); and the water table is at depth greater than 2 b
that there is a wide range in values, with the Cornforth data below the base of the footing. Their chart is based upon the
providing an upper bound to the data. The values of k , that results of field plate load tests, field penetration tests, and
were listed in Table I correspond to the average line from the observations of field behaviour of footings.
Duncan et al. data in Fig. 6. Since settlement rather than loading pressure is desired, [13]
A comparison of average values of k , and kg from Duncan can be rewritten as
et al. suggests that they are related as follows: 0.75Aq 2b 2
[I4] P P = ? ( ~ )
BYRNE ET A L 37 1

were overconsolidated and this could account for lower than


expected observed settlements.
Field observation suggests that a good estimate of settlement
of footings on sands can be obtained from

s
Q 20
where f is a factor that can range between 0.125 and 0.75.
-
-
0

0
However, most field data fall within the range 0.25 <f < 0.5.
10 There is some controversy regarding the effect that the size
z 8 of footings has on settlement. If we consider footings of differ-
ent sizes subjected to the same loading pressure and having the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

6
-
+ same depth ratio, then from [17], the settlement ratios will be
4 as follows:

2
e r z o g h ~8 Peck [18] P=(A)'
Po
(binm)

This characteristic equation is implicit in the Terzaghi and


I Peck and Meyerhof settlement predictions. However, an exam-
ination of field data by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) indicates
that there can be considerable variation from (181 and this is
FIG.9. Settlement ratio vs. width ratio for foundations on sand, shown in Fig. 9. It may be seen that [18] plots in the lower
after D'Appolonia et al. (1968). range of observed values. The D'Appolonia et al. data plot in
the upper range suggested by Bjerrum and Eggestad.
The field observations represented by [18] and Fig. 9 will be
For personal use only.

Peck et al. (1974), in discussing settlements, state that the used to back-calculate soil parameters for the proposed stress-
information available in developing the 1948 chart was inter- strain model.
preted conservatively, so that the actual settlements would be
less than 25 mm (1 in.), which subsequent experience has Soil constants from back analysis of field data
shown to be true. Hence [14] could be considered to give a The most important stress-strain constants for the proposed
conservative upper bound to the settlement. In addition, the N model are the Young's modulus number kc and exponent n ,
values upon which the charts were based are associated with an and the bulk modulus number k, and exponent rn. Field mea-
average confining stress of 101 kPa (1 ton/ft" and hence N surements of penetration and settlement values do not allow
values used in [I41 should be corrected to N I as shown in these constants to be determined independently. However, as-
Fig. 7. suming relationships between m and n and k L and k, based upon
Meyerhof (1965), in examining footing settlements, used an testing, actual values for these constants can be evaluated using
equation identical to 1141 for b > 1.2 m. He found it to give a a finite element stress and deformation analysis. It will be
conservative estimate of settlements as shown in Fig. 8. He shown that the exponents m and tz govern the increase in settle-
suggested that the allowable pressure to produce a settlement of ment as a function of theigze of footing and are evaluated by
less than 25 mm could be increased by 50% over that suggested comparison with the observed trends shown in Fig. 9. Values
by Terzaghi and Peck, and that no correction for the depth of of k c and k g as a function of N I are then estimated from a
the water table need be considered, as it is already included in comparison with observed settlements. Based upon laboratory
the N value. Thus Meyerhof's equation is testing the relationships between the parameters are taken to be

The computer program CONOIL was used to perform these


D'Appolonia et al. (1968) have reported on a foundation analyses. It uses tangent Young's and bulk moduli as discussed
study involving 340 footings on sand. Some of the footings herein and is described in detail by Byrne and Vaziri (1986).
overlay natural sands and others, compacted sands. The aver- Both plane strain and axisymmetric domains can be analyzed
age N , value in the depth b below the footings was about 15, with this program.
and the footing width, b , ranged between 3 and 8 m. The 'The finite element mesh used is shown in Fig. 10. The
observed settlements were considerably less than those pre- domain considered was axisymmetric and the diameter of the
dicted by Terzaghi and Peck, or Meyerhof. The average settle- loaded area was varied from 0.5 to 30 m. The scale of the mesh
ments were about one-half the values predicted from Meyerhof was altered so that the mesh geometry was kept constant. This
and are well approximated by implies that the depth of the sand layer increases with the width
of the foundation. A cutoff or maximum layer depth of 30 m
was imposed.
Exponents m and n
where d = the depth of the footing below ground surface. The exponents m and n were evaluated by examining their
Observed values ranged from about half to twice the value influence on the settlement ratio p/po as a function of the width
predicted by [16]. D'Appolonia et al. point out that the sands ratio b / b o of the foundation while keeping all other factors
CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 24, 1987

I
Axis of Radial Symmetry
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

FIG. 10. Finite element mesh.


For personal use only.

100 9. Predicted settlements from finite element


TABLE
analysis
B j e r r u m Doto
Settlement of footing (mm)
40 - Computed
m]] B j e r r u m 8. E g g e s t o d Zone Water table at
Dry sand base of footing
kc d/b = 0 d/b = 1 d/b = 0 d/b = 1

than about 6. For bib, values greater than 6, it falls in-


creasingly below the m = 0.25, n = 0.5 line. Because m =
0.25 and n = 0.5 are in reasonable agreement with the average
of the observed data and because they are also the average
values obtained from the laboratory data, these m and n values
I 2 4 6 810 20 40 60 80 100
are assumed in all subsequent analyses.
Width Rotio, b / b o
Modulus constants kE and kB
FIG. 11. Comparison of computed and observed settlement vs.
The modulus numbers k, and k, were back-calculated from
width ratios.
finite element analyses by comparing the predicted settlement
of footings with the observed settlements. This was done as
constant. It was assumed that n = 2m; values of m = 0 , 0.25, follows:
and 0.5 were considered. 1 . It was assumed that k, = 0.6k,, m = 0.25, and n = 0.5.
The results are shown in Fig. 1 1 and indicate that m = 0 and 2. Settlements were than predicted for a range of k , values,
n = 0 are in reasonable agreement with the upper bound sug- a surface loading Aq = 100 kPa, a footing width b = 3 m,
gested by Bjerrum and Eggestad. Exponent values of m = 0.5 d / b = 0 and 1 , and dry sand condition as well as a watertable
and n = 1 are in reasonable agreement with the lower bound at the base of the footing. The predicted settlements are shown
suggested by B j e m m and Eggestad, while values of m = 0.25 in Table 9. It may be seen from Table 9 that the depth ratio d / b
and n = 0.5 are in reasonable agreement with the average of the has a significant effect on predicted settlements. The location
observed data. The Terzaghi and Peck relationship falls close of the water table has a significant effect for d / b = 0 but has
to the m = 0.25 and n = 0.5 curve for width ratios bib, less only a small effect when d / b = 1 .
BYRNE ET AL.

TABLE10. Relat~onsh~p
between h , and N l from
back analys~s

N I

Water table at
Dry sand base of foot~ng
kr d/0 = 0 cllb = 1 rllb = 0 dlb = 1
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

Normollzed P e n e t r o t ~ o nResistance, N ,

FIG. 13. Relationship between N , and D,, after Gibbs and Holtz
(1957).

TABLE
I I . k , values from back
analysis
For personal use only.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
N1
FIG. 12. Relationship between k E and N , from back analysis. the average values from Duncan et nl. At high relative densities
the back-calculated k r values are considerably higher than
those suggested by Duncan et al., with the upper-bound values
3. Based upon the empirical eq. [ 171, the N , values required in the repeated loading range.
to give such settlements can be computed as follows: Sand constants in terms of Dr or N , and based upon back
analysis of observed settlements as well as laboratory tests are
shown in Table 12.
The model can also be extended to include dilatancy as
which, f o r b = 3, f = 0.25, and Aq = 100 kPa, gives the N , described by Byrne and Eldridge (1 982). Such dilatancy can be
values shown in Table 10. accounted for b_v a modifiecLformf Rowels stress -- --
dilatancy
It may be seen from Table 10 that the location of the water theory, provided the constant
- volume friction angle +IT rs
table has only a minor influence on the computed N , . In addi- specified. Suggested +,, -- --
values are also included in Table 12.
tion, the analysis indicates that the effect of the footing depth, - ThCRFvalue really depends on the shape of the stress-strain
d, is well accounted for by the factor ( I - 0.25cllb) suggested curve, which depends on both relative density and confining
by D'Appolonia et nl., so that it too has only a minor effect on stress. At high confining stress a dense sand has a stress-strain
the computed N I . response similar to that of a loose sand and vice versa. The
The relationship between k, and N , from Table 10 (f = 0.25) +
maximum friction angle given by [3] also depends on both
is shown in Fig. 12 and is seen to be nonlinear. The relationship relative density and confining stress and hence R s should be
for f = 0.5 is also shown. The most probable range of values related to +, and the following equation is proposed:
is bounded by these two lines. The normalized penetration
value, N , , can be correlated with relative density, D r . The most
commonly used relationship is the one proposed by Gibbs and
Holtz (1957) and is shown in Fig. 13. Based upon Figs. 12 and + +,
For stresses in the range of 101 kPa (I atm), = , and [20j
13 the values of k , given in Table 1 1, in terms of D , and N , , gives values of R, in close agreement with those shown in
are suggested. Table 12.
A comparison between the k, values predicted from back Sand constants can also be estimated from static cone re-
analysis and those determined from laboratory and field mea- sistance values, q,, based on empirical relationships with the
surements is shown in Fig. 14. It may be seen that at low standard penetration value, N . The q,/N ratio varies with grain
relative densities the back-calculated k E values are in the lower size and can be expected to range between 4 for silty sand and
range for primary loading condition and are in agreement with 8 for coarse sand (Robertson et al. 1983).
CAN. GEOTECH. .I.VOL. 24, 1981

TABLE12. Suggested model parameters in terms of D , and N ,

Dr NI k ,; 11 k ,I .
I 41 Ad, + R,-

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada for their financial support
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

of this research. They are also grateful to the reviewers, who


made very valuable comments that have led to many changes
from the original manuscript. In addition, we wish to acknowl-
Bock-calculated f r o m
edge Mrs. Kelly Lamb for her typing of the manuscript and
observed F o u n d a t ~ o n Mr. Richard Brun for his reproduction of the figures.
Settlements

BJERRUM, J . , and EGGESTAD, A. 1963. Interpretation of loading tests


on sand. Proceedings, European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Engineering, Wiesbaden, Vol. I .
BYRNE,P. M., and ELDRIDGE, T. L. 1982. A three parameter dilatant
elastic stress-strain model for sand. international Symposium on
Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Switzerland, pp. 73-79.
BYRNE,P. M., and VAZIRI, P. M. 1986. CONOIL: a computer pro-
gram for nonlinear consolidation analysis of stress, deformation and
For personal use only.

flow in oil sand masses. Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-


sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Soil Mechanics Series
no. 103.
CHERN, J. C. 1984. Undrained response of saturated sands with em-
phasis on liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Ph.D. thesis, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
CORNFORTH, D. H. 1974. One dimensional consolidation curves of a
0 medium sand. Gtotechnique, 24(4): 678-683.
0 20 40 60 80 100 D'APPOLONIA, D. J., D'APPOLONIA, E., and BRISSETTE, R . F. 1968.
Relotive D e n s i t y , D, Settlement of spread footings on sand. ASCE Journal of the Soil
FIG. 14. Comparison of back-calculated and measured k E values. Mechanics and Foundations Division, 94(SM3): 735-760.
Duncan et al. (1980), primary loading; + Seed and ldriss (1970), DUNCAN,J. M., BYRNE, P. M., WONG, K. S., and MABRY,P.
repeated loading; 0 Lambe and Whitman (1968), primary loading; 1980. Strength, stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for
V Lambe and Whitman (1968), repeated loading. finite element analysis of stresses and movements in soil masses.
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, Report no.
UCB/GT/80-01.
The above soil constants in terms of N , or D , are for GIBBS,H. J., and HOLTZ,W. G. 1957. Research on determining the
"average" conditions. Considerable variation in the constants density of sand by spoon penetration testing, Proceedings, 4th Inter-
can occur depending upon the particle composition, grain national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engi-
shape, and grading. Soft, breakable particles will have lower neering, London, Vol. I , p. 35.
values of k,, k,, and 4 as compared with hard particles. Angu- GOULD,J. P. 1954. Compression characteristics of rolled fill material
lar particles will have lower values of k, and k, but higher in earth dams. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO,
values of 4 as compared with rounded particles. Well-graded Technical Memo C48.
soils will have higher values of k,, k,, and 4 as compared with HARDIN, B. O., and DRNEVICH, V. D. 1972. Shear modulus and
uniform sands. Repeated loading may increase kE and k, by a damping in soils, design equations and curves. ASCE Journal of the
factor of 2-4 as compared with primary loading. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 98(SM7): 667-692.
KONDNER, R. L., and ZELASKI, J. S. 1963. A hyperbolic stress-strain
formulation for sands. Proceedings, Second Pan American Confer-
Summary ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. I ,
Soil constants for the incremental hyperbolic elastic stress- pp. 289-324.
strain model for sand are examined. The constants are first LAMBE,T. W., and WHITMAN, R. V. 1968. Soil mechanics. John
evaluated from laboratory and field tests and the range and Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 159.
interdependency of constants established. MEYERHOF, G. G. 1965. Shallow foundations. ASCE Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 91(SM2): 735-759.
Field observations of foundation settlements and penetration
NEGUSSEY, D. 1984. An experimental study on the small strain re-
values are next examined. These are used as a basis for back sponse of sand. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Van-
analysis of soil parameters using the proposed incremental elas- couver, B.C.
tic stress-strain model and a finite element procedure. Based PARRY,R. H. G. 1978. Interpreting the standard penetration test.
on these analyses, soil constants for sand in terms of relative Ground Engineering, 2(4): 6.
density o r penetration resistance values are proposed. PECK,R. B., HANSON, W. E., and THORNBURN, T. H. 1974. Founda-
tion engineering. 2nd ed. John Wilcy & Sons, New York, NY, 19
pp. 308-312. [A81 k =
D
ROBERTSON,P. K., CAMPANELLA, R. G., and WIGHTMAN, A. 1983. 0.0655 - 0.0535 log
SPT-CPT correlations. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Divi- 10
sion, 109: 1449- 1459. Cornforth's tests suggest that for uniform medium sand m =
SEED,H. B., and IDRISS, I. M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors 0.5, and k8 varies with relative density as defined by [A81 and
for dynamic response analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research shown in Table 6.
Centre, Berkeley, CA, Report no. EERC 70- 10.
TERZAGHI, K., and PECK,R. 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering ko consolidation-D'Appolotziu et al.
practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 419-423. Taking M = k&P,,(u;/P;,)"',kh rather than k, is used, be-
1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2nd ed. John cause u1 rather than u3 is used in the equation. The data in
Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 489. Table 7 examined on a log M vs. log ul plot yields
VARADARAJAN, A,, and MISHRA,S. S. 1980. Stress path dependent
stress-strain volume change behaviour of granular soil. Inter- k& = 470, t72 = 0.5 for virgin loading
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12

national Symposium on Soil under cyclic and transient loading,


Swansea, pp. 109- 1 19. and
, S., and CLOUGH,
V E S I ~ A. G. W. 1968. Behaviour of granular k& = 900, m = 0.25 for reload
materials under high stresses. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, 94(SM3): 66 1 -688. Now in terms of u3, M is given by
WILSON, S. D. 1973. Deformation of earth and rockfill dams. In
Embankment-dam Engineering. Casagrande Volume. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, pp. 365-417.
Since uj = kou{,k, and k& are related as follows:
Appendix
[AIO] k, = k&(k,)-"'
ko consolidation tests-Cornforth and
Cornforth found that the vertical strain E, varied with as
follows:
For personal use only.

Taking ko = 0.5 for virgin loading and 0.8 for reload, kB= 440
and 820, respectively, for primary and reload conditions. The
where x = a function of the relative density and for his data is sand in question had relative densities of 65-70%.
given by
kg values from field meusuremetzts
[A21 x = 0.0655 - 0.0535 log Dr
-
10
Gould ( 1 954) has presented data on the compression behav-
iour of 20 large earth dams in the United States as was shown
The constrained modulus, M , is given by in Table 8.
Beneath the crest of the dam it is not unreasonable to assume
one-dimensional compression (no lateral bulging); hence the
secant constrained modulus, M,, is:
Equation [A31 can be written in a form similar to [4] in the text,
realizing that P a = 101.3 kPa:

If we further assume that the normal stress-volume relation is


of the form
from which k, = 2 0 / ~ ( k ~ ) 'and
l' m = 112. For ko = 0.50,

then the secant and tangent constrained moduli are related as


follows:

28
[A61 kM =
D
0.06550.0535 log -'
-
10
The bulk modulus, B , and the constrained modulus, M , are
related as follows: from which

For ko = 0.5, Also


2 2
B=-M and k --kM
3 B-3
Therefore from [A61 and [A7], where m = 1 - x .
376 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 24. 1987

For GM-SM and GP soils, E, = 0.014-0.009 for a, = 14 000 22 000


kM = -to -= 530-810
690 kPa (100 psi). From [A14], M, = 48.3-75.8 MPa 27.1 27.1
(7 000 - 11 000 psi). For m = x = 0.5, M = 2M,. For I + 2ko
ko = 0.5, a3= 0 . 5 6 ~and
~ hence kB = - kM = 350-540
3
If we assume the dam materials were compacted to about
95% of the density corresponding to the standard Proctor test,
then k, = 350-540 would be appropriate for this level of
compaction. A compaction of 95% of standard could also be
expected to produce a relative density of about 50%.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
For personal use only.