Qiang Li

CE572
MEMORANDUM
Oregon State University
Department of Civil & Construction Engineering
Soil Mechanics Laboratory

To:

T. Matthew Evans

From:

Qiang Li

Date:

12/12/13

Lab Partners:

Vahid Rashidian
Yonggui Xie

Subject: Consolidated Drained (CD) and Consolidated Undrained (CU) Triaxial Tests

Sample Description:
Soil Type: Ottawa 20-30 sand
Source: OSU Soil Lab, Corvallis, OR
Condition as Received: dry
Visual Classification: sand
Plasticity: no plasticity
Color: White
Dry Strength: high
Toughness: Strong
Remarks:

12/12/13

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

Procedures:
The procedures generally follow the procedures in ASTM D4764-11, ASTM D718111, handout for
operating Simpson-Beaver Triaxial Panel, and the manual of Trautwein Triaxial device. Three tests, Test
(1), (3), and (6), were conducted, as listed in Table 1 (shaded cells are CU test).
Table 1 Number of conducted tests
Dr = 35%
Dr = 80%

3 = 50 kPa
(8)
(7)
(4)
(3)

3 = 50 kPa
(6)
(5)
(2)
(1)

Test Results:
CU Test with 3 = 400 kPa and Dr = 80%
The B value achieved was 0.956. The relationship between the excess pore pressure and axial strain
is shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the excess pore pressure is positive at first and then decreased to
be negative with respect to the back pressure. This phenomenon can also be found from Figure 2, since
the difference between TSP and ESP is excess pore pressure. This implies that the sands compressed first
and then dilated. The negative excess pore pressure is due to the sands tends to expand during shear, but
it could not, because for undrained loading the volume change is not allowed. Figure 3 shows the
relationship between deviator stress and axial strain. The deviator stress reaches a peak at about 2068
kPa, and then drops to a critical state. It is a typical response for dense sands (Holtz et al. 2011).
100
0
-100

Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)

-200
-300
-400
0 2

4 6 8 10

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 1 Excess pore pressure vs. axial strain for the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 400 kPa
2

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

2500
2000
1500

q, q' (kPa)
TSP

1000

Linear (TSP)

ESP

500
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

p, p' (kPa)

Figure 2 Stress paths during the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 400 kPa
12
10
8

6
4
2
0
0

10

Ax ial Strain (%)

Figure 3 Deviator stress vs. axial strain for the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 400 kPa
CU Test with 3 = 50 kPa and Dr = 80%
The B value achieved for this test is 0.976. The relationship between the excess pore pressure and
axial strain is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that it develops positive excess pore pressure at first and
then decreased to be negative with respect to the back pressure. This phenomenon can also be found
3

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

from Figure 5. However, errors are found in Figure 4, in which the axial strain becomes constant near
the end of the test. Similar observation is also found from other groups using automatic device. After
discussion with other groups, we think there is some problem with the recorded displacement, because
Figure 5 and Figure 7 (deviator stress vs. time steps) seem reasonable. Figure 6 shows the relationship
between deviator stress and axial strain. The shape does not make any sense as the same as Figure 4.

100
0
-100

Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)

-200
-300
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Axial Strain (%)

Figure 4 Excess pore pressure vs. axial strain for the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 50 kPa
1600
1400
1200
1000
q, q'

800
600
400
200
0
0

200

400 600

800 1000 1200

p, p'

Figure 5 Stress paths during the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 50 kPa
4

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

1600
1400
1200
1000
800

600
400
200
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 6 Deviator stress vs. axial strain for the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 50 kPa
12
10
8
q

6
4
2
0
0

10

12

Time step

Figure 7 Deviator stress vs. time steps for the CU test with dense sand at 3 = 50 kPa
CD Test with 3 = 50 kPa and Dr = 35%
The B value achieved for this test is 0.960. The stress paths for TSP and ESP are shown in Figure 8.
Since this is a CD test which has no excess pore pressure during shearing, the TSP and ESP are
coincident. Figure 9 shows the relationship between deviator stress and axial strain. The deviator stress
increases gradually until reaches a critical state. It is a typical response for loose sands. The relationships

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

for volumetric strain and void ratio with axial strain are illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 11,
respectively. Through these two figures, the sands show contraction during the shearing.

1200
1000
800
q, q' (kPa)

600
TSP
400

ESP

200
0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
p, p' (kPa)

Figure 8 Stress paths during the CD test with loose sand at 3 = 50 kPa
1200
1000
800
q (kPa)

600
400
200
0
0

10

12

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 9 Deviator stress vs. axial strain for the CD test with loose sand at 3 = 50 kPa

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Volumetric Strain (%) -0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
Ax ial Strain (%)

Figure 10 Volumetric strain vs. axial strain for the CD test with loose sand at 3 = 50 kPa
0.7
0.65
0.6
Void Ratio

0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0

9 10

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 11 Void ratio vs. axial strain for the CD test with loose sand at 3 = 50 kPa
Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the calculation of qcs and pcs for both loose and dense sands and q p
and pp for dense sands, respectively. The details of test for each test number can be found in Table 1.
Then, based on the theory proposed by Budhu (2010), the average M c and Mp can be obtained with
Equation (1). Mc is estimated using linear regression, as shown in Figure 12, , and Figure 14 for dense
sand at critical state and peak, and loose sand at critical state, respectively. It is worthy to note that the
7

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

test data of Test (1) used for linear regression is from group C. For comparison purpose, the test data of
Test (1) from Group B is plotted as round dot in Figure 12 and . Finally, Equation (2) is employed to
compute average effective friction angle at critical state (cs) and at peak (p). The calculation of
effective friction angles is listed in Table 4. Therefore, the dilation angle is 3o.
Mc

qcs
pcs'

Mp

qp
p 'p

,
sin cs

(1)

3M c
6 Mc

sin p

3M p
6Mp

(2)
Table 2 Stresses at critical state

Test
No.
(1)
Dr=80
%

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Dr=35
%

qcs

3cs

1cs

3cs'

1cs'

qcs

pcs

-587
-283
0
-379
0
-357
0
0

1531
1882
800
988
486
1150
963
182

399
400
400
50
50
400
400
50

1930
2282
1200
1038
536
1550
1363
232

986
683
400
429
50
757
400
50

2517
2565
1200
1417
536
1907
1363
232

1531
1882
800
988
486
1150
963
182

1496
1310
667
758
212
1140
721
111

Table 3 Stresses at peak for dense sand

u
-587
-283
0
-379
0

Test
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

qf

'3

'1

1657

400

2057

987

2644

1657

2068
1071

400
400

2468
1471

683
400

2751
1471

2068
1071

1394

50

1444

429

1823

1394

565

50

615

50

615

565

p
1539.3
33
1372.3
33
757
893.66
67
238.33
33

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

2000
1800

f(x) = 1.38x
R = 0.99

1600
1400
1200
q' (kPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

200 400 600 800 1000120014001600

p' (kPa)

Figure 12 Calculation of Mc for dense sand

2500
2000

f(x) = 1.52x
R = 0.99

1500
q' (kPa) 1000
500
0
200
0

600
400

1000
1400
1800
800
1200
1600

p' (kPa)

Figure 13 Calculation of Mp for dense sand

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

1400
1200

f(x) = 1.11x
R = 0.98

1000
800
q' (kPa)

600
400
200
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200

p' (kPa)

Figure 14 Calculation of Mc for loose sand

Table 4 Calculation of effective friction angle at critical state and peak
Dr
Dr=80
%
Dr=35
%
Dr
Dr=80
%

Mc
1.3848
1.1055
Mp
1.5186

sin(cs
)
0.5625
61
0.4667
51
sin(p
)
0.6059
37

cs
34.2
27.8

p
37.3

The average effective friction angles can also be estimated using Mohrs circles as shown in Figure
15, Figure 16, and Figure 17. The numbers in each figure means the test number, which can be found in
Table 1. It can be seen that the Mohr failure envelopes are curved. Straight lines are approximated to fit
all of the Mohrs circles to estimate the average effective friction angles for both loose and dense sands.
Coulomb failure envelopes are drawn to estimate effective friction angles for dense sands at critical state
and peak and loose sand at critical state. It can be seen that the effective angles are very close to the
values listed in Table 4.

10

Qiang Li

CE572

Figure 15 Mohrs circles for dense sands at critical state

Figure 16 Mohrs circles for dense sands at peak

11

12/12/13

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

Figure 17 Mohrs circles for loose sands at critical state

Figure 18 shows the normalized deviator stresses vs. axial strain. For dense sands, peak values are
developed and then they decrease to reach the critical states. For loose sands, the normalized deviator
stresses increase gradually until they reach the critical states. For the sands with same relative density
and confining pressure, the normalized deviator stresses at critical state should be very close. However,
it is not true in this figure. The errors can be attributed to the real relative density achieved for each
test is not exactly 35% or 80%.

12

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

3.5
3
2.5

"

Dr=35%-CD-400kPa

Dr=35%-CU-400kPa

Dr=80%-CD-400kPa

2
1.5
1
0.5
Dr=80%-CU-400kPa

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Axial Strain (%)

Figure 18 Normalized deviator stress vs. axial strain

Discussion
1. We made mistake for the calculation of axial strain during the tests and afraid the membrane would
explode with higher axial strain, so we stopped all of the tests too early when the axial strain is only
about 15%. However, through the figures of q vs. ax, and ax vs. v the tests have reached the critical state
because the q and are v are almost constant.
2. The main goal of back pressure saturation is to get a degree of saturation S = 100%. This is very
important, since in undrained shear tests people rely on stiffness of water to ensure zero volume. Any
lack of saturation will give smaller positive pore pressures and in case of loose sands can overestimate
strength. Saturation can be done using two techniques:
(1) Flushing: push air out with water or CO2 (option only for sands).
(2) Backpressure saturation: surround air with water and force it into solution by increasing pressure of
water.
Back pressure saturation is the one we used during our tests.
3. Haflz (1950) found that the coefficient of interparticle friction () of quartz was 21 o to 27o. As
summarized by Procter and Barton (1974), Bromwell (1996) found that the very rough quartz had a
constant of 26o.

13

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

The peak friction angle is a sum of coefficient of interparticle friction (), resistance to volume
change (dilatancy or contracton), grain rearrangement or particle re-orientation, and particle crushing
(Lee and Seed 1967). Therefore, the measured friction angles for both the loose sands and dense sands
are larger than 26o.
3. As shown in Figure 12, , and Figure 14, the R2 for linear regression are all larger than 0.9. It means
the overall performance of all of the triaxial tests is consistent. The errors can be attributed to the real
relative density achieved for each test is not exactly 35% or 80%.
4. For practical purpose, Salgado et al. (2000) mentioned that the critical state friction angle should be a
unique value regardless of the initial relative density. In our tests, however, difference is observed for the
critical state friction angle with different relative density, which changes from 28o to 34o for relative
density as 30% and 80%, respectively.
5. The shapes of specimens are shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20. For the CD Test with 3 = 50 kPa and
Dr = 35%, high localized strain is observed at the top of specimen. The reason is probably due to the
sands at top are looser compare to the sands at the bottom. For the CU Test with 3 = 400 kPa and Dr =
80%, the specimen failed along a single plane. The end platens constrained the sample close to the
bottom and forced more deformation and corresponding dilation to the middle (Frost and Yang 2003).

14

Qiang Li

CE572

Figure 19 Shape of specimen for CD Test with 3 = 50 kPa and Dr = 35%

Figure 20 Shape of specimen for CU Test with 3 = 400 kPa and Dr = 80%
15

12/12/13

Qiang Li

CE572

16

12/12/13

Qiang Li

CE572

12/12/13

References:
ASTM D476711 (2004). Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
for Cohesive Soils.
ASTM D718111 (2004). Standard Test Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test
for Soils.
Bromwell, L. G. (1966). The friction of quartz in high vacuum. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Dept of Civ. Eng Research Report R6618.
Budhu, M. (2008). Soil Mechanics and Foundations, (With CD). John Wiley & Sons.
Frost, J.D. and Yang, C.T., (2003), Effect of End Platens on Microstructure Evolution in Dilatant
Specimens, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 1-11
Hafiz, M. S. (1950). Strength characteristics of sands and gravels in direct shear. PhD thesis, University
of London.
Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., and Sheahan, T.C. (20111). An introduction to geotechnical engineering
(2nd Edition) Prentice Hall
Lee, K. L., & Seed, H. B. (1967). Drained strength characteristics of sands. Journal of Soil Mechanics &
Foundations Div. 93. 117-141.
Procter, D. C., & Barton, R. R. (1974). Measurements of the angle of interparticle friction.
Gotechnique, 24(4), 581-604.
Salgado, R., Bandini, P., & Karim, A. (2000). Shear strength and stiffness of silty sand. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(5), 451-462.

17