Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L a d d t
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACTION 17
,on
8
,,=, Material Tested
r~ ~ ~ n t l ~x~ -ilerfa~tilrc=nt ii(ir_
5¸ compaction The particle size distribution curve and the selected index
properties of the Monterey No. 0 sand, obtained by Mulilis [4],
are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1, respectively. The sand is a
==
washed uniform medium-to-fine beach sand (SP). The maximum
and minimum dry unit weight determinations were performed in
MinimumValue general accordance with ASTM Test for Relative Density of
(usuallyzero) n i = 1 n nt
Cohesionless Soils (D 2049-69) and Kolbuszewski's method [5],
LAYER NUMBER
respectively. The specimens tested had initial relative densities
Where: A. Percentunder-compactionin layerbeingconsidered,Un Dr of approximately 60%.
Un = Uni -
pUni- u.tl
L n--~-~_
1 x (n- 1)
]
Specimen Preparation Procedure
B. Averagepercentunder-compactionfor layerscompacted, On
_ Un Each test specimen, 74 mm (2.9 in.) in diameter and 152 mm
Un= ~ (6 in.) high, had an initial molding water content of approxi-
Uni = Percentunder-compactionselectedfor first layer mately 6% and was compacted in eight layers in a split com-
Unt = Percentunder-compactionselectedfor final layer(usuallyzero)
paction mold not attached to the triaxial cell ("external" split
compaction mold). Further details of this method of specimen
n = Numberof layerbeingconsidered preparation are given in Appendix A.
ni = First (initial) layer After compaction, the split mold was removed and the weight,
nt = Total numberof layers(final layer) height, and diameter of the specimen were measured. The spec-
imen was then placed in the triaxial cell and confined with a
FIG. 1--Concept of undercompaction procedure. rubber membrane. The triaxial cell was filled with deaerated
water, and a cell pressure o3~ of 36 k N / m z (750 psf) was applied.
F-
4o Ig] I. [I
O
rr
3o] ! II J '..... ' " '.... + ~ ..... III[~I[ I I-- I[
20 I I
I
200 100
-I-.. -I .... IIIt:[:t.:[-
10
.
1,0
GRAIN SIZE iN MILLIMETERS
0.1
--Ill!Ill- I L
I
0.01
I
0.001
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
18 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
TABLE 1--Index data for Monterey No. 0 sand. Test Results and Discussion
Unified soil classification system symbol SP The results of the cyclic triaxial strength tests are summarized
Particle size data in Table 2. A plot of the cyclic strength index versus the percent
Ds0, mm 0.36 undercompaction of the first layer of each specimen is given
Cc~ 0.9 in Fig. 3. The cyclic strength index Ic is defined as the ratio of
Cu 1.5 the number of cycles to obtain a given peak-to-peak axial strain
Dry unit weight data e
Maximum, lb/ft 3 105.7 Are to the product of relative density in percent D, and applied
Minimum, lb/ft 3 89.3 stress ratio _+ad/2F3~, that is, Ne/Dr( +-Od/253c); Ic was used to
normalize small differences in relative density and applied stress
aCc= (1)30)2/(960 × D10). ratio from one test to another.
bcu = D60/D~o.
c 1 lb/ft 3 = 16 kg/m 3. The data show that Ic, which is directly related to the cyclic
strength, varies with U,i or the uniformity of dry unit weight
within a test specimen. For the U,i values evaluated (0 to 18%),
During back-pressuring, an effective confining stress of 36 k N / m 2 the number of cycles to obtain a peak-to-peak axial strain of
(750 psf) was maintained. This low confining stress minimizes 10% at an applied stress ratio of 0.26 varied between 16 and 41
unrecorded volume changes during saturation; however, if the (see Table 2). Furthermore, a peak Ic value (optimum cyclic
specimen has a tendency to swell, higher values should be selected. strength) was obtained. The U,i value where this peak occurred
In addition, a small axial stress, sufficient to maintain the spec- is defined as the optimum percent undercompaction.
imen in an isotropic state of stress, was applied. Saturation was Another important factor in understanding the cyclic behavior
assumed when the B factor (ratio of the change in pore water of sand is its strain development characteristics. Axial strain in
pressure Au to the change in cell pressure Aa~) was equal to or compression and extension versus the logarithm of the number of
greater than 95%. loading cycles is plotted in Fig. 4. The shapes of the curves vary
The specimen was then consolidated to the required effective considerably, and it was almost impossible to determine trends
stress F3~. Changes in volume and axial height were recorded visually. To determine whether there was a relationship between
during consolidation. The relative density of the specimen prior U,i and the strain development characteristics, as was found with
to cyclic loading is based on these measurements. cyclic strength, the cyclic data were normalized. The curves of
The specimens were cyclically loaded without drainage by the normalized peak-to-peak strain versus the normalized number
using an eleetrohydraulic closed-loop loading system manufactured of cycles are plotted in Fig. 5. The normalized peak-to-peak
by the MTS Systems Corp. The MTS system applied a sinusoidally strain e,p/~pp = 10% is defined as the ratio of peak-to-peak
varying load about an ambient load at a frequency of 1 Hz. strain at a given number of cycles N to a peak-to-peak strain of
Therefore, a cyclic sinusoidally varying axial deviator stress +_oa 10% (selected failure criteria), while the normalized number of
was applied to the specimen in which the stress varied between cycles N / N f is defined as the ratio of the number of cycles re-
peak compression and peak extension values. During cyclic quired to obtain a given e,p to the number of cycles required to
loading, the cell pressure was kept constant, and the changes in obtain an Epp of 10%. This figure shows that as U,~ becomes
axial load, axial deformation, and pore water pressure were closer to the optimum percent undercompaction, the normalized
recorded. strain development curves become more concave.
a 1 lb/ft 3 = 16 kg/m 3.
b Notes:
1. A significant (> 10%) decrease in peak-to-peak axial load occurred after a peak-to-peak axial strain of 10% had occurred.
2. Test specimens were 74 mm (2.9 in.) in diameter by 152 mm (6 in.) in height and were compacted in eight layers by using the moist tamp-
ing method presented in Appendix A.
3. Consolidation pressure 03c equaled 44.6 kN/m 2 (2088 lb/fl 2).
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACT~ON 19
Test Conditions
Peak to Peak Relative Density, Dr (%) Stress
Symbol Axial Strain, %
After (~-3c Ratio
O 5 Consoli-
A lO Initial Ib/ft 2 +_ l:Td/2 ~3c
57-62 63-67 2,088 0.25-0.26
Note: 1 KN/m 2 = 20.88 Ib/ft 2
Number of Cycles to Obtain a Given
Cyclic Strength Index = Peak to Peak Axial Strain
X Optimum Cyctic Relative Density (%) x Stress Ratio
,,' 3 Strength Index - ~
E3
z
-1-
i-
L9
zuJ 2 /0 \
n~
A --. _ A l l \ A E)
O 0 0
.J
~D
>- 1
cD
O
~ 1 Optimum Percent Under-Compaction
I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
FIG. 3--Cyclic strength index versus percent undercompaction of first layer for Monterey No. 0 sand.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
20 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
20
15
10
uJ
o ~pp = 10%
i I i
.~_ s
E 10
Z 8 L
<
eT- @
20
<
X
< 15
g
UJ
/ ,
~ 5
o.
E
8 10
15
10 50 100 200
NUMBER OF CYCLES
FIG. 4--Axial strain versus number o f cycles for Monterey No. 0 sand.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATIONUSING UNDERCOMPACTION 21
1.0
I I
O Percent-under-compaction
II
of First i a y e r //~J
Q.
t~ 0.75
z"
<n -
o0
v
< 0.5
LU
0 ,ncreasingCyc,,cStrength
v
<
LU
a.
E3 0.25
LU
N
.J
<
n-
O
z
0
0 0.2 0.4. 0.6 0.8 1.0
NORMALIZEDNUMBEROF CYCLES,N/Nf = N/N Cpp = 10%
FIG.5--Normalized peak-to-peak strain versus normalized number of cycles.
~ Bushings
I-
I J I
MembraneProtection
Collar
RubberMembrane
CompactionF o o t ~ I--]
(Diameter=V2ID ~L]TJ VacuumApplied
of Mold) - ' ~
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
22 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
? ____~
Reference-Collar
I
~i ~j~
X
I-~
Ihitial'Vertieal S~tting R, Inches
-Bushing.
~,f---Tamping Guide Assembly
? 1
/', I
--.
i\ .,.,%
I~" ~ Collar-~ /'I,I I
E=
I1 lI' l _l
Compaction Foot ~
/ (Diameter='A ID
of Mold)
Air Outlets
~
t~-~ If ~ ~ Spacer-Disk Assembly
' I I I
, / II
II
, !
'11
i;l
'
I;i '
III I v
.~
, rCo
L/
ar
II l,, Ill I II./
~ II Hi IP ,i i iv"
"1 I//A/ / // X / / / /V / ,I "~
the top or at the bottom of the specimen, indicates a specimen men as a function of its height. A dry unit weight not uniform
with an inappropriate value of U.z. with height indicates an inappropriate value of U.i.
c. Observe the behavior of the specimen during unconsoli-
8. Calculate the required height of the specimen at the top of
dated-undrained loading. Nonuniform vertical strains indicate
thenth layer:
an inappropriate value of U.z.
d. Observe the fabric of the specimen. A honeycomb struc-
ture at either the top or the bottom of the specimen indicates an
inappropriate value of U.i. h
e, Measure the dry unit weight of the prepared test speci-
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LADD ON SPECIMEN PREPARATION USING UNDERCOMPACTION 23
remove the specimen from the split mold (using extreme caution
to prevent disturbance) and obtain its weight, height, and di-
ameter. The weight should be determined to the nearest 0.01 g;
however, for specimens weighing greater than 1000 g, measuring
"',\ to the nearest 0.1 g is adequate. The height and diameter should
×
cl / ~- Material sensitive t o percent under compaction be determined to the nearest 0.02 mm (0.001 in.) using a dial
I \ gage comparator. The dial gage contact points on these instru-
15
I \
i~ 8°
~ o I
I \
\
ments should have a flat surface with a minimum diameter of
about 5 mm (IA in.).
u ~g
I \ F Material relatively insensitiveto percent
For specimens compacted in an internal split mold, the initial
under compaction
weight cannot be directly checked. Therefore, the oven-dry
weight of the specimen should be checked after the test. How-
ever, the height and diameter of the compacted specimen should
be measured after a slight vacuum is applied and the mold is
removed. A pi tape (Pi Tape, Lemon Grove, Calif.) is recom-
mended for measuring the diameter.
PERCENT UNDER COMPACTION OF FIRST LAYER
The author has also used this procedure, with some modifica-
FIG. 8--Expected relationship between strength index and percent tions, for compacting fine-grained soils and found that appro-
undercompaction of first layer. priate specimens are obtained much more readily than when the
Harvard compaction apparatus [6] is used. In the latter case, one
must determine experimentally the appropriate compactive effort
(number of layers, number of tamps per layer, and the tamping
9. Weigh the amount of material required for the layer, as
force) required to obtain the prescribed value of ~/dr"
determined in Step 6, and place it into a closed container. If
A brief description of the required modifications is as follows:
each layer requires a weight greater than about 80 g, it is usually
easier to weigh the amount of material required for each layer a. A U,i value of zero should be used.
and place it into small closed containers. b. The compaction of each layer is initiated by using a Har-
10. Adjust the reference collar on the tamping rod to obtain vard tamping device [6], having a spring force of 18 kg
the proper h , . Weigh, if you have not already done so, the (40 Ib) and with a compaction foot having a diameter
amount of material required for the layer, and place it into the equal to about 1/4 the diameter of the specimen. The
mold. During weighing, care must he taken to lose as little compaction is continued by using this tamper until the
moisture as possible. Using the tamping rod, guided by the surface of the material is relatively level. The tamping
tamping guide assembly, compact the surface of the material force should be reduced if the compaction foot appears to
(after it has been leveled) in a circular pattern starting at the penetrate below the proper h, value. Then the tamping
periphery of the mold and working toward the center of the mold. rod, as mentioned in Step 10, is used to compact the
Initially, a light tamping force should be used to distribute and material to the proper h, value.
seat the material uniformly in the mold. The force should then
be gradually increased until the reference collar uniformly hits
References
the top of the tamping rod guide assembly. For the last few cov-
erages, it may be necessary to hit the tamping rod with a rubber [1] Finn, W. D. L., Picketing, D. J., and Bransby, P. L., "Sand
mallet in order to compact the material into a dense state. Next, Liquefaction in Triaxial and Simple Shear Tests," Journal of the
scarify the compacted surface to a depth equal to about one tenth Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 97, No. SM4, April 1971, pp.
of the thickness of the layer. 639-659.
11. Repeat Steps 9 (if required) and 10 until the last layer is in [2] Lee, K. L. and Fitton, J. A., "Factors Affecting the Cyclic Loading
place. During the compaction of the last layer, the tamping rod Strength of Soil," in Vibration Effects of Earthquakes on Soils and
should be used until the surface of the compacted material is Foundations, STP 450, American Society for Testing and Materials,
about 0.4 mm (1/64 in.) higher than required. Then, for specimens Philadelphia, 1969, pp. 71-95.
[3] Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Dynamic Strength of Anisotropically
prepared in an external split mold, place the spacer disk as- Consolidated Sand," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
sembly into position and lightly strike it with a rubber mallet Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
until it is seated; see Fig. 7. For specimens prepared with the Vol. 93, No. SM5, Sept. 1967, pp. 169-190.
internal split mold, place the top cap and the porous stone [4] Mulilis, J. P., "The Effects of Method of Sample Preparation on the
Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of Sands," Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
directly on the specimen. The top cap should be attached to the
sity of California, Berkeley, 1975.
loading piston, which, in turn, should be guided by the bushing [5] Kolbuszewski, J. J., in Proceedings of the Second International Con-
located in the top of the triaxial cell. Then lightly strike the ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam,
loading piston with a rubber mallet until the compacted material 1948, Voi. 7, pp. 47-49.
reaches the prescribed height. This procedure ensures that there [6] Wilson, S. D., "Suggested Method of Test for Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils Using Harvard Compaction Apparatus," in
is proper alignment and seating of the top cap in relation to the Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Pur-
specimen and the loading mechanism of the triaxial cell. poses, STP 479, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
12. For specimens compacted in an external split mold, delphia, 1970, pp. t01-103.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon May 7 02:03:55 EDT 2018
Downloaded/printed by
Suranaree University of Technology (Suranaree University of Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.