Monotonic, Cyclic, and Postcyclic Simple Shear Response

of Three Uniform Gravels in Constant Volume Conditions

Jonathan F. Hubler, S.M.ASCE 1; Adda Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A.M.ASCE 2;
and Dimitrios Zekkos, P.E., M.ASCE 3

Abstract: This paper presents the results of large-size cyclic simple shear testing on three uniform gravels (Pea Gravel, 8-mm Crushed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Limestone, and 5-mm Crushed Limestone), which varied in particle size and angularity. Monotonic, cyclic, and postcyclic shear response was
assessed for these materials at two relative densities and initial vertical effective stresses up to 400 kPa. Shear wave velocity was measured in
each specimen so that laboratory and field conditions could be compared. Particle angularity was shown to be an important parameter that
affects peak, phase transformation (PT), and ultimate state (US) response of uniform gravels. As particle angularity increased peak, PT, and
US friction angles increased. Particle size was shown to have a lesser impact on these friction angles. Peak and US friction angles were
dependent on relative density, while the PT friction angle was unique for each material. Results of cyclic tests on uniform gravels in this study
showed that gravels will liquefy at normalized shear wave velocities (V S1 ) of up to approximately 230 meters per second (m=s). Increasing
particle size, angularity, and relative density led to an increase in postcyclic shear strength. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001723.
© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cyclic simple shear; Gravel; Shear wave velocity; Liquefaction.

Introduction Simplified solutions have been developed to assess liquefaction

triggering (Seed et al. 1985; Youd et al. 2001; Cetin et al. 2004;
The response of gravelly soils during seismic or cyclic excitation is Idriss and Boulanger 2008), as well as postliquefaction undrained
of importance to civil infrastructure. Gravelly soils were generally shear strength of sandy soils based on penetration resistances (Seed
considered to be nonliquefiable because of their large grain sizes and Harder 1990; Stark and Mesri 1992). Due to measurement
and ability to rapidly dissipate pore pressures. However, case his- difficulties and the significantly lesser number of case histories
tories have shown that gravelly soils can be susceptible to lique- involving gravelly soils rather than sandy soils, reliable methods
faction during earthquake events (Youd et al. 1985; Harder and for assessing gravelly soil liquefaction have not been developed.
Seed 1986; Andrus 1994; Cao et al. 2011; GEER 2014; Nikolaou Seed and Harder (1986) and Sy et al. (1995) developed relation-
et al. 2015). ships to convert Becker penetration test (BPT) data to standard pen-
To accurately capture the response of a soil during an earth- etration test (SPT) data so that SPT-based liquefaction charts could
quake event an assessment of liquefaction susceptibility as well be used for site assessment. Andrus and Stokoe (2000) measured
as postliquefaction shear response is needed. Liquefaction is shear wave velocity (V S ) at sites where gravelly soil liquefaction
defined as the transformation of a soil from the solid state to a lique- occurred and developed a V S -based liquefaction assessment chart
fied state due to increased pore-water pressure and reduced effec- for gravelly soils. V S has been used to assess liquefaction suscep-
tive stress (Marcuson 1978). Soil liquefaction most readily occurs tibility in soils since both V S and liquefaction resistance are influ-
in loose to moderately dense granular soils due to the tendency of enced by many of the same factors (i.e., void ratio, soil fabric,
these materials to contract and develop excess pore-water pressure geologic age, and prior earthquake strains) (Andrus and Stokoe
during cyclic loading. In particular, loose granular soils may sig- 2000; Chen and Han 2005; Dobry et al. 2015). V S measurements
nificantly soften during cyclic loading, which can lead to large
have advantages over penetration tests because they can be con-
flow-type deformations. Conversely, dense granular soils have
ducted in a noninvasive manner (e.g., surface wave methods).
the tendency to dilate during shearing; therefore, large deforma-
Cao et al. (2011) presented the most comprehensive study of grav-
tions are inhibited (Youd et al. 2001).
elly soil liquefaction by analyzing 47 gravelly soil sites during the
1 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and developed a V S -based liquefaction
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (corresponding
susceptibility chart. For the same dataset Chinese dynamic penetra-
author). E-mail: [email protected] tion tests were also correlated with liquefaction resistance (Cao
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, et al. 2013). Lin et al. (2004) performed field large penetration tests
Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: (LPT) and V S measurements as well as laboratory triaxial tests on a
[email protected] gravelly soil deposit that liquefied during the 1999 Chi-Chi earth-
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, quake. Results from the study showed that the LPT and V S methods
Univ. of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: can be used for liquefaction assessment of gravelly soils. Research-
[email protected]
ers have shown that laboratory measured V S can be correlated with
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 30, 2016; approved on
February 6, 2017; published online on April 26, 2017. Discussion period liquefaction resistance for sands, silts, and gravels (De Alba et al.
open until September 26, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for 1984; Hatanaka et al. 1997; Chen and Han 2005; Baxter et al.
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and 2008). However, laboratory measurement data of liquefaction
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241. resistance and V S of gravelly soils are sparse.

© ASCE 04017043-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Field case histories have provided insights into undrained grav- Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996). Simple shear tests are also not af-
elly soil response; however, laboratory study of the undrained shear fected by membrane compliance unlike the triaxial test.
response of gravelly soils, particularly uniform gravels, is limited This paper presents the results of an experimental study of the
and could provide further explanation of gravelly soil shear re- monotonic, cyclic, and postcyclic shear response of three uniform
sponse by targeting specific parameters that may affect it. Most gravels tested using a large-size cyclic simple shear (CSS) device.
testing on gravels (as well as the larger size particles commonly While it is recognized that uniform gravels are not typically en-
referred to as rockfill) and gravelly soils in the laboratory has been countered naturally in the field, they are used as engineering fills
conducted under drained conditions (Marsal 1967; Marachi 1969; in ports, embankments, buttresses, submerged tunnels, and retain-
Leps 1970; Skermer and Hillis 1970; Charles and Watts 1980; ing walls. The objective of this paper was to comprehensively study
Barton and Kjaernsli 1981; Moroto and Ishii 1990; Yasuda and the undrained shear response of these gravels with a focus on the
Matsumoto 1994; Matsuoka and Liu 1998; Matsuoka et al. 2001; influence of particle size and shape. V S was measured for each
Varadarajan et al. 2003; Anderson and Fair 2008; Strahler et al. specimen so that laboratory tests and field conditions could be com-
2016), since these materials are considered to be free-draining. pared. Results from the conducted tests were compared with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Considerable effort has focused on the effect of confining stress existing design charts for liquefaction susceptibility to gain further
and particle breakage on the shear response (Xiao et al. 2014b, insight into gravelly soil response compared to existing design
c, 2016a, b) as well as the development of constitutive models charts commonly used in engineering practice for sands and
(Liu et al. 2014; Xiao et al. 2014a; Sun and Xiao 2017; Xiao gravels.
and Liu 2017). The effect of particle size and shape on shear
strength has been investigated and results have shown that angular
particles have greater shear strength than subrounded particles Test Materials and Methods
(Holtz and Gibbs 1956).
Many researchers have investigated the undrained shear re-
Test Equipment
sponse of sandy soils in the laboratory (Vaid and Sivathayalan
1996; Porcino et al. 2008; Sivathayalan and Yazdi 2014). However, A prototype large-size cyclic simple shear (CSS) device, shown in
the undrained shear response of gravels and gravel-sand mixtures Fig. 1, was used to perform monotonic and cyclic tests on three
has been less extensively investigated due to the unavailability uniform gravels. The device allowed for the shearing of cylindrical
of devices large enough to accommodate the larger particle sizes. specimens with a nominal diameter of 307 mm and a maximum
Laboratory shear response of gravel and gravel-sand mixtures height of 137 mm. Circular stacked rings with a width of 32 mm
under undrained conditions has been studied by several researchers and a height of 7 mm were used to laterally confine the specimen
(Wong et al. 1974; Evans and Seed 1987; Evans and Zhou 1995; and allowed for testing at K 0 conditions. A latex membrane was
Choi et al. 2008; Flora et al. 2012; Zhao et al. 2013; Chang et al. placed inside the rings as a cushion to prevent damage to the rings
2014). Several studies have developed and applied correlations be- and ensure uniform shearing of the specimen. The CSS device is
tween laboratory cyclic strength, field penetration resistances, and capable of performing stress or strain controlled monotonic and
field and laboratory V S (Hatanaka et al. 1988; Suzuki et al. 1993; cyclic shear tests. The device was validated by comparing mono-
Tanaka et al. 1992; Hatanaka et al. 1997). These studies have tonic and cyclic results on Ottawa (IL) C109 sand with small-size
shown gravelly soils can be susceptible to liquefaction and that simple shear results on Ottawa C109 sand (Bhatia 1983) as well as
V S can be used to assess liquefaction resistance. The studies pre- Silica C109 sand from the Illinois River, which is reported to be
sented in this section have mainly used triaxial devices due to the quite similar to Ottawa sand (Yazdi 2004; Sivathayalan and
wider availability of these devices, even though it has been known Yazdi 2014) Test results such as the monotonic results presented
that the simple shear test in many cases is more representative of in Fig. 2 showed nearly identical behavior between conventional
field performance of soils under earthquake loading (Finn 1985; size devices and the large-size device.

Fig. 2. Comparison of monotonic test results for large-size simple

Fig. 1. Photograph of the large-size cyclic simple shear device shear and small-size simple shear for device validation

© ASCE 04017043-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Table 1. Summary of Soil Grain Properties
Materials tested
8-mm Crushed 5-mm Crushed
Limestone Limestone Ottawa
Parameter Pea Gravel (CLS8) (CLS5) C109 sand
GS 2.74 2.65 2.65 2.65
γ dmax (kg=m3 ) 1,741 1,751 1,667 1,733
γ dmin (kg=m3 ) 1,546 1,357 1,276 1,512
emax 0.772 0.953 1.077 0.752
emin 0.574 0.513 0.590 0.529
D60 (mm) 9.8 8.6 5.1 0.40
D50 (mm) 9.0 8.0 4.8 0.35
D30 (mm) 7.4 6.7 4.3 0.30
D10 (mm) 6.1 5.0 3.7 0.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cu 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6

Cc 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9
Roundness 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.42
USCS GP GP GP SP

Fig. 3. Grain size distributions of test materials

Custom-built piezoceramic bender element and accelerometer
systems were first independently validated by comparing the V s
measurements in Ottawa C109 sand against data in the literature
and were then used to measure the V s of each gravel specimen. Test Procedure
A transmitting bender element was placed in the center of the bot-
Specimens were prepared at two target relative densities (Dr ) for
tom pedestal and a receiving bender element was placed in the
each material: Dr ¼ 47  3% and Dr ¼ 87  3%. Specimens were
center of the top cap. Miniature dual-axis MEMS accelerometers
prepared at Dr ¼ 47% by using a small shovel to place the gravel at
were also used to measure V s by placing accelerometers on the
a loose state. In some cases the specimen baseplate was tamped
bottom pedestal and the top cap. Impulses were generated using
with a rubber mallet to achieve the target density. Specimens were
either a rubber or plastic mallet and striking the bottom pedestal
prepared at Dr ¼ 87% by dropping a 5.5 kg weight with a circular
to generate a shear wave. The V s measured by bender elements
diameter of 150 mm from a height of 50–75 mm. For the Pea
and accelerometers were within 5% of each other. Bender elements
Gravel an average of 25 drops in 3 layers was used; however,
were more easily damaged by the gravelly soils and needed to be
for the CLS gravels the average drops increased for decreasing ini-
replaced often, so V s measurements reported in this study were
tial vertical stress and ranged from 30 to 60 drops in five equal
generated using primarily accelerometers. layers to reach the target density. A small drop height was used
to minimize particle damage during specimen preparation (this
Test Materials was also confirmed visually), and a greater number of drops
was used for successive layers to ensure specimen uniformity.
Pea Gravel, 8-mm Crushed Limestone (CLS8), and 5-mm Crushed In total, 101 simple shear tests were performed in this study (24
Limestone (CLS5) were tested in this study. The Crushed Lime- Monotonic, 53 Cyclic, and 24 Post Cyclic). Monotonic, cyclic, and
stone (CLS) materials are referred to as 8 and 5 mm as these values postcyclic tests were completed at Dr ¼ 47% and Dr ¼ 87% at
represent the approximate d50 values for these materials. Table 1 0 ) of 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa.
initial vertical stresses (σv0
summarizes the material properties for each gravel as well as Specimens were initially consolidated to a specified vertical
Ottawa C109 sand. Grain size distributions for each material are stress and then sheared either monotonically or cyclically. V S
shown in Fig. 3. Pea Gravel, which has rounded to subrounded par- was measured in each specimen after consolidation to a specified
ticles, has the largest particle size, with a maximum particle size of vertical stress and prior to shearing. Monotonic and postcyclic
15 mm. CLS8, which has a maximum particle size of 12 mm, monotonic tests were strain-controlled and sheared at a rate of ap-
has angular to subangular particles and has a particle size distribu- proximately 0.3% per minute, which enabled precise control of
tion that is similar and slightly smaller than Pea Gravel. CLS5 also constant volume conditions and was similar to other strain rates
has angular to subangular particles and has the smallest particle used in simple shear testing of sands (Sivathayalan 2000). Cyclic
size, with a maximum particle size of 7 mm. Roundness (R) values tests were stress-controlled with different cyclic stress ratios
were estimated using existing charts and methodologies (Krumbein (CSRs) ranging from 0.04 to 0.19 and a loading frequency of
1941; Powers 1953; Youd 1973) for each gravel material and values 0.33 Hz for most tests. Postcyclic monotonic tests immediately
are listed in Table 1. The R value that was used for Ottawa C109 followed cyclic tests without reconsolidating the specimen.
sand was the value reported in Youd (1973). All three gravels Monotonic and cyclic simple shear tests were all performed at a
are uniform and are classified as poorly graded gravels (GP) per constant volume. It has been shown in previous studies (Dyvik et al.
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The gravels were 1987) that the measured change in vertical stress in a constant
selected to investigate the influence of particle size and shape. volume simple shear test is considered to be equal to the pore pres-
Minimum and maximum densities were determined using ASTM sure that would develop in an undrained test. ASTM D6528
D4254 (ASTM 2006), while specific gravity was determined using (ASTM 2007) specifies a vertical strain limit criterion of 0.05%
ASTM C127 (ASTM 2012). The translucent segregation table for constant volume test validity. Constant volume was maintained
(TST) described by Ohm and Hryciw (2013) was used to assess by a feedback loop and active control of vertical stress during
grain size distribution. shearing.

© ASCE 04017043-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Shear wave velocity for Pea Gravel, 8-mm Crushed Limestone, and 5-mm Crushed Limestone at (a) Dr ¼ 47%; (b) Dr ¼ 87%

Table 2. Summary of Equation Parameters for Vs

Pea Gravel 8-mm Crushed Limestone (CLS8) 5-mm Crushed Limestone (CLS5)
Parameter Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87% Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87% Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87%
α (m=s) 193 206 208 229 200 235
β 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.21

Test Results effective stress. Fig. 5(c) shows the shear strength normalized by
0
the initial vertical stress (τ =σv0 ) versus shear strain. All tests for
Shear Wave Velocity CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47% had a similar peak value in the 0.15 range
and all initial vertical stresses show strain-hardening response.
Results of V S measurements are presented in Fig. 4 for both the However, as initial vertical stress increased a decrease in the rate
Dr ¼ 47% and Dr ¼ 87% specimens. For each gravel tested V S at which τ =σv00
increased post-peak was observed [i.e., the σv0 0
¼
0
increased with increasing σv0 and increasing Dr . CLS8 and 0
50 kPa test had the highest value of τ =σv0 at larger strains
CLS5 had higher V S values than Pea Gravel for both Dr ¼ 47% (γ > 2%)]. Fig. 5(d) shows shear stress normalized by vertical ef-
and Dr ¼ 87%. Power functions of the form in Eq. (1) were fit fective stress (τ =σv0 ) versus shear strain. For CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47%,
to the data and values determined for the α and β parameters this ratio reached a constant value as shear strain increased. Similar
are presented in Table 2. The V s value can be predicted by response was seen for all three uniform gravels in this study at a
 0 β given Dr .
σv Peak, PT, and US lines for Pea Gravel, CLS8, and CLS5 at a
VS ¼ α ð1Þ
1 atm Dr ¼ 47% are shown in Fig. 6. Table 3 presents the calculated fric-
tion angles at Dr ¼ 47% and 87% for all three uniform gravels at
where α [V S in m=s at 1 atm (101.3 kPa)] and β are fitting param- peak, PT, and US. To calculate the friction angle for a simple shear
eters determined from laboratory testing. As relative density in- test an assumption for the stress state of the specimen must be made
creased, α values increased and β values decreased slightly for because the stress state in simple shear is only known for the
all three uniform gravels. CLS5 had the largest increase in α from horizontal plane. Two commonly accepted interpretations of the
200 to 235 as Dr increased from 47 to 87%. simple shear test that are used to calculate the friction angle are
(1) the horizontal plane is the plane of maximum obliquity, and
(2) the horizontal plane is the plane of maximum shear stress
Monotonic Constant Volume Simple Shear
(Roscoe 1970). In this study it was assumed that the horizontal
Monotonic constant volume simple shear response of the three uni- plane was the plane of maximum shear stress. This assumption
form gravels was evaluated. Example data for CLS8 at a Dr ¼ 47% has been used by others in the simple shear testing interpretation
is presented in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows the shear stress-strain rela- of sands (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Porcino et al. 2008). The
tionship for σv0 0 ¼ 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa. As vertical stress friction angle is therefore given by the following equation:
increased peak shear strength (τ p ) increased. τ p occurs for all three
uniform gravels at shear strains ðγÞ in the 0–2% range. All tests for τ
φ ¼ α ¼ sin−1 ð2Þ
CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47%, regardless of initial vertical stress, displayed a σv0
similar post-peak strain hardening response at a similar shear
modulus which would indicate that this material would not be sus- where τ = shear stress; and σv0 = vertical effective stress at the point
ceptible to large flow-type deformations. The stress path for each of interest.
initial vertical stress is shown in Fig. 5(b). Lines on this plot show Fig. 6(a) shows that the peak friction angle can be considered
the location of the peak shear stress, phase transformation (PT), and constant for both the angular CLS material and Pea Gravel at a
ultimate state (US) lines. The PT is the point of minimum vertical given relative density and independent of initial vertical stress.

© ASCE 04017043-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Example monotonic constant volume simple shear data for 8-mm Crushed Limestone at Dr ¼ 47%

Fig. 6. Comparison for three uniform gravels at Dr ¼ 47%; (a) peak; (b) phase transformation; (c) ultimate state lines

CLS8 had the highest peak friction angle, followed by CLS5 PT friction angle than the rounded Pea Gravel. Particle size did not
and Pea Gravel. Fig. 6(b) displays the PT lines for all three have an effect on PT friction angle since CLS8 and CLS5 had the
uniform gravels at Dr ¼ 47%. CLS8 and CLS5 had identical PT same PT friction angle. Relative density did not affect the PT
friction angles of 31° at Dr ¼ 47%, while Pea Gravel had a friction angle for these three uniform gravels. Fig. 6(c) shows
PT friction angle of 27°. The angular CLS materials had a higher the US line for each uniform gravel material. CLS8 had the highest

© ASCE 04017043-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Table 3. Summary of Peak, Phase Transformation, and Ultimate State Friction Angle for Three Uniform Gravels
Friction angle (degrees)
Peak Phase transformation Ultimate state
Material Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87% Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87% Dr ¼ 47% Dr ¼ 87%
Pea Gravel 14 16 27 27 30 31
5-mm Crushed Limestone (CLS5) 16 19 31 32 35 42
8-mm Crushed Limestone (CLS8) 18 19 31 31 37 40

River Sand was similar to the PT lines of the subangular to angular

CLS materials. This data shows that the PT lines for uniform grav-
els and sands were similar, which suggests that particle size did not
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

affect PT lines but particle angularity did. As particle angularity

increased, the slope of the PT line increased.
Peak, PT, and US shear stress versus V S is presented in Fig. 8.
As shown in Fig. 8(a), as V S increased, peak shear strength in-
creased. The data falls within a small range that is independent
of particle size and shape. As V S increased the PT shear strength
also increased [Fig. 8(b)]. The data again falls into a still narrow but
increasing range. Fig. 8(c) shows that as V S increased the US shear
strength increased; however, in this case more scatter was observed.
The scatter in the data of Fig. 8(c) can be attributed to effects of
initial vertical stress and density. The US has been thought to be
constant (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Porcino et al. 2008), while
others have shown that density affects the ultimate state (Muira and
Toki 1982). For rockfill materials the ultimate state has been shown
to depend on initial vertical stress and less significantly on initial
void ratio (Xiao et al. 2016a, b). These observations are supported
Fig. 7. Comparison of results for PT of Dr ¼ 47% gravels and Ottawa
by Fig. 5(c) that shows that initial vertical stress had a significant
C109 sand from this study with existing data from the literature for
effect on the dilative response at larger strains for CLS8. In Fig. 5(c)
Frasier River sand and Silica C109 sand
Peak and PT occurred at smaller strains (0–3%) and the ratio of
0 was similar for all tests; however, the specimens dilated
τ =σv0
at different rates increasing variability between tests at the US, ex-
US friction angle (37°) at Dr ¼ 47%, followed by CLS5 (35°) and plaining why V s correlated well with Peak and PT but not as well
Pea Gravel (30°). The US friction angle increased with increasing with US.
Dr for each uniform gravel; however, the increase was only 1° Fig. 9 presents normalized shear stress ratio (τ =σv0 ) versus stress
for Pea Gravel, 3° for CLS8, and 7° for CLS5. The angular CLS corrected shear wave velocity (V S1 ), which was calculated using the
materials had higher US friction angles compared to the rounded following equation:
Pea Gravel.
Fig. 7 compares the results for the PT line for gravels with  0.25
Pa
Ottawa C109 sand tested in this study to Silica C109 Sand (Yazdi V S1 ¼ V S CV ¼ V S ð3Þ
σv0
2004) and Frasier River Sand (Sivathayalan 1994). The plot shows
that the PT line for the subrounded Ottawa C109 sand and sub-
rounded Silica C109 sand were similar to the subrounded to where Pa = atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa); and σv0 = vertical
rounded Pea Gravel, while the PT line for the subangular Frasier effective stress.

Fig. 8. (a) Peak shear stress; (b) shear stress at phase transformation; (c) shear stress at ultimate state versus shear wave velocity for three uniform
gravels

© ASCE 04017043-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Comparison of three uniform gravels for (a) τ p =σv0 versus V s1 ; (b) τ PT =σv0 versus V s1 ; (c) τ US =σv0 versus V s1

The τ =σv0 ratio was used to calculate friction angle, and is plot- Monotonic shear response can provide insights into the cyclic
ted in Fig. 9 to compare the mobilized shear strength at peak, PT, shear response as shown in Fig. 11, which plots the Peak, PT, and
and US with V S1 . In Fig. 9(a) peak shear stress was normalized by US lines from monotonic tests and the stress path from the cyclic
0
vertical effective stress (τ p =σv0 ) and shows that as V S1 increased shear test of Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 86% and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa. Before
from approximately 175 to 240 m=s, the ratio τ p =σv0 increased reaching the peak line the specimen was contractive in each
from approximately 0.20 to 0.35. Pea Gravel displayed a greater cycle and generated positive pore pressure that was expressed as
increase in τ p =σv0 as Dr increased compared to the angular CLS a reduction in vertical stress needed to maintain constant volume
materials. Fig. 9(b) plots the PT shear stress normalized by the ver- conditions. As the specimen reached the PT line the specimen
tical effective stress (τ PT =σv0 ) versus V S1 , and shows that as V S1 response switched from contractive to dilative. The US line was
increased the τ PT =σv0 for each material remained nearly constant. followed during the last cyclic loops of the test as the specimen
This is consistent with the previous observation that PT is unique dilated and gained strength before again contracting upon stress
for a material and not dependent on initial vertical effective stress or reversal. This type of response has been previously noted for
density. Fig. 9(c) plots US shear stress normalized by vertical ef- sands (Sivathayalan 1994; Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Porcino
fective stress (τ US =σv0 ) versus V S1 , and shows that as V S1 increased et al. 2008) and is now also shown for these uniform gravels.
from approximately 175 to 240 m=s, τ US =σv0 increased from ap- The effect of Dr and CSR on the number of cycles to lique-
proximately 0.45 to 0.70. τ US =σv0 remained constant for Pea Gravel faction (N L ) is shown in Fig. 12. As the CSR increased N L de-
as V S1 increased, but increased as V S1 increased for the CLS ma- creased, and as Dr increased N L increased for all three uniform
terials. This response could be attributed to greater particle inter- gravels. Particle angularity was also observed to have an effect on
locking (and dilation in the denser specimens) with angular the results at CSR values of 0.10 and below. Above a CSR ¼
particles. Sadrekarimi and Olson (2011) noted that US friction an- 0.10 the three uniform gravels liquefied at a similar number of
gle (reported as peak friction angle by the authors) includes both cycles; however, below CSR ¼ 0.10, the angular CLS materials
dilation and particle interlocking which are influenced by density exhibited more resistance to liquefaction than the rounded Pea
and confining stress. Furthermore, increasing particle angularity in- Gravel.
creases particle interlocking, which makes particle rearrangement Existing liquefaction susceptibility charts for gravelly soils are
more difficult (and therefore τ US =σv0 is increased). This increase in based on limited data compared to susceptibility charts for sands
τ US =σv0 with V S1 for the angular CLS is important because in post- due to the unavailability of detailed case histories of gravelly soil
cyclic tests the stress path follows the US line. liquefaction. Specimens from the laboratory tests in this study were
separated into liquefaction or no-liquefaction based on whether
they liquefied in 15 cycles [equivalent number of cycles for mo-
Cyclic Simple Shear ment magnitude ðM w Þ ¼ 7.5 earthquake] and were plotted in
Fig. 13 for comparison with existing CSR versus V S1 relationships
Cyclic simple shear response was evaluated for CLS8, CLS5, and
from Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and Cao et al. (2011) for gravels,
Pea Gravel to assess liquefaction susceptibility of these three uni-
and Kayen et al. (2013) for sands. CSR values from the laboratory
form gravels. CSRs varying from 0.04–0.19 were applied during
0 cyclic simple shear tests were first corrected for overburden stress
stress-controlled constant volume tests at σv0 ¼ 50, 100, 200,
and two-directional shaking so that data could be compared to
and 400 kPa. In laboratory testing of soils the onset of liquefaction
existing field-based liquefaction susceptibility charts. A 10% re-
has been based on different criteria, including the amount of excess
duction in CSR values was used to account for two-directional
pore pressure, shear strength, or development of shear strain (Wu
shaking in-situ. The overburden stress correction was evaluated
et al. 2004). In this study a specimen was considered to have lique- using laboratory data from this study. Previous studies on sand have
fied when 3.75% single amplitude shear strain was reached, which used the same approach (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996). CRR values
is a common threshold value that has been used in cyclic simple for specimens at σv0 0
of 50, 200, and 400 kPa were corrected
shear testing to define liquefaction (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; to corresponding CRR values at σv0 0
¼1 atm (101.3 kPa) using
Sivathayalan 2000; Porcino et al. 2008). Typical results from these the following equation:
tests are shown in Fig. 10 for Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 47% and 86% at a
0
CSR ¼ 0.14 and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa. The test data shows that density CRRσv00
did not have a significant effect on the cyclic response of the Pea Kσ ¼ ð4Þ
Gravel material. CRRσv00 ¼1 atm

© ASCE 04017043-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
Fig. 10. Example cyclic data for Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 47% and Dr ¼ 86% at CSR ¼ 0.14 and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa

Fig. 11. Comparison of cyclic stress path with peak, PT, and US lines Fig. 12. Comparison of three uniform gravels CSR versus number of
taken from monotonic stress path data for Pea Gravel cycles to liquefaction

© ASCE 04017043-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 at a confining pressure of 200 kPa (Vaid et al. 1985). The angular
CLS materials liquefied at CSR ≥ 0.10, whereas the Pea Gravel
liquefied at CSR ≥ 0.07.

Postcyclic Monotonic Simple Shear

Immediately following the cyclic simple shear tests, postcyclic
monotonic simple shear tests were performed to evaluate the post-
cyclic shear response of the three uniform gravels. Specimens were
not reconsolidated after the cyclic phase of the test, and the post-
cyclic shear phase began at the final shear strain of the cyclic test
which was usually in the negative 4–8% strain range. Specimens
were initially near a state of zero effective stress following lique-
faction of the specimen in the cyclic phase. As the specimen was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sheared three distinct phases, as described by Sivathayalan and

Yazdi (2014), were observed and are shown in Fig. 14(a). Initially
(Phase I) the specimen had nearly zero shear strength following
liquefaction. Upon further shearing the specimen began to gain
shear strength (Phase II) until it reached a constant modulus at
Fig. 13. CSR versus V s1 compared with existing relationships from the larger strains (Phase III). The shear resistance increase with shear
literature strain, in the 10–20% shear strain range, was very similar to the
modulus at larger strains in the monotonic shear test. The stress
path response, as shown in Fig. 14(b), shows that the same US
A magnitude scaling factor (MSF) was used to adjust the Cao was attained in the monotonic and postcyclic monotonic shear tests.
et al. (2011) CRR curves to a M w ¼ 7.5. The following equation Comparisons for three uniform gravels at the US (selected for this
was used (Andrus and Stokoe 2000): plot as τ at 20% shear strain) from monotonic and postcyclic mon-
otonic tests are presented in Fig. 15. Results show that the US line
 −2.56 for each uniform gravel in this study is only dependent on the rel-
Mw
MSF ¼ ð5Þ ative density. Values of the US friction angle from postcyclic tests
7.5
matched the values from the monotonic tests in Table 3, highlight-
ing that the US is not dependent on the stress path. A comparison of
where Mw = moment magnitude. The uniform gravels in this study postcyclic shear stress-strain response is displayed in Fig. 16, and
liquefied at V S1 values above 200 m=s and as high as 230 m=s. shows that as particle size, particle angularity, and Dr increased, the
Every specimen that liquefied would have been predicted as US shear strength increased. Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 47% displayed
nonliquefiable by the Andrus and Stokoe (2000) relationship for very little postcyclic shear strength gain.
gravels and the Kayen et al. (2013) relationship for sands. The data
from this study for specimens that liquefied fell between the PL ¼
30 and 70% lines of the Cao et al. (2011) relationship, whereas the Conclusions
data from the specimens that did not liquefy fell to the right of the
PL ¼ 50% line. The data from this study therefore confirms that The monotonic, cyclic, and postcyclic shear response of three uni-
uniform gravel was liquefiable in constant volume conditions at form gravels was evaluated in this study. V S was measured in each
higher V S1 values than sands. Particle morphology appears to be specimen and was used to investigate constant volume monotonic,
an important factor, as the rounded Pea Gravel was less resistant cyclic, and postcyclic shear response. The main findings were:
to liquefaction when compared to the angular CLS materials. • Uniform gravel undrained shear response can be analyzed using
Similar effects of particle angularity have been noted for sands existing frameworks developed for sands;

Fig. 14. Comparison of monotonic and postcyclic: (a) stress-strain; (b) stress path for Dr ¼ 47% 8-mm Crushed Limestone

© ASCE 04017043-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Comparison of US for monotonic and postcyclic tests of three uniform gravels at (a) Dr ¼ 47%; (b) Dr ¼ 87%

uniform gravels at the US is important since postcyclic stress

paths follow the US line after liquefaction;
• Uniform gravels were liquefiable even at relatively dense states
and for higher V S1 values than sands. The three uniform gravels
in this study liquefied at V S1 values as high as 230 m=s; and
• Increasing particle size, angularity, and Dr led to an increase in
postcyclic shear strength.
The presented data represent a significant addition to the
existing database of large-size monotonic and cyclic shear tests
of gravels. Further studies are needed before developing a general
framework for the cyclic and postcyclic response of gravelly soils.

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National

Science Foundation Graduate Student Research Fellowship under
Grant No. DGE 1256260 and by the National Science Foundation
CAREER Grant No. 1351403. Any opinions, findings, and conclu-
Fig. 16. Comparison of postcyclic stress-strain response of three uni-
sions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
form gravels
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation. ConeTec Investigations Ltd. and the ConeTec
Education Foundation are acknowledged for their support to
• Particle angularity is an important parameter that affects Peak, the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratories at the University of
PT, and US response of uniform gravels. As particle angularity Michigan. The authors would like to thank Alesha Jackson and
increased Peak, PT, and US friction angles increased for the uni- Liana Tom for their aid with specimen preparation and laboratory
form gravels tested in this study. Increasing particle angularity testing.
also increased liquefaction resistance for CSR < 0.10; above
this CSR value, the influence of angularity was less pronounced;
• Particle size had a lesser impact on constant volume shear re- References
sponse of uniform gravels when compared to particle angularity.
As particle size increased peak friction angle increased for Dr ¼ Anderson, W. F., and Fair, P. (2008). “Behavior of railroad ballast under
47% specimens. However, particle size had no effect on PT monotonic and cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
friction angle; 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:3(316), 316–327.
Andrus, R. D. (1994). “In situ characterization of gravelly soils that lique-
• PT (or τ PT =σv0 ratio) was unique for each uniform gravel in this
fied in the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Texas at
study and was not dependent on density. Pea Gravel had a
Austin, Austin, TX.
τ PT =σv0 ratio of 0.45, while the 8 mm and 5 mm CLS had a
Andrus, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H., II (2000). “Liquefaction resistance
τ PT =σv0 ratio of 0.52; of soils from shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
• US (or τ US =σv0 ratio), which ranged from 0.47 to 0.72, was af- 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015), 1015–1025.
fected by density and increased with increasing V S1 for the an- ASTM. (2006). “ Standard test methods for minimum index density and
gular CLS materials in this study; however, US was not affected unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density.” ASTM
by density for the Pea Gravel material tested in this study. This D4254-00(2006)e1, West Conshohocken, PA.
behavior is possibly attributed to increased particle interlocking ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for consolidated undrained
and dilation in the angular CLS materials when compared to the direct simple shear testing of cohesive soils.” ASTM D6528, West
rounded Pea Gravel. The difference in behavior between these Conshohocken, PA.

© ASCE 04017043-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 ASTM. (2012). “Standard test method for density, relative density (specific Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J. (1956). “Triaxial shear tests on pervious
gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate.” ASTM C127-12, gravelly soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 82(SM1), 1–22.
West Conshohocken, PA. Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). “Soil liquefaction during earth-
Barton, N., and Kjaernsli, B. (1981). “Shear strength of rockfill.” quakes.” EERI MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 107(GT7), 873–891. Oakland, CA, 235.
Baxter, C. D., Bradshaw, A. S., Green, R. A., and Wang, J. H. (2008). Kayen, R., et al. (2013). “Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic
“Correlation between cyclic resistance and shear-wave velocity for and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.”
providence silts.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
1090-0241(2008)134:1(37), 37–46. .0000743, 407–419.
Bhatia, S. (1983). “The verification of relationships for effective Krumbein, W. C. (1941). “Measurement and geological significance of
stress method to evaluate liquefaction potential of saturated sands.” shape and roundness of sedimentary particles.” J. Sediment. Res.,
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 11(2), 64–72.
Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., and Yuan, X. (2011). “Gravelly soils that liquefied Leps, T. M. (1970). “Review of shearing strength of rockfill.” J. Soil Mech.
during 2008 Wenchuan, China earthquake, M s = 8.0.” Soil Dyn. Earth- Found. Div., 96(4), 1159–1170.
quake Eng., 31(8), 1132–1143. Lin, P. S., Chang, C. W., and Chang, W. J. (2004). “Characterization of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., and Yuan, X. (2013). “Chinese dynamic penetration liquefaction resistance in gravelly soil: Large hammer penetration test
test for liquefaction evaluation in gravelly soils.” J. Geotech. Geoen- and shear wave velocity approach.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24(9),
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000857, 1320–1333. 675–687.
Cetin, K. O., et al. (2004). “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic Liu, H., Zou, D., and Liu, J. (2014). “Constitutive modeling of dense
and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” gravelly soils subjected to cyclic loading.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004) Geomech., 38(14), 1503–1518.
130:12(1314), 1314–1340. Marachi, N. D. (1969). “Strength and deformation characteristics of rockfill
Chang, W. J., Chang, C. W., and Zeng, J. K. (2014). “Liquefaction materials.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California,
characteristics of gap-graded gravelly soils in K0 condition.” Soil Berkeley, CA.
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 56, 74–85. Marcuson, W. F. (1978). “Definition of terms related to liquefaction.”
Charles, J. A., and Watts, K. S. (1980). “The influence of confining pres- J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 104(9), 1197–1200.
sure on the shear strength of compacted rockfill.” Geotechnique, 30(4), Marsal, R. J. (1967). “Large-scale testing of rockfill materials.” J. Soil
353–367. Mech. Found. Div., 93(2), 27–43.
Chen, Y., Han, K., and Ren-peng, C. (2005). “Correlation of shear wave Matsuoka, H., and Liu, S. (1998). “Simplified direct shear test on granular
velocity with liquefaction resistance based on laboratory tests.” Soil materials and its application to rockfill materials.” Soils Found., 38(4),
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 25(6), 461–469. 275–284.
Choi, C., Adruino, P., and Harney, M. D. (2008). “Development of a Matsuoka, H., Liu, S., Sun, D., and Nishikata, U. (2001). “Development of
true triaxial apparatus for sands and gravels.” Geotech. Test. J., 31(1), a new in-situ direct shear test.” Geotech. Test. J., 24(1), 92–102.
32–44. Moroto, N, and Ishii, T. (1990). “Shear strength of uni-sized gravels under
De Alba, P., Baldwin, K., Janoo, V., Roe, G., and Celikkol, B. (1984). triaxial compression.” Soils Found., 30(2), 23–32.
“Elastic-wave velocities and liquefaction potential.” Geotech. Test. Muira, S., and Toki, S. (1982). “A sample preparation method and its effect
J., 7(2), 77–87. on static and cyclic deformation-strength properties of sand.” Soils
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., Stokoe, K. H., Moss, R. E. S., Hatton, M., and El Found., 22(1), 61–77.
Ganainy, H. (2015). “Liquefaction potential of recent fills versus natural Nikolaou, S., Zekkos, D., Asimaki, D., and Gilsanz, R. (2015). “Reconnais-
sands located in high-seismicity regions using shear-wave velocity.” sance highlights of the 2014 sequence of earthquakes in Cephalonia,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606 Greece.” 6th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
.0001239, 04012112. Christchurch, International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechni-
Dyvik, R., Berre, T., Lacasse, S., and Raadim, B. (1987). “Comparison cal Engineering, ISSMGE, London.
of truly undrained and constant volume direct simple shear tests.” Ohm, H.-S., and Hryciw, R. D. (2013). “Translucent segregation table test
Geotechnique, 37(1), 3–10. for sand and gravel particle size distribution.” Geotech. Test. J., 36(4),
Evans, M. D., and Seed, H. B. (1987). “Undrained cyclic triaxial testing of 592–605.
gravels—The effect of membrane compliance.” UCB/EERC-87/08, Porcino, D., Caridi, G., and Ghionna, V. N. (2008). “Undrained monotonic
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, and cyclic simple shear behavior of carbonate sand.” Geotechnique,
CA. 58(8), 635–644.
Evans, M. D., and Zhou, S. (1995). “Liquefaction behavior of sand-gravel Powers, M. C. (1953). “A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles.”
composites.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121: J. Sediment. Res., 23(2), 117–119.
3(287), 287–298. Roscoe, K. H. (1970). “The influence of strains in soil mechanics.”
Finn, W. D. L. (1985). “Aspects of constant volume cyclic simple shear.” Geotechnique, 20(2), 129–170.
Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic conditions, ASCE, Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S. M. (2011). “Critical state friction angle of
New York, 74–98. sands.” Géotechnique, 61(9), 771–783.
Flora, A., Lirer, S., and Silvestri, F. (2012). “Undrained cyclic resistance of Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985).
undisturbed gravelly soils.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 43, 366–379. “Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalua-
GEER. (2014). Earthquake reconnaissance January 26th/February 2nd tions.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:
2014 Cephalonia, Greece events, version 1, S. Nikolau, D. Zekkos, 12(1425), 1425–1445.
D. Assimaki, and R. Gilsanz, eds., GEER/EERI/ATC, 492. Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F. (1990). “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore
Harder Jr, L. F., and Seed, H. B. (1986). “Determination of penetration pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H.B. Seed
resistance for coarse-grained soils using the becker penetration test.” Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, Canada,
Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86-06, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA. 351–376.
Hatanaka, M., Suzuki, Y., Kawasaki, T., and Endo, M. (1988). “Cyclic un- Sivathayalan, S. (1994). “Static, cyclic and post liquefaction simple shear
drained shear properties of high quality undisturbed gravel.” Soils response of sands.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Found., 28(4), 57–68. BC, Canada, 154.
Hatanaka, M., Uchida, A., Suzuki, Y. (1997). “Correlation between un- Sivathayalan, S. (2000). “Fabric, initial state and stress path effects
drained cyclic shear strength and shear wave velocity for gravelly soils.” on liquefaction susceptibility of sands.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British
Soils Found., 37(4), 85–92. Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

© ASCE 04017043-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1

 Sivathayalan, S., and Yazdi, A. M. (2014). “Influence of strain history on Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Chen, Y., and Jiang, J. (2014a). “Bounding surface
postliquefaction deformation characteristics of sands.” J. Geotech. Geo- plasticity model incorporating the state pressure index for rockfill
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001037, 04013019. materials.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000802,
Skermer, N. A., and Hillis, S. F. (1970). “Gradation and shear character- 04014087.
istics of four cohesionless soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 7(1), 62–68. Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Chen, Y., and Jiang, J. (2014b). “Strength and deforma-
Stark, T. D., and Mesri, G. (1992). “Undrained shear strength of liquefied tion of rockfill material based on large-scale triaxial compression
sands for stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733 tests. I: Influences of density and pressure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
-9410(1992)118:11(1727), 1727–1747. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001176, 04014070.
Strahler, A., Stuedlein, A. W., and Arduino, P. W. (2016). “Stress-strain Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Chen, Y., and Jiang, J. (2014c). “Strength and deforma-
response and dilatancy of sandy gravel in triaxial compression and
tion of rockfill material based on large-scale triaxial compression tests.
plane strain.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
II: Influence of particle breakage.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
.1943-5606.0001435, 04015098.
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001177, 04014071.
Sun, Y., and Xiao, Y. (2017). “Fractional order model for granular soils
under drained cyclic loading.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Desai, C. S., Sun, Y., and Liu, H. (2016a). “Effect of
41(4), 555–577. intermediate principal-stress ratio on particle breakage of rockfill
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Suzuki, Y., Goto, S., Hatanaka, M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1993). “Correlation material.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
between strengths and penetration resistances for gravelly soils.” Soils -5606.0001433, 06015017.
Found., 33(1), 92–101. Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Ding, X., Chen, Y., Jiang, J., and Zhang, W. (2016b).
Sy, A., Campanella, R. G., and Stewart, R. A. (1995). “BPT-SPT correla- “Influence of particle breakage on critical state line of rockfill
tions for evaluation of liquefaction resistance in gravelly soils.” Static material.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000538,
and dynamic properties of gravelly soils, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–19. 04015031.
Tanaka, Y., Kudo, K., Yoshida, Y, and Kokusho, T. (1992). “Undrained Yasuda, N., and Matsumoto, N. (1994). “Comparisons of deformation
cyclic strength of gravelly soil and its evaluation by penetration resis- characteristics of rockfill materials using monotonic and cyclic
tance and shear modulus.” Soils Found., 32(4), 128–142. loading laboratory tests and in-situ tests.” Can. Geotech. J., 31(2),
Vaid, V. P., and Sivathayalan, S. (1996). “Static and cyclic liquefaction 162–174.
potential of Fraser Delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests.” Yazdi, A. M. (2004). “Post liquefaction behavior of sands under simple
Can. Geotech. J., 33(2), 281–289. shear and triaxial loading modes.” MASc. thesis, Carleton Univ.,
Vaid, Y., Chern, J., and Tumi, H. (1985). “Confining pressure, grain angu- Ottawa.
larity, and liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 Youd, T. L. (1973). “Factors controlling maximum and minimum densities
(1985)111:10(1229), 1229–1235. of sands.” Evaluation of relative density and its role in geotechnical
Varadarajan, A., Sharma, K. G., Venkatachalam, K., and Gupta, A. K.
projects involving cohesionless soils, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
(2003). “Testing and modeling two rockfill materials.” J. Geotech. Geo-
PA, 98–112.
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:3(206), 206–218.
Youd, T. L., et al. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report
Wong, R. T., Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K. (1974). “Liquefaction of gravelly
soils under cyclic loading conditions.” UCB/EERC-74/11, Univ. of from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evalu-
California, Berkeley, CA, 46. ation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Wu, J., Kammerer, A. M., Riemer, M. F., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817), 817–833.
(2004). “Laboratory study of liquefaction triggering criteria.” Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., Keefer, D. K., and Wilson, R. C. (1985). “The
13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, International Associa- Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1983-liquefaction.”
tion for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo. Earthquake spectra, 2(1), 71–89.
Xiao, Y., and Liu, H. (2017). “Elastoplastic constitutive model for rockfill Zhao, H. F., Zhang, L. M., and Chang, D. S. (2013). “Behavior of coarse
materials considering particle breakage.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061 widely graded soils under low confining pressures.” J. Geotech.
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000681, 04016041. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000755, 35–48.

© ASCE 04017043-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., -1--1