NPH

Prediction of Shear Strength Parameters and
Constitutive Modeling of Rockfill Materials

by
Dr. N.P. Honkanadavar

Divisional Head, Rockfill Technology
Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi

Introduction
□ Rockfill material consists of sand, gravels, cobbles

and boulders obtained either by blasting of parent
rock or from naturally available riverbed.
Types of Rockfill Materials:
 Riverbed is rounded/subrounded in shape

 Quarried is angular/subangular in shape
14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

2
RIVERBED ROCKFILL MATERIAL

3
GRADATION OF MODELLED RIVERBED
ROCKFILL MATERIALS

4
QUARRIED ROCKFILL MATERIAL

5
GRADATION OF MODELLED QUARRIED ROCKFILL MATERIALS

6
Introduction (Contd.)
Advantages of Rockfill Materials
 Inherent flexibility,
 Capacity to absorb large seismic energy,
 Adaptability to various foundation conditions,
 Use of modern earth and rock moving equipment
and locally available materials make the structure
economical.

7
Introduction (Contd.)
 The world's highest dam, Rogun dam (335m high) in
Tajikistan is a rockfill dam.
 In India, Tehri dam (260.5 m) and Ranjit Sagar dam
(160.0 m) are of riverbed rockfill material.
 Direct testing of the prototype material is difficult.
 Tests are conducted on modeled rockfill materials.
 The behaviour of the rockfill materials is often depicted
using hyperbolic model and elasto-plastic theories.

8
USES OF ROCKFILL MATERIALS
 Shell Portion in the earth and rockfill dam

 Filters
 Blending of core material
 Riprap
 Concrete
 Road, Railway Ballast, Slope and Sea Shore
Protection

9
TEHRI EARTH AND ROCKFILL DAM

10

11

12
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST
 Specimen size of 381 mm diameter and 813 mm

height.
 Consolidated Drained (CD) tests
 Specimen with maximum particle size of 25, 50
and 80 mm
 Each specimen is tested with different confining
pressures.

13
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION (Contd.)
TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION SHEAR TEST SETUP

14
FEATURES OF TRIAXIAL TEST
 Confining pressure is applied through air-water system.

 Each specimen with dmax is tested with different
confining pressures.
 dmax should be 1/5th to 1/6th of least dimension.
 Axial load is applied through hydraulic system.
 Axial strain is measured through dial gauge and
volumetric strain is measured through burette.
 Deviator stress is measured through pressure gauge.

15
Factors affecting the shear strength of Rockfill Material

 Mineral composition, shape, size, surface texture,
gradation, individual particle strength etc.
 Voids ratio
 Confining pressure
 Rate of loading
 Vibration and repeated loading
 Moisture content
 Testing errors

16
Relative Density Results

Sl Max Min. Dry Max. Dry Test Specific
No particl Density density Density(87% gravity
e size (gm/cc) (gm/cc) Relative (G)
(mm) Density)
gm/cc
1 25 1.72 2.07 2.02 2.69
2 50 1.75 2.09 2.04 2.69
3 80 1.77 2.12 2.07 2.69

17
STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL MATERIAL

3 = 1.2 MPa
3 = 0.8 MPa
3 = 0.4 MPa

18
VOLUME CHANGE BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL MATERIAL
3 = 0.4 MPa
3 = 0.8 MPa
3 = 1.2 MPa

19
DETERMINATION OF STRENGTH PARAMETER
Sin  = Tan 
 = 30.510
 = 36.10

20
COMPARISON OF STRENGTH PROPERTIE
Rockfill Relative  -Value (degree)

Materials from Density 25 mm 50 mm 80 mm
(%)
Noa Dehing 87 36.1 38.75 39.41

Dam
(Riverbed)
Kol Dam 87 44.96 43.04 42.22
(Quarried)

21
Triaxial Compression Test System

22
Axial Loading Unit

23
Confining Pressure Unit

24
Split Mould along with Pedastal and Membrane

25
Specimen Fitted with Clamps and Rubber Membranes

26
Placing of Triaxial Cell over the Specimen

27
A Failed Specimen with Rubber Membranes

28
EXTRAPOLATION OF STRENGTH PARAMETER FOR
PROTOTYPE QUARRIED ROCKFILL MATERIAL
100
A n g l e o fF)s, hD e ea gr r (e e s
y = 49.088x-0.0322
R2 = 0.8316
10
1
1 10 100 1000
M aximum Particle Size (mm)

29
EXTRAPOLATION OF STRENGTH PARAMETER FOR
PROTOTYPE RIVERBED ROCKFILL MATERIAL

30
DETERMINATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH OF
PROTOTYPE ROCKFILL MATERIAL
SHEAR STRENGTH:
Shear strength is the ability of soil to withstand shear

stresses induced in the soil.
According to Mohr Coulomb theory, Shear strength for

cohesive soil is equal to
Shear strength (τ) = c + (σ-U) tan 

31
Constitutive Modeling
 Linear and non-linear elastic models show good

results for stress-strain curves but are not able to
account for the dilatancy and softening effects.
 Conventional elasto-plastic models e.g. Mohr-

Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, von-Mises etc. can
provide satisfactory responses for some materials,
but they do not predict the observed behaviour
accurately.

32
Constitutive Modeling (Contd.)
 Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) models have

been successfully used to characterize various
materials.
 Hardening Soil (HS) model has also been used

successfully to characterize different types of
materials.

33
Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) Model
HISS model is based on elasto-plastic theory and can be used
to characterize stress-strain-volume change behaviour of
different types of materials viz. clay, sand, rockfill and rock.
For non-associative model (δ1), plastic potential function
Q is
defined as a
 J 2D    J1 
n
 J1  
2
Q   2      Q        1   S r 
m
 Pa    Pa   Pa  
 in which Pa is the atmospheric pressure; , β and m are material
parameters; Q is the hardening function; J1 is the first invariant of
stress tensor; J2D is the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, n
is the phase change parameter and Sr is the shape function.

34
Material Parameters for HISS Model
 Elastic parameters (E, )

 Ultimate parameters (m, , )
 Phase change parameter (n)
 Hardening parameters (a1, 1)
 Non-associative parameter ()

35
Material Parameters of HISS Model for Noa Dehing Dam Riverbed
Rockfill Material Tested with 87% Relative Density
Rockfill dmax Material Parameters

Material (mm) Phase
Elasticity Ultimate Hardening Non- Deg.
Change associa
tive
k n ν γ β n a1 η1 κ ()
Noa 4.75 222.638 0.5945 0.36 0.050 0.72 3.0 8.5x10-6 0.85 0.240 36.3
Dehing
Dam 10 243.332 0.608 0.35 0.055 0.72 3.0 7.5x10-6 0.90 0.240 38.6
Site
(RD = 19 314.485 0.5341 0.33 0.059 0.72 3.0 7.0x10-6 0.95 0.238 39.9
87%)
25 374.369 0.466 0.32 0.063 0.72 3.0 6.5x10-6 1.00 0.236 40.8
50 385.212 0.4695 0.31 0.067 0.72 3.0 6.0x10-6 1.05 0.235 42.5
80 410.677 0.4624 0.30 0.072 0.72 3.0 5.5x10-6 1.07 0.226 43.9

36
PREDICTIONS
 FEM based computer program DSC-SST2D

(Desai 2000) is used to predict the behaviour of the
rockfill materials.
 The triaxial testing procedure has been simulated
in the analysis.
 The predicted stress-strain-volume change
response is compared with the experimental
results.

37
Simplified Configuration of a Triaxial Test for HISS Model
z
6 7 8
406.5
mm D 4 1 5 B
1 2 3
813 r
mm
A
190.5 mm
381
mm

38
Simplified Configuration of a Triaxial Test for HISS Model

39
Stress-Strain Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from Noa
Dehing Dam Site (dmax = 4.75 mm) Tested for 87% Relative Density
O Observed
3 = 0.8 MPa
Predicted (HISS Model)
3= 0.6 MPa
3= 0.4 MPa
3= 0.2 MPa

40
Axial Strain-Volume Change Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from
Noa Dehing Dam Site (dmax = 4.75 mm) Tested for 87% Relative Density
3= 0.2 MPa 3= 0.4 MPa
3= 0.6 MPa
O Observed
Predicted (HISS Model) 3= 0.8 MPa

41
Hardening Soil (HS) Model
 The yield cap surface for hardening soil model is given by
~q 2
f  2  p  PP
C 2 2

where, α is an auxiliary model parameter that relates to
(coefficient of earth pressure at rest for normal consolidation), p is
the mean stress given by p = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3, is aq~special stress
measure of deviatoric stresses and is given by = σ 1 +q~ (δ-1) σ2 - δ
σ3 with δ = (3 + sin)/ (3-sin) and Pp is defined as the
preconsolidation stress.

42
Material Parameters for HS Model
 Reference stiffness modulus, E50ref
 Reference oedometer stiffness modulus, Eoedref
 Reference modulus for unloading and reloading,

Eurref
 Dilatancy angle, ψ
 Stress dependency of stiffness, mʹ

43
Material Parameters of HS Model for Noa Dehing Dam Riverbed
Material Relative (σ3) Material dmax (mm)

From Density MPa Parameter
(%) 4.75 10 19 25 50 80
Noa 87 0.2 E50ref 36.25 41.25 44.80 48.10 52.25 57.25

Dehing Eoedref 61.64 66.91 68.56 70.03 71.84 73.52
Dam Eurref 108.75 123.75 134.40 144.30 156.75 171.75
m 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
4.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.00 1. 00

36.31 38.62 39.87 40.84 42.47 43.86
ф
0.53 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44
einit
0.32 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.27
ν
0.4 E50ref 39.80 45.67 49.60 57.83 60.83 64.07

Eoedref 70.56 84.07 84.67 85.74 86.16 92.71
Eurref 119.40 137.01 148.80 173.49 182.50 192.21
m 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50

36.31 38.62 39.87 40.84 42.47 43.86
ф
0.53 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44
einit
0.32 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.27
ν
44
Material Parameters of HS Model for Noa Dehing Dam Riverbed
Material Relative (σ3) Material dmax (mm)

From Density MPa Parameter
(%) 4.75 10 19 25 50 80
Noa 87 0.6 E50ref 48.75 50.14 53.75 64.29 72.09 75.86

Dehing Eoedref 91.16 92.48 93.86 103.39 105.23 106.51
Dam Eurref 146.25 150.42 161.25 192.87 216.27 227.58
m 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
2.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

36.31 38.62 39.87 40.84 42.47 43.86
ф
0.53 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44
einit
0.32 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.27
ν
0.8 E50ref 56.40 64.75 69.25 71.25 78.87 87.90

Eoedref 105.60 116.89 118.90 120.70 121.10 122.00
Eurref 169.20 194.25 207.75 213.75 236.61 263.70
m 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 -1.00 -1.00

36.31 38.62 39.87 40.84 42.47 43.86
ф
0.53 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44
einit
0.32 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.27
ν
45
PREDICTIONS
 FEM based computer program PLAXIS (2002) is

used to predict the behaviour of the rockfill
materials.
 The triaxial testing procedure has been simulated in

the analysis.
 The predicted stress-strain-volume change response

is compared with the experimental results.

46
Simplified Configuration of a Triaxial Test for HS Model

47
Stress-Strain Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from Noa
Dehing Dam Site (dmax = 4.75 mm) Tested for 87% Relative Density
3=0.8 MPa
O Observed
Predicted (HS Model)
3=0.6 MPa
3=0.4 MPa
3=0.2 MPa

48
Axial Strain v/s Volumetric strain Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from
Noa Dehing Dam Site (dmax = 4.75 mm) Tested for 87% Relative Density
3 = 0.2 MPa 3 = 0.4 MPa
3 = 0.6 MPa
O Observed
Predicted (HS Model) 3 = 0.8 MPa

49
PREDICTION OF MATERIAL PARAMETERS FOR PROTOTYPE ROCKFILL MATERIALS

50
Shear Strength Based on Index Properties
Following strength law based on index properties is proposed

in the present work.

1   3  1  2 3 
 B  

pa  pa 
where, 1 and 3 are the major and minor principal stresses, Bʹ

is the non-dimensional parameter dependent on index properties
of rockfill materials and ʹ is the another non-dimensional
parameter dependent on failure stresses, Pa is the atmospheric
pressure.

51
Shear Strength based on Index Properties
́́B́ is correlated with index properties as follows:
B  C  X npn
n
where, X = index properties (as shown in Table below)

C, pn = coefficient and exponents
Index Properties
Xn
Notation Description
X1
Ratio of UCS of the material to the maximum UCS of the
P
material among all the rockfill materials (UCS/UCS max)
X2 Uncompacted Void Content
UVC
X3 RD Relative Density

52
Determination of α′ and B′ for dmax of 4.75 mm of Noa Dehing Dam
Riverbed Rockfill Material Tested with 87% Relative Density
α′ = 0.905
B′ = e-0.3715
= 0.6897

53
Shear Strength Based on Strength Law
Solving series of simultaneous linear equations using least
squares fitting technique, the values of coefficient and exponents
are determined.
For Riverbed Rockfill Materials
B´ = 0.995 (UCS/UCSmax)0.218 (UVC)0.164 (RD)0.351
′ = 0.9279
For Quarried Rockfill Materials
B´ = 1.499 (UCS/UCSmax) -0.062 (UVC)0.620 (RD) -0.085
′ = 0.9143
54
Prediction of Modulus of Elasticity, E for Rockfill
Material
 Following procedure has been proposed to predict the modulus of
elasticity, E of rockfill materials
T2
E T1   3 
 DUVC   
Eir  a 
where, E = Modulus of elasticity of rockfill material
Eir = Modulus of intact rock
D = Coefficient
UVC = Uncompacted Void Content
σ3 = Confining Pressure
Pa = Atmospheric Pressure
T1 and T2 = Exponents

55
Prediction of Poisson’s Ratio, for Rockfill
Material
 Following procedure has been proposed to predict the Poisson’s ratio,  of
rockfill materials
T4
 3 
 DUVC   
T3
 ir  Pa 
where,
 = Poisson’s ratio of rockfill material
ir = Poisson’s ratio of intact rock
D́ = Coefficient
σ3 = Confining Pressure
T3 and T4 = Exponents

56
Prediction of Modulus of Elasticity, E for Rockfill
Material

0.52
E   
   1.839 x10  4 (UVC ) 0.991  3 
 Eir   Pa 
0.592
 E   
   2.454 x10 3 (UVC )1.48  3 
 Eir   Pa 

57
Prediction of Poisson’s Ratio,  for Rockfill
Material

0.031
  0.615   3 
 
    2.04( UVC) 
P 

 ir   a 
0.045
   0.085   3 

 
  1.173( UVC ) 
P 

 ir   a 

58
Prediction of Reference Stiffness Modulus, ref
E 50 for
Rockfill Material
Following procedure hasrefbeen proposed to predict the reference stiffness

E 50
modulus, of rockfill materials
l2
l1   3 
ref
E50
 H UVC   
Eir  a 
where
E50ref = Reference Stiffness Modulus of rockfill
material
Eir = Modulus of intact rock
H = Coefficient
3 = Confining Pressure
l1 and l2 = Exponents

59
Prediction of Reference Stiffness Modulus, E50ref for
Rockfill Material
0.326
E ref
  
 50
  2.225 x10  4 (UVC )  0.878  3 
 Eir   Pa 
0.512
E ref
  
 50
  3.038 x10 3 (UVC )1.697  3 
 Eir   Pa 

60
Prediction of Material Strength Parameters of Prototype
Rockfill Materials Required for HISS and HS Models
 The material parameters viz. ultimate ( and ), hardening

(a1 and 1), phase change (n), non-associative () and
dilatancy angle () for prototype rockfill materials required
for HISS and HS models have been predicted by best fit
linear extrapolation with respect to B′ as B′ is a function of
Index properties of rockfill materials viz. UCS, UVC and
RD.

61
Predicted Material Parameters of HISS Model for
Prototype (600 mm) Riverbed Rockfill Materials

62
Predicted Material Parameters of HS Model for
Prototype (600 mm) Riverbed Rockfill Materials
Noa Dehing Dam Noa Dehing Dam Lower Jehlum H.E.Project (87%
Material (87% Relative Density) (75% Relative Density) Relative Density)
Parameters
(3 = 0.8 MPa) (3 = 0.8 MPa) (3 = 0.9 MPa)
E 50ref 89.824 89.824 122.263
ref
E oed 107.305 107.305 144.891
E urref 269.472 269.472 366.789
m 0.45 0.45 0.45
 -0.81 0.5 1.5
 43.1 41.2 40.3
einit 0.358 0.358 0.267
 0.248 0.248 0.243

63
Predicted Stress-Strain Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from
Noa Dehing Dam Tested with 87% Relative Density (σ3 = 0.8 MPa)
dmax = 600 mm
O Observed
Prototype
dmax = 80 mm
dmax = 50 mm
dmax = 25 mm
dmax = 19 mm
dmax = 10 mm
dmax = 4.75mm

64
Predicted Axial Strain-Volume Change Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material
from Noa Dehing Dam Tested with 87% Relative Density (σ3 = 0.8 MPa)
O Observed
Predicted
dmax = 19 mm
dmax = 10 mm
dmax = 4.75 mm
dmax = 25 mm
dmax = 50 mm
dmax = 600 mm
dmax = 80 mm

65
Predicted Stress-Strain Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material from
Noa Dehing Dam Tested with 87% Relative Density (σ3 = 0.8 MPa)
dmax = 600 mm
dmax = 80 mm
O Observed
Prototype
dmax = 25 mm dmax = 50 mm
dmax = 19 mm
dmax = 10 mm
dmax = 4.75 mm

66
Predicted Axial Strain-Volume Change Behaviour of Riverbed Rockfill Material
from Noa Dehing Dam Tested with 87% Relative Density (σ3 = 0.8 MPa)
dmax = 4.75mm dmax = 19 mm

dmax = 10 mm
dmax = 25 mm
dmax = 50 mm
dmax = 80 mm
dmax = 600 mm
O Observed
Prototype

67
Thank You

ONE DIMENSIONAL COMPRESSION TEST
Specimen Details
Sample Size : 600 mm Height X 1000 mm

Diameter
Particle Size : Maximum 100 mm
Quantity : Based on Modeled
Gradation Curve
Compaction : Six layers of 10 cm thick
each using a dynamic survo
compactor of 200 t capacity
Loading : Repeated Loading
69
Oedometer (One Dimensional Compression) Test Setup
(1000 mm dia. and 600 mm height)

70
Mechanical Compactor with 200 Tone Capacity

71
One Dimensional Compression Test with Specimen

72
ONE DIMENSIONAL COMPRESSION TEST
 After achieving full saturation the specimen was subjected to

different stress levels.
 The load is kept constant using fully automated computer

controlled servo system at each stress level for a overnight so
as to achieve complete deformation of the specimen.
 The values of minor principal stresses (3) developed for the

corresponding applied major principal stresses (1) were also
measured for the computation of co-efficient of earth pressure
at rest (ko) at each of applied vertical stress levels.

73
The relation between ( 1) and the observed vertical
strain,  1 is given by
a
1 1  1 
1  x x  
m a  Pa 
where,
ε1 = Axial Strain
σ1 = Major principle stress
m = Modulus Number
a = Modulus Exponent

74
Axial Strain v/s Major Principal Stress ( 1) for 25, 50
and 80 mm dmax
100 mm
50 mm
25 mm

75
Relation between Major and Minor Principal Stress

76
DEFORMATION MODULUS, M, ELASTIC MODULUS, E AND
POISSION’S RATIO μ IS GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING RELATIONS
1 a
 1 
M  m Pa  
 Pa 
E=  1   1  2  M
1   
 K0 
 
  1  K 
0 
where,
 = Poisson's ratio
Ko = Co-efficient of earth pressure at rest, (3 /(1)

77
CONCLUSIONS
 The behaviour of both riverbed and quarried rockfill material is non-

linear, inelastic and stress dependent. The deviatoric stress and the axial
strain at failure increases with increase in confining pressure for both
rockfill materials. The effect of confining pressure is similar on both
riverbed and quarried rockfill materials. Similar behaviour is observed
for both materials tested with different relative density.
 The volumetric strains at failure increases with increase in confining
pressure and maximum particle size for both riverbed and quarried
rockfill materials. The volume expansion is more in quarried rockfill
materials than that in riverbed rockfill materials. The rate of change of
the volumetric strain at failure with respect to confining pressure is
higher in case of quarried rockfill materials than that for riverbed
rockfill materials.

78
CONCLUSIONS (Contd..)
 The breakage factor increases with increase in confining pressure and

maximum particle size for both riverbed and quarried rockfill materials.
The rate of change of breakage factor with respect to confining pressure
is higher in case of quarried rockfill materials than that for riverbed
rockfill materials. The breakage factor increases with increase in
relative density.
 The modulus of elasticity of rockfill materials, E increases for riverbed
and decreases for quarried rockfill materials with respect to maximum
particle size. The modulus of elasticity, E increases with increase in
relative density.

79
 Poisson’s ratio,  remains almost constant with maximum particle size

for quarried and riverbed rockfill materials. The value of  is slightly
more for riverbed than the quarried rockfill materials. Poisson’s ratio
increases marginally with increase in relative density.
 The elastic constant, k increases for riverbed and decreases for quarried
rockfill materials with respect to maximum particle size. Elastic
constant, nʹ does not have any definite trend with maximum particle
size for both riverbed and quarried rockfill materials. Also, no
correlation has been observed between nʹ and relative density.
 The -value increases with increase in maximum particle size for
riverbed rockfill materials while it decreases with increase in maximum
particle size for quarried rockfill materials. Also -value increases with
increase in UCS and RD.

80
 The predicted stress-strain-volume change behaviour of

modeled rockfill materials match closely with the
observed results for both riverbed and quarried modeled
rockfill materials tested with different relative density.
 Using material parameters of the prototype, stress-strain-
volume change behaviour of prototype rockfill materials
can be predicted using computer codes, DSC-SST2D and
PLAXIS.

81
 In the absence of triaxial test data, -value can be

determined by using strength law for any dmax. This
method is less labour intensive and time consuming,
economical and can be used where large size triaxial set
up to test rockfill material is not available.

82
Thank You

NPH

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

NPH

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prediction of Shear Strength Parameters and

Constitutive Modeling of Rockfill Materials

Dr. N.P. Honkanadavar

Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi

□ Rockfill material consists of sand, gravels, cobbles

Types of Rockfill Materials:

 Riverbed is rounded/subrounded in shape

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

Advantages of Rockfill Materials

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

 Shell Portion in the earth and rockfill dam

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST

 Specimen size of 381 mm diameter and 813 mm

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION SHEAR TEST SETUP

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

FEATURES OF TRIAXIAL TEST

 Confining pressure is applied through air-water system.

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

Factors affecting the shear strength of Rockfill Material

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

Relative Density Results

2 50 1.75 2.09 2.04 2.69

3 80 1.77 2.12 2.07 2.69

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL MATERIAL

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

VOLUME CHANGE BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL MATERIAL

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

Rockfill Relative  -Value (degree)

Noa Dehing 87 36.1 38.75 39.41

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

Shear strength is the ability of soil to withstand shear

According to Mohr Coulomb theory, Shear strength for

Shear strength (τ) = c + (σ-U) tan 

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

 Linear and non-linear elastic models show good

 Conventional elasto-plastic models e.g. Mohr-

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

 Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) models have

 Hardening Soil (HS) model has also been used

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar

 Elastic parameters (E, )

14th October 2015 N.P. Honkanadavar