1. bookVolumen 40 (2018): Heft 1 (July 2018)
Zeitschriftendaten
License
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2083-831X
Erstveröffentlichung
09 Nov 2012
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch
Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Stress–Dilatancy For Crushed Latite Basalt

Online veröffentlicht: 27 Jul 2018
Volumen & Heft: Volumen 40 (2018) - Heft 1 (July 2018)
Seitenbereich: 6 - 10
Eingereicht: 15 Nov 2017
Akzeptiert: 09 Jan 2018
Zeitschriftendaten
License
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2083-831X
Erstveröffentlichung
09 Nov 2012
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch
Introduction

Crushed latite basalt is commonly used as railway ballast in Australia [5, 12]. It is well established that breakage of grains influences the strength and deformation behaviour of soils [5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12]. The intensity of breakage is a function of granulometry, stress level and deformation process [6, 9]. Cyclic loading significantly intensifies particle breakage [6]. Marsal’s breakage index [8] and ballast breakage index [4] are the widely used parameters of ballast breakage.

The breakage of particles reduces angularity and thus reduces friction as well as the critical state friction angle of ballast [2, 5, 15].The critical state fiction angle of sands is independent of breakage of grains [1, 3, 10]. The peak friction angle is also reduced by the growth of confining pressure without particle breakage. The separation of stress level influence and particle breakage influence on the behaviour of crushed latite basalt is very difficult and has not been proposed in literature until now. The large-scale triaxial testing of latite basalt at large axial strains exceeding 20–25% shows the continual breakage of particles. There were little or no volume changes at almost constant stress at large strains, so the reduction of critical state parameters is natural in the modelling of latite basalt behaviour.

During monotonic shearing, the total plastic work’s components are purely shearing, some part of volume changes (not natural dilatancy) during shear and particle breakage. The natural dilatancy, characteristic for each soil, caused by shear has no influence on energy dissipation [13]. Salim and Indraratna [12] stated that the increment in energy consumption because of particle breakage per volume unit is proportional to the breakage index increment.

Szypcio [13] developed Frictional State Theory to properly describe stress–dilatancy relationships for soils at different deformation modes at drained and undrained conditions. This theory is used in this article to describe the stress–dilatancy relationship for crushed latite basalt based on the experimental data published by Indraratna et al. [5] and Salim and Indraratna [12]. In analysing the experimental data of tests conducted using large-size triaxial apparatus [5, 12], it is shown that the stress–dilatancy relationship for crushed latite basalt is bilinear. The points representing maximum curvature of the stress–dilatancy relationship are named transformation points. These points are situated on almost a straight line. For many granular soils, the critical frictional state angle (Φ°) is equal to critical state angle (Φcυ)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle ({\it\Phi}^{'}_{c\upsilon}) \end{array}$ [14]. It is shown that critical state friction angle is independent of particle breakage (stress level). It is also shown that breakage of particles of crushed latite basalt appears at low stress level during shear.

Stress–Dilatancy Relationship For Drained Triaxial Compression

The stress–dilatancy relationship (1.a) for drained triaxial compression developed from Frictional State Theory has the simple form [14]:

η=QADP$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \eta=Q-AD^{P} \end{array}$$

where

η=q/p$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \eta=q/p^{\prime} \end{array}$$

Q=MoαAo$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle Q=M^{o}-\alpha \,A^{o} \end{array}$$

A=βAo$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle A=\beta \,A^{o} \end{array}$$

Dp=δευpδεqp$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle D^{p}=\frac{\delta \varepsilon^{p}_{\upsilon}}{\delta \varepsilon^{p}_{q}} \end{array}$$

Mo=Mco=6sinΦo3sinΦo$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle M^{o}=M^{o}_{c}=\frac{6 \sin {\it\Phi^{o}}}{3-\sin{\it\Phi^{o}}} \end{array}$$

Ao=Aco=113Mco$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle A^{o}=A^{o}_{c}=1-\frac{1}{3}M^{o}_{c} \end{array}$$

Φo is the critical state friction angle and α and β are the experimental parameters [13]. For latite basalt, as a non-cohesive material, we can write [14]

σ1σ3=3+2Mco2Aco(α+βDp)3Mco+Aco(α+βDp)$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \frac{\sigma^{'}_{1}}{\sigma^{'}_{3}}=\frac{3+2M^{o}_{c}-2A^{o}_{c}(\alpha + \beta\, D^{p})}{3-M^{o}_{c}+A^{o}_{c}(\alpha + \beta\, D^{p})} \end{array}$$

and the value of the mobilised angle of shear resistance

Φ=2tan1σ1σ3π2$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle {\it\Phi}^{'}=2 \tan^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^{'}_{1}}{\sigma^{'}_{3}}}-\frac{\pi}{2} \end{array}$$

The value Φo=53.7° best fulfils Frictional State Theory requirements.

The plastic part of volume (δευp)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\,\delta \varepsilon\,^{p}_{\upsilon}\,) \end{array}$ and shear (δεqp)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\,\delta \varepsilon\,^{p}_{q}\,) \end{array}$ deformation increments are calculated using equations (4) and (5) as the difference between total values and elastic parts of increments, respectively:

δευp=δευδευe$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta \varepsilon^{p}_{\upsilon}=\delta \varepsilon_{\upsilon}-\delta \varepsilon^{e}_{\upsilon} \end{array}$$

δεqp=δεqδεqe$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta \varepsilon^{p}_{q}=\delta \varepsilon_{q}-\delta \varepsilon^{e}_{q} \end{array}$$

The elastic parts of deformation increments are calculated from equations (6) and (7):

δευe=κϑδpp$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta \varepsilon^{e}_{\upsilon}=\frac{\kappa}{\vartheta}\frac{\delta p^{'}}{p^{'}} \end{array}$$

δεqe=291+ν12νκϑδqp$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta \varepsilon^{e}_{q}=\frac{2}{9}\frac{1+\nu}{1-2\nu}\frac{\kappa}{\vartheta}\frac{\delta q}{p^{'}} \end{array}$$

where

ϑ=1+e$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \vartheta=1+e \end{array}$$

and for convenitional triaxial tests (δσ3=0),$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\delta\sigma^{'}_{3}=0), \end{array}$

δp=13δσ1$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta p^{'}=\frac{1}{3}\delta\sigma^{'}_{1} \end{array}$$

δq=δσ1$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \delta q=\delta\sigma^{'}_{1} \end{array}$$

e is the void ratio, ν is the Poisson’sratio and κ is the Cam clay model parameter that represents slope of unloading–reloading line in ϑ-lnp’ plane. In this article, it is assumed, as most appropriate values, κ = 0.002 and ν = 0.15 for crushed latite basalt.

Experiments And Results

The crushed latite basalt was tested by Salim and Indraratna [12] and Indraratna et al. [5] at drained conditions using a large-scale cylindrical triaxial apparatus. The initial void ratio was e = 0.76. The relationships η-Dp were developed [5, 12] for different confining pressure constant during tests. The published experimental relationships (σ1/σ3)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$εq and ευεq were approximated by a high degree of polynomials. The polynomials were later used for analysis. The values of major stress ratio (σ1/σ3)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$, volume deformations (ευ), stress ratio (η) and plastic dilatancy (Dp) were calculated with the use of these polynomials.

In Figure 1, the relationships (σ1/σ3)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$εq, ευεq are shown for crushed latite basalt tests conducted by Indraratna et al. [5]. In Figure 2, the relationships η-Dp for these tests are shown.

Figure 1

The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) (σ1/σ3)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$εq ; (b) sυεq (adopted from Indraratna et al., 2015).

Figure 2

The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.

Similar relationships for crushed latite basalt tested by Salim and Indraratna [12] are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3

The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) (σ1/σ3)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$εq ; (b) ευεq (adopted from Salim and Indraratna, 2004).

Figure 4

The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.

The points representing maximum curvature of η-Dp lines were chosen and shown in Figures 2 and 4. These points are named transformation points (T). The appropriate points are also shown in Figures 1 and 3. The (T) points were collected and shown in Figure 5. It may be accepted that (T) points lay on a straight line (transformation line) defined by equation (1) with Φo = 53.7°, α = 0 and β = β*= 5.29. In Figure 5, the frictional state line (Φo = 53.7°, α = 0, β = 1.0) is also shown.

Figure 5

Transformation line for triaxial compression of crushed latite basalt.

In the author’s opinion, if there is no particle breakage, the transformation line must be a frictional state line. So, the area marked in grey in Figure 5 represents the influence of particle breakage on η-Dp relationship.

This influence is significant for crushed latite basalt even at low confining pressure and small values of plastic dilatancy. This is probably due to a low number of contact points between particles. In these contact points, there appeared very high stress and intense crushing.

At the initial phase of shearing, the mean normal stress increments are high and play a dominant role in particle breakage. At the advanced phase of shearing, the mean normal stress increments are relatively small and shear deformation plays a dominant role in particle breakage. The transformation line represents the border between these two phases.

It may be accepted that η-Dp relationships for crushed latite basalt are bilinear. One straight line represents points of experimental data below the transformation line and the second straight line represents points higher up this line. The parameters α and β of Frictional State Theory [13] defining position and slopes of these lines are marked as αbt, βbt and αpt, βpt, respectively. The values of α and β are summarised in Table 1.

The values of α and β for triaxial compression of crushed latite basalt.

ParametersIndraratna et al. (2015)Salim and Indraratna (2004)
α and βConfining pressure σc (kPa)
306018036050100200300
αbt2.50–3.60–3.30–7.705.00–3.00–4.00–7.00
βbt–25.018.0010.0013.00–19.0015.0013.0012.00
αbt–0.350.551.102.00–0.200.650.900.95
βbt1.002.203.802.401.002.704.503.20

At the initial stage of deformation, parameters αbt and βbt represent the summary effect of structure degradation and particle breakage on stress–dilatancy relationships. On the basis of only Frictional State Theory, it is not possible to separate these two effects. At the advanced stage of shearing, the structure of granular soil is erased and natural dilatancy [13] as well as particle breakage has influence on the stress–dilatancy (η-Dp) relationships. In the author’s opinion, αpt represents the influence of energy consumption because of breakage and (βpt-1) represents the influence of volume changes (volume decrease) caused by particle breakage. If αpt > 0 (σc > 55 kPa), the influence of energy consumed for breakage is more significant than the influence of volume changes on the stress–dilatancy relationships.

On the contrary, if αpt < 0 (σc < 55 kPa) then the influence of energy consumed on breakage is smaller than the volume changes due to breakage. If α = 0 then the two effects are balanced. However, these remarks need more research in the future.

In Frictional State Theory, the values

χ1=ppo1$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \chi_{1}=\frac{p^{'}}{p^{o}}-1 \end{array}$$

χ2=qqo1$$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle \chi_{2}=\frac{q}{q^{o}}-1 \end{array}$$

represent the difference between current and reference (frictional) state. The relationships χ1εq, χ2εq for tests conducted by Indraratna et al. [5] are shown in Figure 6a and b, respectively.

Figure 6

Relationships χεq : (a) χ1εq ; (b) χ2εq.

At transformation point, the values χ1 and χ2 jump for σc=30 kPa or increments significantly rise for σc > 30 kPa. It was noticed by the author that ratio χ2/χ1 is constant during shear and χ2/χ1 = tan Φo for crushed latite basalt for drained triaxial compression.

The value of Φ° angle was assumed based on this finding.

Conclusions

Stress–strain behaviour of crushed latite basalt may be successfully analysed by using Frictional State Theory. The critical state friction angle Φ° = 53.7° is independent of confining pressure or breakage of particles. The parameters αpt and βpt represent the influence of particle breakage on stress–strain behaviour at the advanced stage of shearing. The parameter αpt represents the influence of energy consumed on crushing, and the parameter βpt represents the influence of volume changes due to breakage on stress–dilatancy relationships.

The stress–dilatancy relationship is bilinear. At the initial stage of shearing, the breakage of particles is predominantly caused by the mean normal stress increments. At the advanced stage, the breakage of particles is mainly caused by shear deformation.

Particle breakage significantly influences the stress–dilatancy relationship for crushed latite basalt, even at a low stress level.

The results of this article show that Frictional State Theory may be used for describing the stress–strain behaviour of latite basalt and building a new model with small number of model parameters in the future.

Figure 1

The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) 
(σ1′/σ3′)$\begin{array}{}
\displaystyle
(\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3})
\end{array}$ – εq ; (b) sυ – εq (adopted from Indraratna et al., 2015).
The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) (σ1′/σ3′)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$ – εq ; (b) sυ – εq (adopted from Indraratna et al., 2015).

Figure 2

The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.
The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.

Figure 3

The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) 
(σ1′/σ3′)$\begin{array}{}
\displaystyle
(\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3})
\end{array}$ – εq ; (b) ευ – εq (adopted from Salim and Indraratna, 2004).
The relationships between stress ratio, volume deformations and shear strain: (a) (σ1′/σ3′)$\begin{array}{} \displaystyle (\sigma^{'}_{1}/\sigma^{'}_{3}) \end{array}$ – εq ; (b) ευ – εq (adopted from Salim and Indraratna, 2004).

Figure 4

The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.
The relationships η-Dp for crushed latite basalt.

Figure 5

Transformation line for triaxial compression of crushed latite basalt.
Transformation line for triaxial compression of crushed latite basalt.

Figure 6

Relationships χ – εq : (a) χ1 – εq ; (b) χ2 – εq.
Relationships χ – εq : (a) χ1 – εq ; (b) χ2 – εq.

The values of α and β for triaxial compression of crushed latite basalt.

ParametersIndraratna et al. (2015)Salim and Indraratna (2004)
α and βConfining pressure σc (kPa)
306018036050100200300
αbt2.50–3.60–3.30–7.705.00–3.00–4.00–7.00
βbt–25.018.0010.0013.00–19.0015.0013.0012.00
αbt–0.350.551.102.00–0.200.650.900.95
βbt1.002.203.802.401.002.704.503.20

Bandini V., Coop M.R., The influence of particle breakage on the location of the critical state line of sands. Soils and Foundations, 2011, 51, No. 4, 591-600.BandiniV.CoopM.R.The influence of particle breakage on the location of the critical state line of sands.Soils and Foundations201151459160010.3208/sandf.51.591Search in Google Scholar

Chavez C., Alonso E.E., A constitutive model for crushed granular aggregates which includes suction effects. Soils and Foundations, 2003, 43, No. 4, 215-227.ChavezC.AlonsoE.E.A constitutive model for crushed granular aggregates which includes suction effects.Soils and Foundations200343421522710.3208/sandf.43.4_215Search in Google Scholar

Coop M. R., Sorensen K. K., Bodas Freitas T., Gergoutsos G., Particle breakage during shearing of a carbonate sand. Géotechnique, 2004, 54, No. 3,157-163.CoopM. R.SorensenK. K.Bodas FreitasT.GergoutsosG.Particle breakage during shearing of a carbonate sand.Géotechnique200454315716310.1680/geot.2004.54.3.157Search in Google Scholar

Indraratna B., Lackenby J., Christe D., Effect of confining pressure on the degradation of ballast under cyclic loading, Géotechnique, 2005, 55, No.4, 325-328.IndraratnaB.LackenbyJ.ChristeD.Effect of confining pressure on the degradation of ballast under cyclic loadingGéotechnique200555432532810.1680/geot.2005.55.4.325Search in Google Scholar

Indraratna B., Sun Q.D., Nimbalkar S., Observed and predicted behaviour of rail ballast under monotonic loading capturing particle breakage, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2015, 52, 1, 73-86.IndraratnaB.SunQ.D.NimbalkarS.Observed and predicted behaviour of rail ballast under monotonic loading capturing particle breakageCanadian Geotechnical Journal2015521738610.1139/cgj-2013-0361Search in Google Scholar

Lackenby J., Indraratna B., Mcdowell G., Christie D., Effect of confining pressure on ballast degradation and deformation under cyclic triaxial loading, Géotechnique, 2007, 57, No.6, 527-536.LackenbyJ.IndraratnaB.McdowellG.ChristieD.Effect of confining pressure on ballast degradation and deformation under cyclic triaxial loadingGéotechnique200757652753610.1680/geot.2007.57.6.527Search in Google Scholar

Lade P.W., Yammamuro J.A., Bopp P.A., Significance of particle crushing in granular materials, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1996, 122, No.4, 309-316.LadeP.W.YammamuroJ.A.BoppP.A.Significance of particle crushing in granular materialsJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering1996122430931610.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(309)Search in Google Scholar

Marsal R.J., Large scale testing of rockfill materials, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 1967, 93, No.2, 27-43.MarsalR.J.Large scale testing of rockfill materialsJournal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation DivisionASCE1967932274310.1061/JSFEAQ.0000958Search in Google Scholar

Mcdowell G.R., Bolton M.D., On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates, Géotechnique, 1998, 48, No.5, 667-679.McdowellG.R.BoltonM.D.On the micromechanics of crushable aggregatesGéotechnique199848566767910.1680/geot.1998.48.5.667Search in Google Scholar

Mooneym. A., Finno R.J., Viggiani M.G., A unique critical state for sand? Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124, No.11, 1100-1108.MooneymA.FinnoR.J.ViggianiM.G.A unique critical state for sand?Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering1998124111100110810.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1100)Search in Google Scholar

Russel A.R., Khalili N., A bounding surface plasticity model for sands exhibiting particle crushing, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2004, 41, No.6, 1179-1192.RusselA.R.KhaliliN.A bounding surface plasticity model for sands exhibiting particle crushingCanadian Geotechnical Journal20044161179119210.1139/t04-065Search in Google Scholar

Salim W., Indraratna B., A new elastoplastic constitutive model for coarse granular aggregates incorporating particle breakage, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2004, 41, No. 4, 657-671.SalimW.IndraratnaB.A new elastoplastic constitutive model for coarse granular aggregates incorporating particle breakageCanadian Geotechnical Journal200441465767110.1139/t04-025Search in Google Scholar

Szypcio Z., Stress-dilatancy for soils. Part I: The frictional state theory, StudiaGeotechnica et Mechanica, 2016, 38, No.4, 51-57.SzypcioZ.Stress–dilatancy for soils. Part I: The frictional state theoryStudiaGeotechnica et Mechanica2016384515710.1515/sgem-2016-0030Search in Google Scholar

Szypcio Z., Stress-dilatancy for soils. Part II: Experimental validation for triaxial tests, StudiaGeotechnica et Mechanica, 2016, 38, No. 4, 59-65.SzypcioZ.Stress–dilatancy for soils. Part II: Experimental validation for triaxial testsStudiaGeotechnica et Mechanica2016384596510.1515/sgem-2016-0031Search in Google Scholar

Empfohlene Artikel von Trend MD

Planen Sie Ihre Fernkonferenz mit Scienceendo