Abstract
The determination of shear strength parameters for coarse granular materials such as rockfill and waste rocks is challenging due to their oversized particles and the minimum required ratio of 10 between the specimen width (W) and the maximum particle size (dmax) of tested samples for direct shear tests. To overcome this problem, a common practice is to prepare test samples by excluding the oversized particles. This method is called the scalping scaling down technique. Making further modifications on scalped samples to achieve a specific particle size distribution curve (PSDC) leads to other scaling down techniques. Until now, the parallel scaling down technique has been the most popular and most commonly applied, generally because it produces a PSDC parallel and similar to that of field material. Recently, a critical literature review performed by the authors revealed that the methodology used by previous researchers to validate or invalidate the scaling down techniques in estimating the shear strength of field materials is inappropriate. The validity of scaling down techniques remains unknown. In addition, the minimum required W/dmax ratio of 10, stipulated in ASTM D3080/D3080M-11 for direct shear tests, is not large enough to eliminate the specimen size effect (SSE). The authors’ recent experimental study showed that a minimum W/dmax ratio of 60 is necessary to avoid any SSE in direct shear tests. In this study, a series of direct shear tests were performed on samples with different dmax values, prepared by applying scalping and parallel scaling down techniques. All tested specimens had a W/dmax ratio equal to or larger than 60. The test results of the scaled down samples with dmax values smaller than those of field samples were used to establish a predictive equation between the effective internal friction angle (hereafter named “friction angle”) and dmax, which was then used to predict the friction angles of the field samples. Comparisons between the measured and predicted friction angles of field samples demonstrated that the equations based on scalping scaling down technique correctly predicted the friction angles of field samples, whereas the equations based on parallel scaling down technique failed to correctly predict the friction angles of field samples. The scalping down technique has been validated, whereas the parallel scaling down technique has been invalidated by the experimental results presented in this study.
Highlights
The determination of shear strength parameters is challenging for coarse granular materials such as rockfill and waste rocks due to their oversized particles and the minimum required ratio of 10 between specimen width (W) and the maximum particle size of tested samples for direct shear tests [1]
When the particle size distribution curve (PSDC) of the scaled down sample is modified to be parallel to that of field material, the method is called the parallel scaling down technique [50,51,52]
A series of direct shear tests were performed by using specimens having W/dmax ratios equal to or larger than 60, prepared by applying the scalping and parallel scaling down techniques; the replacement scaling down technique could not be applied because the dmax value of the “field” material is too close to the critical value of 4.75 mm
Summary
The determination of shear strength parameters is challenging for coarse granular materials such as rockfill and waste rocks due to their oversized particles and the minimum required ratio of 10 between specimen width (W) and the maximum particle size (dmax) of tested samples for direct shear tests [1]. Scalping technique is probably the simplest and earliest method to obtain laboratory samples having an admissible dmax from field materials [10,29,33,37,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. Further validation or invalidation of the scaling down techniques is necessary against reliable experimental results To this end, a series of direct shear tests were performed by using specimens having W/dmax ratios equal to or larger than 60, prepared by applying the scalping and parallel scaling down techniques; the replacement scaling down technique could not be applied because the dmax value of the “field” material is too close to the critical value of 4.75 mm. PP2SS.DDCCss ooff tthheefifieellddssaammpplleeaannddppaarraalllleellssaammpplleesswwitithhddififfeferreennttddmmaaxx vvaalluueess ffoorr:: ((aa)) MM11 aanndd M3; (b) M2
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.