Skip to main content
Materials logoLink to Materials
. 2022 Sep 6;15(18):6200. doi: 10.3390/ma15186200

Experimental Study on the Gmax Characteristics of the Sand-Silt Mixed Soil Materials Using Bender Element Testing

Jiang Bian 1, Hao Wu 1, Xing Xiao 1, Qi Wu 1, Zheng-Long Zhou 1,*
Editor: Oldrich Sucharda1
PMCID: PMC9502280  PMID: 36143508

Abstract

To study the small strain shear modulus (Gmax) of saturated sand-silt mixed soil materials, a series of tests were conducted using the bender element apparatus, and the influences of fines content (FC), relative density (Dr), and effective confining pressure (σ3c) were taken into consideration. The test results indicate that the Gmax of the mixed soil materials decreases first and then increases with the FC up to 100% with Dr = 35% and 50%, while the Gmax decreases with the increasing FC when Dr = 60%. Moreover, for a given Dr, the Gmax increases with the increasing σ3c, and the increase rate keeps constant under various FCs. The Gmax of specimens under various FCs decreases with the increase of the void ratio (e). The decrease rate between the Gmax and e differs when the σ3c is given, which is influenced by the FC. The Gmax of the mixed soil materials can be evaluated by the Hardin model when the FC is determined. The best-fitting parameter A of the Hardin model first decreases and then increases as FC increases. The revised Hardin model, considering the influence of FC, σ3c, and e, can be used to evaluate the Gmax for different types of sand-silt mixed soil materials. The error between the evaluated and tested Gmax is less than 10%.

Keywords: sand-silt mixed soil materials, small-strain shear modulus, fines content, revised Hardin model

1. Introduction

Small strain shear modulus Gmax, which is denoted as the shear modulus at small strain (i.e., below 10−5), is often used as an important mechanical index in soil material stability evaluation and numerical simulation [1,2]. Simultaneously, the angle of repose and packing fraction are most often considered as observables characterizing the mechanics of a granular material. The angle of repose is used for the determination of slope stability and design of retaining structures. Elekes and Parteli [3] established a model for predicting the angle of repose both on Earth and in other planetary environments by systematically considering the effect of sliding and rolling resistance, and nonbonded attractive particle–particle interactions. On the other hand, packing fraction can be used to develop a relationship between the particle-level interactions and the macroscopic structure [4]. In this paper, the dynamic properties of soil materials were investigated from the view of Gmax, regardless of the angle of repose and packing fraction.

Gmax is influenced by various factors, such as void ratio (e) [5], particle properties [6,7,8], uniformity coefficient (Cu) [9], fines content [10,11,12], fabric [13,14], stress history, and state [15,16], etc. Moreover, Gmax is proved to be incredibly sensitive to e and effective confining pressure (σ3c). Considerable investigations have been performed on clean sand [6,17]. The fact is, most of the soil materials in nature are not pure sand or silt. Instead, sand-silt mixed soil materials with various fines content (FC, the mass percentage of soil with a particle size less than 0.075 mm) not only extensively exist in natural strata such as colluvium deposits, alluvial deposits, and glacial tills, but also have many applications in man-made constructions, including land reclamation, dams, and subgrades [18,19]. Therefore, the evaluation of sand-silt behavior as a common geomaterial-mixed material could be of particular interest. Many scholars have researched the impact of FC on Gmax. For instance, Iwasaki and Tatsuoka [20] first revealed that the Gmax of Iruma Sand with the same Cu decreased with FC up to 15%. Yang and Liu [21] also observed a similar phenomenon in quartz sand with FC of up to 30%. Choo and Burns [22] performed bender element tests on sand-silt mixed soil materials and found that the shear velocity (Vs) decreased with increasing FC under the same relative density (Dr). Wichtmann et al. [23] conducted resonant column tests on quartz sand with different Cu and FC and established the empirical formulas for parameters A, n, and c with FC and Cu. Cheng et al. [11] reported that the Gmax of silty sand initially decreases and then increases with increasing plastic FC from 0 to 50%. Thevanayagam and Liang [24] and Goudarzy et al. [25,26] adopted the equivalent granular void ratio (e) instead of e in Equation (1). However, the relationships that many scholars have attempted to establish are discrepant and dependent on special sand and fines materials in specific areas. Therefore, the Gmax behavior of mixed soil materials still deserves further investigation.

There exist various kinds of Gmax test methods, such as the resonant column method and the bender element method. The bender element method is widely applied to the test Gmax, because of its simple principle, convenient operation, and non-destructive inspection [27,28]. A series of bender element tests were conducted to study the Gmax of the saturated sand-silt mixed soil materials with a wider range of FC in this study than that in previous studies. The influences of FC, Dr, and σ3c were taken into consideration. The empirical Gmax evaluation model of various mixed soil materials was finally proposed.

2. Bender Element Test

2.1. Test Apparatus

The measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs) and associated Gmax was implemented using a pair of piezoceramic bender elements (BEs) installed in the GCTS HCA-300 (Tempe, AZ, USA) dynamic hollow cylinder-TSH testing system to excite the sample in the form of a sinusoidal wave. The test apparatus is shown in Figure 1. The confining and back pressure are measured by the standard pressure/volume controller. The axial static and dynamic forces can be controlled independently. The maximum range of the dynamic force can be 10 kN/5 Hz. The sensor for the axial force and displacement is placed at the top of the sample. The back pressure is applied at the top of the sample, and the excess pore water pressure is measured at the bottom of the sample. The testing principle of the bender element system is detailed in Hardin and Black [15] and Goudarzy et al. [26].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Bender element test apparatus.

First, the Vs is calculated as following:

Vs=dt. (1)

where d is the effective distance of the shear wave propagation and its unit is m; t is the time of the shear wave propagation and its unit is s. The time domain method was used to determine t considering the simplicity and accuracy [29,30]. Then, the Gmax value can be determined:

Gmax=ρVs2 (2)

where the unit of Gmax is MPa, the unit of Vs is m/s, and ρ is the dry density and its unit is kg/m3.

2.2. Test Material

The tested sand-silt mixed soil materials were taken from the tidal flat sediment in Nantong Gulf in China. The mixed materials with a particle size of less than 0.075 mm obtained by sieving are regarded as pure fines, and the rest of the particles are regarded as clean sand. The clean sand is a fine-grained, angular siliceous sand, and the pure fines is a non-plastic, sub-angular fines. Table 1 presents the basic index properties of the tested clean sand and pure fines according to ASTM D422, D4253, and D4254, and Figure 2 shows the particle size distributions of clean sand and pure fines. The non-plastic Nantong silt (pure fines) is added into the clean sands to achieve the mixed materials with FC from 0% to 100% by mass. The grain size distribution curves of the mixtures with various FC are also shown in Figure 2. The variation of the minimum void ratio (emin) and maximum void ratio (emax) versus FC of the mixtures is shown in Figure 3. It illustrates that when FC ≤ 30%, the values of emin and emax decrease with the increasing FC, and when FC > 30%, the values of emin and emax increase with the increasing FC, which indicates the presence of a threshold (around FC = 30%) for the effect of FC on emin and emax.

Table 1.

The basic physical properties of the sand and fines.

Index d50/mm d10/mm C u G s e max e min
Sand 0.114 0.080 1.672 2.672 1.262 0.662
Fines 0.040 0.016 2.931 2.719 1.481 0.764

Notes: d50—average particle size, d10—effective particle size, Cu—nonuniform coefficient, Gs—specific gravity.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The particle size distribution curves of the sand-silt mixtures.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Variation of emin and emax versus FC of the sand-silt mixtures.

2.3. Test Procedure

The tested specimen is a solid cylinder with a 100 mm diameter and a 200 mm height, and the moist tamping method was introduced to prepare the specimens [31]. All specimens were tested after saturation. Carbon dioxide flushing and de-aired water flushing were carried out first, then the back pressure saturation followed. When Skempton’s B > 0.95 [32], the specimen was considered fully saturated. Following saturation, each specimen was isotropically consolidated by keeping the effective principal stress σ1c = σ2c = σ3c.

2.4. Testing Programe

In order to investigate the influences of FC, Dr, and σ3c on Gmax of the mixed materials. FC = 0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 70, and 100% were considered, and three specimens were prepared at different Dr (=35%, 50%, and 60%) at a fixed FC. The Gmax was measured and subjected to σ3c at 100, 200, 250, 300, and 400 kPa in five stages, Table 2 details the test conditions and the corresponding Gmax. The typical signal wave of the bender element test of S11 specimen (σ3c = 100 kPa) was illustrated in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 4, the t = 5.18 ms for the specific test condition can be determined by the time domain initial wave method clarity and precision.

Table 2.

The detailed test scheme of the bender element test.

No. FC/% Dr /% e ρ
/(g/cm3)
Gmax/MPa
σ3c/kPa 100 200 250 300 400
S1 0 35 1.076 1.286 97.2 129.2 148.7 159.3 192.6
S2 0 50 0.973 1.352 117.7 147.3 169.5 186.2 214.2
S3 0 60 0.890 1.412 157.6 199.7 223.7 239.7 252.7
S4 10 35 1.009 1.334 90.2 124.9 144.4 158.8 184.6
S5 10 50 0.934 1.386 96.6 130.6 156.5 170.7 200.1
S6 10 60 0.883 1.424 138.6 169.4 201.3 215.4 245.2
S7 20 35 0.936 1.348 84.9 126.2 141.5 154.0 174.7
S8 20 50 0.947 1.382 100.7 126.0 145.1 159.8 182.1
S9 20 60 0.824 1.475 124.0 167.5 184.8 206.3 238.3
S10 30 35 0.948 1.386 73.3 101.8 111.0 128.9 152.8
S11 30 50 0.865 1.448 89.8 126.8 141.8 158.6 169.3
S12 30 60 0.792 1.506 113.1 164.0 182.4 200.7 226.8
S13 50 35 0.996 1.358 73.1 104.2 110.3 127.1 160.7
S14 50 50 0.909 1.419 85.2 121.0 126.9 151.8 181.9
S15 50 60 0.810 1.497 108.3 159.1 180.3 200.5 233.6
S16 70 35 1.010 1.350 71.4 101.4 114.3 127.3 155.2
S17 70 50 0.957 1.387 88.1 112.7 125.7 147.4 183.8
S18 70 60 0.868 1.453 103.6 152.6 171.0 183.1 209.8
S19 100 35 1.231 1.258 78.7 105.1 117.1 129.7 157.7
S20 100 50 1.125 1.335 87.5 128.3 145.4 149.9 180.9
S21 100 60 0.990 1.409 98.9 146.9 161.9 176.5 209.8

Figure 4.

Figure 4

The typical signal wave of the bender element test.

3. Test Results and Analysis

3.1. Factors Influencing Maximum Shear Modulus

The measured Gmax versus FC of the sand-silt mixed soil mixtures is illustrated in Figure 5. For the samples of 35% and 50% Dr under various σ3c, the Gmax decreased and then increased with the increasing FC, reaching the minimum when the FC was 30%. For the samples of 60% Dr under various σ3c, the Gmax decreased with the increasing FC. The FC of the inflection point of the Gmax was changed with the increase of σ3c. The reason can be that the transformation process of the contact state of the particles of the various Dr samples is different, which leads to the different interparticle structures [33]. When FC ≤ 30%, the fines will decrease the contact of skeleton particles formed by sand to form an unstable structure, which leads to a decrease in Gmax. When FC > 30%, the soil skeleton is borne by fine particles, and the shear resistance will recover.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

The relationship between the Gmax and FC.

The relationship between the Gmax and σ3c of the samples is illustrated in Figure 6. For the samples under a given Dr and FC, the Gmax almost increased linearly with the increasing σ3c, which was in accordance with Salgado’s test results [34]. For the samples under various Dr, the increase rate of the Gmax with respect to σ3c was varied. Yang et al. [21] found that the increase rate of the Gmax with respect to σ3c decreased when the samples were under a given Dr and FC. However, Wichtmann et al. [35] obtained a different conclusion. They found that the increase rate of the Gmax with respect to σ3c increased when the samples were under a given Dr and FC. The opposite conclusions mean that the degree of association between the Gmax and σ3c is related to the physical properties of the sand-silt mixed soil materials.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

The relationship between the Gmax and σ.

The relationship between the Gmax and e of the samples were illustrated in Figure 7. For the samples under a given σ3c and FC, the Gmax decreased with the increasing e. The decreasing rate of the Gmax with respect to e was distinctly influenced by FC when the σ3c was the same. Yang et al. [21] found that the relationship between the Gmax and e of the samples under various FC or σ3c was linear, and the decreased rate of the Gmax with respect to e was unrelated to FC. The different conclusions mean that the correlation between the Gmax and e is related to the material type of the mixed soils, which needs further study to find the influence factors.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

The relationship between the Gmax and e.

3.2. The Evaluation Method of the Gmax of the Sand-Silt Mixtures

The acknowledged empirical relationship among the σ3c, e, and Gmax of the non-cohesive soil is shown in Equation (3):

Gmax=APaF(e)(σ3cPa)n (3)

where, A is the parameter influenced by the property of the soil material type. Pa is the standard atmospheric pressure (≈100 kPa). n is the empirical constant, and the value is between 0.4 and 0.6 for the pluvial sand, and many researchers have observed that the value can be taken as 0.5 [35,36]. F(e) is the function of e, which is decreased with the increase of e. Hardin and Black 15 described the F(e) as Equation (4):

F(e)=(ce)21+e (4)

where c is the parameter influenced by the shape of the soil particle, and the values are 2.17 and 2.97 for the angular and rounded sand particles, respectively. The shape of Nantong sand particles is angular, and the value of c is 2.17 as a result. The reasonability of Equation (4) is verified by many scholars, such as Iwasaki et al. [20], Yamashita et al. [37]. According to Equations (3) and (4), the Hardin evaluation model of the Gmax of the Nantong sand-silt mixed soil materials can be described by Equation (5):

Gmax=APa(ce)21+e(σ3cPa)0.5 (5)

The normalized relationship between the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa is shown in Figure 8. The data of the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa is at the top when the FC is 0 (pure sand). The data of the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa is at the bottom when the FC is 30% (pure sand). The data of the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa is above the evaluation of the Hardin model when the FC is 100% (pure silt). The results mean that the influence of the FC on the relationship between Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa is not monotonic. The fitted results of the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa data under various FC via the Hardin model are improper.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

The relationship between the Gmax~F(e)~σ3c/Pa of the sand-silt mixed soil materials.

The relationship between the Gmax/F(e) and (σ3c/Pa)0.5 of the sand-silt mixed soil materials under various FC is shown in Figure 9. The Gmax/F(e) increases almost linearly with the increased (σ3c/Pa)0.5 when the FC is given. The Gmax of the mixed soil materials under a given FC can be evaluated via the Hardin model. The data points (black square) and evaluation lines of the Gmax of the mixed soil materials by the Hardin model are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen from the table that the R2 of mixture under various FC is almost all greater than 0.9, which means the Gmax evaluation of the Hardin model is effective. In addition, the relationship between the parameters A and FC is not monotonous.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

The relationship between the Gmax/F(e) and (σ3c/Pa)0.5 the sand-silt mixed soil materials with different FC. The □ represents a data point.

Thevanayagam and Martin [33] proposed the definition of the particle contact state of the mixed materials in order to describe the influence of FC on the mechanical behavior. The mixed materials are composed of sand and fines particles of various sizes, and the contact state of the sand and fines particles influences the mechanical behavior. The sand particles contact each other and constitute the skeleton of the mixed materials when the FC is low. The fines fill the voids left by the mixed materials. The mechanical behavior of the mixed materials is dependent on the framework of the sand particles, and the materials under such a particle contact state are called sand-like soil materials. The fines particles contact each other and constitute the skeleton of the mixed materials when the FC is high. The sand particles are suspended in the fines. The mechanical behavior of the mixed materials is dependent on the framework of the fines particles, and the mixed materials under such a particle contact state is called silt-like soil materials. As a result, there is a threshold fines content (FCth) for the mixed materials [33]. The mixtures are called sand-like soil materials when the FC is smaller than the FCth. The mixtures are called silt-like soil materials when the FC is larger than the FCth. The FCth is a critical parameter which can distinguish the particle contact state and influence the mechanical behavior of the mixed materials. Rahman et al. [38] proposed an empirical function to determine the FCth.

FCth=0.40×(11+exp(αβχ)+1χ) (6)

α and β are the fitted parameters and the values are suggested as 0.50 and 0.13, respectively. χ=d10s/d50f, d10s is the effective size of the sand and d50f is the average size of the fines. The FCth used in the study is about 35% which can be calculated according to the data of Table 1 and Equation (5).

The relationship between parameter A and FC is shown in Figure 10. Parameter A decreases with the increasing FC when the FC is smaller than FCth. Parameter A increases with the increasing FC when the FC is larger than FCth. As a result, parameter A can be described by Equation (6):

A(FC)={A(FCc=0)mFCFCFCthA(FC=100%)n(1FC)FC>FCth (7)

Figure 10.

Figure 10

The relationship between the parameter A and FC of the sand-silt mixed soil materials. The □ represents a data point.

The m and n are the fitted parameters. A(FC=0) is the parameter A fitted by Hardin model of pure sand. A(FC=100%) is the parameter A fitted by the Hardin model of pure fines. The m and n are 1.850 and 0.799, respectively, for the mixed materials tested in the study.

As a result, the revised Hardin model, which considered the influence of e, σ3c, and FC, can be described by Equation (7):

Gmax=A(FC)PaF(e)(σ3c/Pa)0.5 (8)

The relationship between the tested Gmax and the evaluated Gmax by the revised Hardin model of the various mixed soil materials in the study is shown in Figure 11, and the error between them is less than 10%. In addition, the test data of Payan et al. [39] is used to verify the reasonability of the revised Hardin model. The test data of Payan et al. [39] is fitted by the revised Hardin model and the fitted parameters are shown in Table 3. The relationship between the tested Gmax and evaluated Gmax by the revised Hardin model of the data of Payan et al. is shown in Figure 12, and the error between them is less than 10%. As a result, the revised Hardin model can be used to evaluate the Gmax of the mixed soil materials.

Figure 11.

Figure 11

The relationship between the tested Gmax and evaluated Gmax by the revised model in the study.

Table 3.

The fitted parameters by the revised Hardin model of Payan et al.

Code Test Material FC-th A (FC=0) A (FC=100%) m n
A White sand + quartz fines 33.3 0.675 0.385 1.170 0.150
B Blue sand 1 + quartz fines 29.5 0.566 0.385 0.810 0.082
C Blue sand 2 + quartz fines 42.7 0.541 0.385 0.957 0.442

Figure 12.

Figure 12

The relationship between the tested Gmax and evaluated Gmax by the revised model of Payan et al.

4. Conclusions

A series of bender element tests were conducted to study the Gmax of the saturated sand-silt mixed soil materials, and the influence of FC, relative density Dr and σ3c were taken into consideration. The revised Hardin model was proposed to evaluate the Gmax of the materials based on the test data. The Gmax of the mixed materials increases linearly with the increased σ3c and the increase rate almost stays constant. The relationship between the Gmax and FC is related to the Dr when the σ3c is given. The Gmax decreases with the increased e and the decrease rate is influenced by the FC when the σ3c is given. The Hardin model can be used to evaluate the Gmax of the mixed materials when the FC is given. The parameter A decreases and then increases with the increased FC. The revised Hardin model, which is based on the threshold fines content (FCth) can be used to evaluate the Gmax of the mixed materials under various FC, e, and σ3c, and the error between the evaluated and tested value is less than 10%. This study can provide reference data for seismic response analysis for Nantong sites with different levels of fine-grained and valuable references for other related research.

It should be noted that there may be differences in Gmax between wet and dry soil materials. In engineering practice, the soil materials are mostly wet and especially saturated below the groundwater level. Thus, this study focuses on the Gmax of wet soil materials, and the difference between wet and saturated soils will be investigated in the near future.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52008206,51508270) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M690279).

Author Contributions

Data curation, X.X.; Funding acquisition, Q.W.; Investigation, H.W.; Validation, Q.W.; Visualization, Z.-L.Z.; Writing—original draft, J.B.; Writing—review & editing, Z.-L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (52008206, 51508270) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M690279).

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Chen G.X., Wang Y.Z., Zhao D.F., Zhao K., Yang J. A new effective stress method for nonlinear site response analyses. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2021;50:1595–1611. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3414. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Turner M.M., Ghayoomi M. Site response analysis of induced seismic events in the CENA region. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022;153:107118. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Elekes F., Parteli E.J.R. An expression for the angle of repose of dry cohesive granular materials on Earth and in planetary environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021;118:e2107965118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107965118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baule A., Morone F., Herrmann H.J., Makse H.A. Edwards statistical mechanics for jammed granular matter. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2018;90:015006. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Asadi M.B., Asadi M.S., Orense R.P., Pender M.J. Small-Strain Stiffness of Natural Pumiceous Sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2020;146:06020006. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ha Giang P.H., Van Impe P.O., Van Impe W.F., Menge P., Haegeman W. Small-strain shear modulus of calcareous sand and its dependence on particle characteristics and gradation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017;100:371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.06.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu X., Yang J. Influence of size disparity on small-strain shear modulus of sand-fines mixtures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018;115:217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shi J.Q., Haegeman W., Cnudde V. Anisotropic small strain stiffness of calcareous sand affected by sample preparation, particle characteristic and gradation. Géotechnique. 2019;71:305–319. doi: 10.1680/jgeot.18.P.348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu X.Y., Zou D.G., Liu J.M., Zheng B.W., Zhou C.G., Bai J.S. A gradation-dependent particle shape factor for characterizing small-strain shear modulus of sand-gravel mixtures. Transp. Geotech. 2021;28:100548. doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100548. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Liu X., Yang J. Shear wave velocity in sand: Effect of grain shape. Géotechnique. 2018;68:742–748. doi: 10.1680/jgeot.17.T.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cheng K., Zhang J., Miao Y., Ruan B., Peng T. The effect of plastic fines on the shear modulus and damping ratio of silty sands. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019;78:5865–5876. doi: 10.1007/s10064-019-01522-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shi J.Q., Haegeman W., Xu T. Effect of non-plastic fines on the anisotropic small strain stiffness of a calcareous sand. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020;139:106381. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106381. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Otsubo M., Liu J.M., Kawaguchi Y., Dutta T.T., Kuwano R. Anisotropy of elastic wave velocity influenced by particle shape and fabric anisotropy under K0 condition. Comp. Geotech. 2020;128:103775. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103775. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu J., Otsubo M., Kawaguchi Y., Kuwano R. Anisotropy in small-strain shear modulus of granular materials: Effects of particle properties and experimental conditions. Soils Found. 2022;62:101105. doi: 10.1016/j.sandf.2021.101105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hardin B.O., Black W.L. Sand stiffness under various triaxial stresses. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1966;92:27–42. doi: 10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000865. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jafarian Y., Javdanian H. Small-strain dynamic properties of siliceous-carbonate sand under stress anisotropy. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020;131:106045. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wichtmann T., Triantafyllidis T. Small-strain constrained elastic modulus of clean quartz sand with various grain size distribution. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013;55:130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.08.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Doi I., Kamai T., Azuma R., Wang G. A landslide induced by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake adjacent to tectonic displacement—Generation mechanism and long-term monitoring. Eng. Geol. 2019;248:80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.11.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Janalizadeh C.A., Selatahneh H., Karimi P.M. Effect of fines on liquefaction resistance of sand. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020;5:87. doi: 10.1007/s41062-020-00338-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Iwasaki T., Tatsuoka F. Effects of grain size and grading on dynamic shear moduli of sands. Soils Found. 1977;17:19–35. doi: 10.3208/sandf1972.17.3_19. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang J., Liu X. Shear wave velocity and stiffness of sand: The role of non-plastic fines. Géotechnique. 2016;66:500–514. doi: 10.1680/jgeot.15.P.205. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Choo H., Burns S.E. Shear wave velocity of granular mixtures of silica particles as a function of fine fraction, size ratios and void ratios. Granul. Matter. 2015;17:567–578. doi: 10.1007/s10035-015-0580-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wichtmann T., Hernández M.A.N., Triantafyllidis T. On the influence of a noncohesive fines content on small strain stiffness, modulus degradation and damping of quartz sand. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015;69:103–114. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Thevanayagam S., Liang J. Shear wave velocity relations for silty and gravel soils; Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics; San Diego, CA, USA. 29 March 2001; [(accessed on 29 March 2001)]. p. 26. Available online: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/04icrageesd/session01/26. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Goudarzy M., Konig D., Schanz T. Small strain stiffness of granular materials containing fines. Soils Found. 2016;56:756–764. doi: 10.1016/j.sandf.2016.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Goudarzy M., Rahman M.M., Konig D., Schanza T. Influence of non-plastic fines content on maximum shear modulus of granular materials. Soils Found. 2016;56:973–983. doi: 10.1016/j.sandf.2016.11.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Payan M., Khoshghalb A., Senetakis K., Khalili N. Effect of particle shape and validity of Gmax models for sand: A critical review and a new expression. Comp. Geotech. 2016;72:28–41. doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.11.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pan K., Yuan Z.H., Zhao C.F., Tong J.H., Yang Z.X. Undrained shear and stiffness degradation of intact marine clay under monotonic and cyclic loading. Eng. Geol. 2021;297:106502. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106502. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brignoli E.G.M., Gotti M., Stokoe K.H. Measurement of shear waves in laboratory specimens by means of piezoelectric transducers. Geotech. Test. J. 1996;19:384–397. doi: 10.1520/GTJ10716J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gu X.Q., Yang J. A discrete element analysis of elastic properties of granular materials. Granul. Matter. 2013;15:139–147. doi: 10.1007/s10035-013-0390-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ishihara K. Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique. 1993;43:351–451. doi: 10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Skempton A.W. The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. Geotechnique. 1954;4:143–147. doi: 10.1680/geot.1954.4.4.143. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thevanayagam S., Martin G.R. Liquefaction in silty soils-screening and remediation issue. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2002;22:1035–1042. doi: 10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00128-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Salgado R., Bandini P., Karim A. Shear strength and stiffness of silty sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000;126:451–462. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5(451). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wichtmann T., Triantafyllidis T. Influence of the grain-size distribution curve of quartz sand on the small strain shear modulus Gmax. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009;135:1404–1418. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mcdowell G.R., Bolton M.D. Micro mechanics of elastic soil. Soils Found. 2001;41:147–152. doi: 10.3208/sandf.41.6_147. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yamashita S., Kawaguchi T., Nakata Y., Mikami T., Shibuya S. Interpretation of international parallel test on the measurement of Gmax using bender elements. Soils Found. 2009;49:631–650. doi: 10.3208/sandf.49.631. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rahman M.M., Lo S.R., Gnanendran C.T. On equivalent granular void ratio and steady state behaviour of loose sand with fines. Can. Geotech. J. 2008;45:1439–1456. doi: 10.1139/T08-064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Payan M., Senetakis K., Khoshghalb A., Khalili N. Characterization of the small-strain dynamic behaviour of silty sands; contribution of silica non-plastic fines content. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017;102:232–240. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Materials are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES