See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279136016

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ON

SOILS WITH OVERSIZE

Conference Paper · January 2013

DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-297-4-407

CITATIONS READS

3 580

2 authors, including:

Leonardo Dorador
Advanced Earth Sciences Inc.
15 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Course: Geotechnical characterization on coarse-grained materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonardo Dorador on 14 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fifth International Young Geotechnical Engineering Conference - 5iYGEC’13.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT GEOTECHNICAL

CHARACTERIZATION ON SOILS WITH OVERSIZE
QUELQUES CONSIDÉRATIONS POUR LA CARACTÉRISATION DES SOLS
COMPORTANT DES GROS ÉLÉMENTS
1 2
Leonardo DORADOR , Gaspar BESIO
1
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2
University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT – In determined civil and mining projects there are no chances to conduct a geotechnical
characterization on soils with oversize based on in situ and laboratory testing. In these cases it is required to
use charts and correlations to predicting some important geotechnical parameters of these soils. Based on
this, this article is focused in three topics. The first topic is the chart to estimate the minimum and maximum
void index in granular materials. Some previous charts are shown and a new chart and data is included. The
second topic discussed is an influence of the D50 in the maximum void index. Laboratory testing results
shows that larger D50 decrease the maximum void index independently of the uniformity coefficient CU. The
last topic discussed is the peak friction angle based on the Leps’ Chart. In this work, new large triaxial data is
included into this chart and some recommendations to use it appropriately are proposed.

1. Introduction relative density parameter (RD%). However, it is

Soils with oversize or coarse granular soils are
used in many civil and mining projects around the
world. Although these materials are very important
in these projects, it is hard to be characterized due
to the large sizes of their particles. Additionally, in
conceptual and feasibility stages of any project, it
is important to have a rough idea of the material’s
characteristics. However, the lack of charts and
correlations keep off a good geotechnical
characterization of these soils. In this work, some
correlations on soils with oversize are discussed.
Firstly, the existing charts of minimum and
maximum void index are discussed. These
parameters depend strongly on how well graded is
the particle size distribution or specifically in the
uniformity coefficient (CU)
Secondly, the influence of the D50 in the
maximum void index is studied. Some data
collected show that the emax is lesser increasing
the average diameter of the material.
Finally, the shear strength, which is one of the
key parameters for design is discussed. There is a
chart by Leps (1970) which has been widely used
until these days. However, new data obtained from
the large triaxial equipment of IDIEM (Verdugo
2007), shows that the Leps chart could
overestimate the shear strength of soils with
oversize in some cases.
2. Minimum and maximum void index in soils
with oversize
important to add that until date there is no enough
charts or correlations to obtain these parameters in
soils with oversize. The following correlations
proposed are intended to be used as a good
estimation in conceptual and feasibility studies but
not in higher detailed stages of any project
involving soils with oversize or coarse granular
soils.
2.1 Correlations to obtain emin
Kezdi (1979) provided a good correlation between
the maximum density with the uniformity coefficient
(Cu). In addition, Gesche (2002), De la Hoz (2007)
and Dorador (2010) collected more maximum
density data (using the standard ASTM D 4253 –
00) and a correlation that fix with Kezdi’ correlation
has been obtained.
This correlation (Figure 1) includes fluvial gravel
material (sub-rounded), crushed gravel (sub-
angular) and this is an alternative chart of what is
proposed by Biarez (1994). The Biarez’s chart
agrees partially with the proposed chart. However,
the former remains constant after CU higher than
10, which is not agreeing with this proposed chart.
Thus, this correlation using the CU is a good
first approximation of the maximum packing of the
material analyzed. Of course, in order to get a
closer correlation we should consider other
parameters involved in the minimum void index
such as sphericity and angularity of particles,
maximum particle size (D100) and gradation
coefficient (D30).

It is well known the importance of obtaining the

emax and emin not only for providing the ranges of
material densities but also for estimating the
 Fifth International Young Geotechnical Engineering Conference - 5iYGEC’13.
0.8
Kezdi, 1979
2.3 Methodology to obtain a precise value of
0.7
emin and emax for soils with oversizes (Coarse
Al Hussaini, 1983
Granular soils)
0.6 De la hoz (2007), Dorador
(2010) and Gesche (2002)
In some projects involving soils with oversize, it is
0.5
important to have accurate values of emin and emax
and so, to obtain the relative density (for example
emin

0.4
0.3
0.2
Biarez-Subrounded
0.1
1 10
Uniformity coefficient [Cu= D60/D10]
Figure 1. Correlation between emin and CU
2.2 Correlations to obtain emax
Certainly, this parameter tends to be more difficult
to be obtained by charts, etc. This is because the
minimum density by the standard ASTM-4254 is
more sensible to the particle’s shape (sphericity
and angularity), average size of the sample (D50)
and the expertise of the technician who conducts
the test.
In order to have a rough idea of the emax, one
alternative is to use the following chart (Figure 2)
which has been updated with data by Veiga Pinto
(1979) Cubrinovski, et al. (2002) and De la Hoz
(2007). This chart considers the lineal relationship
between the emin and emax.
Biarez-Subangular
Rockfill dams and Waste rock Dumps in mining).
Additionally, there is no standard methodology
Upper limit
Average emin
to obtain the minimum and maximum void index for
Lower limit soils with oversizes. Thus, it is proposed the
following methodology to obtain the emin and emax
100 1000 (Figures 3 and 4).
First, to obtain the Macro gradation of the soil
with oversize. Second, to scale the Macro
gradation in three smaller gradations with
maximum particle size (for example 37.5 mm
(1.5”), 9.5 mm (3/4”) and 4.75 mm). Third, to
conduct minimum and maximum densities for each
scaled gradation. Fourth, to obtain potentials
regressions for each emax and emin regression as
-m -n
emax = a D100 and emax = b D100 . Fifth, to
extrapolate the emax and emin to the desire D100.

Figure 3. Scaled gradations from Macro

Gradation. To obtain these scaled curves is
necessary to fix the minimum diameter of the
Macro gradation and translate the maximum
diameter of this gradation.

Figure 2. Relationship between emin and emax,

De la Hoz (2007).

Thus, knowing the value of emin (for example,

using Figure 1) it is possible to use this chart to
obtain the emax (for example using Line 2 on Figure
2). Again, these charts are intended to be used as
a rough idea of the minimum and maximum
packing of granular materials.

Figure 4. Potential regressions of emin and emax

from scaled gradations
 Fifth International Young Geotechnical Engineering Conference - 5iYGEC’13.

3. Influence of D50 in the maximum void index has been updated by some authors such as
(emax) on soils with oversize Indraratna et al. (1993) and Contreras (2011).
It is important to note that most of these tests
In general terms, the emax of granular materials were carried out in samples with high confection
with gravels are obtained by the standard ASTM density, high particle strength and low to moderate
D4254 (Methods A and B). It is clear that the emax confining pressures, which facilitated the dilatancy
decrease for higher CU, but seems to be that the of most of the samples and therefore peak
average size of the tested material tends to strengths were obtained during the tests.
produce lesser emax too. The following data is
considered in Figure 5. Gesche (2002),
considering two materials, one fluvial gravel (A1)
and one sub-angular gravel (M1). De la Hoz (2007)
considering two fluvial gravels (M2 and M3) and
one sub-angular gravel (P1). Dorador (2010)
considering one fluvial gravel (A2)

0.7
D50 - 0.5 a 2 mm
0.6 D50 - 2 a 7 mm

D50 - higher than 7 mm

0.5

0.4
emin

0.3

0.2
Figure 6. Leps’ charts (1970)
0.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
emax
Nevertheless, typical requirements from mining
projects involve the use of large amount of soils
with oversize and waste rock materials, which
Figure 5. Influence of D50 in emax – Materials sometimes are found with low relative density and
with CU ranging from 1.8 to 29 low particle strength. Several large triaxial tests
have been carried out since 2007 to date (Bard et
In this graph it is possible to classify three
al., 2007, Palma 2009 and Dorador 2010) using
ranges of D50 (0.5 to 2 mm, 2 to 7 mm and higher
the large triaxial device at Idiem Institute in Chile
of 7 mm). Thus, for a constant value of emin, the
(Verdugo 2007).
emax is less for higher values of D50.
According to Figure 7, these large triaxial series
The probably explanation of this result can be
didn’t undergo the steep fall in strength such as the
the following. When the minimum density test is
materials analyzed by Leps. The reason why is
conducted, the larger particles that are being
because these entire tests had a contractive
poured into the mold seem to compress the
behavior due to low relative density or low particle
smaller particles, which are on top of the particle’s
strength (E.R material) and the peak strength was
pile. This produces a local compaction and
never obtained.
therefore a higher minimum density.

55
E.R - RD=80% Dorador (2010)
Average rockfill
4. Leps chart Update Leps (1970) R.L RD=60% Dorador (2010)

50
Bard (2007) leached Waste
One alternative way for obtaining the shear
Leps (1970) Cachuma 3" Quartz
strength on coarse soils or rockfill is using the Leps
Secant friction angle (°)

45
Chart (1970) which allows obtaining the secant Palma M-1 (2009)

friction angle based on the confining pressure and

strength of the material. Leps made a collection 40
from the literature of 100 large triaxial tests in
rockfill materials, and he defined three bands that
35
fix the soil strength (Low, average and high
strength, Figure 6).
Most of these tests were conducted by Marsal 30
(1965 and 1967) using the first large triaxial device 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normal pressure sn [kg/cm2]
in the world, which was used in studying the rockfill
materials of Infiernillo Dam. After Leps, this chart
Figure 7. Contractive behavior of Rockfills
 Fifth International Young Geotechnical Engineering Conference - 5iYGEC’13.
Thus, it is very important to knowing the state of
the coarse soil in the field. For example, the Leps
chart could be used for estimating the shear
strength of rockfills dams, where the construction
material is typically well compacted.
However, the Leps chart is not recommended
to be used in waste rock dumps, Dump leached
material or coarse soils from mining which are
placed in the field by dumping. This is because
these materials are going to behave contractively,
not reaching peak strength (due to low in situ
density of the material) and so, not having the
steep fall in strength proposed by the chart.
4. Conclusions
This article intends to show some considerations
that should be included when conducting a
geotechnical characterization on soils with oversize
(coarse granular soils).
The minimum and maximum void index on
coarse soils was studied and the correlation
between emin and CU was discussed. Here, it is
proposed to improving this correlation on soils with
CU higher than 100 and so, to corroborate if the
soil density increases after high values of CU.
The influence of D50 in the emax was studied. It
was found that higher D50 implies lesser emax (or
higher minimum density), maybe associated to that
larger particles tend to produce a better
arrangement with smaller particles when the
material is poured into the mold.
Finally, the Leps chart for rockfill strength was
discussed. Based on new large triaxial device from
IDIEM Institute, several soils with oversize were
tested and they didn’t reach the peak secant
friction angle and therefore, they didn’t follow the
steep fall in strength proposed by Leps. These new
tests were conducted with low confection density
or low particle strength, which resulted in a
contractive behavior on the tests and therefore its
didn’t reach the peak strength. Thus, Leps chart
should overestimate the strength for low density
materials or coarse soils with low particle strength.
5. References
Al-Hussaini, m. (1983). Effect of particle size and
strain conditions on the strength of crushed
basalt. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4):
706-717.
Bard, E., Campaña, J.,Aanabalón, M., Apablaza,
R. (2007). Comportamiento de lastre rom
sometido a altas presiones. Libro de
resúmenes, VI Congreso Chileno de Geotecnia,
Valparaíso Chile.
Biarez, J. and Hicher, P-Y (1994), Elementary
Mechnics of Soil Behaviour. Saturated
Remoulded Soils. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
View publication stats
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2002). Maximum
and minimum void ratio characteristics of
sands. Soils and Foundations, 42 (6): 65-78.
De la Hoz, K. (2007). Estimación de los
parámetros de resistencia al corte en suelos
granulares gruesos, Tesis de Ingeniero Civil y
Magister. FCFM. Universidad de Chile.
Santiago, Chile.
Dorador, L. (2010). Análisis experimental de las
metodologías de curvas homotéticas y corte en
la evaluación de propiedades geotécnicas de
suelos gruesos. Tesis de Ingeniero Civil y
Magister. FCFM Universidad de Chile,
Santiago, Chile.
Gesche, R. (2002). Metodología de evaluación de
parámetros de resistencia al corte de suelos
granulares gruesos. Tesis de Ingeniero Civil,
FCFM. Universidad de Chile. Santiago, Chile.
Kezdi, A. (1979). Soil physics. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Leps, T. (1970). Review of Shearing strength of
rockfill. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 96(4): 1159-1170.
Marsal R.J, et al. (1965). Research on the
Behavior of the Granular Material and Rockfill
Samples. Comision Federal de Electricidad,
Mexico.
Marsal R.J (1967). Large Scale Testing of Rockfill
Materials, ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, Vol, 93, No SM2.
USA.
Palma C. (2009). Caracterización geotécnica de
materiales de lastre en botaderos de gran
altura mediante ensayos triaxiales y
odométricos de gran tamaño. III Conferencia
Sudamericana de Ingenieros Geotécnicos,
Córdoba, Argentina.
Verdugo, R., Peters G. and Bejarano I. (2007).
Evaluación de parámetros geomecánicos de
suelos gruesos. VI Congreso Chileno de
Geotecnia, Valparaíso, Chile.