No abstract

Determining the shear strength of rockfill is a key task for the design and stability analysis of rockfill structures. When direct shear tests are performed, the well-established ASTM standard requires that specimen width and thickness must be at least 10 and 6 times the maximum particle size (dmax), respectively. When the value of dmax is very large, performing such tests in laboratory with field rockfill becomes difficult or impossible. Four scaling-down techniques were proposed in the past to obtain a modeled sample excluding oversize particles: scalping, parallel, replacement, and quadratic. It remains unclear which of the four scaling-down techniques yields reliable shear strength of field rockfill. In this paper, an extensive review is presented on existing experimental results to analyze the capacity of each scaling-down technique to determine the field rockfill shear strength. The analyses show that previous researches followed an inappropriate methodology to validate or invalidate a scaling-down technique through a direct comparison between the shear strengths of modeled and field samples. None of the four scaling-down techniques was shown to be able or unable to predict the field rockfill shear strength by extrapolation. The analyses further show that the minimum ratios of specimen size to dmax dictated by well-established standards are largely used but are too small to eliminate the specimen size effect. In most cases, this practice results in shear strength overestimation. The validity or invalidity of scaling-down techniques based on experimental results obtained by using the minimum ratios is uncertain. Recommendations are given for future studies.

No abstract

A digital image technique was developed and used to measure the deformation distribution over the entire surface of soil specimens in triaxial tests. The measured deformation process shows that the specimen apparently exhibits three states during the test, i.e., pre-failure, in-failure, and post-failure, in correspondence to the different features of its deformation. The deformation feature in each state is then analyzed by the displacement and strain contours. Additionally, the stress level, S, is calculated to determine whether the soil is in failure at a point (representative element volume (REV)) on the surface of the specimen. Next, the failure zone, namely the shear band, was considered to be enveloped by the curve defined by S = 1 on the stress-level contour map. The stress level is calculated based on the strain, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. According to analysis of the deformation feature and the failure process, we recognized the following properties: (i) the deformation of the specimen was approximately uniform in the pre-failure state; (ii) failure occurred from a point and developed gradually until the shear band cleaves the specimen; (iii) in the post-failure state, deformation was exclusively due to the blocks of the specimen sliding along the shear band; (iv) the deformation feature in the shear band was quite different from that outside the shear band. In conclusion, the stress-strain curve of the specimen revealed a structural response, not an elementary response, especially in the in-failure and post-failure states, in which the deformation features of different corner points were different, and the observed deformation for the entire specimen may be the combination of local deformations. Therefore, it is not appropriate to build the constitutive model for soil according to the stress-strain curves of the entire deformation process and to take the specimen as a uniform element in the entire process.