Monotonic Behavior of Mississippi River

Valley Silt in Triaxial Compression

Shuying Wang1 and Ronaldo Luna, P.E., F.ASCE2

Abstract: The static behavior of Mississippi River Valley silt was characterized using triaxial compression testing. Silt specimens, especially
overconsolidated ones, showed dilation behavior. There was no unique critical state among specimens with different overconsolidation ratios
(OCRs). With OCRs of 1, 2, and 8, the specimens exhibited normal behavior and dilated more as effective consolidation pressure dropped.
However, for an OCR of 4, the specimens showed opposite behavior and dilated more as effective consolidation pressure rose. The friction
angle of the silt was computed on the basis of several failure criteria, and the limiting strain was found to be the best one owing to better
consistency and rational results of the friction angle. The silt showed a unique behavior compared with sand and clay: The critical state line
was not parallel to the normal consolidation curve in the e-lnp0 space; the stress-strain behavior can be normalized by effective consolidation
pressure. The normalized shear strength of overconsolidated specimens was correlated to that of a normally consolidated specimen using
Ladd et al.’s equation with an m value of 0.58 for low-plasticity silts. However, the normalized shear strength of overconsolidated silts cannot
be related to OCR directly. It was indicated that at least the normalized shear strength of a normally consolidated specimen needs to be tested
for low-plasticity silts to obtain the normalized shear strength of overconsolidated specimen using Ladd et al.’s equation. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000603. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Plasticity; Silts; Slurries; Soil consolidation; Soil compression; Mississippi River.
Author keywords: Low plasticity; Silt; Slurry deposition; Consolidated undrained; Triaxial; Overconsolidation ratio; Unique monotonic
behavior.

Introduction characteristics of silts and clays on one hand and sands on the other
hand could lead to overconservative designs of offshore structures.
Low-plasticity silt is widespread throughout the world. It occupies This paper presents an investigation of the static behavior of
the uppermost stratigraphic position over extensive areas of the Mississippi River Valley (MRV) silt using triaxial compression test-
central United States, other parts of the United States, and vast ing. In particular, the unique behavior of this silt is compared with
areas in central China (Wang et al. 2010). For example, deposits the classical behaviors of sand and clay. A reasonable failure
of loess, a typical low-plasticity silt, vary in thickness from 1 criterion is recommended to calculate the friction angle (ϕ0 ) of
to 35 m. The thickest deposits occur adjacent to the Missouri and low-plasticity silt. Finally, the effect of the overconsolidation ratio
Mississippi Rivers to the leeward side of the prevailing westerly (OCR) and effective consolidation pressure (σ0c ) on the stress-strain
winds (Puri 1984). behavior is evaluated.
Compared with sand and clay, low-plasticity silt is difficult to
characterize. For example, the difficulty to retrieve undisturbed
samples has been experienced by many, and in situ testing is chal-
Research Background
lenging because of its dilative tendencies during shearing. There- Although the study of static behaviors of low-plasticity silt began
fore, the work to investigate silt’s static behavior in the laboratory approximately 60 years ago, work in this field is still limited, be-
has been limited. Silts are usually thought to behave similar to clay cause the behavior of silt is much more complex than that of sand
or sand. However, a study by Fleming and Duncan (1990) pointed and clay. The published work on static behavior of low-plasticity
out that empirical correlations for strength and compressibility used silt is subsequently summarized.
for clays may be in error if applied to silt. The same study also Early in 1953, Penman (1953) studied the static behavior of
noted that failure to recognize the difference between the shear Braehead silt under normally consolidated tests, both drained
and undrained. The silt specimens showed dilative behavior. Such
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil, Arch and Env, Engineering, Mis- dilative behavior was also found in Alaska silts (Wang et al. 1982;
souri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409. E-mail: Fleming and Duncan 1990) and Bonnie silt (Arulmoli et al. 1992),
[email protected] among others. Wang et al. (1982) found in Alaska silts no unique
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Arch and Env, Engineering, Missouri Univ. undrained shear strength with various effective consolidation pres-
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409 (corresponding author). sures. They determined that the ratio of undrained shear strength to
E-mail: [email protected] effective consolidation pressure was greater than that for clay with
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 7, 2010; approved on
an identical OCR. Fleming and Duncan (1990) investigated the
July 21, 2011; published online on July 25, 2011. Discussion period open
until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for indi- characteristics of undisturbed and reconstituted Alaskan silt spec-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and imens using a slurry deposition approach. In unconsolidated un-
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 4, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE, drained (UU) tests, the reconstituted specimens reduced the
ISSN 1090-0241/2012/4-516–525/$25.00. undrained shear strength of undisturbed specimens by as much

516 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
as 42%. On the other hand, consolidated undrained (CU) tests in- technique. The overconsolidated silt is widespread in the shallow
dicated that the undrained strength of reconstituted specimens was ground, because of the fluctuation of the ground water and desic-
more than that of undisturbed specimens. Fleming and Duncan cation. This study investigated the static behavior of Mississippi silt
(1990) concluded that the silt was more likely to be seriously af- by conducting CU tests with various OCRs and effective consoli-
fected by disturbance. In general, the undrained strength of Alaskan dation pressures.
silts could be normalized by effective consolidation pressure. As
OCR increases, the normalized value of shear strength increases.
Yasuhara et al. (2003) observed the same normalized behavior Testing Program
in the Keuper Marl silt, which has a plasticity index (PI) of 19.7.
Hoeg et al. (2000) investigated the effect of specimen prepara- Material Description
tion methods on the static behavior of silt in Borlange, Sweden with
a PI of 5. Using triaxial compression tests, they compared the The material tested was taken from Collinsville, Illinois, which is
strength of undisturbed specimens with that of reconstituted silt located in the MRV approximately 13 mi away from the Mississippi
specimens at normally consolidated conditions. Most specimens River. Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the index
were prepared by moist tamping, but one was created using the properties. Grain size distribution was obtained using sieve and
slurry deposition approach. The undisturbed specimens showed hydrometer analysis [ASTM D 422 (2007)], and the clay content
dilative and ductile behavior, whereas almost all the reconstituted was determined to be 14.5% (Fig. 1). It is difficult to measure the
specimens showed contraction, brittle behavior. liquid limit of low-plasticity silt using the Casagrande approach
Brandon et al. (2006) studied the drained and undrained strength because the silt paste cracks easily when cut with a grooving tool.
of two silts, undisturbed gray silt (called Yazoo silt, no plastic) To confirm the validity of the liquid limit obtained from the
and disturbed tan silt (called LMVD silt, PI ¼ 4) from Lower Mis- Casagrande method [ASTM D 4318 (2010)], therefore, the Fall
sissippi Valley Division (LMVD). In undrained tests, both consoli- cone method (BS 1377-2) was also used. The Casagrande and Fall
dated and unconsolidated, all specimens showed dilative behavior. cone methods indicated liquid limits of 28 and 30, respectively.
That study demonstrated that the UU tests did not provide useful Koester (1992), Sridharan and Prakash (2000), and Prakash and
information on the undrained strengths of the Yazoo silts. The au- Sridharan (2006) also found the Casagrande liquid limits slightly
thors suggested that the failure criterion that best determined the less than those obtained from the Fall cone method. The liquid limit
ratio of undrained shear strength to effective consolidation stress was determined to be 28 to provide a probably valuable comparison
was a constant Skempton pore pressure parameter A equal to zero. with other silts, whose index properties were determined using the
Izadi (2006) investigated static behavior of Collinsville silt from Casagrande approach, a popular one in teh United States.
the same region where the silt tested in this study was collected. The minimum and maximum void ratios were determined using
Using a slurry deposition approach, Izadi (2006) reconstituted the modified compaction method [ASTM D 1557 (2009)] and by
specimens in a large consolidometer. The soil showed fairly high allowing silt slurry to settle in a graduated cylinder, following the
dilation behavior, even normally consolidated. Without high methods previously described by Polito and Martin (2001) and
enough B values after saturation, cavitations easily developed Bradshaw and Baxter (2007). A consolidation test was carried
owing to negative excess pore water pressure, and specimens be- out using isotropic confining pressure in a Humboldt triaxial setup
came unsaturated under large strain. Thus, the stress-strain behav- to measure compression and recompression indices. The index
ior could not be determined well. properties and compressibility are shown in Table 1.
Boulanger and Idriss (2006) reviewed the behavior of three The particle shape and surface roughness of the MRV silt were
blended silt mixtures with normal consolidation, which was origi- investigated using a scanning electron microscope (Fig. 2). The
nally presented by Romero (1995). The specimen with a PI of 10.5 shapes of the silt particles ranged from subangular to angular
and even to very angular. The surface of the silt particles was rough.
showed a plastic stress-strain response similar to that of normally
These features tend to contribute to a dilative behavior of this
consolidated clay. Its normal consolidation and critical state lines
material, which is further discussed in the results analysis section
(CSLs) were almost parallel, and it exhibited no quasi–steady-state
in this paper.
behavior. Yasuhara et al. (2003) observed such plastic stress-strain
behavior in the Keuper Marl silt. Boulanger and Idriss (2006), on
Specimen Preparation
the other hand, noted that throughout the test, the silt specimen
without plasticity exhibited strain-hardening similar to that seen Slurry deposition is a common approach to reconstitute silt
in loose sands, and the specimen’s normal consolidation and CSLs or silty sand specimens in the laboratory (Ishihara et al. 1978;
were not parallel. However, the silt with a PI of 4 exhibited behav-
ior more similar to that of claylike silt, but with a tendency toward
some strain-hardening and phase-transformation behavior. Its nor-
mal consolidation and CSLs were approximately parallel, but it had
a quasi–steady-state line. Boulanger and Idriss (2006), therefore,
concluded that fine-grained soils with a PI of 7 or greater can con-
fidently be expected to exhibit claylike behavior, and fine-grained
soils with PI values ranging from 3 to 6 exhibit intermediate behav-
ior. Nocilla et al. (2006) observed such transitional behavior in an
Italian silt. For this Italian silt with clay content of 8% (PI ≈ 13) or
3.5% (PI ≈ 11), no unique normal consolidation and CSLs were
found because specimens prepared from slurries at different water
contents generated different fabric.
Low-plasticity silt can show strain-hardening behavior, strain-
softening behavior, and even plastic stress-strain behavior,
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of Mississippi River Valley silt
which depend primarily on the PI, OCR, and specimen preparation

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 517

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 32
Table 1. Index Properties of Mississippi River Valley Silt
31 ∆ω = 1.4%
Index property Value σv = 34.5 kPa

Water content [ω (%)]

30 ∆ω = 3.5%
Clay content (< 2 um) 14.5% σv = 34.5 kPa
29
Liquid limit 28
28
Plastic limit 22
∆ω = 2.2%
Plasticity index 6 27
σv = 68.9 kPa
Specific gravity 2.71 26
Maximum void ratio 1.60 25 ∆ω = 1.2%
σv = 45.0 kPa
Minimum void ratio 0.44 24
Compression index (λ) 0.0393 0 50 100 150 200
Distance from top of specimen (mm)
Recompression index (κ) 0.0037
Consolidometer (Izadi 2008)
Top dead weights (Izadi 2008)
Top dead weights and bottom vacuum (Izadi 2008)
Top and bottom vacuum (Wang 2010)
Kuerbis and Vaid 1988; Hyde et al. 2006; Carraro and Prezzi 2007;
Izadi 2006, 2008). Izadi (2006, 2008) prepared silt specimens in a Fig. 3. Effect of preparation techniques on uniformity of specimens
large-scale consolidometer and a split mold. He compared the two
silt specimen preparation approaches and found that the most
uniform silt specimen was the one prepared in the split mold with vacuum provided from the bottom valve following dead weights
(Fig. 3). In this paper, therefore, the silt specimens were prepared
in a split mold, which was placed around the triaxial base. The
water content of the silt slurry was 44%. However, identical vac-
uums of 45 kPa were provided from the top and bottom valves si-
multaneously to consolidate the slurry [Fig. 4(a)] after the specimen
finished consolidation under the dead weights, which applied a ver-
tical stress of 32.3 kPa. With this improvement, the silt specimen
had a maximum difference in water content of 1.2% in the vertical
direction (Fig. 3). The finished specimen was approximately
71 mm in diameter and 142 mm high. The use of a vacuum also
promoted saturation by the removal of air bubbles.
To expedite the testing process, a special experimental setup
only for preparing specimen was developed. When saturation, con-
solidation, or shearing was conducted on one specimen in the tri-
axial platen, another specimen could be prepared in the special
setup simultaneously. Use of this setup, however, required that
the specimen be moved from the preparation location to the triaxial
platen. The key point for this process was that the specimen should
be translated with little disturbance. A step-by-step procedure was
developed to translate a specimen from the special setup to the tri-
axial platen with little disturbance successfully. Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)
show the specimen translation using a split miter mold from the
vacuum station to the triaxial base platen for testing. With this tech-
nique, the time of the whole testing program was decreased by
approximately 50%.

Triaxial Shear Testing

Static triaxial compression tests were carried out in a Humboldt
triaxial system with various OCRs and effective consolidation pres-
sures (Table 2). The specimens were saturated using back pressure
until a B value of 0.98 was reached. To avoid the development of
cavitation caused by negative excess pore water pressure during
shearing of overconsolidated specimens, back pressure greater than
that producing a B value of 0.98 was supplied. After saturation, the
specimens were consolidated at OCRs of 1, 2, 4, and 8 and effective
consolidation pressures (σ0c ) of 50, 90, and 129 kPa. Overconsoli-
dation was achieved by consolidating the specimens to a precon-
solidation pressure (σ0p ¼ σ0c × OCR) and then unloading to the
desired σ0c . Owing to the limited capacity of the testing equipment,
only a normally consolidated test was conducted on the specimen
Fig. 2. Particle investigation for Mississippi River Valley silt
with a σ0c of 129 kPa.

518 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 of approximately 25%. In slightly overconsolidated specimens
MS4 and MS5 (OCR ¼ 2), there were no big increases in the de-
viator stress after the axial strain was larger than 20%. The deviator
stresses (Δσ) and excess pore water pressures (ue ) of normally con-
solidated specimens at the critical state were estimated by interpret-
ing with the entire set of test results (Table 2). Fig. 5(a) shows that
all overconsolidated specimens with an OCR of 2 or larger showed
continuous dilation behaviors (strain-hardening), but the normally
consolidated specimens had a slight strain-softening stage after the
initial peak deviator stress. After the slight strain-softening stage,
the more deviator stress built up, and the normally consolidated
specimens showed strain-hardening behavior. Under greater OCRs,
the dilation behavior became more obvious for specimens with
identical effective consolidation pressures, which was also indi-
cated by the Af value in Table 2. As expected, the OCR increased,
and the Af value decreased.
No unique critical state was observed among the different tested
silt specimens. Classic sand specimens with different void ratios
reach the unique critical state through different stress-strain paths
under identical effective consolidation pressure, as do clay speci-
mens with different OCRs. Hence, the silt tested showed stress-
strain behavior different from that of either sand or clay. This
behavior was also demonstrated by the curves of excess pore water
pressure against axial strain [Fig. 5(b)]. No unique excess pore
water pressure state existed.

Friction Angle
The effective friction angle (ϕ0 ) can be obtained on the basis of
various failure criteria. Brandon et al. (2006) summarized six pos-
sible failure criteria for this purpose: maximum deviator stress
[ðσ1
σ3 Þmax ]; maximum principal stress ratio [ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax ];
maximum excess pore water pressure (ue;max ); reaching the K f line;
limiting strain; or excess pore water pressure of 0 (ue ¼ 0). The
friction angle of the low-plasticity MRV silt tested was calculated
using all of these failure criteria (Fig. 6). Because the silt just
showed a little dilation behavior under normal consolidation, the
excess pore water pressure did not reach zero. Thus, the Mohr’s
circles in Fig. 6(e) are on the basis of overconsolidated specimens
only. The failure criteria of ðσ1
σ2 Þmax , ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax , and 15%
limiting strain yielded relatively constant friction angles for the
MRV silt. Conversely, the friction angles with criteria of ue;max ,
ue ¼ 0, and reaching K f line are widely scattered. Two criteria
in particular, ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax and 15% limiting strain, both yielded fric-
tion angles of approximately 35°. However, the friction angle was
approximately 32° on the basis of the criterion of ðσ1
σ2 Þmax ,
which was obtained at the point of large strain, under which an
earth structure would fail. Thus, ðσ1
σ2 Þmax is not appropriate
criterion for calculation of the friction angle of the MRV silt. Bran-
don et al. (2006) did similar research work for the normally con-
solidated Yazoo silt (non plastic) and LMZD silt (PI ¼ 4) and
presented that all of the previously mentioned failure criteria except
the ue;max can result in the friction angle within a narrow range for
the two silts.
Fig. 4. Experimental setup used for reconstituting silt specimens Friction angles of the MRV silt were obtained from both nor-
mally consolidated and overconsolidated specimens. There were
two or three Mohr’s circles for each OCR in Fig. 6. Holtz et al.
Results Analysis (2010) refer to a difference in the friction angle among the clays
with different OCRs owing to the stress history. However, the
Stress-Strain Behavior low-plasticity silt would tend to behave more as a granular material
with less ability to retain stress history (memory). Fig. 6 shows that
Fig. 5 shows the deviator stress and excess pore water pressure re- all Mohr's circles can be best-fitted using one straight line in the
sponse of the MRV silt specimens. Although the shearing of spec- τ
σ0 space on the basis of the failure criteria ðσ1
σ3 Þmax ,
imens with an OCR of 1 was stopped at 20% axial strain, the ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax , and limiting strain 15%. Therefore, the OCR did
specimens could be expected to reach critical state at the axial strain not influence the friction angle as would be expected for a clay

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 519

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. Static Shearing Tests on Mississippi River Valley Silt
Test σBP at B ¼ 0:95 σBP at end of B at end of u at critical Δσ at critical
identification (kPa) saturation (kPa) saturation σ0p (kPa) σ0c (kPa) OCR e state (kPa) state (kPa) Af
MS1 241.3 289.6 0.985 — 50.0 1 0.700 300.6 85.0 0.13
MS2 217.2 241.3 0.980 — 90.0 1 0.679 269.2 144.0 0.19
MS3 217.2 241.3 0.981 — 129.0 1 0.652 299.4 154.8 0.38
MS4 241.3 337.8 0.994 102.4 51.2 2 0.665 337.3 113.7 0.00
MS5 193.1 265.4 0.991 180.0 90.0 2 0.653 263.6 198.9
0:01
MS6 241.3 337.8 0.997 200.0 50.0 4 0.647 306.3 191.0
0:16
MS7 265.6 362.0 0.991 364.8 91.2 4 0.612 287.2 370.3
0:20
MS8 265.4 360.6 0.980 400.0 50.0 8 0.648 284.6 296.5
0:26
MS9 248.2 386.1 1.000 720.0 90.0 8 0.591 255.6 513
0:25
Note: σBP = back pressure; e = void ratio of specimen after it was rebounded to effective consolidation pressure (σ0c ); Af = ratio of excess pore water pressure to
deviator stress at the critical state; OCR = overconsolidation ratio; Δσ = deviator stresses.

in the OC and NC regions. This result was also found by Izadi of ue;max because full strength in terms of effective stress had
(2006) for the Collinsville silt sampled from the same region as not been mobilized. Although Brandon et al. (2006) concluded that
the MRV silt. Izadi (2006) presented that there was no noticeable any of the failure criteria except the umax could be used to evaluate
effect of the OCR on the magnitude of the friction angle. the friction angle of low-plastic, dilative silts, the criteria of ue ¼ 0
To analyze the influence of the failure criterion on the calculated and reaching K f line were also not available for the MRV silt tested,
friction angle of low-plasticity silt, this work was combined with because the silt did not dilate enough to induce negative excess pore
the results reported by Brandon et al. (2006) and Izadi (2006). Fig. 7 water pressure, and large ranges of stress paths touched the K f line
shows that the failure criteria of ðσ01 =σ03 Þmax , 15% limiting strain, in the stress space, respectively. The criteria of 15% limiting strain
and reaching K f lines yielded a greater friction angle than other and ðσ0 1 =σ03 Þmax always gave a consistent estimation of friction an-
criteria. The friction angle is least on the basis of the criterion gle. For the MRV silt tested, the maximum σ01 =σ03 appeared at ap-
proximately 10% axial strain. However, the axial strain at the
maximum σ01 =σ03 is probably larger than 15% for other low-
plasticity silt. Thus, it was recommended that a 15% limiting strain
be the best criterion to calculate the effective friction angle of low-
plasticity silt.

Critical State
The stress paths of all static tests were plotted in the Cambridge
∆σ

stress space [Fig. 8(a), p0 ¼ ðσ01 þ 2σ03 Þ=3; q ¼ σ1
σ3 ]. All stress

paths rose along one line (the CSL) after the phase-transformation
points were reached. The phase-transformation point was desig-
nated as the state at which the reversal from contractive to dilative
behavior occurred (Ishihara et al. 1975). A failure CSL was plotted
with M of approximately 1.4 in the stress space. Therefore, the fric-
tion angle was computed to be 34.6° using sin ϕ0 ¼ 3M=ð6 þ MÞ,
ε which is comparable with the other failure criteria stated previously.
(a) Deviator stress To study the stress paths more closely, Fig. 8(b) was enlarged to
focus on the early stage of stress paths. The OCRs were marked for
each stress path from 1 to 8. In general, the stress path indicated that
the silt specimens became more dilative as the OCR increased. Fur-
ther investigation identified the following phenomenon: Specimens
with an OCR of 1 or 2 showed initial contraction followed by con-
tinuous dilation behavior; with an OCR of 4, the specimen at an
effective consolidation pressure of 50 kPa showed behavior similar
to that of specimens with an OCR of 1 or 2. But at an effective
consolidation pressure of 90 kPa, the specimen with an OCR of
4 showed continuous dilation, as did the specimens under an
OCR of 8. Thus, the specimen greater higher effective consolida-
tion pressure dilated more when the OCR was equal to 4. The result
was opposite to the classical behavior of soil. Normally, with in-
creasing effective consolidation pressure, soil specimens tend to
contract. Yamamuro and Lade (1998) also observed this opposite
behavior in silty sand. They noted that the specimen with an effec-
tive consolidation pressure of 25 kPa showed static liquefaction. As
(b) Excess pore water pressure the pressure increased, the silty sand became more stable (i.e., more
dilated). Thus, the low-plasticity silt tested showed a behavior dif-
Fig. 5. Static testing results of Mississippi River Valley silt ferent from that observed in typical sands and clays.

520 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 6. Friction angleon the basis of various failure criteria

This paper also presents an investigation of the critical state in behavior compared with the state at the beginning of shearing. Even
the e-lnp0 space. One CSL was obtained for the tested silt in Fig. 9. the normally consolidated and slightly overconsolidated specimens
Because void ratio (e) remains constant during undrained shearing, produced a decrease in pore pressure (dilative response) at the end
the stress path in the e-lnp0 space can only move horizontally to- of shearing after the expected contraction in the initial shearing
ward the CSL depending on the pore pressure response. Fig. 9 [Fig. 5(b)]. This behavior was in agreement with the findings in
shows that all data points moved, starting at the initial state point the stress space, because all stress paths rose along the CSL in
through the phase transformation and ending at the critical state the stress space after the phase-transformation stage. The CSL
was not parallel to the normal consolidation line. As noted by Bou-
point owing to the negative pore pressure induced by the tendency
langer and Idriss (2006), if the normal consolidation line and CSLs
to dilate. All specimens near the end of shearing showed dilative
are not parallel, the silt behaves similar to a sand. Thus, the silt
tested had sand like behavior. However, the work of Boulanger
and Idriss (2006) does not address the effect of OCR on silt behav-
ior. The OCR played a significant role in the normalized behavior
of the tested silt, as it did in that of clay, so that the silt did not
behave exactly as a sand does.
From the initial state to the critical state, the general dilation
behavior was found in the critical state diagram. However, as men-
tioned previously, specimens with an OCR of 1 or 2 initially con-
tracted and then dilated. To identify the initial dilation or
contraction in the e-lnp0 space, a phase-transformation line was also
plotted in Fig. 9. Only data points of MS7, MS8, and MS9 are lo-
cated left of the phase-transformation line. Owing to the magnitude
of negative excess pore water pressure compared with other
specimens, the highly overconsolidated specimens MS7, MS8,
and MS9 tend to dilate from their initial state to the phase-
transformation state.

Normalized Behavior
Fig. 7. Variation in friction angles on the basis of various failure cri-
The deviator stress of some clays can be normalized by effective
teria
consolidation pressure (Ladd and Foott 1974; Ladd et al. 1997).

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 521

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fleming and Duncan (1990) demonstrated that the undrained
strength of low-plasticity Alaskan silts can also be normalized with
relatively small variations. The small variations in the normalized
values for identical OCRs were believed to result from sample
preparation and reconsolidation effects.
Fig. 10 shows the normalized behavior plots with respect
to effective consolidation stress for the MRV silt tested. With a
greater OCR, the normalized deviator stress was greater, and
more negative normalized excess pore pressure was generated
[Figs. 10(a) and 10(b)]. In the normalized stress space
[Fig. 10(c)] generally a greater OCR resulted in a more dilative
response, except for the specimen MS1 with a σ0c of 50 kPa and
an OCR of 1. Therefore, the OCR played a significant role in
the normalized stress-strain behavior. Furthermore, under the same
OCR, normalized behaviors were different for different effective
consolidation pressures (σ0c ). When the OCR was equal to 1 or

Fig. 8. Stress path in Cambridge space: (a) full range of data; (b) ex-
panded inset from Fig. 8(a).

Fig. 9. Critical state diagram obtained from Consolidated undrained

tests (NCP = normal consolidation point; ISP = initial state point;
CSP = critical state point; PTP = phase transformation point) Fig. 10. Normalized behaviors of Mississippi River Valley silts

522 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 3. Su =σ0c of Silts with Various Overconsolidation Ratios
Overconsolidation ratio
Silt Plasticity index 1 2 4 8 10
Alaskan (Fleming and Duncan 1990) Near A-line in plasticity chart 0.925 1.775 — 2.925
Keuper Marl (Yasuhara et al. 2003) 19.7 0.34 0.565 0.85 — 1.7
Collinsville (Izadi 2006) 6 1.325 2.625 3.2 — —
Mississippi River Valley 6 0.566 0.820 1.332 1.951 —

8, the normalized deviator stress decreased with increasing effec- For the silt materials compared previously, it was impossible to
tive consolidation pressure. On the other hand, when the OCR was relate Su =σ0c to OCR using a single expression such as Eq. (2). Ladd
4, the normalized deviator stress increased with increasing effective et al. (1997) also used the ratio of normalized shear strength of OC
consolidation pressure. Specimens with an OCR of 2 had inter- to that of NC specimens, as shown in Eq. (1). Fig. 11(b) shows that
mediate behaviors, as indicated by closely matching curves of nor- there was no big difference in the normalized shear-strength ratio
malized deviator stress and excess pore water pressure against axial ðSu =σ0c ÞOC =ðSu =σ0c ÞNC among different silts. Thus, there is no big
strain. effect of PI on the normalized shear-strength ratio for low-plasticity
The stress-strain behavior appears not to be normalized by ef- silt.
fective consolidation pressure. However, the variations of normal- The data points in Fig. 11(b) can be fitted using Eq. (1) with an
ized stress-strain behavior induced by the effective consolidation m value of 0.58, except the data point with the OCR of 10. Ladd
pressure were much lower than those by the OCR. These small var- et al. (1997) tested clays and found the m value to be 0.8 and re-
iations were caused in part by inevitable variations in procedures quired a larger m value for greater OCRs. As is possible with clayey
from one test to another. Thus, the MRV silt tested can be said to
soil, the equation permits convenient prediction of the undrained
have normalized behavior. Similarly, the excess pore water pressure
shear strength of overconsolidated silty soil using the known shear
could also be normalized by effective consolidation pressure.
strength of normally consolidated specimens. Fig. 11(b) also shows
On the basis of many tests of six clays, Ladd et al. (1997) de-
veloped the following equation to consider effect of OCR on the the curve used to demonstrate the effect of OCR on the normalized
normalized shear strength of clay:

ðSu =σ0c ÞOC

¼ OCRm ð1Þ
ðSu =σ0c ÞNC

in which Su = undrained shear strength and σ0c = effective consoli-

dation pressure. In the equation, the m value is normally equal to
0.80, but this value varies from 0.75 to 0.85 on the basis of the
OCR. A greater OCR is probably associated with a greater value
of m.
Furthermore, Ladd (1991) presented the following equation to
calculate the Su =σ0c :

Su
¼ S × OCRm ð2Þ
σ0c

in which S = 0.22 and 0.25, respectively, for clay and silt; and m =
0.80 for both clay and silt.
This paper presents a study of the effect of OCR on the normal-
ized shear strength of low-plasticity silt under isotropic consolida-
tion by combining the test results reported by Fleming and Duncan
(1990), Yasuhara et al. (2003), and Izadi (2006). These compari-
sons are shown in Table 3. The undrained shear strength was de-
termined as one-half of the deviator stress at an axial strain of 15%,
as done by Fleming and Duncan (1990). Fleming and Duncan
(1990) presented a range of Su =σ0c for the Alaskan silt, and the
middle value was used for comparison herein. The Keuper Marl
silt studied by Yasuhara et al. (2003) had a PI of 19.7 and a liquid
limit of 38.6, which classifies as a lean clay (CL) using the Unified
Soil Classification System. However, the silt fraction was nearly
70% on the basis of a grain size distribution curve and was con-
sidered as a low-plasticity silt (Yasuhara et al. 2003). Izadi (2006)
reported normalized deviator stress curves of Collinsville silt,
which were used to determine the undrained shear strength. The
same data shown in Table 3 are shown in Fig. 11(a), which clearly
shows that the Su =σ0c increases as the OCR increases for all silts
Fig. 11. Effect of overconsolidation ratio on normalized shear strength
compared.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 523

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 As the OCR increased, the shear strength normalized by effective
consolidation pressure increased. The m value of 0.58 was used to
estimate the overconsolidated shear strength for low-plasticity silt
using Eq. (1) when the normally consolidated shear strength was
known. Although this value should be verified with more testing
data, it provides a means to relate the shear strength of low-
plasticity silt to its OCR. However, Eq. (2) cannot be used to relate
the Su =σ0c to OCR, because there are large differences in the of
Su =σ0c vs OCR among different silts, which makes them unique
materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank their colleagues Dr. Richard W.

Stephenson and Dr. Louis Ge at the Missouri University of Science
and Technology. They provided comments and recommendations
throughout this research, especially during the testing program and
critical state analysis. Additionally, the instrumental and skilled la-
boratory technicians Gary Abbott and Brian Swift made this experi-
Fig. 12. σ01 =σ03 vs ε1 of Mississippi River Valley silt mental research run smoothly.

shear-strength ratio of clay. The curve for the clay is above the References
curve for the silt, indicating that the OCR affects the normalized
shear-strength ratio of the silt less than it does that of the clay. Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S.
The m value is probably related to the plasticity of the silt. This (1992). “Verification of liquefaction analysis by centrifuge studies
hypothesis is supported by the fact that low-plasticity silts behave laboratory testing program.” Soil data report, Earth Technology
similar to an intermediate soil. The m value for the silts was deter- Corporation, Irvine, CA.
mined on the basis of limited data available for four kinds of low- ASTM. (2007). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction charac-
teristics of soil using modified effort. D422-63, West Conshohocken,
plasticity silt. Additional research data could add to verify the val-
PA.
idity of m ¼ 0:58 for low-plasticity silt. ASTM. (2009). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.
Fig. 12 shows the curve of the principal stress ratio (σ01 =σ03 ) D1557, West Conshohocken, PA.
against axial strain. The maximum values of σ01 =σ03 are located ASTM. (2010). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
in a narrow zone of 3.45–3.77, which explains why the failure cri- plasticity index of soils. D4318, West Conshohocken, PA.
terion of ðσ01 =σ03 Þmax can yield a relatively constant friction angle. Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2006). “Liquefaction susceptibility
Thus, stress-strain behavior can be normalized using effective con- criteria for silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(11),
fining stress during the shearing. 1413–1426.
Bradshaw, A. S., and Baxter, C. D.P. (2007). “Sample preparation of silts
for liquefaction testing.” Geotech. Test. J., 30(4) 324–332.
Brandon, T. L., Rose, A. T., and Duncan, J. M. (2006). “Drained and
Conclusions undrained strength interpretation for low-plasticity silts.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132(2), 250–257.
The MRV silt tested had no unique critical state among specimens Carraro, J. A. H., and Prezzi, M. (2007). “A new slurry-based method of
with different OCRs. With an OCR of 1 or 2, the silt initially con- preparation of specimen of sand containing fines.” Geotech. Test. J.,
tracted and then dilated. With an OCR of 8, the silt dilated contin- 31(1), 1–11.
uously. All these specimens (OCR ¼ 1, 2, and 8) had a normal Fleming, L. N., and Duncan, J. M. (1990). “Stress-deformation character-
behavior (i.e., less dilation with greater effective consolidation istics of Alaskan silt.” J. Geotech. Eng., 116(3), 377–393.
pressure). For an OCR of 4, however, the specimens showed op- Hoeg, K., Dyvik, R., and Sandbækken, G. (2000). “Strength of undisturbed
posite behavior (i.e., greater dilation with greater effective consoli- versus reconstituted silt and silty sand specimens.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
dation pressure). viron. Eng., 126(7), 606–617.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D., and Sheahan, T. C. (2010). An introduc-
A CSL was obtained in the e-lnp0 space. The CSL was not par-
tion to geotechnical engineering, 2nd Ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper
allel to the normal consolidation curve. According to Boulanger Saddle River, NJ.
and Idriss (2006), the silt has a sand like behavior. However, in Hyde, A. F. L., Higuchi, T., and Yasuhara, K. (2006). “Liquefaction, cyclic
this paper, the OCR did play a significant role in the stress-strain mobility, and failure of silt.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(6),
behavior of the silt, as it does in that of clay. These findings indi- 716–725.
cated that the silt had a unique behavior, and thus its behavior was Ishihara, K., Sodekawa, M., and Tanaka, Y. (1978). “Effects of overcon-
more complex than previously thought. solidation on liquefaction characteristics of sands containing fines.” Dy-
The failure criteria of umax , u ¼ 0, and reaching K f line were not namic geotechnical testing, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 246–264.
available to calculate effective friction angle of the silt tested. This Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F., and Yasuda, S. (1975). “Undrained deformation
and liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses.” Soils Found., 15(1),
paper presents a suggestion that limiting strain is the criterion best
29–44.
used to calculate the effective friction angle, because of more Izadi, A. (2006). “Static behavior of silts.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Missouri-
consistency of friction angle and more rationality for the low- Rolla, Rolla, MO.
plasticity silt. Izadi, A. (2008). “Liquefaction and post-liquefaction behavior of low plas-
The stress-strain behavior of the MRV silt can be normalized by ticity silts using cyclic triaxial tests.” Ph.D. dissertation, Missouri Univ.
effective consolidation pressure and effective confining pressure. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.

524 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Koester, J. P. (1992). “The influence of test procedure on correlation of penetration method of determining soil plasticity.” Can. Geotech. J.,
atterberg limits with liquefaction in fine-grained soils.” Geotech. Test. 43(8), 884–888.
J., 15(4), 352–361. Puri, V. K. (1984). “Liquefaction behavior and dynamic properties of loessial
Kuerbis, R. H., and Vaid, Y. P. (1988). “Sand sample preparation: The (silty) soils.” Ph.D. disseratation, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.
slurry deposition method.” Soils Found., 28 (4), 107–118. Romero, S. (1995). “The behavior of silt as clay content is increased.”
Ladd, C. C. (1991). “Stability evaluation during staged construction.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of California-Davis, Davis, CA.
J. Geotech. Eng., 117(4), 540–615. Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. (2000). “Percussion and cone methods
Ladd, C. C., and Foott, R. (1974). “New design procedure for stability of of determining the liquid limit of soils: Controlling mechanisms.”
soft clays.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100(7), 763–786. Geotech. Test. J., 23(2), 242–250.
Ladd, C. C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. G. (1997). Yamamuro, J., and Lade, P. V. (1998). “Steady-state concepts and static
“Stress-deformation and strength characteristics.” Proc, 9th Int. Conf. liquefaction of silty sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124(9),
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Society of 868–877.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, 421–494. Yasuhara, K., Murakami, S., Song, B. W., Yokokawa, S., and Hyde, A. F. L.
Nocilla, A., Coop, M. R., and Colleselli, F. (2006). “The mechanics of an (2003). “Postcyclic degradation of strength and stiffness for low plas-
italian silt: An example of ‘Transitional’ behavior.” Geotechnique, ticity silt.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(8), 756–769.
56(4), 261–271. Wang, J. L., Vivatrat, V., and Rusher, J. R. (1982). “Geotechnical properties
Penman, A. D. M. (1953). “Shear characteristics of a saturated silt, mea- of Alaska OCS silt.” Proc., 4th Annual Offshore Technology
sured in triaxial compression.” Geotechnique, 3(8), 312–328. Conference, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 415–420.
Polito, C. P., and Martin, J. R. (2001). “Effects of nonplastic fines on the Wang, L., Sun, H., Yuan, Z., and Deng, J. (2010). “Criterions, prediction
liquefaction resistance of sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(5), and prevention of loess liquefaction.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Recent
408–415. Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
Prakash, K., and Sridharan, A. (2006). “Critical appraisal of the cone Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 525

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org