Dynamic behavior of soil and rock mixture using cyclic triaxial tests and X-ray computed tomography

  • Y. WangEmail author
  • X. M. Wei
  • C. H. Li
Original Paper


This paper aims at investigating the meso-scale mechanisms that result in damage evolution in soil and rock mixtures (SRM). Although the macroscopic cyclic stress–strain response of SRM has been well investigated, the mesoscopic damage cracking mechanisms are still not well understood. In this work, artificial SRM sample with a rock block percentage (RBP) of 30% (mass ratio) was investigated by carrying out cyclic triaxial compression tests with a constant stress amplitude and low strain level, under tomographic monitoring using a 450 kV industrial X-ray computed tomography (CT). A series of 2D CT images were obtained at different loading stages throughout the test and from different positions in the sample using CT scanning. The results show that the hysteresis loop presents a sparse–dense–sparse pattern caused by the accumulation of plastic strain during the test. Besides, parameters of damping ratio and resilient modulus vary as increasing cycles, much energy loss, and decreasing resilient ability occur with large plastic strain. The study also finds that a linear relationship exists between the hysteresis loop area and total crack area extracted from the CT images. Volumetric dilatancy caused by the damage cracking behavior has closed link with the evolution of hysteresis loop, which are controlled by the meso-structural changes during sample deformation.


Cyclic damage evolution Cyclic loading Soil and rock mixture (SRM) X-ray CT Stress–strain response 



The authors would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.

Funding information

This study was supported by National Key Technologies Research & Development program (2018YFC0808402, 2018YFC0604601), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2302017FRF-TP-17-027A1), and the State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (SKLGDUEK1824).


  1. Afifipour M, Moarefvand P (2014) Failure patterns of geomaterials with block-in-matrix texture: experimental and numerical evaluation. Arab J Geosci 7:2781–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anhdan L, Koseki J (2004) Effects of large number of cyclic loading on deformation characteristics of dense granular materials. Soils Found 44(3):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan AJ, Thusyanthan NI, Madabhushi SPG (2005) Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1488–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao Z, Chen J, Cai Y, Gu C, Wang J (2017) Effects of moisture content on the cyclic behavior of crushed tuff aggregates by large-scale tri-axial test. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 95:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cnudde V, Boone MN (2013) High-resolution X-ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth Sci Rev 123:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coli N, Berry P, Boldini D (2011) In situ non-conventional shear tests for the mechanical characterisation of a bimrock. Int J Rock Mech Min 48:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donaghe RT, Torrey VH (1994) Proposed new standard test method for laboratory compaction testing of soil-rock mixtures using standard effort. Geotech Test J 3:387–392Google Scholar
  8. Guo T, Zhang S, Ge H, Wang X, Lei X, Xiao B (2015) A new method for evaluation of fracture network formation capacity of rock. Fuel 140:778–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirono T, Takahashi M, Nakashima S (2003) In situ visualization of fluid flow image within deformed rock by X-ray CT. Eng Geol 70(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hounsfield GN (1972) A method of and apparatus for examination of a body by radiation such as X-ray or gamma radiation. British patent number GB1283915. The patent office, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishikawa T, Miura S (2015) Influence of moving wheel loads on mechanical behavior of submerged granular roadbed. Soils Found 55(2):242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalender A, Sonmez H, Medley E, Tunusluoglu C, Kasapoglu KE (2014) An approach to predicting the overall strengths of unwelded bimrocks and bimsoils. Eng Geol 183:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karpyn ZT, Alajmi A, Radaelli F, Halleck PM, Grader AS (2009) X-ray CT and hydraulic evidence for a relationship between fracture conductivity and adjacent matrix porosity. Eng Geol 103(3):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kong X, Liu J, Zou D, Liu H (2016) Stress-dilatancy relationship of Zipingpu gravel under cyclic loading in triaxial stress states. Int J Geomechanics 16(4):04016001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2017) Evaluation of dynamic properties of sandy soil at high cyclic strains. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 99:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2018) Dynamic properties and liquefaction behaviour of cohesive soil of Northeast India under staged cyclic loading. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10(5):958–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamas-Lopez F (2016). Field and laboratory investigation on the dynamic behavior of conventional railway track-bed materials in the context of traffic upgrade. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, Universite Paris-Est.Google Scholar
  18. Lenart S, Koseki J, Miyashita Y, Sato T (2014) Large-scale triaxial tests of dense gravel material at low confining pressures. Soils Found 54(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenoir N, Bornert M, Desrues J, Bésuelle P, Viggiani G (2007) Volumetric digital image correlation applied to X-ray microtomography images from triaxial compression tests on argillaceous rock. Strain 43(3):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindquist ES (1994) The strength and deformation properties of melange. Ph.D.Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindquist ES, Goodman RE (1994) The strength and deformation properties of a physical model mélange. Proc. 1st north American rock Mech. Symp., Austin, Texas, pp. 843–850Google Scholar
  22. Maqbool S, Koseki J (2010) Large-scale triaxial tests to study effects of compaction energy and large cyclic loading history on shear behavior of gravel. Soils Found 50(5):633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medley E (1994) The engineering characterization of melanges and similar block-in-matrix rocks (BIMRock’s) (Ph.D. Thesis) University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Medley E, Lindquist ES. (1995) The engineering significance of the scale-independence of some Franciscan melanges in California, USA [C]//the 35th US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  25. Menq FY (2003) Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  26. Modoni G, Koseki J, Anh Dan LQ (2011) Cyclic stress–strain response of compacted gravel. Geotechnique 61(6):473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MWRPRC (Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China) (1999) GB/T 50123–1999: standard for soil test method. MWRPRC, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  28. Rücknagel J, Götze P, Hofmann B, Christen O (2013) The influence of soil gravel content on compaction behavior and pre-compression stress. Geoderma 209:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112(11):1016–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slatalla N, Alber M, Kahraman S (2010) Analyses of acoustic emission response of a fault breccia in uniaxial deformation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69(3):455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sonmez H, Tunusluoğlu C (2010) Development of a unified geomechanical classification system and a generalized empirical approach for jointed rock masses and bimrocks. TUBİTAK Project No.: 108Y002 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  32. Suiker AS, Selig ET, Frenkel R (2005) Static and cyclic triaxial testing of ballast and subballast. J Geotech Geoenviron 131(6):771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun QD, Indraratna B, Nimbalkar S (2015) Deformation and degradation mechanisms of railway ballast under high frequency cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(1):04015056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takayasu H (1980) Fractal dimention. Seismological Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  35. Thakur PK, Vinod JS, Indraratna B (2013) Effect of confining pressure and frequency on the deformation of ballast. Géotechnique 63(9):786–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Y, Li X (2015) Experimental study on cracking damage characteristics of a soil and rock mixture by UPV testing. Bull Eng Geol Environ 4(3):775–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang Y, Li X, Zhang B, Wu YF (2014) Meso-damage cracking characteristics analysis for rock and soil aggregate with CT test. Sci China Technol Sci 57(7):1361–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Li X, Zheng B, Zhang B, Wang JB (2015) Real-time ultrasonic experiments and mechanical properties of soil and rock mixture during triaxial deformation. Géotechnique Letters 5:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Li X, Zheng B, He JM, Li SD (2016) Macro–meso failure mechanism of soil–rock mixture at medium strain rates. Géotechnique Letters 6:235–243Google Scholar
  40. Wang HL, Cui YJ, Lamas-Lopez F, Dupla JC, Canou J, Calon N, Chen RP (2017a) Effects of inclusion contents on resilient modulus and damping ratio of unsaturated track-bed materials. Can Geotech J 54(12):1672–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Li CH, Hu YZ, Xiao Y (2017b) Optimization of multiple seepage piping parameters to maximize the critical hydraulic gradient in Bimsoils. Water 9(10):787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Y, Li CH, Hu YZ (2018a) Use of X-ray computed tomography to investigate the effect of rock blocks on meso-structural changes in soil-rock mixture under triaxial deformation. Constr Build Mater 164:386–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang Y, Li CH, Hu YZ (2018b) X-ray computed tomography (ct) observations of crack damage evolution in soil-rock mixture during uniaxial deformation. Arab J Geosci 11(9):199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xia JG, Hu RL, Gao W (2017) Research on large-scale triaxial shear testing of soil rock mixtures containing oversized particles. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 36(08):2031–2039Google Scholar
  45. Xu WJ, Hu RL (2008) Field horizontal push shear test for mechanical property of soil-rock mixture under cyclic loading. J Eng Geol 16(1):63–70Google Scholar
  46. Xu W J, Yue ZQ, Hu RL (2008) Study on the mesostructure and mesomechanical characteristics of the soilrock mixture using digital image processing based finite element method. Int J Rock Mech Min 45: 749–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhou XP, Zhang YX, Ha QL (2008) Real-time computerized tomography (CT) experiments on limestone damage evolution during unloading. Theor Appl Fract Mech 50(1):49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Space Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Civil & Resource EngineeringUniversity of Science & Technology BeijingBeijingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground EngineeringChina University of Mining & TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.Beijing General Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Technology GroupBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations