Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Qasim Al-Obaidi

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
throughout the test, especially at high applied suction. However, slight reduction in void ratio is observed during the drying path when for suction values lower than 1500 kPa. This behaviour can be attributed to shrinkage of the soil mass due to an increase in the rate of deso- rption as well as increasing suction application.

Table 1 throughout the test, especially at high applied suction. However, slight reduction in void ratio is observed during the drying path when for suction values lower than 1500 kPa. This behaviour can be attributed to shrinkage of the soil mass due to an increase in the rate of deso- rption as well as increasing suction application.

Related Figures (12)

Figure 1: Pressure plate apparatus with axis-translation technique (ATT): (a) device set up; (b) schematic plot the fitting parameter equal to the inverse of air-entry value (1/kPa); n is the fitting parameter equal to rate of water extraction from the soil after exceeding the air- entry value: m is the fitting parameter that are primarily related to residual water content conditions. ry C()) in the Eq. (7) to direct the SWCC at water content of equal to zero to a soil suction of 10° kPa. value (1/kPa); n is the fitting parameter equal to rate of
Figure 1: Pressure plate apparatus with axis-translation technique (ATT): (a) device set up; (b) schematic plot the fitting parameter equal to the inverse of air-entry value (1/kPa); n is the fitting parameter equal to rate of water extraction from the soil after exceeding the air- entry value: m is the fitting parameter that are primarily related to residual water content conditions. ry C()) in the Eq. (7) to direct the SWCC at water content of equal to zero to a soil suction of 10° kPa. value (1/kPa); n is the fitting parameter equal to rate of
Figure 2: Constant relative humidity desiccators with vapour equilibrium technique (VET): (a) desiccators set up; (b) schematic plot
Figure 2: Constant relative humidity desiccators with vapour equilibrium technique (VET): (a) desiccators set up; (b) schematic plot
Figure 3: Variation of void ratio with applied suction in SWCC test-drying path results for Gl, 70G30S, and LG soil samples.
Figure 3: Variation of void ratio with applied suction in SWCC test-drying path results for Gl, 70G30S, and LG soil samples.
Figure 4: Soil—-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for Gl soil.
Figure 4: Soil—-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for Gl soil.
Figure 5: Soil-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for 70G30Ssoil.
Figure 5: Soil-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for 70G30Ssoil.
Figure 6: Soil-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for LG soil.
Figure 6: Soil-water characteristic curve, gravimetric water content versus suction for LG soil.
Figure 7: Soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), degree of saturation versus suction for GI soil.
Figure 7: Soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), degree of saturation versus suction for GI soil.
Figure 8: Soil-water characteristic SWCC, degree of saturation versus suction for 70G30S soil.
Figure 8: Soil-water characteristic SWCC, degree of saturation versus suction for 70G30S soil.
Figure 9: Soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), degree of saturation versus suction for LG soil. Table 3: Initial suction, air entry value and residual suction of SWCC zone of GI soil, where the residual suction of 70G30S soil exceeded the residual suction of GI soil by approximately five times. However, the gypsum cementing structure showed considerable hysteresis on its SWCC with a clear increase in the magnitude of hysteresis for 70G30S soil. This behaviour can be related to the type and the differ- ence in geological formation and homogeneity of soil fabric and gypsum bonds.
Figure 9: Soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), degree of saturation versus suction for LG soil. Table 3: Initial suction, air entry value and residual suction of SWCC zone of GI soil, where the residual suction of 70G30S soil exceeded the residual suction of GI soil by approximately five times. However, the gypsum cementing structure showed considerable hysteresis on its SWCC with a clear increase in the magnitude of hysteresis for 70G30S soil. This behaviour can be related to the type and the differ- ence in geological formation and homogeneity of soil fabric and gypsum bonds.
Figure 10: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree of saturation (Sr) results for GI soil.
Figure 10: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree of saturation (Sr) results for GI soil.
Figure 11: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree of saturation (Sr) results for 70G30S soil.
Figure 11: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree of saturation (Sr) results for 70G30S soil.
Figure 12: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree o saturation (Sr) results for LG soil.
Figure 12: Verification of experimental with predicted data of SWCC: (left) gravimetric water content (w) results and (right) degree o saturation (Sr) results for LG soil.
Related topics:
Geotechnical Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved