Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 26 – uploaded by Hüseyin TATAR

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 3. Classification of the Sand Used in This Study Particle shape and minerology of sand were also determined. The cohesionless soil

Table 3 Classification of the Sand Used in This Study Particle shape and minerology of sand were also determined. The cohesionless soil

Related Figures (76)

Figure 2.1. Typical Straining Responses of Hydrophilic Sands Under Drained and Undrained Loading (From Andersen and Schjetne, 2013)
Figure 2.1. Typical Straining Responses of Hydrophilic Sands Under Drained and Undrained Loading (From Andersen and Schjetne, 2013)
Figure 2.2. Strength — Density Relationships (Cornforth, 1973) densities. The main findings of the tests are illustrated in Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.2. Strength — Density Relationships (Cornforth, 1973) densities. The main findings of the tests are illustrated in Figure 2.2:
state and test type, whether plain strain or triaxial test was used. Figure 2.3. Dilation Rates (Cornforth, 1973)
state and test type, whether plain strain or triaxial test was used. Figure 2.3. Dilation Rates (Cornforth, 1973)
Figure 2.4. Strength — Density Relationship of Soils Having Different Ultimate Strength based on Density Factor = 2.0 (Cornforth, 1973)
Figure 2.4. Strength — Density Relationship of Soils Having Different Ultimate Strength based on Density Factor = 2.0 (Cornforth, 1973)
sand. Figure 2.5. Density Component of the Peak Strength (Cornforth, 1973)
sand. Figure 2.5. Density Component of the Peak Strength (Cornforth, 1973)
Figure 2.6. Non-linear Shear Strength Envelope of Cohesionless Soils
Figure 2.6. Non-linear Shear Strength Envelope of Cohesionless Soils
Figure 2.7. Mohr circles of dense and loose sands at low and high stress states (Rowe, 1962)
Figure 2.7. Mohr circles of dense and loose sands at low and high stress states (Rowe, 1962)
material may behave like a loose material under high stresses. Figure 2.8. Stress — strain behavior of River Welland sand under different confining pressure levels (Barden et al, 1969) responses given in Figure 2.1, just based on confining pressure. An initially dens
material may behave like a loose material under high stresses. Figure 2.8. Stress — strain behavior of River Welland sand under different confining pressure levels (Barden et al, 1969) responses given in Figure 2.1, just based on confining pressure. An initially dens
Figure 2.9. Void ratio — shear displacement relationship for simple shear test performed on steel balls (from Wroth, 1958)
Figure 2.9. Void ratio — shear displacement relationship for simple shear test performed on steel balls (from Wroth, 1958)
Figure 2.10. Critical State Line for simple shear tests performed on sand (after Stroud, 1971)
Figure 2.10. Critical State Line for simple shear tests performed on sand (after Stroud, 1971)
Figure 2.11. Critical State (Schofield and Wroth, 1968)
Figure 2.11. Critical State (Schofield and Wroth, 1968)
1986), which are listed as major drawback of the model. energy due to friction and principal stress and strain increment directions (Bolt Taylor (1948) explained the dilatancy by energy correction. The external work done
1986), which are listed as major drawback of the model. energy due to friction and principal stress and strain increment directions (Bolt Taylor (1948) explained the dilatancy by energy correction. The external work done
Figure 2.15. Sphere Assemblies (a) Uniform rods in a parallel stack, (b) Uniform spheres in face-centered cubic packing, (c) Uniform spheres in rhombic packing (Rowe, 1962)
Figure 2.15. Sphere Assemblies (a) Uniform rods in a parallel stack, (b) Uniform spheres in face-centered cubic packing, (c) Uniform spheres in rhombic packing (Rowe, 1962)
Figure 2.16. Sliding mechanism proposed by Rowe (1962)
Figure 2.16. Sliding mechanism proposed by Rowe (1962)
Figure 2.17. Correlation between friction angle and relative density and gradation for granular soils (Schmertmann, 1978) the correlations given in Figure 2.17 and Figure 2.18, respectively.
Figure 2.17. Correlation between friction angle and relative density and gradation for granular soils (Schmertmann, 1978) the correlations given in Figure 2.17 and Figure 2.18, respectively.
Figure 2.18. Correlation between friction angle and relative density and gradation for granular soils (Modified from NAVFAC (1982) by Lade (2001))
Figure 2.18. Correlation between friction angle and relative density and gradation for granular soils (Modified from NAVFAC (1982) by Lade (2001))
Figure 2.19. Comparison of drained peak friction angle provided from NGI database and Schmertmann (1978) and Bolton (1986) (Andersen and Schjetne, 2013) angle instead of effective stress.
Figure 2.19. Comparison of drained peak friction angle provided from NGI database and Schmertmann (1978) and Bolton (1986) (Andersen and Schjetne, 2013) angle instead of effective stress.
Figure 2.20. (N1)¢9 vs ¢’ Relationship (NCHRP, 2010) Table 2. (N1)60 vs @ Relationship (NCHRP, 2010)
Figure 2.20. (N1)¢9 vs ¢’ Relationship (NCHRP, 2010) Table 2. (N1)60 vs @ Relationship (NCHRP, 2010)
Figure 2.21. Typical stiffness — strain characteristic of soils (Benz, 2007) As stated by Witchman and Triantafyllidis (2009), determination of Gp and E;
Figure 2.21. Typical stiffness — strain characteristic of soils (Benz, 2007) As stated by Witchman and Triantafyllidis (2009), determination of Gp and E;
Figure 2.22. Correlation between static and dynamic stiffness proposed by Alpan (1970)
Figure 2.22. Correlation between static and dynamic stiffness proposed by Alpan (1970)
Figure 2.23. Effect of hydrophobicity on the shear strength of glass beads and crushed sands, (a) peak state; (b) critical state (G.B.: Glass bead, C.S.: Crushed Sand) (Byun and Lee, 2012)
Figure 2.23. Effect of hydrophobicity on the shear strength of glass beads and crushed sands, (a) peak state; (b) critical state (G.B.: Glass bead, C.S.: Crushed Sand) (Byun and Lee, 2012)
Figure 3.1. Grain size distribution of the sand used in this study
Figure 3.1. Grain size distribution of the sand used in this study
Figure 3.2. Microscopic examination of the sand used in this study
Figure 3.2. Microscopic examination of the sand used in this study
Table 4. Properties of the WD-40 Lubricant Used in This Study
Table 4. Properties of the WD-40 Lubricant Used in This Study
Figure 3.3. WD-40 lubricant used in this study
Figure 3.3. WD-40 lubricant used in this study
Figure 3.4. Microscopic examination of the hydrophobic sand prepared in this study
Figure 3.4. Microscopic examination of the hydrophobic sand prepared in this study
Figure 3.5. Borders between layers in (a) dry tamping and (b) wet tamping (Raghunandan et al., 2012)
Figure 3.5. Borders between layers in (a) dry tamping and (b) wet tamping (Raghunandan et al., 2012)
Figure 3.6. Void ratio vs. drop height relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with dry pluviation
Figure 3.6. Void ratio vs. drop height relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with dry pluviation
Figure 3.7. Relative density vs. drop height relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with dry pluviation
Figure 3.7. Relative density vs. drop height relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with dry pluviation
Figure 3.8. Void ratio vs. blow count relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with wet tamping
Figure 3.8. Void ratio vs. blow count relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with wet tamping
Figure 3.9. Relative density vs. blow count relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with wet tamping
Figure 3.9. Relative density vs. blow count relationship of reconstituted samples prepared with wet tamping
Table 6. Summary of Triaxial Test Results of failure of each test are determined by applying maximum stress obliquity criterion. Individual results of each test containing half of deviatoric stress vs. axial strain, hal}
Table 6. Summary of Triaxial Test Results of failure of each test are determined by applying maximum stress obliquity criterion. Individual results of each test containing half of deviatoric stress vs. axial strain, hal}
Figure 4.3. Mohr circles and shear strength envelope of tests STXD_07, STXD_08 and STXD_09 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.3. Mohr circles and shear strength envelope of tests STXD_07, STXD_08 and STXD_09 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.4. Mohr circles and shear strength envelope of tests STXL_01, STXL_02 and STXL_03 (Dr = 40%) at relatively loose densities.
Figure 4.4. Mohr circles and shear strength envelope of tests STXL_01, STXL_02 and STXL_03 (Dr = 40%) at relatively loose densities.
Figure 4.7. Comparison of responses of tests STXD_01, STXD_04 and STXD_07 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.7. Comparison of responses of tests STXD_01, STXD_04 and STXD_07 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.9. Comparison of responses of tests STXD_03, STXD_06 and STXD_09 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.9. Comparison of responses of tests STXD_03, STXD_06 and STXD_09 (Dr = 80%)
Figure 4.11. Comparison of responses of tests STXL_02, STXL_05 and STXL_08 (Dr = 40%)
Figure 4.11. Comparison of responses of tests STXL_02, STXL_05 and STXL_08 (Dr = 40%)
Figure 5.1. Comparison of dilatancy responses of tests STXL_01, STXL_02 and STXL_03 (Dr = 40%)
Figure 5.1. Comparison of dilatancy responses of tests STXL_01, STXL_02 and STXL_03 (Dr = 40%)
Figure 5.2. Comparison of determined strength with available literature
Figure 5.2. Comparison of determined strength with available literature
Figure 5.3. Comparison of shear strength envelopes of relatively dense samples (Dr = 80%)
Figure 5.3. Comparison of shear strength envelopes of relatively dense samples (Dr = 80%)
Figure 5.5. Comparison of responses of tests STXL_02, STXD_05 and STXD_08 (Dr = 40%)
Figure 5.5. Comparison of responses of tests STXL_02, STXD_05 and STXD_08 (Dr = 40%)
Table 7. Details of Specific Gravity Tests
Table 7. Details of Specific Gravity Tests
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved