Upload
others
View
25
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Beesley, M. E. W., & Vardanega, P. J. (2020). Parameter variability ofundrained shear strength and strain using a database of reconstitutedsoil tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 57(8), 1247-1255.https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019-0424
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to published version (if available):10.1139/cgj-2019-0424
Link to publication record in Explore Bristol ResearchPDF-document
University of Bristol - Explore Bristol ResearchGeneral rights
This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only thepublished version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/
1
“Parameter variability of undrained shear strength and strain using a database of reconstituted soil tests” by M. E. W. Beesley and P. J. Vardanega
Online Supplement
Figure S1. Soils in the database plotted on the Casagrande Chart (A-line (orange) and U-line (grey) shown)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Plas
ticity
Ind
ex (
/100
%)
Liquid Limit (/100%)
2
Figure S2. Comparison of observed and predicted values of cu/'v0 CIUE and cu/'v0 CKUE predicted from a triaxial compression test: (a) CIU triaxial tests and (b) CKU triaxial tests
Reference:
Mayne, P. W. and Holtz, R. D., 1985. “Effect of principal stress rotation on clay strength”. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco/ 12-16 August 1985, (Publications Committee of XI ICSMFE, Eds.) A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, vol. 2, pp. 579-582.
Mayne & Holtz (1985) CIU
n=14 from 28 tests(11 of 14 data points from NC specimens)
80% of data predicted within Factor Error = 1.4
Reconstituted CIUn=50 from 100 tests(17 of 50 data points from NC specimens)
80% of data predicted within Factor Error = 1.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Obs
erve
d c u
/' v0
CIU
E
Predicted cu/'v0 CIUE
Mayne & Holtz (1985) CIUReconstituted CIU1:1y = 1.3x and y = x/1.3y = 1.4x and y = x/1.4
(a)
Mayne & Holtz (1985) CKUn=56 from 112 tests(41 of 56 data points from NC specimens)
80% of data predictedwithin Factor Error = 1.6
Reconstituted CKUn=29 from 58 tests
(14 of 29 data points from NC specimens)
80% of data predictedwithin Factor Error = 1.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Obs
erve
d c u
/' v
0CKU
E
Predicted cu/'v0 CKUE
Mayne & Holtz (1985) CKUReconstituted CKU1:1y = 1.4x and y = x/1.4y = 1.6x and y = x/1.6
(b)
3
Figure S3. Comparison of observed and predicted values of 50 CIUE and 50 CKUE predicted from a triaxial compression test: (a) CIU triaxial tests and (b) CKU triaxial tests
Reconstituted CIUn=50 from 100 tests(17 of 50 data points from NC specimens)
80% of datapredicted within
Factor Error = 1.7
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Obs
erve
d 5
0 CIU
E
Predicted 50 CIUE
Reconstituted CIU1:1y = 1.7x and y = x/1.7
(a)
Reconstituted CKUn=25 from 50 tests
(10 of 25 data points from NC specimens)
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 2.2
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Obs
erve
d 5
0 CKU
E
Predicted 50 CKUE
Reconstituted CKU1:1y = 2.2x and y = x/2.2
(b)
4
Figure S4. Comparison of non-linearity parameter in extension and compression (a) for CIU tests and (b) for CKU tests
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b CIU
E
bCIUC
Reconstituted CIU
1:1
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b CKU
E
bCKUC
Reconstituted CKU1:1
(b)
5
Figure S5. Comparison of observed and predicted values of cu/'v0 CIU (Equations 9 and 10) tested by CIUC or CIUE
Figure S6. Comparison of observed and predicted values of cu/'v0 CKU (Equations 11 and 12) tested by CKUC or CKUE
Reconstituted CIUCn=115 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.45
Reconstituted CIUEn=55 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Obs
erve
d c u
/' v0
CIU
Predicted cu/'v0 CIU
Reconstituted CIUCReconstituted CIUE1:1y = 1.45x and y = x/1.45y = 1.3x and y = x/1.3
Reconstituted CKUCn=74 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.2
Reconstituted CKUEn=34 tests
79% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.3
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Obs
erve
d c u
/' v0
CKU
Predicted cu/'v0 CKU
Reconstituted CKUCReconstituted CKUE1:1y = 1.2x and y = x/1.2y = 1.3x and y = x/1.3
6
Figure S7. Comparison of observed and predicted values of 50 CIU (Equations 5 and 6) tested by CIUC or CIUE
Figure S8. Comparison of observed and predicted values of 50 CKU (Equations 7 and 8) tested by CKUC or CKUE
Reconstituted CIUCn=114 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.75
Reconstituted CIUEn=55 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 1.7
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
50
CIU
50 CIU
Reconstituted CIUCReconstituted CIUE1:1y = 1.75x and y = x/1.75y = 1.7x and y = x/1.7
Reconstituted CKUEn=30 tests
80% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 2.1
Reconstituted CKUCn=67 tests
79% of data predicted within
Factor Error = 2.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
50
CKU
50 CKU
Reconstituted CKUCReconstituted CKUE1:1y = 2x and y = x/2y = 2.1x and y = x/2.1