Effect of principal stress rotation on deformation behavior of dense sand–clay mixtures
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper investigated the deformation behaviour of K-consolidated sand–clay mixtures through cyclic triaxial (CT) and hollow cylinder (CHC) tests. The sand–clay mixtures contained 0%, 5%, 10% and 20% clay by weight and were prepared at a relative density of 75%. Clay inclusion caused an increase in the permanent axial strain of mixtures (0.075% to 5% in CT and 0.186% to 5% in CHC), while a relatively insignificant increase in permanent axial strain was observed in the CT specimens containing 5% and 10% clay (0.075% to 1.299%). However, all CHC specimens with clay failed (εz ≥ 5%). It was also observed that shear strain development of sand is significantly influenced by clay inclusion (0.096–2.241%) in CHC tests. Test results clearly show that the effect of a principal stress rotation should be taken into account to better estimate the deformation behaviour of sand–clay mixtures under repetitive traffic loads.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization · Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Abdullah Gul University, Kayseri, Turkey
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.21660/2018.45.733610.21660/2018.45.7336 ↗
2. 10.1080/10298436.2019.165680710.1080/10298436.2019.1656807 ↗
3. Cai, Y. Y. (2010).An experimental study of non-coaxial behavior using hollow cylinder testing[Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham]. Nottingham eTheses. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11214/
4. 10.1680/jgeot.15.P.22410.1680/jgeot.15.P.224 ↗
5. 10.1139/cgj-2014-034110.1139/cgj-2014-0341 ↗
6. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000185410.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001854 ↗
7. 10.1080/14680629.2013.86950510.1080/14680629.2013.869505 ↗
8. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:11(907)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:11(907) ↗
9. 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:4(279)10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:4(279) ↗
10. Cheung, L. W. (1994).Laboratory assessment of pavement foundation materials[Doctoral. dissertation, University of Nottingham]. Nottingham eTheses. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/10944/
11. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.09.01610.1016/j.trgeo.2018.09.016 ↗
12. 10.1061/9780784482803.02210.1061/9780784482803.022 ↗
13. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2004)130:3(378)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2004)130:3(378) ↗
14. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.01210.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.012 ↗
15. 10.1680/geot.13.P.09010.1680/geot.13.P.090 ↗
16. Gräbe, P. J. (2002).Resilient and permanent deformation of railway foundations under principal stress rotation[Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton].
17. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:4(555)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:4(555) ↗
18. 10.1080/14680629.2018.147328310.1080/14680629.2018.1473283 ↗
19. 10.1139/cgj-2016-063610.1139/cgj-2016-0636 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.01.02410.1016/j.soildyn.2016.01.024 ↗
21. 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.000070810.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000708 ↗
22. 10.1680/geot.1983.33.4.35510.1680/geot.1983.33.4.355 ↗
23. 10.3208/sandf1972.31.3_6010.3208/sandf1972.31.3_60 ↗
24. 10.3208/sandf1972.34.4_110.3208/sandf1972.34.4_1 ↗
25. Ishihara K. · 199610.1093/oso/9780198562245.001.0001 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.00610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.006 ↗
27. 10.1080/1029843060078350910.1080/10298430600783509 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.09.00410.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.09.004 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000291110.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002911 ↗
30. Mamou, A. (2013).Effects of principal stress rotation and drainage on the resilient stiffness of railway foundations[Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton].
31. 10.1139/cgj-2017-019610.1139/cgj-2017-0196 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.01010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.010 ↗
33. 10.3208/sandf1972.28.2_9510.3208/sandf1972.28.2_95 ↗
34. 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:4(274)10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:4(274) ↗
35. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000016310.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000163 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.09.01210.1016/j.enggeo.2016.09.012 ↗
37. 10.1520/STP29113S10.1520/STP29113S ↗
38. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03.02910.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03.029 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.10010.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.100 ↗
40. 10.1007/s11629-016-4000-910.1007/s11629-016-4000-9 ↗
41. 10.1520/GTJ10956J10.1520/GTJ10956J ↗
42. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000139110.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001391 ↗
43. 10.3208/sandf1972.26.4_7910.3208/sandf1972.26.4_79 ↗
44. 10.3208/sandf1972.23.4710.3208/sandf1972.23.47 ↗
45. 10.1139/t90-07510.1139/t90-075 ↗
46. 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.000104210.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001042 ↗
47. 10.1080/19648189.2015.103966210.1080/19648189.2015.1039662 ↗
48. 10.1080/14680629.2018.142821910.1080/14680629.2018.1428219 ↗