土壤应力历史参数测定方法的可靠性

IF 0.7 Q4 MECHANICS Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica Pub Date : 2023-10-07 DOI:10.2478/sgem-2023-0017
Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński
{"title":"土壤应力历史参数测定方法的可靠性","authors":"Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński","doi":"10.2478/sgem-2023-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Stress history acquired by any cohesive soil influences, to a large extent, three groups of fundamental properties indispensable in geotechnical design i.e. state of soil, shear strength, and stiffness characteristics. The basic stress history parameter (from which other parameters are derived) determined directly from laboratory tests is a preconsolidation stress σ′p. Since the first method proposed by Casagrande in 1936, value σ′p is determined in the oedometer test as a border between overconsolidated (OC) and normally consolidated (NC) zones. Approach based on division between predominantly elastic, (recoverable) strain, and plastic (irrecoverable) strain is a main principle of several methods of σ′p determination, which have been proposed over the past eighty-six years. Accumulated experiences have revealed that any laboratory procedure based on the oedometer test does not provide realistic value of preconsolidation stress, especially in heavy preconsolidated soils. The major reason for that results from the fact that the mechanism responsible for natural overconsolidation is more complicated than mechanical preloading. Therefore, there is a necessity to reevaluate effectiveness of standard methods and look for another solution of evaluation yield stress σ′Y in natural soils. This article presents the comparison between σ′Y determined for various soils with use of standard methods based on conventional oedometer test and yield stress determined on the basis of alternative procedures. The latter are represented by various approaches as e.g. based on SHANSEP procedure or initial shear modulus and others. The most promising among these alternative methods is a new concept based on dilatancy phenomenon that takes place during shearing of a dense soil. The parameter reflecting stress history is derived from pore pressure response and is based on characteristic values of Skempton's parameter A record. Consistency of data concerning stress history parameters profile obtained for deep subsoil on the basis of various methods is shown for comparison.","PeriodicalId":44626,"journal":{"name":"Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils\",\"authors\":\"Małgorzata Wdowska, Mirosław J. Lipiński\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/sgem-2023-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Stress history acquired by any cohesive soil influences, to a large extent, three groups of fundamental properties indispensable in geotechnical design i.e. state of soil, shear strength, and stiffness characteristics. The basic stress history parameter (from which other parameters are derived) determined directly from laboratory tests is a preconsolidation stress σ′p. Since the first method proposed by Casagrande in 1936, value σ′p is determined in the oedometer test as a border between overconsolidated (OC) and normally consolidated (NC) zones. Approach based on division between predominantly elastic, (recoverable) strain, and plastic (irrecoverable) strain is a main principle of several methods of σ′p determination, which have been proposed over the past eighty-six years. Accumulated experiences have revealed that any laboratory procedure based on the oedometer test does not provide realistic value of preconsolidation stress, especially in heavy preconsolidated soils. The major reason for that results from the fact that the mechanism responsible for natural overconsolidation is more complicated than mechanical preloading. Therefore, there is a necessity to reevaluate effectiveness of standard methods and look for another solution of evaluation yield stress σ′Y in natural soils. This article presents the comparison between σ′Y determined for various soils with use of standard methods based on conventional oedometer test and yield stress determined on the basis of alternative procedures. The latter are represented by various approaches as e.g. based on SHANSEP procedure or initial shear modulus and others. The most promising among these alternative methods is a new concept based on dilatancy phenomenon that takes place during shearing of a dense soil. The parameter reflecting stress history is derived from pore pressure response and is based on characteristic values of Skempton's parameter A record. Consistency of data concerning stress history parameters profile obtained for deep subsoil on the basis of various methods is shown for comparison.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2023-0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MECHANICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2023-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MECHANICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

任何粘性土获得的应力历史在很大程度上影响着岩土工程设计中不可缺少的三组基本特性,即土的状态、抗剪强度和刚度特性。从实验室试验中直接确定的基本应力历史参数(其他参数由此导出)是预固结应力σ ' p。自1936年Casagrande提出第一种方法以来,σ ' p值在测径仪试验中被确定为超固结带(OC)和正常固结带(NC)之间的边界。基于主要弹性应变(可恢复)和塑性应变(不可恢复)的划分方法是过去86年来提出的几种确定σ ' p方法的主要原则。积累的经验表明,任何基于测径计试验的实验室程序都不能提供预固结应力的真实值,特别是在重预固结土中。其主要原因是自然超固结的机理比机械预压更为复杂。因此,有必要重新评估标准方法的有效性,并寻找评估自然土屈服应力σ ' Y的另一种解。本文比较了用常规测径仪试验的标准方法测定各种土壤的σ ' Y和用其他方法测定屈服应力的结果。后者由各种方法表示,例如基于SHANSEP程序或初始剪切模量等。在这些替代方法中,最有希望的是一种基于致密土剪切过程中发生的剪胀现象的新概念。反映应力历史的参数来源于孔隙压力响应,并基于Skempton参数A记录的特征值。对比了各种方法得到的深底土应力历史参数剖面数据的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of Methods for Determination of Stress History Parameters in Soils
Abstract Stress history acquired by any cohesive soil influences, to a large extent, three groups of fundamental properties indispensable in geotechnical design i.e. state of soil, shear strength, and stiffness characteristics. The basic stress history parameter (from which other parameters are derived) determined directly from laboratory tests is a preconsolidation stress σ′p. Since the first method proposed by Casagrande in 1936, value σ′p is determined in the oedometer test as a border between overconsolidated (OC) and normally consolidated (NC) zones. Approach based on division between predominantly elastic, (recoverable) strain, and plastic (irrecoverable) strain is a main principle of several methods of σ′p determination, which have been proposed over the past eighty-six years. Accumulated experiences have revealed that any laboratory procedure based on the oedometer test does not provide realistic value of preconsolidation stress, especially in heavy preconsolidated soils. The major reason for that results from the fact that the mechanism responsible for natural overconsolidation is more complicated than mechanical preloading. Therefore, there is a necessity to reevaluate effectiveness of standard methods and look for another solution of evaluation yield stress σ′Y in natural soils. This article presents the comparison between σ′Y determined for various soils with use of standard methods based on conventional oedometer test and yield stress determined on the basis of alternative procedures. The latter are represented by various approaches as e.g. based on SHANSEP procedure or initial shear modulus and others. The most promising among these alternative methods is a new concept based on dilatancy phenomenon that takes place during shearing of a dense soil. The parameter reflecting stress history is derived from pore pressure response and is based on characteristic values of Skempton's parameter A record. Consistency of data concerning stress history parameters profile obtained for deep subsoil on the basis of various methods is shown for comparison.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
20
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international journal ‘Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica’ covers new developments in the broad areas of geomechanics as well as structural mechanics. The journal welcomes contributions dealing with original theoretical, numerical as well as experimental work. The following topics are of special interest: Constitutive relations for geomaterials (soils, rocks, concrete, etc.) Modeling of mechanical behaviour of heterogeneous materials at different scales Analysis of coupled thermo-hydro-chemo-mechanical problems Modeling of instabilities and localized deformation Experimental investigations of material properties at different scales Numerical algorithms: formulation and performance Application of numerical techniques to analysis of problems involving foundations, underground structures, slopes and embankment Risk and reliability analysis Analysis of concrete and masonry structures Modeling of case histories
期刊最新文献
Modeling of rigid inclusion ground improvements in large-scale geotechnical simulations Seismicity and Tectonics of the Republic of Kosovo Small-strain stiffness of selected anthropogenic aggregates from bender element tests The Role of Spatial Distribution of Geotechnical Soil Parameters in Site Investigation Geometrization of a 3D numerical model of an underground facility based on the results of terrestrial laser scanning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1