Otwarty dostęp

Effect of Time History on Long-Term Deformation of Gypseous Soils

Mohammed Y. Fattah
Mohammed Y. Fattah
, 
Yousif J. Al-Shakarchi
Yousif J. Al-Shakarchi
 oraz 
Huda N. Al-Numani
Huda N. Al-Numani
   | 09 wrz 2022
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica's Cover Image
O artykule
Poprzedni artykuł
Następny artykuł
Zacytuj
Article Category: Original Study
Data publikacji: 09 wrz 2022
Zakres stron: 198 - 210
Otrzymano: 18 lut 2021
Przyjęty: 08 maj 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0011
Słowa kluczowe
© 2022 Mohammed Y. Fattah et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Grain size distribution.
Grain size distribution.

Figure 2

Results of collapse test for the three samples.
Results of collapse test for the three samples.

Figure 3

Variation of strain with the logarithm of time (creep).
Variation of strain with the logarithm of time (creep).

Figure 4

Results of double oedometer test on semi-log scale.
Results of double oedometer test on semi-log scale.

Figure 5

Variation of collapse potential with time in double oedometer test.
Variation of collapse potential with time in double oedometer test.

Figure 6

Effect of gypsum content on the long-term collapse potential (under 800 kPa for 60 days).
Effect of gypsum content on the long-term collapse potential (under 800 kPa for 60 days).

Figure 7

Effect of gypsum content on the collapse potential under different stresses.
Effect of gypsum content on the collapse potential under different stresses.

Figure 8

Collapse potential -log time relationships at different relative densities, (N1 soaked soil).
Collapse potential -log time relationships at different relative densities, (N1 soaked soil).

Figure 9

Effect of relative density on creep for dry samples (N1 soil).
Effect of relative density on creep for dry samples (N1 soil).

Figure 10

Effect of relative density on creep for soaked samples (N1 soil).
Effect of relative density on creep for soaked samples (N1 soil).

Figure 11

Strain versus effective stress for the N1 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Strain versus effective stress for the N1 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 12

Strain versus effective stress for the N2 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Strain versus effective stress for the N2 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 13

Strain versus effective stress for the N3 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Strain versus effective stress for the N3 sample.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 14

Variation of strain with time for the N1 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Variation of strain with time for the N1 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 15

Variation of strain with time for the N2 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Variation of strain with time for the N2 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 16

Variation of strain with time for the N3 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.
Variation of strain with time for the N3 soil.OCR: overconsolidation ratio.

Figure 17

Effect of OCR on the creep strain for the three soils.OCR: overconsolidation ratio
Effect of OCR on the creep strain for the three soils.OCR: overconsolidation ratio

Figure 18

Variation of strain rate with time for the N1 soil at different overconsolidation ratios.
Variation of strain rate with time for the N1 soil at different overconsolidation ratios.

Figure 19

Variation of strain rate with time for the N2 soil at different overconsolidation ratios.
Variation of strain rate with time for the N2 soil at different overconsolidation ratios.

Figure 20

Variation of strain rate with time for the N3 soil at different overconsolidation ratio s.
Variation of strain rate with time for the N3 soil at different overconsolidation ratio s.

Figure 21

Comparison between the measured and predicted collapse potential in the three soils using equation (2).
Comparison between the measured and predicted collapse potential in the three soils using equation (2).

Figure 22

Comparison between the measured and predicted collapse potential in soil N1 using equation (3).
Comparison between the measured and predicted collapse potential in soil N1 using equation (3).

Classification of gypseous soil (after Barazanji, 1973).

Gypsum content (%) Classification
0.0–0.3 Non-gypsiferous
0.3–3.0 Very slightly gypsiferous
3.0–10 Slightly gypsiferous
10–25 Moderately gypsiferous
25–50 Highly gypsiferous

The compression and swelling indices.

OCR Type of soil
N1c = 66% N2c = 44% N3c = 14.8%
Cc Cr Cc Cr Cc Cr
4 0.124 0.004 0.109 0.01 0.162 0.009
3 0.0014 0.002 0.016
2 0.0019 0.017 0.012

The CP values.

Soil property Soil type
N1c = 66% N2c = 44% N3c = 14.8%
eo 1.017 0.619 0.480
γd (kN/m3) 12.1 15.5 17.3
Initial water content, wo % 8.3 4.8 3.6
Dr % 73 84 86
CP % 200 kPa CT 11.57 3.42 1.04
DOT 8.93 4.72 5.21
800 kPa CT --- --- ---
DOT 18.33 14.63 7.16

Effect of relative density on the collapse potential of N1 soil.

σv, kPa Dr = 40% Dr = 50% Dr = 60%
CP1 day CP60 days CP1 day CP60 days CP1 day CP60 days
200 1.87 --- 7.47 --- 6.42 ---
800 7 9 10.5 13.39 15.4 18.47

Chemical test results.

Type of soil TSS, % SO3, % Gypsum content, c %
N1 9 30.6 66
N2 7.3 20.5 44
N3 6 6.9 14.8

Summary of physical test results.

Soil property Type of soil
N1 N2 N3
Specific gravity, Gs 2.44 2.56 2.69
Initial void ratio, eo 1.017 0.619 0.480
Field dry unit weight, γd field (kN/m3) 12.1 15.5 17.3
Maximum dry unit weight, γdmax (kN/m3) 13.13 16.40 19.00
Minimum dry unit weigh, γ dmin (kN/m3) 9.98 12.00 10.87
Relative density, Dr % 73 84 86
Gravel % 15.0 16.0 9.0
Sand % 83.8 82.0 87.0
Fines % 1.2 2.0 4.0
D10 (mm) 0.170 0.300 0.042
D30 (mm) 0.35 0.48 0.27
D60 (mm) 0.75 0.95 0.60
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.96 0.79 2.89
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 4.41 3.17 14.28
Soil classification according to USCS SP SP SW
eISSN:
2083-831X
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
4 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics
Kanał RSS czasopisma