Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Clay Venki

    Uploaded by

    cmtheboss
    8 views6 pages

    Original Title

    Clay-venki

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views6 pages

    Clay Venki

    Uploaded by

    cmtheboss

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    stabilization system (eg, retaining wall, micropiles) would vary significantly depending on the ruined fetion ange ofthe soil. It is highly recommended that state DOTs develop historical data summaries of 9” versus PI ta check validity of future tes resus, Friction Angle, # (degrees) Pasi index. (4) Figure 74. Relationship between and Pl (Terzaghi, Peck, and Mes, 1996), The shorvterm value of effective cohesion intercept is elated to the prosomtoidaion sess and current effective stress state, as shown by figure 75. However, for long-erm analyses involving ‘most insensitive clays, sis, and uncemented sands, it is best t adopt «” ~ 0, unless extensive laboratory testing is conducted or sufficient experience exists to prove boncing or cementation, Conservative recommended values of effective cohesion intercept areas follows: Shor Term: © ort a, Long Tem: ‘The conelation shown in figure 76 (Stark and Eid, 1994) can be used to estimate residual fistion angles for preliminary analyses that involve clayey soils that have bexn subject to. lage ispacements. 16s ne25(PDSL1 (uation 65) Although the vane sheae test i widely accepted and used, the scatter ofthe dia originally used to develop the 4 factor (sce Figure 85) i significant, Additional limitations asodated withthe use of these correlations ae provided below 8 ol) hs, vs) —Bloram (1872) f Plotty iden, I (%) Figure 85. Plasticity based VST eorreton factors Several difficulties exist in using the approaches summarized in able 33 10 conver in-situ tests rectly to undrained strength, Fis, each inst testing device loads the soil ina different direction ata diferent rate, and therefor, the effects of boundary conditions, strength anisotropy, and stain rate influence the results. Second, each field test ilizes different models as the basis for imerpretation (e.g, limit plasticity, limit equilibrium, cavity expansion, numerical method, or ‘empirical correlation) such that large inconsistoncies exist when the results are compared. Thidly, each field test has been calibrated to its own particular laboratory reference tes (eg vane shea est and consolidated ansotopically undrained compression (CAUC) triaxial est as is reported, Chandler, 1988), and consequently, a wide number of intereationships would be required to convert results from one test fo another test. Given ths itis clear that measured undraned strengths frm ferent in-situ test and laboratory tests ae expected tobe quite diferent, resting in dificult in selecting appropriate undraind strengths for design applications. See the example profile of s with depeh fora soft clays stein figure 86 asanilstetion, iat Uundrained strength profiles for use indesign analyses. Section 5.6.7 provides detailed discussion on the development of undrined strength profiles. 56.6 Drained Friction angle of Granutar Soils from In-situ Tests tis common practice to evaluate the effective stressor dened friction angle of granular materia fiom in-situ penetration tes via & correlation to a measured test parameter. In this section, coneations are presented for the SPT, CPT, and DMT. These correlations can be easily Jimplemented into spreadsheet to evaluate friction angle a a function of depth within granular epost Friction Angle Based on SPT ‘Table 34 presents baseline relationships for evaluating the drained fiction angle of cahesionless soils. This table is based on data fr relatively clean sands. Given this, selected values of 6” based ‘on SPT N valves should be reduced by $° for clayey sands and the value from the table should be increased by 5° for gravelly sands ‘Table 34, Relationship among relative density, SPT'N value, and itera ection angle of| cohesionless sil (fer Meyerhof, 1986) State of | Relative Density | Standard Penetration Resistance, | Friction ange,” Packing co. dblowsi300 mm) ©. Very loose 2) a =30 Loose 2040 +10 30.38 Compact 40.50 1030 3540 Dense 60.20 30-50 $045 very dense 28) > as Note: N= 154+ (N 15)/2 for’ > 15 in satrated very fine or sly sand, where N' = measured blow count and N= blow count corrected for dynamic pore pressure effects during the SPT. Equation 72 is a derived coelation between 6 and normalized SPT resistance (Ni), where high- quality undisturbed frozen samples of natural sands vere obtained that-permited direct measurements of $i triaxial cells (Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996). The dats were obained using an Automatic trip hammer system where energy efficiency was reported as 78 percent. Foran average state-ofpractice with 60% efficiency inthe U.S, the expression for peak ds given as Peres (Equation 72) ‘The wellinown correlation between Nas and developed by Sehmertmann (1975) is shown in Figure 87. Results fom this correlation tend to be somewhat conservative, especially for shallow

    You might also like