4.5 Article

Experimental study on strength characteristics and microscopic mechanism of marine soft clays

期刊

MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 570-582

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2019.1604917

关键词

Undisturbed specimen; reconstituted specimen; strength; pore-size distribution; soil structure; reference void ratio

资金

  1. Public Welfare Technology Research Projects of Zhejiang Province [LGG18D020001, LGG19E080002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41402271]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201808330219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of microstructure on shear strength of saturated marine clays was investigated by conducting a series of consolidated-drained (CD), consolidated-undrained (CU) triaxial shear tests and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) tests on undisturbed and reconstitute specimens. The valuable findings from the experimental study are follows: (1) The shear strength of undisturbed specimens is lower than that of corresponding reconstituted specimens due to larger void ratio at the same confining pressure. However, undisturbed specimens have higher strength than reconstituted specimens when their void ratios are the same. (2) The main reason for the lower shear strength of reconstituted specimens with the same void ratio as undisturbed specimens is that more volume of inter-aggregate pores exists in the reconstituted specimens according to the MIP test results. And the difference in shear strength between undisturbed and reconstituted specimens is mainly caused by the difference in soil fabric. (3) The shear test results dealt with a reference void ratio, as a fabric index, show that there is a unique linear relation between strength and void ratio at failure to the reference void ratio. Moreover, the linear relation is suitable for other marine clays from the literature. Therefore, the reference void ratio can be used as a soil fabric index to normalize the strength characteristics of marine soft clays.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据