4.7 Article

Maximum and minimum void ratios for sand-silt mixtures

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 7-18

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.06.022

关键词

Sand-silt mixture; Fines content; Maximum void ratio; Minimum void ratio; Grain size

资金

  1. NSF [CMMI-1537491]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1537491] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Minimum and maximum void ratios provide a general basis for comparative evaluation of material properties for soils with various densities. Either the minimum or the maximum void ratio is dependent considerably upon the fines content of soil. There are a few mathematical models in the literature for predicting the variation of minimum void ratio with respect to fines content. However, mathematical models for predicting maximum void ratio with respect to fines content are very limited in the field of geotechnical engineering. This study shows that the variation of maximum void ratio with respect to fines content of a sand-silt mixture is caused by the same mechanisms that influence the variation of minimum void ratio. Consequently, the mathematical model previously proposed by the authors for predicting minimum void ratios of sand-silt mixtures is extended to be capable of predicting the maximum void ratios of sand-silt mixtures due to the influence of fines content. The applicability of this extended mathematical model is verified by data from 24 sand-silt mixtures with various fines contents. Furthermore, based on the extended mathematical model, the relationship between the maximum and the minimum void ratios of a sand-silt mixture can be derived. The derived relationship is found to be linear and is a function of fines content. The validity of the derived linear relationship between the maximum and the minimum void ratios of a sand-silt mixture is also verified by the measured results from experiments. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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