4.7 Article

Size distribution of free particles in soils: a geometric modelling approach

期刊

ACTA GEOTECHNICA
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 3849-3866

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-021-01356-w

关键词

Fractal gradation; Internal erosion; Suffusion; Particle size distribution; Particle packing

资金

  1. National Dam Safety Research Centre of China [CX2019B08]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51479112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates suffusion as a typical form of internal erosion in gravel soils, proposing a geometric method for generating a particle packing model to accurately predict erodible particles. The research found that if a soil's gradation curve can be expressed using a fractal relationship, the gradation of free particles also satisfies an exponential function, providing insights for establishing accurate internal erosion criteria.
Suffusion is a typical form of internal erosion for gravel soils in which fine particles are detached by seepage and transport by water through pores. The prediction of erodible particles can improve the assessment of the development of suffusion. The current research on the composition of erodible particles is not sufficiently detailed. The content of erodible particles cannot be accurately determined for a particular gradation. In this paper, a geometric method of generating a particle packing model is proposed. The particles are classified as free or skeleton particles depending on their coordination numbers; thus, their particle size distributions are obtained. Soils with different gradations were analysed using the proposed method. The results indicated that if the grading curve of a soil can be expressed using a fractal relationship, the gradation of free particles also satisfies an exponential function. This is useful in promoting the research on establishing accurate internal erosion criteria, evaluating the performance of filter layers, and predicting the degree of seepage failure caused by internal erosion.

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