4.7 Article

Stress-dilatancy behaviour of bubbled fine-grained sediments

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 260, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105196

关键词

Bubbled-sediments; Stress-dilatancy behaviour; Triaxial compression tests; Prediction

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2016YEC0800200]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51779221]
  3. Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province [2018C03031]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [Y17E090016]
  5. Qianjiang Talent Plan [QJD1602028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the strength and stiffness of fine-grained gassy soil have been relatively well characterised, its dilatancy remains poorly understood. This study aimed to understand and formulate the stress-dilatancy behaviour of fine-grained gassy soil through a series of triaxial tests (19 in total) conducted on fine-grained gassy specimens where different initial gas volume fractions (psi(0)) and initial pore water pressures (u(w0)) were considered. Compared to the stress-dilatancy relation of saturated fine-grained soil, the addition of gas bubbles was found to result in more contractive or dilative soil behaviour, depending on the combination of psi(0) and u(w0). These distinct features cannot be captured by the existing stress-dilatancy functions for fine-grained saturated soils, which solely depend on the stress ratio. Therefore, a new stress-dilatancy function is proposed within the framework of critical state soil mechanics to quantify the distinct modification effects of bubbles (which either suppress or enhance dilatancy) on the dilatancy of gassy soils with different psi(0) and u(w0)d values in a unified manner. This new function has been validated and can be readily implemented in critical state based constitutive models for predicting the shear behaviour of fine-grained gassy soil and therefore, the response of various offshore structures (i.e., foundations and pipelines) founded on a gas-bearing seabed.

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