15strengthdeform.pdf

7/28/2019 15strengthdeform.pdf

1/27

CCL, / 9 1. 22#/97+V 5#9fregt$7 f rm hfion 3&zS6vw0r Scurofw/ad C/Qy5

fZSftr8//T POeo6L&$sAO 4R0/A/o SR'N6r PAwe TR.5

/ D /ca/cu;fA/ /,2Dl. /55C of C&/Slfi Py rns y if Sfi"h6 qnqy

2)',,.. :.3;o I3)C,,v5 2CD4y j t. /4) Cvfpau4EJ atC 1444 AiVC. rJ cm (COaj)//tyf Phk/modc.l FC. a-4;Sd, S

') t6,2)/ ~ ct(fs 4.- 7C. 3 eCoi, alqt Vvc& /Clo

V) )I

000_"00-C4i J_ _ _4


2/27

/,322l *-Or,/el #, Oh fI of /4/

Ig /Iw~ IO) t-L 7C4rLbr 44O AA_ . .m4C4/tA tgc'5M (it CO a/f

&) 2//g


3/27

CL 3//9,C45 Schedf4edg n 5 { gus4meSc( cuovy STA/h4Yr s3svrw o.ewsm6 %SiO(f

.in~u- 77JV4 CC I! .,V 4b,5S VY0 F, , . IC/s),),,i} -.~ , (2+)A) CD M IB

32 CJCecr AS (/)PA45 ~ . s,, 4, ()3/

) -rb (2)5) wc . /- C )

ar I . .7) T, t4 ; -, ()~,_, ^ 2.t! 6 _ _ _

7h*,"AW-04n. d4ud4, - ox, ,p, / z Z*4r


4/27

1,3225/9rc,9Vofigt7d. rf 7tr 8v,/or ofScuaUrO4d/Qysf Sjft8/>'r>' PReOgLzE4S ,4WO 9A/4'toDs7k6N/6r Pg94/TiS; e

A. C/astso1f 6hy pRB6/es s o/ S4,/, S'4ej1es&}Ii o f cfve Stss fi //rt )vEnr./opptsi CD dj pM i SChMidLo.


14/27

dC o / 2 DC 9Esh; C/)co4/12 1chA/,f0 3 Fne/opes ( Scwp ,m K6),('77-/41)

/64d4 n coos s/s/,AWt 44maC4rt 8op o,CAs

= pa-tin a i aw ;Cfo>p o 4 er, a #Pd.A/', /~c )

? ?" -/,, ,s'

2)0,4'(bf/c aA/*akc4tA.o, je 4t d/c >so 4 , ./h iA

Fuu i-1eatIC?.0

x0coc0EO

*o aouL Cocz uj

rr,

i

......- -r - I I- I


15/27

00 100

Relationship between normalized shear stress and effective normal stress for

Portuguese Bend bentonitic tuff. Ca Mont. LL = 98 PI = 61 CF = 68

200 300

Effective Normal Stress (kPa)

NormalizedShear

Stress(/n

)'

tanr'

400 500 600 700 800 900

0.1

0.2

0.3

{

Intact Specimen

Precut Specimen

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from:


16/27

jCL/r ... j-/14 OV&e/r/r~c cf Sic~7ecd CrOc/f))c u hs;2ca. 0'/4k> h f i4@3(1) s5e#t4? gcgt. 354tfJ

I I40 60CF- )

( 4 &9 49;r ? is [A1jksJ4_@dl-X4480 IZ~*;c. Sr6LG! 93

ds ionlencldQItoi Ct /9/Af,/iri/iqs(mceq~ by5skmCEega /970fst 01Z)3t X/qqlcs*7, r, v

/) plny PR/S~ttV~ SJJ#99C +~n f,,*-/-~3~~c~t 7O(Ys 20( "77f iODS s;74/ fl /O t4A 4 1ro /t 44 4tFdGM 044411 ?f't

; ~ (CCLN~ A4.o #. -~al g;849eX W4 @e ~ftOC et)3) /S


17/27

CC- 4,1 /.321 IC kS- C Ct ,/62 p4'/t of Aisw'C 6 X Po*j 1c(/9979"',44a CIoc tA 7 b,'

"52h, /~l4ta( ip2'r- /t,/J1 it 14 s (-), ?5., k) 4txst"aa crl46 e"4y C-4".1 ) ~f~,4j* t'0'Psf , k4. Zo0 b6Avk

I . -IC.. .I I , II ,

I /O /5 20f44A'C; kS&aT2)

A.i - --.I-.I2,3,{ /^ 111 ,1 _I I/ /.S/ 6,/,I~lII., -.W4;T 4Xck a7O4&WAd~t -Shr is "' 'V5'OC244. a, hwICShdae 44 C7k'mh~~o4X-zp

K,

K, = 20 (S5) R 0500]f .31yr_R _ __ 3 P

Afi' - Rupture urface not ormedP - Rupturesurfaceateak L - r

- -- Rupture urfacebetweenpeak and residualR Rupturesurfaceat residual

gatu( (),~~Xc (a)VZ/I~U;L4- I().

flOAbL~fd4Wti?4tJJ4WrY~D

Fig. 21. Rupture surfaces predicted by the analyses on 3:1 slopes, 10 m high,with surface suction 10 kPa and varying Ko

Q.co0L

E0

n QLO)

O C

*

CtTn

2

__ _ I~~~~~~~~~C-

2) &uZ4 IYL 11-om /-3 #a,,-, Ock)KO-


18/27

Note:

Accumulated deviatoric plastic

strains during excavation oP < 5%.

Note:

Strain-softening starts when

oP = 5%. It is complete when

oP = 20%.

oP = 5%

oP = 20%

Rupture Surfacet = 9yr

t = 14.5yr

9 years After Excavation

Rupture Surface

Peak

Between

Residual

0 25mScale

oP = 50% oP = 20%

P

oP = 5%

a

14.5 years After Excavation - Just Before Collapseb

Typical Analysis (S3): 3:1 slope, 10 m high, Ko = 1.5, Surface Suction 10 kPa. Contours of

Accumulated Deviatoric Plastic Strain, o

Figure by MIT OCW.


19/27

(CL 4/t /.322 IC cf54A t CO C&e/7 /esr,'d


20/27

00 50

Plasticity Index, Ip, %

100

s'

r'

r

n = 100 kPa

'

'

n = 400 kPa'

n = 50 kPa'

r'

s'

s'

150

150

10

20

30

40

200 250

0

10

20

SecantFrictionAngle,

degrees

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

Homogeneous

Along scarp

At residual

Reactivated slide

Stratified and

/or fissured}

Mobilized friction angles back-calculated from reactivated and

first-time slope failures compared to the range from empirical information.

Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from:


21/27

bO Ifb 3/8 43/0/ Ba,4ese on fM/ncrad

'yo I//hO0074/00

/odo 5 /830 327

3 (o)35' (0.70)2 9.6 (0o7)/6.2 (et?)-z (, )4.o (407)

( )

/?,x rez mas)v/ v y mncmrazalTan (ttx,rc) - 7n r ( a )Tan (f4li.) - 7n O Cy)

J. C 59 5Lprplre.0Co /ra.t-

* \/ota (Il73) ,t(' 23(z)upv at Ld ( 61)?o 31(2) / a f4t


22/27

4/rI' Res4,1c/A,1/i 3n of otA.-/ncy (/177) 0/sd/5cnCff o 4,neol /4i044r

R.//fs 0fo-, eo/ed o/fnCJAr a O- /y /cnt0,'~4

TABLEI. RESULTS FRESIDUALTRENGTH ESTSON M XTURES.MineralContent Residual tatemdry wt. - k1.0kg/cms

Miture a tI, ..gtnA. MIXTURESCONTAININGMONTMORILLONITEMontmorillonite Na 0 50/50 200 92 0.09andQuartz 25/75 25 75 96 s0 0.1110/90 10 90 44 60 0.426/95 5 95 39 54 0.01Moatmorillonite Na 30 50/50 60 50 72 84 0.24and Quartz 25/76 2S 75 51 69 0.3610/90 10 90 34 64 0.56Montmorillonite- Na 30 50/50 50 50 150 90 0.21and Amorphous iO. 25/75 25 75 87 78 0.24Bentoniteand Quartz 0 75/25 44 56 61 84 0.1250/50 62 38 52 75 0.2626/76 81 19 42 63 0.4015/85 89 11 82 53 0.64Bentonitend 0 91/9 32 68 70 89 0.10AmorphousSiO 82/18 39 61 A6 84 0.1168/32 49 51 68 81 0.1347/53 65 35 60 76 0.1826/7 S81 19 47 66 0.2710/90 92 8 51 61 0.49B. MIXTURESCONTAINING AOLINITE ND GRUNDITEKaolinite nd Quart 0 75/25 25 ' 75 40 8850/50 50 50 30 7325/75 75 25 23 54Kaoliniteand 0 75/25 25 75 44 89Amorphous i 50/50 50 50 31 74Grundite- Na 0 75/25 25 75 67 91andQuatz 50/5 0 50 49 7925/75 76 25 36 62Grundite - Na 0 75/25 25 75 63 91andQuartz 50/50 50 50 40 7725/75 75 25 36 62C. MIXTURESCONTAINING YDROUSMICAIydrousmica -N 0 75/2 48 52and Quaurt 50/50 65 35IHydrousica - Na 30 76/25 48 52andQuatz 50/50 66 35Hydrous ia I - K 0 75/25 48 52and Quart 50/50 6s 35Hydrousmica - K 30 75/25 48 52andQuartz 50/50 6 35Hydrousica It- Na 0 75/25 33 6750/50 65 45Hydrousmica I - Na 30 75/25 33 67ao/so 55 45Hydrous mica - Ns 0 7/ 33 675/5 45Hydrousmica II - Na 30 75/25 33 6750/50 65 45

.1}CY

n17-

Conentto00 80.320.490.650.320.410.250.400.620.220.400.62

ID-

08

i 0630 74 0.3531 65 0.4432 75 0.3833 66 0.4630 74 0.4130 65 0.4741 78 0.4935 67 0.5031 80 0.3222 66 0.4641 83 0.4527 67 0.4754 85 0.4440 74 0.4852 85 0.4446 76 0.50

02

&

Itt"444ep 4w44a*~/cppcnsdid/o, -,e/

minenI---A KooliniteI Grundte m

MontmorillcmixturesSymbols-sO I- -O 20|6P

(

-(

UonTenT Ofr mcoi ilnruld urw ulr.W ur.NFig. 4. Relative residual strength

O"Ieoav - e

=

+ZZ.. :.'-1t I~iIU

n7O4 l1xJ t) - (C y)Ton IClaJsy) - 7an (C/#y)

.4

-f I C-1 Wr 'f 0 ~~~46I fq-'_-- R7

I 't lOf _11

n---

1'e I d111107 J 2.7

9 f4 1 .5M FF Ya/ ISS-1/ C

Z4*1

t

,


23/27

0o

0 20 40

Plasticity Index Ip %

Residual Strength : Correlations with Plasticity Index

DRAINED RESIDUAL STRENGTH OF COHESIVES SOILS

60 80 100

10o

ResidualFriction

Angle,

R'

20o

30o

40o

0o

0 10

P.I. %

10o

res'

20o

30o

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

40o

Vaughan et al. (1978) n = 130 - 180 kPa'

Bucher (1975) n = 72.5 - 269.5 kPa'

Kanji (1974) n = 147 kPa'

Seycek (1978) n = 300 kPa'

Fleischer (1972)

Voight (1973)

Figure by MIT OCW.


24/27

00

200

400

Drained

ResidualShear

St

ress(kPa)

200

Effective Normal Stress (kPa)

Effect of Clay Mineralogy on Drained Residual Failure Envelopes

400

In

creasing

liquidlimit

600

35

LL

800 1000

010

12

14

16

18

20

22

50

25% 45%

100

Liquid Limit (%)

Reduction in Secant Residual Friction Angle from Effective Normal Stresses

of 50 kPa to 700 kPa

(r)

50

/(r)700

'

'

150 200 250 300

0.39

5 2 0 .51

6 2 0 .44

184 1.54288 2.77

9 8 0 .906 8 0 .86

Ag3

9

11

12

19

28

32

Soil Number

(Table 1)

< CF

Documents

15strengthdeform.pdf