Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Experiinent
Station
TO
IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
SHIEA~
by
Fernando H. Tinoco, Graduate Assistant
Richard L. Handy, Professor of Civil Engineering
James M. Hoover, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
ABSTRACT
lower density and had a lower friction angle, but gained significant
stability from
effec~ive
cohesion.
INTRODUCTION
Compacted crushed limestone has been in common use for many years
as a base course for flexible pavements.
program being conducted at Iowa State University to discover and compare strength characteristics of several Iowa cr.ushed stones with varying
service records, and if possible to explain the performance differences
and relate to compositional differences such as gradation or mineralogy.
But since
usually become larger as the test continues to failure, they then include energy used to increase the soil volume as grains move over one
another to allow formation of continuous shear planes.
One
The
showed calcite as the predominant mineral in both stones, but there was
/.'/,/~
Kaolinite
The Bedford stone contains more gravel, less sand and more clay
content for compaction is higher and the compacted density lower than
for the Garner sample.
Table 1.
Textural Composition
Bedford
Garner
73.2%
12.9
8.4
5.5
1.7
61.6%
26.0
10.2
2.2
1.4
20
18
Nonp lastic
De~sity
10.9%
7.6%
127 .4 pcf
140.5 pcf
2.73
2.83
AASHO Classification
A-1-b
A-1-a
GW
GW
Unified Classification
The triaxial shear tests were run with continuous volume change
and pore water pressure measurements.
jC
tion was originated during the Cooperative Triaxial Shear Research Program
of the Corps of Engineers described by Rutledge (1947), and later used
by Henkel (1959 and 1960) for tests on both normal and overconsolidated
clays.
The consolidation history of the sample is taken into consideration in triaxial testing by means of the following equations, after
Bishop and Henkel (1957) .
<\ ' 2 0
(J
2 0
(J
cos cp'
03
v
c'
sin cpu
(J
(J
c1
+tan s1
(J
e'
sin cpo
+
r
sin cp 0
(J
3
v
(1)
(2)
where
cos cp'
1 - sin cp'
'
c'
sin cp 0
r
r
x --
0 v ' tan sl = 1 - sin cp 0
and
tion pressure corresponding to a void ratio e is defined as the pressure a v for a point on the virgin branch of the consolidation diagram
e
a'-au
1
3
2 a u
c +
1
2
C 0"
0"
0"
Q"
3
e
tan ~ 2
(3)
2 e
where c'r =cos 1: and tan ~
r
The parameters
cr '
=sin ~rv.
requires that samples fail at the same moisture content (or void
ratio), but at different effective stresses to allow tangential fitting
of an envelope to the different Mohr circles.
not allow the direct determination of c
and
in the laboratory.
then the shear strength is a unique function of the void ratio and
effective stresses
(Hvorslev~
lac. cit.).
DISCUSSION
samples compacted at standard Proctor density were tested under consolidatedrepeated shear conditions.
following manner:
Degree of Compaction
Test Procedures
Standard Proctor
"
II
Modified Proctor
cpr
Normal
0.160 a
Repeated load
0.027 a
Normal
0.223 a
45.6
e
I
46.2
41.0
e
e
the two test procedures and the difference can be attributed to errors
involved in testing and other approximations.
cussion, the parameter cp ' is assumed to be the same for both testing
r
procedures.
the minimum void ratio of the sample during shear for the Bedford
crushed stone.
figure that this reduced cohesion value occurs in the same range of
void ratios as the higher cohesion values of the samples tested by
the usual method.
t"rj
t-'
OQ
ti
CD
.....
(ll
~ rt
rt ti
CD
0.
rt
0
<
CD
(ll
(ll
~
::I
(ll
0
.....
t-'
::I 0.
0. ~
t-'
rt
0. CD t-'
ti
~
1-tt 0
1-tt ::I
CD
rt n "d
t-' rt ti
0 t-' CD
<
CD
(ll
en
cti
::I
0 CD
ti
~.....
0.2601--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~--1-~~~~~~.._~~-----1
BEDFORD SAMPLES
o Effective pressure,
0.220.__~~~~~-'-~~~-'-~--''--~......___._~_._--L..._.__._~~~~~~L--~~--'
10
100
STRESS , psi
200
300
11
r-~~~-,.~~~~-.-~~~~.--~~~-r~~~~..--~~~-r~~~---8
0
~
(.\J
oQ / '
<D
c
0
-.:::
0
Q.
E
0
'tJ
CD
-=
'tJ
0
~
.....
Cl>
:J
Cl)
II)
.....
Cl>
c
~
0
'tJ
.
Cl)
Cl)
.....
II>
.....
CD
.....
UJ
CD
--
:.:0
>
CD
Q.
.....
CD
II>
II>
:J
CD
,,,,
0
CD
.c
II)
II(
0
~
E
:J
E
0
II>
c
0
u
0(.\J
<]
t\I
I')
UJ
Q.
<(
Cf)
0
11::
u.
0
UJ
t\I
m
0
0
0
t\I
0101\
d
IJ.'1~
(.\J
IO
...J
(\I
18
(.\J
r-~~~-;-~~~~-+-~~~~1--~~~-+~~~~+-~~F--4-~~~---10
CX)
'""
d
Fig. 2.
(I)
Q.
UJ
ff)
ff)
a:
~
(/)
'Tj
t-'
OQ
3.0
w
q
,__..
N
BEDFORD SAMPLES
Standard compaction
tp
(1)
- 0..
C2 = 0.112
Hl
(1)
Ill
;:I
ti
0..
tan {32
I
(/J
Cr
rt
0
;:I
0..
..
(1)
q
,__..
N
2.0
=0.715
=0.160
<Te
t/>e 45.6
- ti
(1)
+,__..
(1)
Ill
q rt
t-'
;:I
_.,,
b
-CD
-0
(.\J
(/J
::l"
t-'
,__..
N
"O
0(1)
rt
('!)
(1)
;:I
1.0
tTj
I-'
()Q
.j:'-
<
td
(1l
p..
H'l
ti
I-' p..
p..
(/l
ti rt
Ill 0
rt
0.310
::s
..
I-' (1l
0
Ill
::sp..
ti
(1l
t-'
rt Ill
rt
::i-
....
a: 0.290
(1l
I-'
(1l
::s
::i-
H'l
H'l
(1l
(/l
I-'
n "O
rt
..... a"
<
(1l
(1l
(1l
(1l
::i(1l
(/l
I-'
rt
~
::s
rt
::i(1l
.::s s
t-'
>
~
VJ
0.270
:::::>
:E
z
~ 0.2501--~~~~~~~~--+~~--+-~~~~~-----i~~~~~~~~~----t
BEDFORD
I-'
::s
I-'
\
0.230
SAMPLES
Mod. compaction
...........
100.0
0.210~~~~~~...._~~~--'-~~~~..__~..___.__.__._........._._._..__~__,._.__~....__.__...._._._.__
0.1
1.0
EFFECTIVE
10.0
COHESION , psi
14
1958) .
It is noteworthy to indicate
Ap-
cr 1
- cr 3
cr 1
913 - 4075 e
min'
for e
min
> 0.175
- cr3 '
2
662,5 - 2640 e
min'
for e
min
< 0.175
(4)
(5)
15
and
a 1 ' - a3 '
2
1129
5030 e .
min
( 6)
sin~
~'
a 1 ' - a3 '
a'+a'
1
3
sin ~
(7)
increased as
~,
sin~'
decreased
sin~
and
I
1, - 0"3
2
662.4 &
al
+a 3 I
2
sin~
0.587
35.9 .
16
Q
\
GARNER SAMPLE
Standard compaction
fl)
CL
_..,
b
-bI
(\I
150
en
en
LLJ
a:
....
en
a:
<t
LLJ
100
en
~
:::>
~
)(
<t
~
50
\
\
\
\
OL-~~...L._~~....L~~....L~~--L~~___._~~--'-~~---JL...-l....----1
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
MINIMUM
Fig. 5.
VOID
0.20
0.21
RATIO
0.22
0.23
17
GARNER SAMPLES
Standard
compaction
a Consolidation pressure
Effective pressure
'\
''
'
'\
Cl)
Cl.
_.,, ..
300
C\J
-b-
..
lAJ
etc
:::>
CJ)
CJ)
UJ
200
a::
a..
UJ
>
I-
u
UJ
u..
u..
UJ
100
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
VOID
Fig. 6.
0.19
0.20
0.21
RATIO
Garner stone: effective pressure and consolidation pressure as related to void ratio.
0.22
0.23
18
GARNER
SAMPLES
Standard compaction
w
w
-&-
a:
49 C>
w
(/)
0.750 -
I
I
47
I
I
I
I
45
0.19
0.20
0.21
Fig. 7.
..
-=a-
0.22
0.23
19
Degree of Compaction
Cohesion, psi
Standard Proctor
1171
36.5
Modified Proctor
1116
39.9
high cell pressure, up to 36,000 psi, and Bridgman (1936) and Griggs
(1942) performed high pressure tests on calcite., The envelopes obtained are slightly curved and the mean results are sunnnarized in
Table 4.
material on the assumption that the friction angle was 34.0, in order
that a comparison could be drawn with the above quoted authors' results.
Table 4.
Author
Cohesion, psi.
Von Karman
Marble
4980
34
Bridgman &
Griggs
Calcite
2990
34
Bedford
(Std. Comp.)
1315
34
Bedford
(Mod . Comp . )
3868
34
20
CONCLUSIONS
21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
sonnel:
22
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Best, T. (1966).
3.
4.
5.
Handy, R. L. (1965). "Quantitative X-ray diffraction measurements by fast scanning." Analytical Techniques for Hydraulic
Cements and Concrete, ASTM STP 395, Am. Soc. Testing Matl's.,
pp. 30-44.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Private communication.
Ames, Iowa.
10.
11.
23
13.
14.
24
APPENDIX A
a' 3c
al
al
Effective consolidation pressure; i.e., applied consolidation pressure less pore pressure.
a3
+ a3 I
2
ae I
c
cp
c1
Effective cohesion
r
r
Q"
Cz
0
CJ'
e
a'+a'
1
3
Intercept of failure line for ~-~a_,...,~2
s1
Sz
3
0:-V
e
Angle that the failure line makes with horizontal axis,
a 1 ' +a 3 '
2 a I
e