Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
As a prelude to a study on the post-liquefaction properties and structure of
soil, an investigation of ground freezing as an undisturbed sampling technique
was conducted to investigate the ability of this sampling technique to preserve soil
structure and properties. Freezing the ground is widely regarded as an appropriate
technique to recover undisturbed samples of saturated cohesionless soil for
laboratory testing, despite the fact that water increases in volume when frozen.
The explanation generally given for the preservation of soil structure using the
freezing technique was that, as long as the freezing front advanced unidirectionally, the expanding pore water is expelled ahead of the freezing front as
the front advances. However, a literature review on the transition of water to ice
shows that the volume of ice expands approximately nine percent after freezing,
bringing into question the hypothesized mechanism and the ability of a frozen and
then thawed specimen to retain the properties and structure of the soil in situ.
Bench-top models were created by pluviation of sand. The soil in the model was
then saturated and subsequently frozen. Freezing was accomplished using a pan
filled with alcohol and dry ice placed on the surface of the sand layer to induce a
unidirectional freezing front in the sample container. Coring was used to recover
frozen samples from model containers. Recovered cores were then placed in a
triaxial cell, thawed, and subjected to consolidated undrained loading. The stressstrain-strength behavior of the thawed cores was compared to the behavior of
specimens created in a split mold by pluviation and then saturated and sheared
without freezing and thawing. The laboratory testing provide insight to the impact
of freezing and thawing on the properties of cohesionless soil.
ii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicate to my father Mr. Julius M. Katapa who inspired me to
pursue engineering and encouraged me to never stop learning.
To my mother Mrs. Loveness K. Katapa who has been a calming influence when
everything seems to fall apart.
And to three of the best people in the world:
Tafwachi L. Chamunda, Kasumpa J.Z. Katapa, and Zanga P.K. Katapa
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Edward
Kavazanjian, Jr. for the opportunity to study under his instruction and leadership
and for his guidance throughout my graduate school studies at Arizona State
University. I want to thank Ed for his patience during the course of this research
and in the preparation of this thesis.
I would like to thank the members of my committee Dr. Sandra Houston and
Dr. Claudia Zapata. It was a pleasure to be in their classes. I have learnt a lot from
them. Their classes helped my gain a higher level of understanding of soil and
geotechnical engineering.
Thanks to Peter Goguen for teaching me how to use the GCTS Cyclic
Pneumatic Soil Triaxial System and for his assistance in setting up triaxial testing
programs. I am especially thankful for his timely effort in keeping the equipment
that I required, in working order and for ordering materials on time.
I want to also thank my fellow students Zbigniew David Czupak, Pengbo
Yuan, Mohamed Arab, and especially Elliot Bartel for their assistance throughout
the course of this research.
Financial support provided by the Edward and Amelia Kavazanjian
Fellowship is acknowledged.
Finally, I want to thank my wife Tafwachi L. Chamunda for her support
throughout graduate school. My boys Kasumpa J. Katapa and Zanga P. Katapa
were a source of inspiration that I cannot put into words.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1.1
Objectives ............................................................................... 1
1.2
Background ............................................................................ 2
1.3
1.4
LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................. 8
2.1
Introduction ............................................................................ 8
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Testing ....43
3.0
4.0
3.2
Specimen Preparation........................................................... 51
5.0
4.2
4.3
6.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.2
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
3-1. Ottawa 20-30 Sand Maximum and Minimum Void ratio ...................... 50
5-1. Density Confirmation Test Results ........................................................ 90
5-2. Initial Properties of Never Frozen Sand Test Specimens ....................... 97
5-3. Initial Properties of Frozen Core Test Specimens .................................. 99
5-4. Statistical Comparison of drained Test Results .................................... 104
5-5. Initial Properties of undrained Baseline Tests Specimens ................... 105
5-6. Initial Properties of Frozen Core Test Specimens ................................ 108
5-7. Statistical Comparison of Deviator Stress Strain Results ................. 112
5-8. Statistical Comparison of Excess Pore Water Pressure - Strain Results
.............................................................................................................. 113
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.17. Effect of freeze thaw cycle on strength and deformation behavior ...... 40
2.18. Effect of freeze thaw cycle on friction angle ........................................ 40
2.19. Sample disturbance due to insertion of freeze pipe (Yoshimi et al.
1978) ..................................................................................................... 41
2.20. Seismic history and virgin line for never frozen specimens ................. 42
2.21. Seismic history and virgin line for frozen/ thawed specimens ............. 43
2.22. Sample preparation methods (Frost, 1989) ........................................... 44
2.23. Cylindrical tube (Mulilis et al., 1975) .................................................. 46
2.24. Tamping rod (Mulilis, 1975) ................................................................ 47
3.1. Ottawa 20-30 Gradation ......................................................................... 50
3.2. Model container (Box) ............................................................................ 52
3.3. Box Lid ................................................................................................... 52
3.4. Pluviation apparatus................................................................................ 54
3.5. Illustration of sample preparation procedure .......................................... 56
3.6. Pluviation apparatus calibration curve.................................................... 56
3.7. Box with geonet in place ........................................................................ 57
3.8. Pluviation in progress and a completed specimen .................................. 58
3.9. Triaxial test specimen preparation Steps 1- 4 ......................................... 60
3.10. Triaxial test specimen preparation Steps 1- 7 ....................................... 61
3.11. Vacuum saturation of box specimen..................................................... 62
4.1. Sketch of numerical model ..................................................................... 72
4.2. Numerical Modeling of Freezing Front Propagation.............................. 73
4.3. Freezing front investigation experimental setup..................................... 75
ix
xi
Chapter 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this work is to develop a method for recovering
undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil from physical models. This work is part
of a larger project to experimentally and numerically investigate the properties of
resedimented cohesionless soil following earthquake induced liquefaction (Borja
et al., 2008). Undisturbed samples of resedimented soil are required for
laboratory stress-strain-strength tests and microstructural evaluations to achieve
the project objectives.
To mitigate adverse effects of sample disturbance, cohesionless soils have to
be stabilized prior to sampling. However, in order to conduct laboratory stressstrain-strength tests on the recovered samples, the stabilization method must be
reversible. In this work, reversible methods of obtaining undisturbed samples of
cohesionless soil are reviewed for application to the previously mentioned project.
The technique selected for obtaining undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil
from laboratory bench scale models for the larger project is described herein in
detail. And finally, the quality of samples obtained using the selected method is
evaluated using triaxial compression tests conducted on recovered samples.
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this study was to develop a method of obtaining undisturbed
samples of cohesionless soil in order to evaluate their stress-strain-strength
Chapter 5 presents the results of the tests performed to evaluate the quality of
samples obtained using the developed sampling method. The results are analyzed
and interpreted to reach reasonable conclusions.
Chapter 6 summarizes findings of the present work. Recommendations for
future work in this area of research are also presented here.
Chapter 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Sampling of soil for laboratory testing has been a subject of interest since
the early days of modern geotechnical engineering. The quality
(representativeness) of laboratory test results for evaluating stress-strain-strength
properties of soil, and by extension the quality of engineering evaluations based
on these results, is dependent on the quality of samples obtained for these tests.
Thus the objective for recovery of samples for laboratory evaluation of
mechanical properties (stress-strain-strength properties) is to recover undisturbed
samples. However, some level of disturbance during sampling may be inevitable
due to 1) the changes in the stress state of soil that are created by removal of
overburden and 2) particle reorientation from mechanical effects of sampling
(pushing a sample tube in the ground). The less disturbed a sample is, the more
closely the lab results reflect its in situ behavior.
According to Hvorslev (1949), Undisturbed samples may be defined
broadly as samples in which the material has been subjected to so little
disturbance that it is suitable for all laboratory tests and thereby for approximate
determination of strength, consolidation, and permeability characteristics and
other physical properties of the material in situ.
Hvorslev (1949) suggested the following criteria for assessing the quality
of relatively undisturbed samples suitable for laboratory tests:
1. No disturbance of the soil structure.
8
ag
garose). Thee variation off gelation tem
mperature annd agar conccentration is shown in
Figure 2.1 as determined from viscossity tests usinng a rotationnal viscosimeeter
Schneider et al. 1989). Figure
F
2.1 alsso shows thaat the gelatioon temperatuure of
(S
ag
gar is dependent on the source.
s
This relationshipp between geelation tempperature
an
nd agar sourrce has been attributed to
o the fact thaat agar is a nnatural produuct and its
prroperties dep
pend upon itts origin and
d time of harvvest (Schneiider et al., 19989).
Similarly, thee properties of
o agarose arre a functionn of impuritiies, mixing, tthe
ource agar, and
a the proceess of separaation from aggar. Agarosee is currentlyy
so
av
vailable with
h gelation temperatures ranging
r
from
m 8C to 422C and gel--melting
teemperatures ranging from
m 50C to 90C
FIG.
F
2.1. Gellation tempeerature versu
us agar conceentration (Scchneider et aal., 1989)
13
The ab
bility of a flu
uid to penetrrate soil porees under a loow hydraulicc gradient
iss governed by
b its viscosiity. The relattionship betw
ween agar cooncentrationn,
teemperature, and viscosity
y is shown in
n Figure 2.22. Schneider et al. (1989)) used an
ag
gar solution of 0.5 % by
y weight in th
heir work. Fiigure 2.2 shoows that agaar
so
olutions of 0.5
0 % by weiight have a dynamic
d
visccosity of 2 too 4 cps over a wide
raange of temp
perature, a lo
ow enough viscosity
v
thatt the biopolyymer solutionn easily
penetrated thee pores in a sandy
s
soil. The
T dynamicc viscosity of water overr
pproximately
y the same temperature
t
range
r
variess between 0.66 and 0.4 cpps.
ap
Sutterrer et al. (199
95) did not discuss
d
the vviscosity of aagarose soluttions that
were
w used in their experim
ments. Howeever, as menntioned abovve, agarose iss a
co
onstituent off natural agaar and the usee of agar as a stabilizatioon agent is aattributed
to
o agarose. It may be assu
umed that the viscosity oof agarose iss of the samee order as
th
hat reported by Schneideer et al. (1989) for agar.
FIG.
F
2.2. Sollution viscossity versus teemperature aas a functionn agar concenntration
by
y weight (Scchneider et a.,
a 1989)
14
FIG.
F
2.3. Uncconfined com
mpression teests for an aggar concentrration of 1%
(S
Schneider et al., 1989)
Schneideer et al. (1989) conducted
d laboratoryy impregnatioon of sand w
with agar
in
n a quicksand tank. The scale of the experiment and the initiial conditionns closely
matches
m
the conditions
c
off the laborato
ory tests thatt will be connducted in thhis
reesearch prog
gram. The ex
xperimental setup
s
used bby Schneiderr et al. (19899) is
sh
hown in Figu
ure 2.4. Thee quicksand tank was fillled with Ottawa 20-30 ssand. The
saand was brou
ught to a quiick condition
n by applyinng an upwardd hydraulic ggradient.
15
An
A injection tube
t
and sev
veral small plastic
p
tubes were inserteed in the sandd while it
was
w still in th
he quick cond
dition. The upward
u
flow
w was stoppeed after the tuubes were
in
n place. It seems that thiss insertion procedure
p
waas employedd in order to rreduce
th
he disturbancce to the reseedimented so
oil caused byy the insertioon of the tubbes. After
reesedimentatiion, but priorr to introduccing the agarr solution, w
water at 90C
C was
in
njected into the
t sand at a low hydrau
ulic gradient to increase tthe temperatture of
th
he sand in th
he vicinity off the injectio
on tube. Dyedd agar solutiions at 0.5%
% to 1.5%
co
oncentration
n by weight at
a 80C weree then injectted through tthe injectionn tube at
lo
ow hydraulicc gradient. The
T agar solu
ution was alllowed to coool and solidiffy and
th
hen the soil was
w sampled
d. Figure 2.5 shows an exxcavated buulb of agar stabilized
Ottawa
O
sand.
FIG.
F
2.4. Lab
boratory injeection test in
n quicksand ttank (Schneiider et al., 19989)
16
FIG.
F
2.5. Exccavated bulb
b after impreegnation (Schhneider et all., 1989)
The follo
owing conclu
usions were reached from
m the laboraatory impreggnation
ex
xperiment co
onducted by
y Schneider et
e al. (1989)::
1. The agar
a
solution
n effectively
y penetrated aand displaceed the pore w
water.
2. The solution
s
solidified in thee tank after ccooling. The impregnatedd sand
posseessed enough
h strength an
nd stiffness tto be sampleed and handlled.
3. Temp
perature meaasurements demonstrate
d
d that the raadius of peneetration of
the so
olution could be predicteed from finitte-element aanalyses of aaxissymm
metric transient heat flow
w condition.
A labo
oratory device for agar impregnationn and flushinng was developed by
Frost (1989). This devicee was based on
o a modifieed triaxial test cell. A schhematic
of the device is shown in Figure 2.6. Sutterer et aal. (1995) ussed a later veersion of
th
he Frost (198
89) system to
o create agarrose impregnnated samples in the labboratory.
Sutterer et al. (1995) prep
pared Ottawaa 20-30 and modified Otttawa F-125 sand
n using a mo
odification of the rainingg method ddescribed
saamples by drry pluviation
by
y Mulilis et al. (1975). The
T sample preparation
p
m
method invoolved the usee of a
pluviation app
paratus deveeloped by Frrost (1989). T
The pluviation apparatuss allows
th
he creation of
o reproducib
ble cylindriccal samples oof cohesionleess soil withh similar
17
FIG.
F
2.6. Agaar impregnattion and Flu
ushing System
m (Frost, 19989)
Laborratory impreg
gnation of pluviated sam
mples with aggarose was
co
onducted by
y Sutterer et al.,
a (1995) in
n their laboraatory agarosse flushing aand
18
impregnation system. This system is shown in Figure 2.6. The soil was heated in a
hot bath to temperatures above the gelation temperature of the agarose solution.
The heated agarose was then introduced into the soil sample at a differential
pressure (from top to bottom) of about 10 kPa. Impregnation temperatures were
on the order of 48 to 53C (Sutterer et al. 1995). Upon cooling, the agarose gelled,
resulting in enough cohesion to hold the sample together without a confining
pressure. The triaxial cell was taken apart, the specimen removed, and the end
platens of the cell were cleaned. The removed specimen was assumed to represent
a recovered cohesionless sample impregnated with agarose. The agarose
impregnated specimen was then remounted into the agar impregnation and
flushing system and confined. The agarose was then flushed from the specimen
for triaxial shear tests as described subsequently in this thesis.
2.2.2
Elmers glue, also known as Carpenters glue, has also been used to stabilize
cohesionless soil for sampling. Elmers glue is soluble in water; therefore, the
stabilization process can be reversed. Yang (2002) and Evans (2005) used Elmers
glue in a two stage process for preserving the microstructure of sand specimens
tested in triaxial and biaxial shear for the purpose of quantitatively studying
internal soil microstructure in regions of high localized strain. Elmers glue was
used to stabilize the soil samples prior to permanently fixing them with epoxy.
This two stage process was used, in part, to avoid introducing epoxy into
equipment that the researcher wanted to save and reuse.
19
The setup
p used by Ev
vans (2005) for Elmers glue impreggnation is shhown in
Figure 2.7. Th
he proceduree involved flushing
fl
the ssoil specimeen with a diluute
olution (7% by weight) of
o Elmers glue
g under a small vacuuum (approxim
mately10
so
to
o 15 kPa). Th
he solution was
w drawn th
hrough the sspecimen froom bottom too top and
in
nto a waste reservoir.
r
On
nce the wastee reservoir ccontained appproximatelyy one-half
to
o one pore vo
olume of sollution, the vaacuum was rreleased andd excess gluee solution
was
w allowed to
t drain from
m the pores. After excesss glue solutioon had drainned from
th
he specimen pores, the vacuum
v
was reactivated aand used to ddraw desiccaated air
th
hrough the pores. The relative humid
dity of the aiir leaving thee top of the sspecimen
was
w monitoreed. The relatiive humidity
y was used too indicate w
when the gluee had
cu
ured, which also meant that
t the speccimen had beeen stabilizeed. This curinng point
was
w reached when
w
the rellative humid
dity of the airr leaving thee specimen w
was below
40% (usually after 5 to 7 days) (Evan
ns, 2005).
FIG.
F
2.7. Elm
mer's glue im
mpregnation setup (Evanns, 2005)
20
2.2.3
Stabillization Usin
ng Freezing
Samplin
ng by freezin
ng has long been considdered a reliabble means off
btaining und
disturbed sam
mples of satu
urated sandss (Singh et all.1982). Thee US
ob
Army
A
Corps of
o Engineerss obtained in
ntact sampless of cohesionnless soil ussing
frreezing at Fo
ort Peck Dam
m (Hvorslev, 1949). Freeezing was acchieved by
ciirculating a freezing
f
mix
xture through
h seven pipees installed aaround the boorehole,
ass shown in Figure
F
2.8. Samples
S
werre then obtaiined by corinng with a 914 mm
co
ore barrel with metal teeeth (Hvorslev
v, 1949). Thhe core barreel is shown inn Figure
2.9. Accordin
ng to Hvorsleev (1949), based on visuual inspection, the qualitty of the
saamples was excellent.
FIG.
F
2.8. Sub
bsurface freeezing for sam
mpling at Fort Peck dam
m (Hvorslev, 1949)
21
Fig.
F 2.9. Coree barrel used
d at Fort Peck
k dam (Hvorrslev, 1949))
Sampliing by freeziing was also
o researched by Japanesee investigatoors for
reecovery of liiquefiable saands for labo
oratory testinng (Yoshimi et al., 1978)).
Yoshim
mi et al. (197
78) proposed
d a field samppling proceddure consistiing of:
1.
Inserting an
a open end steel tube innto the grounnd and removing the
soil from inside
i
the tube as it peneetrates (in a m
manner simiilar to
installation
n of self-borring pressuree meters).
2.
3.
4.
Pulling ou
ut the steel tu
ube with a coolumn of froozen sand addhered to
it.
FIG.
F
2.10. Fiield and labo
oratory freezzing setup (Y
Yoshimi et all. 1978)
Singh et al. (1982) ussed a modifiied triaxial ccell capable oof testing 3005 mm
diameter sam
mples for labo
oratory freezzing experim
ments. The saample to be sstabilized
by
y freezing was
w first creaated within a split mold m
mounted in tthe triaxial ccell using
th
he pluviation
n through airr methods deescribed by M
Mulilis, Chaan and Seed ((1975).
The
T freezing method used
d was very similar
s
to thee freezing method used bby
23
Yoshimi et al. (1978) in that the coolant was ethanol with crushed dry ice, except
that in this case, the coolant was placed on top of a modified triaxial cell top
platen, resulting in top to bottom freezing direction. The top cap of the triaxial cell
was modified to be capable of containing ethanol and crushed dry ice. Testing of
the frozen specimens after thawing is described subsequently in this thesis.
2.3 Methods for Sampling Stabilized Soil
2.3.1
al. (1989) as similar to medium clay. This description agrees with the unconfined
compression test results performed on agar impregnated sand samples. It may be
assumed that agarose impregnated samples most likely have similar consistency.
The results of the unconfined compressive strength tests on agar and agar
impregnated soil are shown in Figure 2.3.
Schneider et al. (1989) performed field impregnation tests where they
demonstrated the feasibility of recovery of agar impregnated samples in the field.
In these field tests, a thin walled 127 mm diameter Osterberg sampler was used to
recover samples. The Osterberg sampler is a thin wall hydraulic fixed piston
sampler. A piston is attached to a thin wall sampling tube and locked in place at
the head of the tube. The piston and tube are seated on the bottom of the borehole.
The tube is then unlocked from the piston and is hydraulically pushed into the soil
while the piston is held in place to obtain a sample. This sampling method is
commonly used for undisturbed sampling of soft clays. Therefore, its use for
24
sampling agar impregnated soil agrees well with the medium clay consistency
characterization. The field samples recovered by Schneider et al. (1989) could
then be tested by extruding the specimen from the sampling tube and trimming
the specimen to size.
The laboratory samples of agar impregnated soil that were recovered by
Schneider et al. (1989) from the quick sand tank can be described as block
samples. The samples were recovered by excavating unstabilized soil from around
the agar stabilized soil. This process demonstrated that agar and perhaps agarose
stabilized soil samples can also be obtained by block sampling and trimming to
the required dimensions for testing provided a sufficiently large volume of soil is
stabilized.
2.3.2
conventional sense in the work conducted by Evans (2005) and Yang (2002), as
the stabilized specimens were laboratory test specimens. However, the Elmers
glue stabilized specimens were able to maintain their structure during subsequent
handling after the glue cured. The samples were removed from the glue
impregnation system and the confining membrane removed without the sample
falling apart. The consistency of the specimens was described as lightly
cemented (Evans, 2005). It is conceivable that Elmers glue stabilized soil could
be sampled using block sampling, push tube methods, or even coring. However,
in the absence of specific information on the consistency or unconfined
25
Army Corps of Engineers involved complete freezing of the soil below the bottom
of the borehole (Hvorslev, 1949). Samples were recovered using the single tube
0.91 m diameter core barrel with metal teeth with a calyx shown in Figure 2.9.
Field sampling of frozen soil that was conducted by Yoshimi et al. (1978)
can be best described as block sampling. The frozen sand was lifted en masse by
grabbing the freeze pipe with a crane and pulling it out of the ground. This
procedure produced a nearly uniform 0.4 m diameter cylindrical mass of frozen
sand around the freeze pipe. Smaller samples for laboratory testing were obtained
from this frozen mass by trimming from the cylindrical core.
Singh et al. (1982) did not perform any field sampling of frozen soil.
However, they did obtain samples from the soil that they froze in the 300 mm
diameter triaxial cell. The frozen 300 mm diameter specimen was removed from
the triaxial cell and carried to a radial drill press. Using a diamond core drill, 71
mm diameter cores 18 to 25 mm long were recovered from the 300 mm diameter
frozen specimen. Compressed carbon dioxide was used as the drilling fluid (Singh
et al. (1982).
26
Removal of Agar/A
/Agarose
oval of agar and
a agarose from stabilizzed sampless was accompplished
Remo
by
y use of the Laboratory Agar Flushin
ng and Imprregnation sysstem describbed by
Frost (1989) and
a Suttererr et al. (1995). The versioon of the agaar impregnattion and
fllushing systeem used by Sutterer
S
et all. (1995) is sshown schem
matically in F
Figure
2.11.
FIG.
F
2.11. Ag
garose Impregnation and
d Flushing S
System (Suttterer et al., (11995)
To rem
move agarosse, the reserv
voirs shown in Figure 2.11 were filleed with
hot water and
d the confineed, agarose im
mpregnated sample was heated to thhe
garose gel melting
m
temperature using
g a hot bath within the trriaxial cell. A
Agarose
ag
reemoval temp
peratures weere on the ord
der of 70C and agar rem
moval tempeeratures
were
w on the order
o
of 90C
C (Sutterer et al., 1995). The differennce in removval
teemperature is the major advantage
a
th
hat agarose hhas over agaar. The agaroose
reemoval temp
perature is siignificantly lower
l
than thhe boiling pooint of waterr. When
27
the agarose had melted and began to flow, hot water was circulated through the
sample until the agarose was flushed out. A volume of 2,500 to 4,000 ml (equal to
approximately 4 to 7 pore volumes) of tap water circulated in one direction was
typically required for complete removal of visible evidence of agarose. Using an
earlier prototype of the system, Frost (1989) found that periods of both upward
and downward flushing was necessary to remove any visual evidence of agar.
Frost (1989) found that flushing in only one direction resulted in remnants of agar
remaining in the specimen near the platens but Sutterer et al., (1995) reported no
such problems using agarose.
2.4.2
clean his equipment following the first stage of his two-stage impregnation
process. To remove the glue, he soaked Elmers glue filled equipment in water for
several days. After the glue had dissolved, the equipment was washed with water
to remove any glue remnants. It can be inferred that the same process can be used
to remove Elmers glue from soil pores. The second stage of the Yang (2002) and
Evans (2005) stabilization process was to impregnate the Elmers glue cemented
sample with epoxy to permanently fix the specimen. It can also be inferred from
this that Elmers glue stabilized samples had at least moderate permeability. The
removal process could involve:
1. Placing specimens in a triaxial cell and applying a small confining
pressure.
2. Saturating the specimen with water for a few days.
28
3. Flushing the specimen with water until all evidence of Elmers glue
was completely removed.
2.4.3
29
remelted to model the effects of agar removal. However, Schneider et al. (1989)
state that Observations made during the melting of cubes of agar gels indicate
that the volume change effects are probably thermo reversible.
Heating generates volume and effective stress changes in saturated soil. This
is due to the differential thermal expansion of the pore water and mineral
particles. The volume change behavior of heated soil differs for drained heat and
undrained heating. For purposes of this study, soil heating for biopolymer
impregnation can be assumed to occur under drained conditions. The subject of
soil temperature-volume relationships is discussed in great detail by Mitchell and
Soga (2005). Under drained conditions the soil grains and the soil mass undergo
the same volumetric strains. Therefore, under drained heating, pore fluid will flow
out of the heated region because, for a given temperature change, the volumetric
strain of water is greater than the volumetric strain of solid soil particles. Heating
may also induce changes in inter particle forces if the specimen is not free to
change in volume (e.g. under one dimensional conditions in the ground). Heating
a soil specimen constrained from volume change can cause changes in cohesion
and/or frictional resistance that may result in particle reorientation, and under
extreme conditions, in particle crushing. Particle reorientation is a significant
factor in soil fabric. Sutterer et al. (1995) conducted experiments using Ottawa
20-30 sand and concluded that the level of heating involved in biopolymer
impregnation did not result in particle crushing.
31
FIG.
F
2.12. Vo
olume chang
ge as a functtion of tempeerature and aagar concenttration
(S
Schneider et al. 1989)
The
T experimeents of Sutterer et al. (19
995) also shoowed that thee drained heeating of
cllean sands (g
germane to this
t study) un
nder constannt confining pressure didd not
reesult in signiificant volum
metric strain and thus, byy extension, did not resuult in
siignificant vo
oid ratio chan
nges. The vo
olumetric strrain of the sooil due to heating
du
uring impreg
gnation with
h agarose waas estimated to be 0.1% ((Sutterer et aal., 1995).
In ord
der to investiigate the quaality of sampples obtainedd by agarose
im
mpregnation
n, Sutterer et al. (1995) co
onducted unndrained cyclic triaxial teests under
an
n isotropic confining
c
streess. Undrain
ned cyclic triiaxial testingg was selecteed as the
method
m
of com
mparison for the followiing reasons:
1. Saamples are easy to prepaare
2. Teesting is sim
mple to perforrm
32
3. It has been used by other researchers (Yoshimi et al. 1984, and Mulilis
et al. 1975) for similar purposes.
A comparison of the cyclic triaxial test results on impregnated specimens and
on control specimens is shown in Figure 2.13. Sutterer et al. (1995) developed a
mathematical relationship between the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) and the number
of cycles to failure, Nf, presented by the equation 2.1:
(2.1)
33
FIG.
F
2.13. Cy
yclic mobilitty results forr impregnateed versus conntrol specim
mens
2.5.2
water
w
were alllowed to occur without drainage, thhe soil mass w
would experrience a
co
oncurrent increase in void ratio, losss of inter-parrticle contacts, and conseequently
34
ex
xperiments to
t examine the
t effects off the followiing factors on the expanssion of
th
he soil skeletton during frreezing:
1. Surcharge/ov
S
verburden.
2. Soil
S type/Fines content
3. Relative
R
denssity
4. Coolant
C
temp
perature.
Yoshimi et
e al. (1978) conducted laboratory
l
teests to evaluaate the above factors
using three so
oils: Toyouraa sand, Toneegawa sand, and Niigataa sand. The ggradations
of the three saands are sho
own in Figure 2.14. The Y
Yoshimi et aal. (1978)
ex
xperimental setup was sh
hown in Figure 2.10. Thhe specimenss were frozen from
th
he bottom by
y immersing the steel bo
ottom in coollant (mixturee of alcohol and
crrushed dry icce) and drain
nage was pro
ovided at thee top. This setup was useed to
in
nvestigate th
he factors listted above.
FIG.
F
2.14. Grradation curv
ves (Yoshim
mi et al., 197 8)
The Yosh
himi et al. (1
1978) experiiments show
wed that the ttwo most inffluential
faactors on thee amount of volumetric
v
strains
s
due too freezing w
were overburdden
36
FIG.
F
2.15. Peercent expan
nsion versus surcharge prressure (Yosshimi et al., 1978)
It also seemed
s
that expansion
e
was
w strongly influenced bby the ease w
with
which
w
pore water
w
is expellled out of th
he pores duri
ring freezingg, as the perm
meability
of the soil alsso appeared to
t govern thee volumetricc strain due tto freezing. IIt was
ob
bserved thatt as the relatiive density of
o the soil increased, the permeabilitty
decreased and
d the volumeetric strain due
d to freezinng increasedd. The same
w observed
d with regard
d to fines coontent. Higheer fines content
reelationship was
reeduced perm
meability and
d, in turn, inccreased volum
umetric strainn due to freeezing. The
Yoshimi
Y
et all. (1978) plots of relativee density verrsus percent expansion aand
percent fines versus perceent expansio
on are shownn in Figure 22.16.
37
FIG.
F
2.16. Peercent expan
nsion versus relative den sity and finees content (Y
Yoshimi
ett al., 1978)
To invesstigate the efffects of freeezing follow
wed by thawinng on materiial
prroperties, Yo
oshimi et al. (1978) com
mpared the sttrength and ddeformation
ch
haracteristics of frozen and
a then thaw
wed sand sppecimens to tthose of never frozen
saand specimeens. Drained stress/strain
n behavior w
was chosen foor the compaarison.
Tonegawa
T
san
nd and Toyo
oura sand weere used in thhe drained sttrength and
deformation behavior
b
com
mparisons. The
T gradationns of the twoo sands are sshown in
Figure 2.14.
Frozen sp
pecimens weere prepared
d by pouring dry sand intto water filleed molds
in
n several lay
yers, tamping
g each layer. After the laast layer wass placed and tamped,
a porous disc was placed on the speciimen and thee specimen w
was tapped uuntil the
desired overaall density waas attained. A surchargee of 9.8 kN/m
m2 was placeed on top
of the specim
men and the whole
w
assem
mbly was placced in a freezer. The speecimens
were
w placed in the freezerr with an aveerage temperrature of -288C for abouut three
38
hours. This freezing method does not seem to apply a unidirectional freezing
front to the specimens. In fact, it is likely that the samples were frozen from all
directions using this technique. Yoshimi et al. (1978) do not address this issue.
The frozen specimens were placed in a triaxial cell and confining pressures of 29
to 98.1 kPa were applied. The specimens were allowed to thaw while both ends
where allowed access to water. The specimens were saturated by circulating pore
water through the thawed specimen for 24 hours under a maximum differential
head of 300 mm.
Unfrozen specimens were prepared in the same way as the frozen specimens
but without placement in the freezer. Both frozen and unfrozen specimens were
prepared at a range of relative densities between 40 and 90 percent.
Drained triaxial compression tests were conducted on the two types of
specimens (Frozen/Thawed and Never Frozen) at confining pressures of 3 to 10
kPa. A comparison of the two sets of tests is presented in Figure 2.17. The results
presented in Figure 2.17 show that the freeze/thaw cycle has only a minor effect
on the drained strength and deformation behavior of both Toyoura sand and
Tonegawa sand for specimens of the same age. The comparison of friction angles
for frozen and thawed specimens versus never frozen specimens, shown in Figure
2.18, indicates that the freeze thaw cycle has no significant effects on the friction
angle for both sands.
39
FIG.
F
2.17. Efffect of freezze thaw cycle on strengthh and deform
mation behavvior
FIG.
F
2.18. Efffect of freezze thaw cycle on frictionn angle
Yoshimi et al. (1978)) presented an
a evaluationn of the distuurbance duee to
in
nsertion of th
heir freezing
g tube into saaturated sandd in situ. Thee results of tthe
ev
valuation aree presented in
i Figure 2.1
19. It was deetermined thaat the sand w
within
on
ne diameter of the tube underwent
u
void
v
ratio chaanges due too shearing off the sand
du
uring insertiion of the freeezing tube. The changess in the voidd ratio were a
fu
unction of th
he initial den
nsity of the sand. Loose ssamples tendded to contraact,
40
FIG.
F
2.19. Saample disturb
bance due to
o insertion o f freeze pipee (Yoshimi eet al.
1978)
nvestigated the
t effects off a freeze thaaw cycle on the
Singh et al. (1982) in
ynamic stren
ngth of sand
d. Test specim
mens were pprepared by ppouring and tamping
dy
acccording to procedure
p
deescribed by Mulilis
M
et all. (1975) to a relative dennsity of
48 percent. The specimen
ns were then saturated annd consolidaated under a cell
prressure of 20
0 kPa and a back
b
pressurre of 15 kPaa. Cyclic triaxxial tests weere
co
onducted on
n one set of specimens
s
to
o establish a virgin line. A second set of
41
sp
pecimens waas subjected to low ampllitude cyclicc loading prioor to the cycclic
trriaxial tests to
t establish a set of speciimens influeenced by seissmic historyy.
Two add
ditional set off specimens were preparred using ideentical methoods as the
fiirst two sets,, with one seet subjected to
t the same sseismic histoory. The seccond two
seets of specim
mens were th
hen frozen ussing a unidirrectional freeezing front iin a
modified
m
triax
xial cell and
d subsequentlly thawed. T
Then the thirrd and fourthh sets of
sp
pecimens weere subjected
d to cyclic trriaxial tests tto establish ttheir cyclic
ch
haracteristic curves.
The results of the fou
ur sets of tessts are shownn in Figure 22.20 and Figuure 2.21.
Based
B
on com
mparison of the
t cyclic triiaxial test ressults in Figuures 2.20 andd 2.21,
Singh et al. (1
1982) conclu
uded that soiil sampling bby freezing aand coring uunder
onditions off unidirection
nal freezing and unimpedded drainagee in the direcction of
co
movement
m
off the freezing
g front provides an effecctive methodd of obtainingg
un
ndisturbed samples
s
of saaturated sand
ds.
FIG.
F
2.20. Seeismic historry and virgin
n line for nevver frozen sppecimens
42
FIG.
F
2.21. Seeismic historry and virgin
n line for frozzen/ thawedd specimens
2.6 Preparation of Cohesionless So
oil Samples for Laboraatory Testing
For the purposes
p
of this
t project, it
i was imporrtant to deveelop a methood for
prroducing sam
mples of san
nd at a desireed density w
with consistennt, reproduciible
prroperties. Th
here are num
merous metho
ods for creatting reproduucible samplees of sand
att a desired density
d
described in the liiterature. Hoowever, studdies have shoown that
both static an
nd dynamic strength
s
and deformationnal propertiees of sand specimens
att the same deensity can bee influenced
d by the methhod of the saample preparration
(M
Mililis et al.1975). For purposes
p
of this study, it was just as iimportant too prepare
th
he specimens with the saame properties as it was to to producce samples w
with the
saame density.. A summary
y of the most common m
methods of saample prepaaration
an
nd their variious compon
nents is preseent in Figuree 2.22. Detaiils about eacch method
arre discussed
d below.
43
FIG.
F
2.22. Saample preparration metho
ods (Frost, 1 989)
2.6.1
Pluvia
ation in Air
Pluviatio
on in air invo
olves pouring
g sand from a container into a mold through
aiir. The variaables in this method
m
are: the number openings thhrough whichh the sand
in
n the contain
ner is poured
d into a mold
d; the size off the openingg(s); and the height of
faall from the opening(s)
o
to the surfacee of the sandd in the moldd (the bottom
m of the
co
ontainer at th
he beginning
g).
Mulilis et
e al. (1975) used
u
a flask filled with ssand and a cork with a siingle
op
pening. The flask was in
nverted over a mold and rotated by hhand as the ssand
poured into th
he mold whiile maintaining a constannt height. In addition to tthe height
an
nd size of th
he opening, Mulilis
M
et al. (1975) founnd that the sppeed of rotattion of
th
he flask also influenced the
t density.
44
Miura and Toki (1982) used a conical hopper as the sand container and a
series of seven sieves through which the sand cascaded. The assembly was placed
over the mold as the sand was poured from the hopper while maintaining the
height between the bottom sieve and the surface of the sand in the mold. The
diameter of the nozzle attached to the conical hopper was varied to control the
rate of discharge of the sand.
Frost (1989) used a hopper with a fall tube that contained diffuser meshes in
it. This equipment was based on Miura et al. (1982) and had similar variables for
controlling the density of the sample.
2.6.2
Pluviation in Water
Dry Tubing
This method involves the use of a container shaped like the mold in which
the sand is to be placed. Tube shaped containers are used to create cylindrical
specimens but other shapes can also be used. The container is inserted into the
45
mold
m
all the way
w to the bo
ottom of the mold. This container is then filled w
with sand.
The
T containerr is designed
d with holes at the bottom
m. The contaainer is raiseed slowly
alllowing the sand
s
to flow
w out into thee mold at a vvery low dennsity. The sannd can
th
hen be densified using viibratory metthods to achiieve a desireed density. A tube
(ccontainer) ussed to createe 71 mm diam
meter triaxiaal specimenss by tubing iss shown
in
n Figure 2.21
1
FIG.
F
2.23. Cy
ylindrical tub
be (Mulilis et
e al., 1975)
2.6.4
g methods in
nvolve placeement of sandd into a mold using a spoon. The
Spooning
saame method
d is used for dry
d sand (dry
y spooning) as moist sannd (wet spoooning)
(F
Frost, 1989). The sand iss placed in laayers and coompacted usiing one of thhe
densification methods disscussed laterr in this chappter to achievve the desireed
density.
2.6.5
Densification Meethods
Sample densification
d
n is used to p
pack sand iinto a pre-deetermined voolume in
orrder to achieeve a desired
d density. When
W
densificcation is usedd in conjuncction with
46
FIG.
F
2.24. Taamping rod (Mulilis,
(
197
75)
Densificaation by tapp
ping is achieeved by tappping the speccimen mold rradially
to
o reduce the height of thee sand in ord
der to achievve a desired density. Thee intensity
47
48
Chapter 3
3.0 PROPERTIES OF TEST SAND AND SPECIMEN PREPARATION
Ottawa 20-30 sand (ASTM Designation C778), from U.S. Silica Company in
Ottawa, Illinois was selected as the test sand for all experiments in this work. The
selection was based on the fact that Ottawa 20-30 sand is readily available with
near consistent properties and has been used by many researchers for experiments
on cohesionless soil. Therefore, some of the properties of Ottawa 20-30 sand were
available in the literature.
3.1 Properties of Ottawa 20-30 Sand
Ottawa 20-30 sand is a poorly graded sand that consists of subrounded
particles and is composed primarily (99.8%) of silicon dioxide (quartz) (Evans,
2005). Numerous researchers have used Ottawa 20-30 sand for investigations
involving the use of a uniform cohesionless soil (Alshibli et al. 2000, Santamarina
and Cho 2001, Evans 2005, Salgado, et al. 2000).
3.1.1
Gradation
49
100%
90%
PercentPassing
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1
10
100
ParticleSize(mm)
Maximum and minimum void ratios of Ottawa 20-30 sand published by other
researchers are presented in Table 1. Void ratios published by Santamarina et al.
(2001) were used calculations of minimum and maximum densities and in the
determination of relative density.
Table 3-1. Ottawa 20-30 Sand Maximum and Minimum Void ratio
Maximum Void Ratio
Reference
0.81
0.49
0.742
0.502
0.78
0.48
50
Model Container
FIG.
F
3.2. Mo
odel containeer (Box)
FIG.
F
3.3. Box
x Lid
3.2.2
Air Plluviation
53
FIG.
F
3.4. Plu
uviation appaaratus
Specimen
n preparation
n using the pluviation
p
appparatus was achieved byy placing
drry Ottawa 20
0-30 sand in
n the funnel and
a allowingg it to fall int
nto the specim
men
co
ontainer to create
c
uniforrm deposits of
o sand as illlustrated in F
Figure 3.5. M
Multiple
sp
pecimens weere created to
o calibrate th
he pluviationn apparatus. The variablles that
co
ontrol the deensity of the resulting sp
pecimen are:
1. The siize of the op
penings in the two screenns that are pllaced at the eend of the
PVC pipe;
p
and
2. The faall height of the sand fro
om the end oof the PVC ppipe to the suurface of
the saand in the box
x (bottom off the box at tthe very begginning).
54
The sieves in the PVC pipe serve to disperse the sand as it falls through them,
leading to uniform deposition of the sand. The intensity of sand placement (rate of
discharge) is a function of the size of the openings in the sieves. The intensity is
greater as the opening size increases. Higher intensities also correspond to lower
densities. In this work, the openings used were 5 mm and 2.5 mm.
At a given intensity, the density of the deposited sand increases with
increasing fall height. The height of fall of the sand was maintained using a nylon
rope that was tied to the end of the PVC pipe. A weight was attached to the other
free end of the nylon rope to keep it taut. The length of the nylon rope
corresponded to the height of fall of the sand. The apparatus was maintained at a
height such that the end of the rope was always at the same elevation as the sand
surface in the container.
Numerous samples of Ottawa 2030 sand were prepared using varying
heights of fall and their densities were determined by the dimensions of the
specimens and the weight of sand placed in a container. A plot of density versus
height of fall is presented in Figure 3.6. This plot is used to determine the fall
height required to desired relative density.
55
FIG.
F
3.5. Illu
ustration of sample
s
prepaaration proceedure
1750
Density(kg/m3)
1700
1650
1600
1550
1500
0
100
200
300
3
4000
FaallHeight(mm
m)
FIG.
F
3.6. Plu
uviation appaaratus calibraation curve
56
500
600
700
3.2.3
Prepa
aration of Sp
pecimens in Box
B
The follo
owing equipm
ment was ussed in preparring Ottawa 20-30 sand
pecimens in the specimeen box:
sp
1. The
T specimen
n box (Figurre 3.2)
2. Pluviation
P
apparatus (Fig
gure 3.4)
3. 280 mm by 560 mm geoccomposite geeonet
The follo
owing steps were
w followeed in the creeation of speecimens in thhe box:
1. The
T geocomp
posite geonett was placedd on the bottoom of the boox. The
geonet was ussed to distrib
bute the wat er pressure eevenly at thee bottom
of the sand du
uring saturattion proceduures (described later in thhis
ch
hapter) and also
a to act ass a separatorr to keep thee sand from fflowing
in
nto the drain
nage ports loccated at the bbottom of thhe box. Figurre 3.7
sh
hows the box
x with geoneet in place.
FIG.
F
3.7. Box
x with geoneet in place
2. Using
U
the plu
uviation appaaratus, the sppecimen wass created by placing
saand in the fu
unnel and lettting it fall innto the box. Samples weere
crreated at a faall height off 457 mm, coorrespondingg to a densityy of 1,710
kg/m3 (a dry unit
u weight of
o 16.77 kN//m3). Duringg pluviation,, the
57
weight
w
tied to
o the nylon rope
r
was maaintained justt above the ttop of the
saand in the model
m
(bottom
m of the conttainer at the beginning) as a way
to
o maintain th
he fall heigh
ht throughoutt the sample creation proocess.
The
T pluviatio
on apparatus was raised tto maintain tthe height off fall
while
w
sand was continuou
usly poured into the funnnel. A picturre of this
saample creatiion step is sh
hown in Figuure 3.8. Figuure 3.8 also sshows the
weight
w
maintained just ab
bove the specimen surfacce and a com
mpleted
saample. The pluviation apparatus
a
waas moved bacck and forthh until the
desired heigh
ht of sand waas reached.
FIG.
F
3.8. Plu
uviation in prrogress and a completedd specimen
3.2.4
Prepa
aration of Sp
pecimens for Triaxial Tessts
The follo
owing equipm
ment was ussed in the creeation of 71 mm diameteer
sp
pecimens forr triaxial testting of neverr frozen sandd:
1. A spllit vacuum mold
m
used for preparationn of the 71 m
mm diameterr
speciimens. The split
s
vacuum
m mold was uused for strettching the coonfining
memb
brane to allo
ow for pluviaation of sandd into the coonfining mem
mbrane.
2. Two 71 mm diam
meter porouss stones.
3. One 71
7 mm diam
meter confining membranne with a thickness of 3.0 x 10-1
mm.
58
59
FIG.
F
3.9. Triaaxial test speecimen prep
paration Stepps 1- 4
60
FIG.
F
3.10. Trriaxial test sp
pecimen preeparation Steeps 1- 7
8. The top
t assembly
y of the GCT
TS triaxial ceell was then replaced. W
With the
top assembly in place,
p
the speecimen prepparation was complete.
3.2.5
Box Specimen
Sp
Satturation Procedure
3. The vacuum in thee box was reelieved by sllowly introduucing carbonn dioxide
gas in
nto the contaiiner using a second portt on the lid of the box.
4. The caarbon dioxid
de source waas turned offf and the vaccuum of 10 kkPa was
reappllied to the co
ontainer.
5. The saample was th
hen saturated
d by introduucing water ffrom bottom
m to top.
The box samples were
w saturatted using tapp water becauuse a high leevel of
saturaation was nott necessary for
f the samppling freezingg tests. The bbottom
drainaage ports weere connected
d to a coolerr (Igloo Quicck and Cool 60 quart
Model) filled with
h water. Thee cooler had a drainage pport at the boottom to
which
h a garden ho
ose was attacched. The otther end of thhe garden hoose was
attach
hed to the fiv
ve drainage ports
p
on the bbox via a maanifold. Thee water
level in
i the coolerr was maintaained at the ssame level aas the top of tthe sand.
Figuree 3.11 showss the box con
ntainer undeergoing vacuuum saturatioon.
FIG.
F
3.11. Vaacuum saturration of box
x specimen
3.2.6
62
method was described in section 3.2.4. The saturation procedure that was used to
saturate the triaxial test specimens is described below:
1. The specimen was placed inside a triaxial cell in order to change the
application of the confining pressure from vacuum to cell pressure.
Therefore, before the vacuum was released, a cell pressure of 10 kPa was
applied to the sample using the GCTS system from the bottom drainage
line of the cell (the cell was filled with water prior to application of the 10
kPa confining pressure). A confining pressure has to be applied to the
specimen at all times during the sample preparation and saturation
process. Otherwise, the specimen will slump over.
2. The vacuum in the specimen was relieved by slowly introducing carbon
dioxide gas into the specimen through the drainage line of the bottom cap.
3. The carbon dioxide source was turned off and the vacuum of 10 kPa was
reapplied to the sample using the top cap drainage line.
4. The sample was then hydrated, under vacuum from bottom to top using
deaired water. The vacuum and deaired water were turned off when the
sample was fully hydrated as indicated by the appearance of water in the
vacuum line.
5. Saturation was then achieved using back pressure procedure described
subsequently.
63
Chapter 4
4.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
4.1 Selection of Sampling Method
Based on the project constraints, the following criteria were established for the
required sampling method:
1. The method should be able to recover samples in a manner that retains
their micro structure and stress-strain behavior.
2. Since the project is a collaborative effort between three different
universities, it was important that the method be simple enough to be
reproducible by different research groups with little difficulty.
3. The method also needed to be adaptable to different model containers,
including the types used at the University of California at Davis (UC
Davis) centrifuge and State University of New York at Buffalo shake
table.
4. Sampling should be able to be performed in a relatively short time so as
not to tie up any equipment for extended periods of time.
5. The sampling method should be non-destructive to the model container.
After establishing the criteria for the required sampling method, a systematic
evaluation of the sampling methods reviewed in the literature was conducted. The
three sampling methods were evaluated on the basis of the above mentioned
criteria.
64
4.1.1
The agar and agarose processes are similar in implementation. For the
purposes of technology evaluation, the agar and agarose processes were
considered under the same title of biopolymer. The following challenges were
identified with the biopolymer process:
1. From the literature review, Schneider et al. (1989)s laboratory experiments
match closely with this studys initial condition of the soil. Schneider et al.
(1995) used tubes inserted in the cohesionless soil for installation of:
electrodes for heating the soil; thermometers for temperature monitoring; and
an injection tube for injection of biopolymer. All these tubes are necessary for
successful impregnation with biopolymer. Experiments performed by Yoshimi
et al. (1978) show the extent of disturbance that results from pushing a tube
into cohesionless soil. Yoshimi et al. (1978) showed that a placement of a tube
in cohesionless sand results in disturbance over a distance approximately
equal to the diameter of the tube. This study may require sampling from small
containers with limited exposed surface area. Cohesionless samples would
have to be obtained at distances sufficiently far enough from all tubes to be
free of disturbance. The placement of the required tubes would effectively
reduce the number of samples that can be obtained from a physical model.
2. The biopolymer process requires heating the soil to a certain minimum
temperature prior to impregnation. Temperature monitoring is required in
order to keep the soil temperature above the gelation temperature of the
biopolymer and below the boiling temperature of water. The process of
65
heating the soil also presents an opportunity for disturbance. The possibility of
boiling the pore water is a problem that we wished to avoid. Mitchell et al.
(2005) suggests that drained heating would not result in significant volume
change and by extension, significant disturbance. However, it is a possibility
that some undrained heating might occur during heating the soil for purposes
of impregnation with biopolymer, This was also identified as a potential
source of disturbance.
3. Schneider (1989) and Sutterer et al. (1995) used the agarose impregnation and
flushing devise to remove the biopolymer from samples prior to testing. There
is not information on other biopolymer removal processes that do not rely on
the use of the impregnation and flushing device. The biopolymer
impregnation and flushing device was specifically designed for triaxial test
specimens. This did not suit the selection criteria because it requires
fabrication of a special device for biopolymer removal. Triaxial compression
tests are planned for the recovered undisturbed samples. The use of a special
fabricated device to remove biopolymer from triaxial specimens meant that
additional devices would be needed for subsequent tests.
4. Complete removal of the biopolymer is difficult to achieve.
For the reasons outlined above, the biopolymer process was judged not to be
simple enough to be seamlessly transferable and reproducible at different
universities. The biopolymer process also provided multiple opportunities for
introducing disturbance in the samples.
66
4.1.2
Elmers Glue
The use of Elmers glue presented similar challenges as the agar as far as
impregnation and complete removal. These challenges and other problems
specific to the use of Elmers glue are discussed below.
1. Evans (2005) used the glue on dry samples of sand. The sand that will be used
in this work will be water saturated. This presented a problem because
Elmers glue is soluble in water. Maintaining the concentration of the glue
during impregnation would be difficult unless the soil is drained prior to
impregnation with Elmers glue. Draining the soil could introduce disturbance
to the specimen due to hydraulic gradients and changes in effective stress.
2. The glue impregnation process required specialized equipment. The humidity
of the air coming from the glue impregnated sand was monitored to determine
when the glue had cured. When the relative humidity was below 40 %, the
glue had cured (Evans 2005). If this method was used, impregnation and
curing equipment with the capability to measure relative humidity would be
required. The need for specialized equipment made the Elmers glue method
less than ideal for this works application.
3. Elmers glue took 5-7 days to cure (Evans, 2005). This curing period was
expected to be longer for water saturated cohesionless soil. The time required
to cure Elmers glue stabilized samples was judged to be impractical for this
works application.
4. Complete removal of Elmers glue from the soil pores without significantly
disturbing the soil structure may not be possible.
67
5. Evans (2005) did not perform any tests to assess the quality of samples
obtained using Elmers glue. It was not clear from the literature if Elmers
glue stabilized samples were undisturbed.
Based on the discussion above stabilization and sampling by use of Elmers
glue was determined to be impractical for our application.
4.1.3
Freezing
Stabilization and sampling using freezing was selected from the methods
reviewed as the preferred way to obtain undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil.
This method fit the criteria that were developed for selection of a sampling
method very well.
The freezing method should be able to recover samples in a manner that
retains their micro-structure and stress-strain behavior. The literature review
shows that different investigators have looked at the void ratio changes associated
with the freezing and thawing of cohesionless soil. If a unidirectional freezing
front is applied, a minimal overburden stress applied, and at least a single
drainage path is maintained in the direction of freezing, the void ratio changes in a
cohesionless soil during freezing have been found to be insignificant. Yoshimi et
al. (1978) compared the drained stress-strain behavior of frozen and then thawed
soil with never frozen soil and found that there was no significant difference
between the two. The results of the stress-strain behavior comparison of Yoshimi
et al. (1978) are presented in Figure 2.16.
68
4.2.1
Freezing Procedure
70
3. The dry ice was replenished as it was used up while monitoring the
progress of the freezing. Freezing progress was monitored through the
lexan panel that formed one side of the box.
4. When the required thickness of sand was frozen, the freezing process was
stopped by removing the pan filled with the mixture of alcohol and dry
ice from the specimen. The pan had a tendency to stick to the surface of
the sand. A little tapping was required to free the pan from the frozen
sand. The time it takes to freeze the sample is a function of, among other
things, the quantity of sand to be frozen, the ambient temperature, and the
material to be frozen. Freezing the entire mass of sand caused the sand to
stick to the geonet and interfere with the sample recovery. To avoid this,
the sand was only frozen to approximately 25 mm from the bottom, as
observed through the lexan side of the box. It took approximately 2.5 to
3.5 hours to freeze the sand in the box to a depth of approximately 150
mm.
4.2.2
The literature review indicated that during freezing of water saturated sand,
pore water migrates in the liquid phase to accommodate the expansion of the pore
water as it freezes. A uni-directional freezing front is desired such that no liquid
water is trapped due to impeded drainage by either frozen sand or an impermeable
surface. If other freezing fronts developed at the bottom or sides of the box, e.g.
due to potential freezing temperatures along the metal sides of the container, then
the freezing front would not be uni directional. Multiple freezing fronts in the box
71
might
m
trap liq
quid water leeading to distturbance of the soil struccture. Thereefore, a
tw
wo dimensio
onal finite eleement numeerical analysiis of heat floow were connducted to
esstablish that a unidirectio
onal freezing
g front was iinduced in thhe model duuring the
frreezing setup
p.
The finite element prrogram SVH
Heat (Soil Viision, 2010) was used to model
th
he freezing method.
m
A tw
wo-dimensio
onal steady sstate analysiss was conduccted in
th
he short (279
9 mm (11 incches)) dimen
nsion of the box, as the sshort dimenssion was
lo
ogically, the critical crosss section wiith respect too heat flow (or cold) trannsfer
allong the mettal sides of th
he box. A sk
ketch of the SVHeat moddel is shownn in
Figure 4.1. Th
he numericaal model show
ws the alum
minum box boounded by laayers of
aiir on both sid
des and finaally, coolant to
t top consisstent with thhe described freezing
method.
m
FIG.
F
4.1. Skeetch of numeerical model
The box was conserv
vatively mod
deled to be m
made entirelyy of aluminuum (the
T geometry
y of the box was as builtt, 13 mm thick
frront is made of lexan). The
alluminum with inside dim
mensions of 280 mm by 180 mm. Laayers of air w
were
72
defined aroun
nd the alumin
num box to simulate labboratory boun
undary condittions.
The
T outside boundaries
b
of the air layeers had a connstant tempeerature of 800F (room
teemperature). We measurred the tempeerature of thhe alcohol annd dry ice miixture to
be -68C. Thiis is similar to the tempeerature reporrted by Yoshhimi et al (19978). The
bottom of thee model was modeled as constant fluux boundary..
The result of the finitte element in
nvestigation showed thaat freezing front
would
w
propag
gate from thee coolant surrface down tto the bottom
m of the boxx without
crreating secon
ndary freezin
ng fronts fro
om the sides of the box. Figure 4.2 shows the
reesults of the numerical modeling.
m
FIG.
F
4.2. Num
merical Mod
deling of Freeezing Frontt Propagationn
73
4.2.3
o the freezin
ng front. Freeezing experiiments weree setup by plaacing
prropagation of
saand in the model
m
box as described ab
bove except that eight thhermocouplees were
placed in the model at preedetermined
d different loccations priorr to placemeent of
saand by pluviiation. The th
hermocouplees were placced in the moodel using a wooden
fo
orm that wass fabricated for
f this expeeriment to seecurely hold the thermoccouples in
place during pluviation.
p
Sketches
S
of the
t form andd the locationns of the
th
hermocouplees are shown
n in Figure 4.3. Only the short dimennsion (280 m
mm) was
in
nvestigated because,
b
as noted
n
before, it is the moost critical diimension. Thhe
th
hermocouplees were placeed in only haalf of the crooss section bbecause the ffreezing
was
w expected
d to be symm
metrical abou
ut the middlee plane of thee box. The
th
hermocouplees were num
mbered as sho
own in Figurre 4.3.
(a)
74
(b)
FIG.
F
4.3. Freeezing front investigation
i
n experimenntal setup
After satu
uration, freeezing was iniitiated by plaacing the meetal pan conttaining
he coolant on
n top of the saturated
s
san
nd. The therm
mocouples w
were monitoored to
th
reecord the tem
mperature off the sand at the locationns shown in F
Figure 4.3 w
with time.
drop was no
The
T trend of temperature
t
oted and the onset of freeezing was asssumed to
co
oincide with
h the thermom
meters recorrding a tempperature of 0 C.
The results of the exp
periments sh
howed that thhe freezing ffront propaggated union as predictted by the nuumerical anaalyses.
directionally to the same configuratio
Thermocoupl
T
le 1 was the first to freezze and therm
mocouple 8 w
was last to reecord a
frreezing temp
perature. Th
hermocouplee 4 recorded a freezing teemperature bbefore
Thermocoupl
T
le 5. If a seco
ondary freezzing front deeveloped alonng the sides of the
co
ontainer, theermocouples 2, 5 and 8 would
w
have ffrozen muchh sooner thann they
did. Followin
ng completio
on of the freeezing front ppropagation iinvestigationn, the
frrozen soil waas excavated
d to inspect the
t shape off the frozen ssoil. The shaape of the
bu
ulb of the fro
ozen soil alsso confirmed
d the numeri cal analysis result. The
ex
xcavated fro
ozen bulb is shown
s
in Fig
gure 4.4.
75
FIG.
F
4.4. Forrm with therm
mometers an
nd frozen buulb of sand
The therm
mocouple ex
xperiment sh
howed that thhe freezing m
method desccribed in
seection 4.2.1 induced a un
nidirectionall freezing froont to the satturated soil. The
sh
hape of the frozen
f
soil ex
xcavated aftter the experrimental inveestigation waas
co
onsistent witth the conclu
usions reach
hed from the temperaturee measuremeent data
stteady state numerical
n
analysis.
4.2.4
Expan
nsion of Satu
urated Soil during
d
Freezzing
co
oncluded thaat the surchaarge due to th
he weight off the pan filleed with coollant (0.8
kP
Pa) was adequate to limit expansion
n to negligiblle levels. Siggnificant exppansion
of the frozen soil would result
r
in heav
ving of the ssoil surface oor deformation of the
box to accom
mmodate the expansion. Water
W
in liquuid phase waas observed flowing
ou
ut over the edge
e
of the model
m
box, during
d
freezi ng experimeents, consisteent with
th
he theory thaat water is ex
xpelled in fro
ont of the freeezing front to accommoodate the
nine percent expansion
e
off water when
n it changes phase from liquid to sollid.
ows water fllowing over the edge of the model bbox as the freeezing
Figure 4.5 sho
frront propagaated.
FIG.
F
4.5. Waater flowing out of box during
d
freezinng
4.3 Developm
ment of Corring Techniique
Followin
ng the develo
opment of a freezing techhnique, a meethod to recoover
d
Most
M triaxiall testing systtems are cappable of
frrozen samplees was also developed.
teesting 35mm
m diameter an
nd 71 mm diiameter test samples witthout requirinng
sp
pecialized pllatens. Samp
ples required
d for microsttructure studdies are on thhe scale
of 35 mm diaameter samplles. For these reasons, itt was decidedd initially thhat 35mm
mples were go
oing to be reecovered for testing.
diameter sam
77
4.3.1
Coring Equipmen
nt
A Milwaaukee 6.35 mm
m Magnum
m Drill was uused in conjuunction with a
ore drill bit tto drill throuugh the frozeen soil
37.5mm (insiide) diameterr diamond co
an
nd recovered
d cores of so
oil samples. Maintaining
M
g the drill andd core barrell
asssembly in vertical
v
posittion during coring
c
was a problem duuring the firsst few
drrilling trials.. A drill guid
de was desig
gned and fabbricated to bee fitted over the box
an
nd hold the drill
d in verticcal position during drilliing. Design ddrawings off the drill
gu
uide are pressented in Ap
ppendix B. With
W practicee, it was possible to drilll without
th
he drill guidee, making it possible to recover
r
mor e samples thhan can be reecovered
using the drill guide. Figu
ure 4.6 show
ws the equipm
ment used too recover 35 mm
diameter corees, including
g the drill, 37
7.5 mm diam
mond core drrill bit, and thhe drill
gu
uide.
FIG.
F
4.6. Millwaukee drilll, 35 mm diaameter core barrel and ddrill guide
4.3.2
Corin
ng Procedurre for 35.6 mm
m Diameterr Core Sampples
sttart drilling. Drilling wass performed by one persson and did nnot require aan
ex
xcessive amount of forcee. After drillling throughh the frozen m
material, thee drill bit
was
w removed
d and the frozzen cores sim
mply fell outt of the drill bit. Figure 33.18
sh
hows samplee recovery in
n progress. A typical sam
mple recoverred using thiis
teechnique is shown
s
in Fig
gure 4.8. Thee sample shoown in Figurre 4.8 was
ap
pproximately
y 35 mm in diameter and
d 162.5 mm
m in length. N
Note that althhough a
37.5 mm coree barrel was used, the reccovered coree was melty around the
he samples were
w stored in
n a freezer ssoon after reccovery to avvoid
perimeter. Th
mass of soil after samplees have
prremature thaawing. Figurre 4.9 showss the frozen m
been recovereed from it.
FIG.
F
4.7. Box
x after freeziing
FIG.
F
4.8. Corring in progrress and reco
overed 35 m
mm diameter core
79
FIG.
F
4.9. Box
x and sand after
a
coring
After sam
mples were recovered,
r
th
hey were plaaced in a connfining memb
mbrane
an
nd stored in a freezer forr later retriev
val and testinng.
4.3.3
ons discussed
d in Chapterr 5, it was deecided that 771 mm diameeter core
For reaso
saamples weree required for triaxial testing. The folllowing equiipment was used to
reecover 71 mm
m diameter core samples:
1. 71 mm
m internal diameter
d
steeel pipe (Show
wn in Figuree 4.10)
2. Shelb
by tube drill adaptor (Sh
hown in Figuure 4.11). Thhe design draawing of
the Shelby tube drill
d adaptor is presentedd in Appendiix A
3. A Miilwaukee 6.3
35 mm Magn
num Drill (seee Figure 4.66)
4. Husq
qvarna DR 15
50 Core Drilll Rig (Show
wn in Figure 4.12)
5. Core Drill Rig Adaptor
A
(Sho
own in Figurre 4.12)
FIG.
F
4.10. Stteel pipe used for 71 mm
m cores
80
FIG.
F
4.11. Sh
helby tube drrill adapter
FIG.
F
4.12. Hu
usqvarna DR
R 150 core drill
d rig
FIG.
F
4.13. Co
ore drill rig adaptor
a
Project collaborators from Buckn
nell Universiity reported that they haad success
co
oring frozen
n sand using a nominal 75 mm diameeter Shelby ttube. The addapter
sh
hown in Figu
ure 4.11 wass fabricated for use with the Milwauukee 6.35 mm
m
Magnum
M
drilll and a Shelb
by tube. Thee initial attem
mpt to drill w
with a Shelbyy tube did
81
FIG.
F
4.14. Co
oring with 71 mm diameeter steel pippe
Samples were readily
y obtained affter coring w
without muchh difficulty.
Occasionally,
O
, the cores got stuck in th
he pipe and a sample exttruder was uused to
82
fo
or use with the core drilll rig. The steeel tube coredd through thhe frozen sannd with
minimal
m
efforrt (weight off the assembly). Significcant melting of the sample was
ob
bserved from
m the initial trials. The saamples reco vered, were less than 711 mm in
diameter and in certain trials, were taapered at the top. Increassing the speeed of
co
oring by app
plication of pressure
p
redu
uced the amoount of meltting and tapeering but
did not elimin
nate the prob
blem out righ
ht. The thin walled steell tube was grround to
crreate cutting
g teeth in maanner similarr to the cuttinng teeth creaated on the 771 mm
in
nternal diameter pipe thaat was used with
w the Millwaukee 6.355 Magnum D
Drill. The
use of a pipe with cutting
g teeth elimin
nated the meelting and tappering probllem.
Coring
C
with the
t coring rig
g is shown in
n Figure 4.16 and samplles obtained using the
co
oring rig aree shown in Figure 4.17
FIG.
F
4.16. Co
oring with co
oring rig
84
FIG.
F
4.17. Saample Recov
vered Using Coring Rig
Followin
ng recovery, the 71 mm diameter
d
sam
mples were w
wrapped in house
hold plastic wrap
w
wrap and
a aluminum
m foil and thhen stored inn a freezer.
4.3.4
Corin
ng Challengees
The follo
owing challeenges were encountered iin the develoopment of thhe
saampling tech
hnique:
1. Keep
ping the 37.5
5 mm diamon
nd core drilll bit vertical during drilliing was a
challeenge. The drrill guide waas designed tto solve this problem andd it
work
ked well. How
wever, when
n more sampples are requuired and there is a
need to drill in th
he middle of the box, thee drill guide cannot be ussed. With
ping the coree drill verticcal without thhe drill
practice the challlenge of keep
guidee was overco
ome; a secon
nd person waas used to heelp orient annd correct
the in
nclination off the drill bit during drillling.
85
2. When the specimen in the box is frozen all the way to the bottom, the
samples tended to stick to the filter fabric at the bottom of the box. When
this happened, the sample stayed within the hole when the diamond core
drill bit was withdrawn. Recovery of the sample without damage was
difficult to achieve in this instance.
3. During drilling, it was important to drill nonstop. When drilling was
stopped while the diamond core drill bit was still in the hole, the material
around the diamond core bit froze making it very difficult to restart the
drill. There were times when the specimen had to be abandoned because
sampling could not be restarted after the diamond core bit got stuck.
4. Cohesion between the inside of the diamond core drill bit and the sample
sometime kept the sample trapped in the core barrel. When sample for
stuck in the core barrel, it was removed by pouring cold tap water around
the outside of the diamond core drill bit. The relatively warm tap water
melted the surface of the sample, freeing it from the diamond core drill
bit. This method of freeing the sample came at a risk of reducing the
diameter of the recovered sample by melting too much of the surface.
5. The samples were stored in a cold freezer right after recovery to mitigate
premature thawing. An easily accessible storage facility or container
capable of maintaining freezing temperatures was required.
6. Coring 71 mm samples using the Milwaukee drill and the steel pipe was
very difficult because the steel pipe used as a core barrel was not
perfectly round and tended to wobble during drilling. In the absence of a
86
drill guide, it was difficult to start coring through the sand, so the top of
the recovered samples were significantly tapered. As a result, recovery of
samples that were 71 mm in diameter and at least 142 mm long (as
required for triaxial testing) was rare. As a solution to this problem, a
Husqvarna DR 150 core drill rig and machined pipe were used to recover
71 mm diameter samples.
7. The coring process crushed sand particles during sampling. Repeated use
of the sand led to changes in particle angularity and gradation. As a
solution to this problem, the Ottawa sand was used only once and then
discarded."
87
Chapter 5
5.0 TESTING OF NEVER FROZEN SAND SPECIMENS AND
RECOVERED SAMPLES
The GCTS Cyclic Pneumatic Soil Triaxial System STX-050 (triaxial system)
discussed in Chapter 4 was used to perform the monotonic triaxial compression
tests for the work described herein. The test sand was Ottawa 20-30 sand (ASTM
Designation C778) supplied by U.S. Silica Company, Ottawa, Illinois. A total of
116 tests were performed. The purpose of these tests included:
1. Training on the data acquisition and experimental control components of
the triaxial system.
2. Drained and undrained tests to establish the baseline stress-strainstrength response of never frozen Ottawa sand specimens prepared using
the pluviation technique described in Chapter 3.
3. Drained and undrained tests performed on samples of Ottawa sand
recovered using the freezing and coring techniques described in Chapter
3 and then thawed in order to assess the quality of the samples after
thawing.
Comparisons of the stress-strain-strength and pore pressure-strain plots of
never frozen sand and the frozen and then thawed samples were used to assess the
quality of the samples obtained using the procedures present in this work.
88
Initial Density
All tests specimens were prepared using the pluviation apparatus described in
Chapter 3. The fall height was maintained at 457 mm. The density of the samples
prepared at this fall height was approximately 1,710 kg/m3. Maximum and
minimum densities of Ottawa 20-30 sand were calculated as 1,764 kg/m3 and
1,521 kg/m3, respectively, using values of minimum and maximum void ratio
published by Santamatina et al. (2001), assuming zero percent saturation. Based
on the calculated maximum and minimum densities, the relative density of the
resulting specimens was 80%.
The density of each specimen prepared for this testing program was verified
using direct measurements on the prepared specimens. One method to determine
how much sand is in a specimen is to start with a known mass of sand and then
weigh the remaining sand after the sample has been created. However, pluviation
results in significant loss of sand due to scatter. Therefore, to verify the density of
the pluviated specimens, the sand in the specimen was collected after completion
of the triaxial compression tests, oven dried, and weighed.
The density of the specimen created in the box was also confirmed by
measuring the density of six cores recovered from the frozen box sample using
methods described in Chapter 4. These samples were used for density tests only,
no triaxial tests were performed on these samples. The density was determined by
measuring the volume of the frozen cores, oven drying the cores, and then
89
measuring the mass of the dry sand. The results of the density tests are presented
in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Density Confirmation Test Results
Core #
1699
1688
1709
1696
1697
1689
Density
3
(kg/m )
5.1.2
Confining Pressure
Specimen Saturation
90
FIG.
F
5.1. B-v
value as a fun
nction of degree of saturration (Holtzz & Kovacs 1981)
For the initial
i
step in
n back pressu
ure saturatioon, the sampple was hydraated and
co
onfined undeer an effectiv
ve pressure of
o 20 kPa. T
The triaxial ccell was thenn placed
un
nder the load
d cell and a nominal
n
seaating load waas applied too stabilize thee sample.
The
T B-value was
w determined by increeasing the coonfining presssure by 10 kkPa with
th
he drainage lines
l
closed and recordin
ng the resulti
ting change iin pore wateer
prressure. Thee drainage lin
nes were reo
opened after the B-value test. If the ccalculated
B-value
B
was less
l than 0.9
9, the back prressure was increased byy 10 kPa andd the
co
onfining preessure was allso increased
d by 10 kPa to maintain the effectivee
co
onfining preessure of 20 kPa.
k A new B-value wass then determ
mined at the new
back pressuree by repeatin
ng the above procedure. T
This proceduure was repeeated
un
ntil a B-valu
ue greater thaan 0.9 was achieved.
a
B-vvalues of 0.99 were typiccally
acchieved at back pressurees on the ord
der of 150 kP
Pa.
91
5.1.4
Strain Rate
Frozen core samples were recovered from the model box as described
previously. Four to nine frozen core samples were recovered from each model
prepared in the box. Due to the need to thaw the specimens, samples could not be
tested on the day that they were recovered. Therefore, cores were wrapped in
plastic wrap and aluminum foil and stored in a freezer for later retrieval and
testing. The samples were typically stored for one to five days before testing.
92
The following steps were followed in preparing frozen samples for both
drained and undrained triaxial testing:
1. Upon retrieval from storage, the frozen samples were trimmed to a
height of approximately twice their diameter. In the case of the 35
mm diameter samples, the height was at least 71 mm and in the case
of the 71 mm diameter samples the height was at least 142 mm. A
conventional hacksaw with a bi-metal blade was used to trim the
frozen sample. A frozen sample retrieved from storage for testing is
shown in Figure 5.2. A trimmed sample is shown in Figure 5.3.
2. After trimming, the frozen sample was mounted in the triaxial cell,
confined in a latex membrane using two O-rings on each end (i.e. on
both the top and bottom platen), and subject to an effective confining
pressure of approximately 10 kPa applied to the sample through the
top platen drainage line using a vacuum. It was important to complete
steps 1 and 2 as fast as possible to avoid thawing of the sample prior
to confinement. The samples were handled with oven mitts to avoid
thawing due to heat transfer from the hands to the sample.
3. The chamber was then placed upon the triaxial cell in order to change
the confining pressure from vacuum to chamber pressure. Prior to
releasing the vacuum, the chamber was filled with water and a cell
pressure of 10 kPa was applied to the sample using the GCTS system
from the bottom drainage line of the chamber.
93
4. After
A
releasin
ng the vacuu
um, the sampple was allow
wed access too deaired
water
w
through
h both the to
op and bottom
m platen draainage lines aand
alllowed to thaaw. Since water
w
is expellled from thee sand duringg
frreezing, wateer will be drrawn into thee sample durring thawingg. The
saamples typiccally thawed
d within fourr to six hourss. However, samples
were
w not testeed until at leeast 12 hourss had passedd.
Steps 1 th
hrough Step 3 are illustrrated in Figuure 5.3. Folloowing complletion of
th
hese steps, th
he back pressure saturatiion techniquue described above was uused to
saaturate the saamples.
FIG.
F
5.2. 71 mm
m diameteer frozen corre sample wrrapped in aluuminum foil
94
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIG.
F
5.3. 71 mm
m diameteer sample preeparation forr testing: (a)) Frozen sam
mple after
trrimming; (b)) Frozen sam
mple mounted
d on triaxiall cell and connfined in lateex
membrane
m
wiith vacuum confining
c
pressure appli ed; (c) Frozeen sample w
with cell
ch
hamber in pllace.
5.2.3
The GCT
TS system is equipped with
w a compuuter and digittal signal control
device. Follow
wing back pressure saturration, triaxiial testing w
was conductedd using
an
n internal GC
CTS system
m program thaat specifies, among otheer things, thee type of
teest (drained or
o undrained
d), type of lo
oading, data acquisition rrate, strain aat the end
of the test, an
nd strain rate. The strain rate was preesented in Seection 5.1. D
Data was
ollected everry second du
uring the testt. The end o f test was sppecified as 15% strain
co
bu
ut tests weree regularly teerminated a few percent strain after tthe peak devviator
sttress was observed to haave occurred, i.e. after thhe deviator sttress began tto
decrease.
95
5.2.4
model box. However, the results of the triaxial compression tests on the 35 mmdiameter specimens were inconsistent with the tests performed on 71 mm
diameter, never frozen specimens. Furthermore, results of the tests on the 35 mm
diameter specimens were very hard to reproduce. There was wide variability in
the results from the 35 mm-diameter specimens. This variability was attributed to
the size of the sample. In order to reduce the variability, it was decided to recover
71 mm diameter samples from the model box for all triaxial testing.
Soil microstructure studies performed on the 35 mm samples obtained using
the methods described in this work did not show variability in microstructure
commensurate with the variability that was observed in the triaxial tests (Czupak,
2011). Therefore, for purposes of the microstructure studies, recovery of 35 mmdiameter samples continued throughout the course of this work.
5.3 Drained Tests Results
5.3.1
Sample Height
Mass of Sand
Initial Density
Relative Density
(mm)
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
150
1019
1710
80
150
1022
1715
82
150
1018
1708
79
148
1007
1713
81
150
1019
1710
80
250
DifferentialStress,Sd(kPa)
200
150
1
2
3
100
4
5
50
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
FIG. 5.4. Never frozen Ottawa 20-30 sand drained stress-strength-strain results
97
0.50
0.00
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
0.50
1.00
1
1.50
2
2.00
3
4
2.50
5
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
98
Density
(kg/m )
(g)
(%)
1
144
977
1705
78
145
983
1707
79
144
977
1708
79
148
1005
1710
80
250
150
100
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
200
1
2
3
4
50
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
FIG. 5.6. Results of drained triaxial compression tests on recovered frozen cores
of Ottawa 20-30 sand samples
99
0.5
0
0
0.5
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
2
3
4
3
3.5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
The results of the triaxial compression tests conducted on never frozen sand
and on the recovered frozen samples after thawing were compared, to determine
whether the frozen and then thawed sand retains its drained deformation
characteristics. The results of this comparison serve as an indication of the level
of disturbance due to the sampling techniques developed in this work.
Mean stress-strain-strength and volume curves were developed from the two
groups of curves (never frozen, and frozen and then thawed) from the drained
triaxial testing. The two median stress-strain-strength curves are shown in Figure
100
5.8. Median volume change-strain curves for the never frozen sand and for the
frozen and thawed cores are presented in Figure 5.9. Comparison of the median
stress-strain-strength and volume change-strain curves indicate that the sampling
process has at worst minor effects on the drained deformation characteristics of
Ottawa 20-30 sand.
250
DevitorStress,Sd(kPa)
200
150
FrozenThawed
100
NeverFrozen
50
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
AxialStrain(Ea)
101
4.0
5.0
0.5
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.5
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
1.5
Frozen
NeverFrozen
2.5
3.5
AxialStrain,Ea,(%)
(5.1)
where:
(1-3) = the stress difference (deviator stress),
= axial strain
102
Rf = (1-3)f /(1-3)ult
(5.2)
for two variables. A statistical hypothesis, two-population test (H0: 1=2 {Null
Hypothesis} and 12 {Alternative Hypothesis}) was conducted. The critical
assumptions of the analysis were that the mean values of the two samples were
unknown and that they were equal. The results of the statistical analyses of the
curves shown in Figures 5.4 through Figure 5.7 are presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Statistical Comparison of Drained Test Results
Parameter
Tests on
Unfrozen Sand
Tests on
a
Frozen Cores
Acceptance
Confidence
Eli
727 %/kPa
578 %/kPa
Yes
90 %
(1-3)ult
243 kPa
240 kPa
Yes
90 %
Fry
0.86
0.85
Yes
90%
0.17 %
0.39 %
Yes
90 %
-0.67 %
-0.56 %
Yes
90 %
-1.14 %
-1.35 %
Yes
90%
Arithmetic mean values for each parameter are presented in this table. However,
values for each test were used for statistical comparison.
Although widely accepted laboratory testing procedures were used in this
work, a bias statement on drained triaxial testing of cohesionless soil was not
found. The sample size was chosen based on other criteria unrelated to the
variability of the tests used. The drained tests on unfrozen soil were both
reproducible and consistent. Therefore, drained testing on never frozen samples
was stopped at five samples. The results of drained testing on frozen and thawed
cores presented here are the results of tests performed on samples recovered using
104
the Husqvarna DR 150 core drill rig. The statistical comparison of this limited
sample size shows that the two groups of tests are the same at a confidence of
90%. It can be concluded from the results that the sampling process produces
undisturbed samples that retain their drained deformation characteristics.
5.4 Undrained Test Results
5.4.1
Test
Sample Height (mm)
#
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
150
1019
1710
80
149
1013
1712
81
150
1012
1714
82
150
1019
1710
80
149
1012
1710
80
105
900
800
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
700
600
1
500
2
400
3
4
300
200
100
0
0
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
106
50
ExcessPorePressure,Uexc(kPa)
50
100
1
2
150
3
4
200
250
300
350
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
107
Test
Sample Height (mm)
#
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
150
1020
1711
80
145
985
1708
79
144
979
1710
80
900
800
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
700
600
500
1
400
2
3
300
200
100
0
0
AxialStrain,Ea(kPa)
108
50
0
0
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
50
100
1
2
150
200
250
300
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
e.g. Rf of 0.37, when the typical range for sands is 0.5 to 0.9. For this reason, it
was decided not to use the Duncan et al. curve fitting method on undrained tests
results.
An alternative comparison method was used for undrained test results. The
mean undrained stress-strain-strength curve was developed from the baseline
undrained triaxial compression tests performed on never frozen sand. Standard
deviations of the deviator stress at discrete strain levels were calculated from the
five baseline tests. A confidence interval was developed that was bound at the top
by the mean plus two standard deviations and at the bottom by the mean minus
two standard deviations. The frozen/thawed tests results were plotted on the
confidence interval plot to demonstrate how well the results on the recovered
samples compared with the baseline results. The stress-strain-strength comparison
figure is presented in Figure 5.14. The excess pore pressure-strain results were
compared using methods used to compare stress-strain-strength behavior
(described previously). The results of the comparison are presented in Figure
5.15.
110
900
800
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
700
Mean+2Sigma
600
Mean+Sigma
500
mean
400
MeanSigma
Mean2Sigma
300
Frozen/Thaw1
200
Frozen/Thaw2
100
Frozen/Thaw3
0
0
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
ExcessPorePressure,Uexc(kPa)
50
0
0
Mean+2Sigma
50
Mean+Sigma
100
mean
150
MeanSigma
Mean2Sigma
200
Frozen/Thaw1
250
Frozen/Thaw2
300
Frozen/Thaw3
350
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
The results of the undrained tests conducted on never frozen sand and on
recovered cores were also analyzed by comparing the stress and excess pore water
pressure at three strain levels: at one percent, three percent, and five percent
strain. The three strain levels were chosen arbitrarily. The three strain levels were
assumed to represent the stress-strain-strength, and the excess pore pressure-strain
relationship developed from the consolidated undrained test results data.
A statistical comparison of the parameters was conducted for the two groups
of undrained triaxial test results. The statistical analyses used a t-distribution for
two variables. A statistical hypothesis, two-population test (H0: 1=2 {Null
Hypothesis} and 12 {Alternative Hypothesis}) was conducted. The critical
assumptions of the analysis were that the mean values of the two samples were
unknown and that they were equal. The results of the statistical analyses of the
curves shown in Figures 5.10 through Figure 5.13 are presented in Table 5.7 and
Table 5-8.
Table 5-7. Statistical Comparison of Deviator Stress Strain Results
Tests on
Parameter
Unfrozen Sanda
Acceptance at 90%
confidence
Sd at 1%
171 kPa
158 kPa
Yes
Sd at 3%
526 kPa
486 kPa
Yes
Sd at 5%
749 kPa
719 kPa
Yes
Arithmetic mean values for each parameter are presented in this table. However,
values for each test were used for statistical comparison.
112
Table 5-8. Statistical Comparison of Excess Pore Water Pressure - Strain Results
Tests on
Tests on frozen
Acceptance at
Acceptance at
Unfrozen Sanda
Sanda
90% confidence
95% confidence
Uexc at 1%
-26 kPa
3 kPa
No
No
Uexc at 3%
-145 kPa
-77 kPa
No
Yes
Uexc at 5%
-230 kPa
-173 kPa
Yes
Yes
Parameter
Arithmetic mean values for each parameter are presented in this table. However,
values for each test were used for statistical comparison.
The undrained tests on both never frozen sand and on recovered cores
showed a lot of variability and were very difficult to reproduce. The stress-strainstrength behavior and excess pore water pressure developed during undrained
triaxial loading is dependent on the level of saturation, the pore fluid stiffness, and
the void ratio at the beginning of the tests. According to William Houston,
undrained shear strength of saturated or nearly saturated sand is generally elusive
and hard to reproduce (Personal communication, June 3, 2011). This variability
and difficulty to reproduce the shear strength is attributable to the difficulty to
produce specimens of sand that have identical B-values, identical degrees of
saturation and, identical pore fluid stiffness in the laboratory (W. Houston,
Personal communication, June 3, 2011).
The results of the tests conducted on recovered cores compare favorably
with the baseline deformation behavior in undrained triaxial loading that was
established from the five undrained tests conducted on never frozen Ottawa 20-30
sand. The differences observed between the two sets of tests (tests of unfrozen
sand and tests on recovered cores) are well within the variability in the test results
113
observed during testing and also within the results, that can be expected from
undrained triaxial testing of saturated sand. It can be concluded from the results
that the sampling process has at most only minimal effects on the undrained
deformation characteristics of saturated Ottawa sand. The sampling procedure
described in this work produces undisturbed samples that retain their undrained
deformational characteristics.
114
Chapter 6
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The main objective of this work was to develop a method for recovering
undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil from physical models. This work is part
of a larger project to experimentally and numerically investigate the properties of
resedimented cohesionless soil following earthquake induced liquefaction. The
work presented in this thesis resulted in the development of a practical method for
preparing uniform soil deposits in laboratory bench scale and centrifuge models
and the development of a practical method of recovering intact and essentially
undisturbed samples of cohesionless soil from these physical models.
The technique for preparation of uniform sand specimens was developed
based on methods used by Frost (1989) and also by UC Davis. The technique is
based on air pluviation. A pluviation apparatus was developed that allows for
creation of samples of Ottawa 20-30 sand samples at target densities by varying
the height of fall of the sand. The apparatus is simple, can be created from easily
obtainable parts, and does not require specialized fabrication. A calibration curve
for the pluviation apparatus was developed relating fall height to the postplacement density of Ottawa 20-30 sand. Using this technique, specimens of
Ottawa 20-30 sand can be created in containers of varying sizes at densities
ranging from 1,550 kg/m3 to 1,730 kg/m3 (96 lb/ft3 to 108 lb/ft3).
115
cohesionless soil models was not observed during numerous freezing experiments
conducted in this work.
Equipment for coring 35 mm diameter and 71 mm diameter samples of
frozen cohesionless soil was developed. Using this equipment, numerous samples
were successfully recovered from the physical models. The sampling methods are
simple and can be replicated at different locations without requiring sophisticated
fabrication effort.
The undisturbed nature of the samples was investigated using triaxial
compression tests. Drained and undrained triaxial compression tests were
performed on never frozen Ottawa 20-30 sand pluviated to create a specimen with
a relative density of 80% to establish baseline deformation characteristics.
Recovered frozen cores were confined in a triaxial cell and allowed to thaw. The
same tests that were performed on never frozen Ottawa 20-30 sand specimens
were then performed on the thawed cores. The results of the tests on never frozen
and frozen and then thawed specimens were compared to assess the undisturbed
nature of the samples obtained using the sampling techniques developed in this
work.
Based on the experiment results and analyses reported in this thesis, it can be
concluded that the samples recovered using the sampling techniques developed in
this work retain their original drained and undrained deformation characteristics.
The freezing and thawing process has only minimal effects on the deformation
characteristics of the Ottawa 20-30 cohesionless soil. The differences between
deformational characteristic of never frozen sand and frozen and thawed sand
117
appear to be within the normal variation that can be expected from testing
different samples of the same soil.
6.2 Recommendations
The specimen creation and sampling techniques presented in this work are
suitable for use in the larger project and projects of similar scope and size. Based
on the testing conducted in this work, the samples obtained using methods
described in this thesis can reasonably be expected to maintain their structure and
deformational characteristics. However, there are a number of other factors that
were not addressed in this work that might have bearing on the quality of samples
obtained using methods described herein.
The effect of the moisture content of the dry sand on the pluviation technique
was not addressed in this work. Although, samples with consistent density were
produced using the pluviation method, the moisture content of the sand was not
considered during sample creation. Future testing could be performed using oven
dried sand in order to maintain constant moisture content during sample
preparation.
The ASTM standard for consolidated drained triaxial compression tests (CD
tests) does not have a bias or variability statement. Data on the bias and variability
of the CD test was not found in the literature. The number of tests performed on
never frozen sand in this study was relatively small. Although the test results were
fairly consistent and easily reproducible, the number of tests was too small to
confidently establish bias and variability of the CD test. Future studies could
118
perform more tests to develop a better estimate of the bias and variability of the
test.
A test standard for the consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests (CU
test) was not found in the literature. The results of the testing conducted in this
research showed that the CU test results showed greater variability than the CD
test results. It seems the CU test is more sensitive to small variability in initial
specimen density and saturation level (B-value). This variability made the CU test
a difficult method to use for purposes of investigating the deformation
characteristics of sampled cohesionless soil. The number of samples tested in this
study is relatively small. Future study could focus on conducting a statistically
significant number of CU tests in order to develop an estimate of the bias and
variability for the test itself. The CU test bias and variability, could lead to better
comparisons of deformation characteristics of never frozen sand and frozen sand.
The CU test bias and variability could also be applied in other cases where CU
test on cohesionless soil may be required.
This research was interested in investigating the large strain behavior,
consistent with the focus of the larger project (post liquefaction properties of
cohesionless soil). Future research could investigate the effects of freezing and
thawing on small strain behavior e.g. by measuring shear wave velocity in never
frozen specimens and also in frozen and then thawed specimens.
Poorly graded Ottawa 20-30 sand was used in this work. The sand has
uniform sub-rounded particles. Future research could perform the tests conducted
in this work using graded sand with sub-rounded particles, and also using sand
119
with angular particles. This research could investigate the effect of changing the
test soil on expansion due to freezing, deformation characteristics of frozen and
thawed soil, and creation of uniform deposits of sand using the pluviation
techniques described in this work.
Another area of additional study is the effect of the sampling techniques on
the aging effect of sands described by Mitchell (2008). Future research could
investigate whether cohesionless soil sampled using freezing loses strength gained
through aging. This research could provide insight to whether samples obtained
from an aged deposit of sand would retain its aged strength gain, i.e. whether
freezing followed by thawing erases aging effects.
120
7.0 REFERENCES
Alshibli, K. A., Sture, S., Costes, N. C., Frank, M. L., Lankton, M. R., Batiste, S.
N., et al. (2000, September). Assessment of Localized Deformations in
Sand Using X-Ray Computed Tomography. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 23(3), 274-299.
Araki, C. (1956). Structure of agarose, a main polysaccharide of agar-agar.
memoirs of the faculty of industrial arts, 21-25.
Borja, R. I., Kavazanjian, E., & Evans, J. C. (2008). Properties of Cohesionless
Soil Subsequent Liquefaction and Resedimentation. Proposal.
Czupak, Z. D. (2011). "Stabilization and Imaging of Cohesionless Soil Samples".
Tempe: Arizona State University.
Czupak, Z. D. (2011). Stabilization and Imaging of Cohesionless Soil Samples.
Tempe: Arizona State University.
Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., & Mabry, P. (1980). Strength, StressStrain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of
Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses. Berkeley: University of
California at Berkeley.
Evans, M. T. (2005). Microscale Physical and Numerical Investigations of Shear
Banding in Granular Soils. Atlanta: Georigia Institute of Technology.
Fiegel, G. L., Hudson, M., Idriss, I. M., Kutter, L. B., & Zeng, X. (1994). Effect
of model containers on dynamic soil response. In Leung, Lee, & Tan
(Ed.), Centrifuge 94 (pp. 145-150). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Frost, J. D. (1989). Studies on the Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Sands. West
Lafayette: Purdue University.
GCTS Testing Systems. (2005). CATS Advanced and Universal 1.89. Tempe:
GCTS Testing Systems.
Holtz, R. D., & Kovacs, W. D. (1981). "An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering". Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hass.
Holtz, R. D., & Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hass.
Hvorslev, J. M. (1949). Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes. Vicksburg: Waterways Experiment Station.
121
123
APPENDIX A
DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE BOX USED IN FREEZING AND
SAMPLING EXPERIMENTS, AND OTHER FABRICATED EQUIPMENT
124
125
126
127
1. DRILL GUIDE
G
All Dimensionss are in inches.
Assembly
A
129
130
APPENDIX B
TRIAXIAL TESTS RESULTS AND EVALUATIONS
131
Mass of
Initial
Relative
Height
Sand
Density
Density
(mm)
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
150
1019
1710
80
0.95
150
1022
1715
82
0.97
150
1018
1708
79
0.95
148
1007
1713
81
0.96
150
1019
1710
80
0.94
Test
B-Value
132
133
Ea
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
Sd
0
103
151
171
184
192
197
201
203
206
207
207
208
208
207
206
207
206
206
205
203
202
200
199
198
196
195
195
193
192
190
189
1
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.11
0.21
0.34
0.48
0.62
0.77
0.93
1.09
1.24
1.40
1.55
1.68
1.81
1.93
2.08
2.13
2.28
2.43
2.58
2.72
2.87
3.02
3.16
3.30
3.41
3.55
3.67
3.78
3.89
Ev
Ea
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.0
Sd
0
73
127
158
173
184
192
198
202
205
208
209
211
212
212
212
213
212
213
211
211
209
208
207
206
204
202
201
199
197
195
193
2
Ev
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Ea
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
Sd
0
68
123
149
165
176
183
189
193
197
200
201
203
204
204
204
204
204
204
203
202
202
201
200
199
198
196
194
193
191
191
188
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.1
0
23
75
112
141
162
176
186
193
198
202
205
207
208
209
210
210
211
210
210
210
209
209
208
207
205
204
203
201
200
198
196
NeverfrozenSandTestsData
3
4
Sd
Ev
Ea
Ev
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.8
Ea
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.0
Sd
0
71
120
149
167
179
187
194
199
202
205
206
207
208
209
208
209
208
209
208
207
206
205
204
203
201
200
199
197
196
194
193
5
Ev
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
Ea
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.0
0
67
119
148
166
179
187
194
198
202
204
206
207
208
208
208
208
208
208
207
206
206
205
204
202
201
199
198
197
195
194
192
Mean
Sd
Ev
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
DuncanandChang(1970)fitting
Sdmax
83(Test1)
84(Test2)
86(Test3)
87(Test4)
88(Test5)
83
84
86
87
88
Mean
STDEV
Ea
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
146
198
149
202
143
194
148
200
146
198
0.4
1.4
0.5
1.6
0.5
1.7
0.7
1.8
0.6
1.6
Ei
1153
714
681
456
630
727
231
Sdult
224
245
234
264
247
243
13
Rf
0.93
0.87
0.87
0.80
0.85
0.86
0.04
134
Ea/sd
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.004
0.009
0.005
0.009
0.004
0.008
Ev@0.7SdEvat0.95Sd EvatSd ma
0.0367
1
0.05
0
0.05
0.17
0.41
0.5
0.5
0.95
0.63
0.78
0.67
0.17
1.5504
2.0039
1.901
1.7681
1.5712
1.14
1.35
135
DifferentialStress,Sd(kPa)
50
100
150
200
250
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
2.5
3.0
3.5
NeverFrozenSandStressStrainResults
4.0
4.5
5.0
136
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.0
1.0
2.0
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
3.0
4.0
5.0
NeverFrozenSandVolumetricStrainAxialStrainResuls
6.0
Mass of
Initial
Relative
Sand
Density
Density
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
Sample
B-Value
Height (mm)
144
977
1705
78
0.93
145
983
1707
79
0.94
144
977
1708
79
0.93
148
1005
1710
80
0.93
137
1
Ea
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
Sd
0
45
81
106
130
144
158
166
173
178
184
188
191
194
197
199
202
203
205
206
208
209
209
210
210
211
211
212
212
212
212
213
212
212
213
212
211
211
211
210
210
209
208
208
207
206
206
205
205
204
203
2
Ev
0.00
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.12
0.17
0.24
0.31
0.38
0.45
0.53
0.60
0.68
0.75
0.84
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.15
1.24
1.32
1.39
1.47
1.55
1.64
1.72
1.79
1.88
1.95
2.04
2.11
2.20
2.28
2.36
2.44
2.52
2.59
2.67
2.74
2.82
2.90
2.97
3.04
3.11
3.19
3.26
Sd
0
36
64
87
108
120
132
139
145
151
156
160
164
167
170
173
175
178
180
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
193
194
194
194
194
194
194
195
195
195
195
195
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
195
195
195
195
Frozen/ThawedTestData
3
Ev
Sd
Ev
0.00
0
0.09
54
0.13
85
0.16
106
0.17
121
0.16
130
0.14
139
0.11
147
0.00
0.07
155
0.03
0.03
162
0.06
0.02
167
0.10
0.07
172
0.13
0.12
176
0.17
0.17
180
0.22
0.23
182
0.27
0.29
185
0.33
0.35
187
0.37
0.42
189
0.43
0.48
191
0.49
0.55
193
0.55
0.61
194
0.61
0.68
195
0.67
0.75
196
0.73
0.81
197
0.80
0.89
198
0.87
0.95
199
0.93
1.03
198
0.99
1.10
198
1.06
1.17
197
1.13
1.25
197
1.20
1.32
197
1.27
1.40
196
1.33
1.47
196
1.40
1.54
196
1.47
1.62
195
1.54
1.69
195
1.61
1.77
195
1.67
1.84
194
1.75
1.91
194
1.82
1.99
193
1.89
2.06
193
1.96
2.13
193
2.02
2.21
192
2.09
2.27
192
2.17
2.35
191
2.24
2.42
191
2.31
2.50
191
2.37
2.57
191
2.45
2.64
190
2.51
2.71
190
2.57
2.78
190
2.64
138
4
Sd
0
40
67
90
110
126
140
148
160
168
173
177
182
185
189
192
195
197
200
202
203
204
204
205
205
205
204
204
204
204
204
203
203
202
201
201
200
198
197
196
195
194
193
191
189
187
185
183
181
179
178
Mean
Ev
0.00
0.07
0.15
0.22
0.27
0.35
0.42
0.50
0.57
0.63
0.71
0.79
0.86
0.94
1.00
1.08
1.16
1.23
1.31
1.38
1.46
1.53
1.61
1.69
1.75
1.82
1.90
1.98
2.05
2.11
2.19
2.27
2.34
2.41
2.47
2.55
2.62
2.69
2.76
2.82
2.89
2.96
3.03
3.09
Sd
0
44
74
97
117
130
142
150
158
165
170
174
178
182
185
187
190
192
194
195
197
198
199
200
200
201
201
201
201
202
202
202
201
201
201
201
200
200
199
199
198
198
197
197
196
195
194
194
193
192
191
Ev
0.00
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.13
0.18
0.24
0.30
0.36
0.43
0.49
0.56
0.63
0.70
0.77
0.83
0.91
0.98
1.06
1.13
1.20
1.27
1.35
1.42
1.50
1.57
1.64
1.72
1.79
1.87
1.94
2.02
2.09
2.16
2.24
2.30
2.38
2.45
2.53
2.60
2.66
2.74
2.80
2.87
2.94
DuncanandChang(1970)Fitting
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Mean
STDEV
FreezeThawTests
Sdmax
Ea
0.7 149.07
0.53
0.95 202.31
1.63
0.7 137.61
0.69
0.95 186.75
2.23
0.7 138.83
0.60
0.95 188.42
1.66
0.7 143.50
0.64
0.95 194.75
1.60
Ei
716
527
561
509
Sdult
245
222
236
256
Rf
0.87
0.89
0.84
0.80
578
82
240
12
0.85
0.03
Ea/sd
0.003575756
0.008068569
0.004990017
0.011954399
0.004328932
0.008827952
0.004473868
0.008218228
139
0.5953
0.3452
0.65
0.63
0.56
0.12
2.0039
2.1241
0.9174
0.359
1.35
0.74
140
200
250
50
100
150
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
3.0
3.5
Frozen/ThawedStressStrainResults
4.0
4.5
5.0
141
0.5
0.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
0.5
1.5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
2.5
3.5
Frozen/ThawVolumetricStrainAxialStrainResults
4.5
142
DeviatorStrain,Sd(kPa)
50
100
150
200
250
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
AxialStrain(Ea)
2.5
3.0
3.5
MeanStressStrainResults
4.0
4.5
5.0
NeverFrozen
FrozenThawed
143
0.5
0.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
VolumetricStrain,Ev(%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
AxialStrain,Ea,(%)
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
MeanVolumetricstrainAxialStrainResults
4.5
NeverFrozen
Frozen
5.0
DuncanandChangfitting
UnfrozenSand
83(Test1)
84(Test2)
86(Test3)
87(Test4)
88(Test5)
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
Ei
1153
714
681
456
630
727
231
83
84
86
87
88
Mean
STDEV
FreezeThawTests
1
2
3
4
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
0.7
0.95
Sdmax
146
198
149
202
143
194
148
200
146
198
Sdult
224
245
234
264
247
243
13
Ea
0.4
1.4
0.5
1.6
0.5
1.7
0.7
1.8
0.6
1.6
Ea/sd
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.004
0.009
0.005
0.009
0.004
0.008
Rf
0.93
0.87
0.87
0.80
0.85
0.86
0.04
@0.7Sdmat0.95Sdm EvatSdmax
0.0367
0.5
1.5504
1
0.5
2.0039
0.05
0.95
1.901
0
0.63
1.7681
0.05
0.78
1.5712
0.17
0.67
1.14
0.41
0.17
1.35
DuncanandChangFitting
Sdmax
Ea
Ea/sd
149.07
0.53 0.003576
202.31
1.63 0.008069
137.61
0.69 0.00499
186.75
2.23 0.011954
138.83
0.60 0.004329
188.42
1.66 0.008828
143.50
0.64 0.004474
194.75
1.60 0.008218
1
2
3
4
Ei
716
527
561
509
Sdult
245
222
236
256
Rf
0.87
0.89
0.84
0.80
Mean
STDEV
578
82
240
12
0.85
0.03
@0.7Sdmat0.95Sdm EvatSdmax
0.0875
0.5953
2.0039
0.6978
0.3452
2.1241
0.0875
0.65
0.9174
0.6978
0.63
0.359
144
0.39
0.31
0.56
0.12
1.35
0.74
Eiat90%confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
Variable1 Variable2
726.7954 578.0738
66639.44 8878.763
5
4
41884.87
0
7
1.083277
0.157291
1.894579
0.314582
2.364624
Sdultat90%confidence tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
Rfat90%confidence
Variable1 Variable2
243.0022 239.6897
224.315 205.8009
5
4
216.3804
0
7
0.335693
0.37347
1.894579
0.746939
2.364624
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
145
Variable1 Variable2
0.862427 0.84919
0.002187
0.0014
5
4
0.00185
0
7
0.458817
0.330136
1.894579
0.660272
2.364624
Ev@0.7Sdmaxat90% tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
confidence
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
Variable1 Variable2
0.17266 0.39265
0.214322 0.124155
5
4
0.175679
0
7
0.78241
0.229808
1.894579
0.459616
2.364624
Ev@0.95Sdmaxat90% tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
confidence
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
Ev@Sdmaxat90%
confidence
Variable1 Variable2
0.672 0.55513
0.03747 0.020097
5
4
0.030024
0
7
1.00549
0.174072
1.894579
0.348144
2.364624
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
146
Variable1 Variable2
1.13876
1.3511
2.286033 0.732012
5
4
1.620024
0
7
0.248694
0.405368
1.894579
0.810736
2.364624
Mass of
Initial
Relative
Height
Sand
Density
Density
(mm)
(g)
(kg/m3)
(%)
150
1019
1710
80
0.90
149
1013
1712
81
0.90
150
1012
1714
82
0.96
150
1019
1710
80
0.95
149
1012
1710
80
0.93
Test
B-Value
147
1
Ea
(%)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
Sd
(kPa)
0
43
60
76
92
111
132
150
167
185
202
220
239
258
277
296
315
340
357
380
403
419
442
459
483
506
523
545
561
581
601
613
630
645
663
675
684
695
704
714
721
726
734
741
744
747
750
754
756
758
759
761
762
765
765
767
763
763
764
764
763
762
761
761
758
757
756
756
752
753
752
750
2
ExcU
(kPa)
0
0
0
4
4
2
2
7
13
18
24
30
37
44
50
57
64
71
79
86
95
102
110
118
126
134
143
150
158
165
173
180
187
193
198
204
209
213
217
221
224
227
230
232
234
236
238
239
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
249
250
251
252
252
253
254
254
255
255
256
256
257
257
258
Sd
(kPa)
0
10
29
48
67
85
105
125
143
160
180
200
219
237
256
274
292
310
330
350
374
398
420
438
460
482
502
524
547
567
587
605
623
640
655
670
682
696
708
721
731
741
750
757
765
770
775
781
784
787
790
795
795
797
798
797
799
800
802
802
801
801
802
800
799
800
801
796
793
795
792
788
ExcU
(kPa)
0
6
3
0
4
8
12
17
22
27
33
36
39
45
52
59
66
73
80
88
95
102
111
119
128
137
145
154
163
171
180
188
196
204
211
218
224
230
235
240
245
249
253
256
260
263
265
267
269
271
272
274
275
276
278
278
279
280
281
282
282
283
283
284
284
284
285
285
286
286
286
287
BaselineUndrainedTestResults
3
4
Sd
ExcU
Sd
ExcU
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
0
0
0
0
12
9
19
0
28
10
37
3
43
9
54
6
57
9
70
9
70
7
90
13
84
5
110
16
98
3
129
21
114
0
148
25
130
2
166
29
184
35
145
5
160
9
202
40
174
12
220
45
188
16
239
51
203
19
258
56
218
23
276
62
233
27
294
68
248
31
319
75
260
35
343
81
272
40
357
86
284
43
376
93
295
48
395
100
310
53
416
107
325
58
435
114
345
63
451
120
361
67
471
127
380
73
491
134
393
78
511
141
409
84
530
148
425
89
544
153
441
94
563
160
458
100
581
166
471
105
599
172
489
111
614
178
506
117
628
182
523
122
641
188
541
127
656
193
554
133
669
198
572
139
681
202
588
144
691
205
604
148
700
209
619
153
711
213
631
158
718
217
646
163
728
220
660
168
734
222
672
171
741
225
686
176
747
228
697
180
754
231
708
184
759
233
719
188
762
235
728
191
767
237
738
194
771
239
744
197
773
241
752
201
778
244
760
203
780
246
763
206
782
248
768
209
783
249
772
211
784
250
776
214
784
251
778
216
784
253
780
217
785
253
784
220
783
254
784
222
781
255
784
223
782
256
787
225
779
257
788
226
778
258
790
228
776
259
790
229
771
259
791
230
771
260
789
231
766
261
787
233
781
234
148
5
Sd
(kPa)
0
10
25
40
55
70
85
100
115
130
145
160
175
190
204
218
231
243
257
270
285
300
315
330
345
360
380
400
412
425
439
454
469
481
496
512
528
543
556
570
584
598
613
623
635
648
661
672
680
690
702
711
720
727
735
743
751
759
763
768
774
779
785
787
793
796
796
798
800
802
805
805
Mean
ExcU
(kPa)
0
13
15
18
19
23
26
25
27
31
34
37
41
45
48
52
56
60
63
67
71
76
79
84
89
93
98
103
107
113
117
122
127
132
137
142
148
153
157
162
167
171
176
180
184
188
193
197
200
203
207
210
213
216
219
221
224
226
228
231
233
235
237
238
240
242
243
245
246
247
248
250
Sd
(kPa)
0
21
38
55
71
89
108
125
143
160
178
196
213
230
248
266
283
304
322
340
359
377
397
414
435
455
474
493
512
529
548
564
581
597
613
627
641
654
666
678
689
699
708
718
726
733
739
747
752
757
761
766
768
773
776
777
779
780
781
782
782
783
782
782
781
781
781
778
777
776
777
773
ExcU
(kPa)
0
4
2
2
0
3
6
11
15
19
24
29
33
39
45
50
56
63
69
75
81
88
95
102
109
116
124
131
138
145
152
158
165
172
177
183
188
193
198
203
207
210
213
217
220
223
226
229
231
233
235
237
239
241
243
245
246
247
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
256
257
258
259
259
259
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
751
751
749
747
745
743
744
743
744
744
743
744
750
748
747
749
747
745
743
258
258
259
259
259
260
260
260
261
261
261
262
262
262
262
262
263
263
263
787
783
782
782
777
774
770
766
763
759
760
755
752
748
746
739
737
732
731
287
287
287
288
288
288
288
288
289
289
289
289
289
289
290
290
289
289
289
779
772
768
762
759
755
746
742
734
731
727
725
722
710
712
708
703
697
695
235
236
236
237
238
238
239
240
240
241
241
241
242
242
243
243
243
243
243
149
807
810
812
811
813
811
809
807
805
804
805
801
802
795
793
792
788
785
779
251
252
252
253
254
255
256
256
257
257
258
258
258
259
259
259
260
260
260
772
769
766
764
760
757
753
751
747
745
744
741
741
735
735
732
729
725
723
260
260
261
261
262
262
263
263
263
264
264
264
264
265
265
265
265
265
265
150
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
UndrainedBaselineTestResults
151
ExcessPorePressure,Uexc(kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
ExcessPorePressureAxialStrain
7
Sample
Height (mm)
Mass of Sand
Relative
B-
Density
Value
Initial Density
3
(kg/m )
(g)
(%)
1
150
1020
1711
80
0.90
145
985
1708
79
0.93
144
979
1710
80
0.90
152
1
Ea
(%)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Sd
(kPa)
0
19
38
57
70
85
98
115
131
149
167
184
200
215
231
247
264
280
296
313
329
345
360
375
391
408
425
443
460
477
494
510
527
542
558
572
586
600
614
627
639
651
663
675
686
697
707
717
FrozenCoreUndrainedTestResults
2
3
ExcU
Sd
ExcU
Sd
ExcU
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
0
0
0
0
0
6
17
4
9
2
8
33
19
23
5
9
48
20
40
5
10
64
20
57
4
10
79
20
74
2
9
94
19
90
0
7
107
17
106
2
5
118
15
123
5
2
131
14
141
6
1
148
13
159
5
3
166
10
176
9
7
182
9
191
13
10
198
14
205
16
8
214
11
221
20
6
229
8
239
24
9
242
5
257
28
14
256
1
274
33
18
271
2
290
36
23
287
5
306
41
323
45
28
303
10
32
319
14
345
50
37
336
18
366
55
42
352
23
387
59
48
368
27
403
64
53
383
32
420
69
58
398
37
438
74
64
414
42
454
79
70
429
47
471
83
75
445
52
487
88
81
460
57
503
94
86
475
63
520
99
92
489
68
535
104
98
504
74
550
108
103
517
79
565
113
109
530
84
580
118
115
543
90
594
123
117
556
95
607
127
122
567
101
619
131
129
579
106
631
136
134
590
111
643
140
140
602
117
655
144
145
613
122
666
148
151
624
126
676
151
156
634
131
686
155
162
643
136
695
159
166
651
141
704
163
172
660
145
712
166
153
Mean
Sd
(kPa)
0
15
31
48
64
79
94
109
124
140
158
175
191
206
222
238
254
270
286
302
318
336
354
371
387
403
420
437
453
469
486
502
517
532
546
561
574
588
600
612
624
636
647
658
669
679
688
696
ExcU
(kPa)
0
4
11
11
11
11
9
8
5
3
3
1
4
4
5
7
11
15
19
23
28
32
37
41
46
51
56
62
67
72
77
83
88
93
98
104
109
113
118
124
128
134
138
143
148
152
157
161
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
726
734
741
748
754
761
767
772
777
781
786
791
795
800
803
807
810
813
816
818
820
822
824
825
826
827
829
830
830
830
829
831
831
830
828
825
823
820
817
814
810
806
804
176
181
186
190
195
199
203
207
210
214
217
221
224
227
230
233
235
238
241
243
246
248
249
251
253
255
257
259
261
263
266
266
267
267
270
271
272
274
276
277
278
279
280
668
675
682
688
695
700
706
711
716
719
722
725
728
731
732
734
735
737
739
741
741
740
739
737
734
732
727
724
720
717
713
708
704
700
695
690
684
678
674
668
666
663
663
150
154
158
162
166
170
173
177
180
184
187
190
193
196
198
201
204
206
209
211
213
215
217
219
221
223
224
226
228
229
231
232
233
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
154
720
727
734
740
746
751
756
761
765
768
772
774
776
778
779
781
782
783
785
782
782
781
785
786
787
787
787
786
785
784
784
782
780
776
772
769
766
763
760
758
756
753
751
169
172
175
178
181
183
185
188
190
193
194
197
199
201
202
203
205
207
208
209
210
212
212
213
214
215
217
218
219
221
221
222
222
223
224
226
226
226
227
227
228
229
229
704
712
719
726
732
737
743
748
753
756
760
763
767
770
772
774
775
778
780
781
781
781
783
783
782
782
781
780
778
777
775
774
772
769
765
761
757
754
750
747
744
741
739
165
169
173
177
180
184
187
191
194
197
200
202
205
208
210
212
215
217
219
221
223
225
226
228
229
231
233
234
236
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
155
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
5
AxialStrain,Ea(kPa)
FrozenThawUndrainedTestResults
156
ExcessPorePressure,Uexc(kPa)
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
ExcessPorePressureStrainResults(FrozenThaw)
8
157
DeviatorStress,Sd(kPa)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
5
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
StressStrainResultsComparison
Frozen/Thaw3
Frozen/Thaw2
Frozen/Thaw1
Mean2Sigma
MeanSigma
mean
Mean+Sigma
Mean+2Sigma
158
ExcessPorePressure,Uexc(kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
AxialStrain,Ea(%)
ExcessPorePressureComparison
8
Frozen/Thaw3
Frozen/Thaw2
Frozen/Thaw1
Mean2Sigma
MeanSigma
mean
Mean+Sigma
Mean+2Sigma
StressStrainCurvesComparison
TestNumber
Axialstrain,Ea
1%
3%
5%
1
202
601
759
2
180
587
790
Excessporewaterpressure,Uexc
Unfrozensand
3
4
5
Mean
1
145
184
145
171
167
441
563
439
526
494
728
767
702
749
741
159
Frozen
2
148
460
682
3
159
503
734
Mean
158
486
719
1%@90%Confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Variable1 Variable2
171.2281 157.8333
642.8654 96.08333
5
3
460.6047
0
6
0.854615
0.212783
1.94318
0.425566
2.446912
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
3%@90%Confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Variable1 Variable2
526.4899 485.6756
6378.175 523.2023
5
3
4426.517
0
6
0.840007
0.216547
1.94318
0.433095
2.446912
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
5%@90%Confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Variable1 Variable2
749.082 719.0856
945.8231 1031.372
6
3
970.2657
0
7
1.361882
0.107719
1.894579
0.215438
2.364624
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
160
TestNumber
Axialstrain,Ea
1%
3%
5%
1
24
173
243
2
33
180
272
Excessporewaterpressurecomparison
Excessporewaterpressure,Uexc
Unfrozensand
3
4
5
Mean
1
5
35
34
26
1
94
160
117
145
81
191
237
207
230
186
161
Frozen
2
13
57
158
3
5
94
175
Mean
3
77
173
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
1%@90%Confidence
Variable1 Variable2
26.344
2.89
153.1605 78.4561
5
3
128.259
0
6
3.53464
0.006149
1.94318
0.012298
2.446912
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
3%@90%confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Variable1 Variable2
144.808
77.28
1407.177 335.6899
5
3
1050.015
0
6
2.85356
0.014523
1.94318
0.029046
2.446912
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
5%@90%confidence
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
Variable1 Variable2
230.046 172.917
1023.825 194.1294
5
3
747.26
0
6
2.8617
0.014369
2.446912
0.028738
2.968687
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
tTest:TwoSampleAssumingEqualVariances
1%@95%confidence
Variable1 Variable2
26.344
2.89
153.1605 78.4561
5
3
128.259
0
6
3.53464
0.006149
2.446912
0.012298
2.968687
Mean
Variance
Observations
PooledVariance
HypothesizedMeanDifference
df
tStat
P(T<=t)onetail
tCriticalonetail
P(T<=t)twotail
tCriticaltwotail
162