Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||A note on determination of the preconsolidation pressure|
|Citation:||Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2019; 47(6):4535-4550|
|A. Soltani, A. Taheri, A. Deng, and M. Azimi|
|Abstract:||The preconsolidation pressure, σ′y, is commonly interpreted by means of empirical observations (or graphical constructions) with respect to e–logσ′ stress patterns (e = void ratio, and σ′ = effective stress) exhibited in the conventional oedometer test. As with any empirical/graphical procedure, the resulting estimations are associated with subjective variability and thus yield inconsistent results among individuals. Recently, the mathematical translational technique was implemented by the authors, thereby promoting a subjective-free computational framework, denoted as the 3PRH framework, for interpretation of σ′y with respect to four common graphical constructions (i.e., three semi-log and one bi-log construction), covering a variety of geometrical complexity. In this article, the 3PRH framework was first revisited in a more practical sense. The framework was then implemented to a compiled database of 34 consolidation tests to arrive at reliable correlations/comparisons between the four graphical constructions. Finally, the settlement dependency on σ′y (or type of graphical construction) was statistically examined to recommend measures for reliable settlement analyses.|
|Rights:||Copyright ASTM 2019|
|Appears in Collections:||Aurora harvest 4|
Civil and Environmental Engineering publications
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.