2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2014.07.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of effective normal stress in the measurement of fully softened strength in different origin landslide soils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figures 3a, 4a and 5a show the typical shear characteristics of the slip-zone soils (shearing rate 0.1 mm/min and 1 mm/min) obtained from three different locations, where, the shear stress is plotted against the shear displacement at the normal stress ranged from 100kN/m 2 to 400kN/m 2 . It is a widely accepted fact that normal stress has effect on the shear behavior of the soil (Kimura et al, 2015;Stark Timothy et al, 2005;Eid, 2014), thus, the shear behavior of samples at the peak and residual stages, where, the determined peak friction coefficient as well as residual friction coefficient are plotted in Figure 3b, 4b, and 5b against the corresponding effective normal stresses. The friction coefficient is defined as the shear stress divided by the effective normal stress.…”
Section: Shear Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figures 3a, 4a and 5a show the typical shear characteristics of the slip-zone soils (shearing rate 0.1 mm/min and 1 mm/min) obtained from three different locations, where, the shear stress is plotted against the shear displacement at the normal stress ranged from 100kN/m 2 to 400kN/m 2 . It is a widely accepted fact that normal stress has effect on the shear behavior of the soil (Kimura et al, 2015;Stark Timothy et al, 2005;Eid, 2014), thus, the shear behavior of samples at the peak and residual stages, where, the determined peak friction coefficient as well as residual friction coefficient are plotted in Figure 3b, 4b, and 5b against the corresponding effective normal stresses. The friction coefficient is defined as the shear stress divided by the effective normal stress.…”
Section: Shear Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is a generally accepted fact that the measurement of the residual strength is most preferred done with a ring shear test since it allows the soil specimen be sheared at unlimited displacement which can simulate the field conditions more accurately (Lupini et al, 1981;Tiwari and Marui, 2005;Bhat, 2013;Sassa et al, 2004). Until now, several relationships between the residual strength and soil index parameters have been reported in the literature with a wide range of soil by using various kinds of ring shear apparatus (Hoyos et al, 2014;Jiang et al, 2016;Kimura et al, 2015;Li et al, 2013;. Furthermore, many studies have shown that the shearing rate may or may not affect the minimum value of soil strength at residual states (Suzuki et al, 2007;Grelle and Guadagno, 2010;Gonghui et al, 2010;Bhat, 2013;Tika and Hutchinson, 1999;Lemos, 1985;Morgenstern and Hungr, 1984;Tika, 1999).…”
Section: . Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3(a)-5(a) show the typical shear characteristics of the loess (shear rate of 0.1 mm/min and 1 mm/min) obtained from three different locations, where, the shear stress is plotted against the shear displacement. It is a widely accepted fact that normal stress has effect on the shear behavior of the soil (Stark Timothy et al, 2005;Eid, 2014;Kimura et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2019), thus, the shear behavior of 3(b)), respectively, which is greater than in the Ydg samples (about 9.8% and 10.3% and 6.0% ( Fig. 5(b)).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…To analyze the specificity of fault gouge mechanical properties, the residual strengths of clay and loess are selected from references to give a comparison [35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. e fitting curves of "shear stress ratio (R s )" and normal stress (0 to 600 kPa) of different soils are obtained as shown in Figure 16.…”
Section: Comparison Of Residual Strength Of Different Soilsmentioning
confidence: 99%