Shrinkage limit test results and interpretation for clay soils

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Soils in Construction (Engineering)

Advertisements

Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning Civil Engineering Department Soil Mechanics ECGD3303 Atterberg's Limits Lecture 4 Week 2 1 st Quadester.

Atterberg Limits of Soil

Civil Engineering Department

Civil Engineering Department College of Engineering Course: Soil and Rock Mechanics (CE 260) Lecturer: Dr. Frederick Owusu-Nimo.

Atterberg's Limits Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning

Soil Classification N. Sivakugan Duration: 7 min. 20 s.

Table 5. Properties of The Tested Soil

Daryl Dagesse Department of Geography St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

1.1 COMPONENTS OF SOILS In natural occurrence, soils are three-phase systems consisting of soil solids, water and air. It is important to know the void.

by S. P. Gregory, L. D. Maurice, J. M. West, and D. C. Gooddy

Soil Classification N. Sivakugan Duration: 7 min. 20 s.

Bland-Altman plot of 129Xe RBC:TP at baseline.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Groundwater Learning objectives

by V. J. Banks, S. H. Bricker, K. R. Royse, and P. E. F. Collins

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Estimated probability of successful quitting (quit attempt of longer than 1 year) by quit attempt number in the Ontario Tobacco Survey. Estimated probability.

Schematic overview of depositional environments occurring in the terrestrial and marine realm which are mentioned in the text. Schematic overview of depositional.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Depth plot of maximum vertical hydraulic fracture propagation from all known shale gas operations in the Marcellus Shale from 2001 to 2010, with the base.

Geological and geotechnical studies around Kaswati dam, Kachchh, India: implications on tectonic stability, rock mass property and water retention capacity.

Masashi Maeda et al. Heart Asia 2013;5:7-14

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Middelburgse kade peat dyke: (a) cross-section; (b) comparison between hydraulic head predictions; (c) comparison between predictions and measurements;

Liberation of selenium from alteration of the Bowland Shale Formation: evidence from the Mam Tor landslide by John Parnell, Liam Bullock, Joseph Armstrong,

Editorial 2018 by Jane Dottridge, and Eddie Bromhead

Mine water rebound in South Nottinghamshire: risk evaluation using 3-D visualization and predictive modelling by S. Dumpleton, N. S. Robins, J. A. Walker,

Water supply maps for northern France created by British military geologists during World War II: precursors of modern groundwater development potential.

A half-century of contributions to landslide knowledge in QJEGH

Editorial by Eddie Bromhead, and Steve Buss

Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications

Alice, aggregates and tax: muddy waters

Summary of bulk porosity measurements and bulk porosity interpretation from LWD density neutron data recorded in the horizontal well. Summary of bulk porosity.

Find: LL laboratory data: # of turns Wdish [g] Wdish+wet soil [g]

Newbury slope: (a) slope cross-section and soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity function properties for the modelled London Clay; (b) history.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications

Experiment # 2 Atterberg Limits.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Advances in engineering geology in the UK 1950–2018

(a) Map of the Isle of Skye (Scotland), with a box denoting Brothers’ Point (Rubha nam Brathairean), where the two theropod teeth described here (NMS G

Map showing approximate limits of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets at the present day and during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Map showing approximate.

Results of the discriminant function analysis (DFA) performed at the group-level on our personal datasets of 550 teeth belonging to 71 taxa gathered into.

Schematic cross-section from the eastern Alcock Rise across the East Andaman Basin, SE offshore Myanmar. Schematic cross-section from the eastern Alcock.

Comparison of graphic log systems illustrating the difference in geological message between (a) use of basic symbols used with ‘artistic flexibility’ and.

Approximately 2 m diameter shaft exposed at the site of the Nottingham Business Park near Strelley. Approximately 2 m diameter shaft exposed at the site.

Plot of (a) C5–C8 aliphatic, (b) C9–C12 aliphatic, (c) C9–C10 aromatic, (d) n-hexane, (e) naphthalene and (f) TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) concentrations.

Pressure derivative plot from 205/21a-6 DST data.

Rafts of chalk emplaced within shallow marine sands and gravels of the Wroxham Crag Formation, exposed in the cliff face at Sidestrand, Norfolk; the upper.

The ‘Oil Patch Warrior’, a statue in the Dukes Wood Nature Reserve commemorating the 44 roughnecks who arrived from Oklahoma in 1942 to develop the Dukes.

Schematic cross-section for the Outer Wash, showing the ground conditions interpreted by the British Geological Survey (1991). tk, Undivided Mesozoic Strata.

A conceptual model of heavy hydrocarbon fate and transport in the environment. A conceptual model of heavy hydrocarbon fate and transport in the environment.

Frequency plots of copy number aberrations (CNAs) are shown for (A) baseline endobronchial lesions of cases (n=12) and (B) baseline endobronchial lesions.

Cropwell Bishop gypsum quarry.

Ferric iron content of garnet and spinel from mantle rocks plotted as a function of the calculated log fO2 using equations (9)–(11). Ferric iron content.

Calculating the overall accuracy in different samples using the V-plot

Percentage of individuals aged 16 and over taking cardiovascular-related prescriptions, by sex, England 2012–2013. Percentage of individuals aged 16 and.

Oil Absorption capacity(g/g)

Bland–Altman plots for (A) interobserver and (B) test-retest reliability, with difference between measurements (y axis) plotted against mean of the measurements.

Relationship between the response to bronchodilator and the pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at visit 2. Relationship between the response to bronchodilator and.

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Editorial by Eddie Bromhead, and Daren Gooddy

by Richard C. Ghail, and Jamie R. Standing

Presentation transcript:

Shrinkage limit test results and interpretation for clay soils by P. R. N. Hobbs, L. D. Jones, M. P. Kirkham, D. A. Gunn, and D. C. Entwisle Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology Volume ():qjegh2018-100 November 5, 2018 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Schematic plot of water content v Schematic plot of water content v. volume showing graphical construction to determine shrinkage limit (dashed lines), and other Atterberg limits. wS, shrinkage limit; wP, plastic limit; wL, liquid limit; IS, shrinkage index; IP, plasticity index. Schematic plot of water content v. volume showing graphical construction to determine shrinkage limit (dashed lines), and other Atterberg limits. wS, shrinkage limit; wP, plastic limit; wL, liquid limit; IS, shrinkage index; IP, plasticity index. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for selected samples (SHRINKiT test) of UK soils by formation or soil type. Water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for selected samples (SHRINKiT test) of UK soils by formation or soil type. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for selected samples (SHRINKiT test) of non-UK soils by formation or soil type. Water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for selected samples (SHRINKiT test) of non-UK soils by formation or soil type. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Envelopes of water content v Envelopes of water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for all data (SHRINKiT test). Envelopes of water content v. volume per 100 g dry soil, U, for all data (SHRINKiT test). P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Shrinkability index v. liquidity index for all data (by formation or soil type); sample GAULT5 omitted for clarity; Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. Shrinkability index v. liquidity index for all data (by formation or soil type); sample GAULT5 omitted for clarity; Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Shrinkability index v. liquidity index for all data (by sample state). P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. bulk density, selected data, by formation or soil type (undisturbed samples only). P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. bulk density, selected data, by formation or soil type (remoulded samples only). P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. bulk density, tropical red clay soils (matched undisturbed and remoulded samples; refer to Table 2); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. Water content v. bulk density, tropical red clay soils (matched undisturbed and remoulded samples; refer to Table 2); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Water content v. bulk density, selected UK and Cyprus data, by formation (matched undisturbed and remoulded samples; refer to Table 2); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. Water content v. bulk density, selected UK and Cyprus data, by formation (matched undisturbed and remoulded samples; refer to Table 2); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Shrinkage limit v. water content at peak bulk density by formation or soil type and sample state (line shows 1:1 relationship); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. Shrinkage limit v. water content at peak bulk density by formation or soil type and sample state (line shows 1:1 relationship); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Three-axis plot of water content v. unit volume v Three-axis plot of water content v. unit volume v. suction for sample London15. Three-axis plot of water content v. unit volume v. suction for sample London15. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Three-axis plot of water content v. bulk density v Three-axis plot of water content v. bulk density v. suction for sample London15. Three-axis plot of water content v. bulk density v. suction for sample London15. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved

Shrinkage limit (SHRINKiT: graphical construction), v Shrinkage limit (SHRINKiT: graphical construction), v. shrinkage limit (SHRINKiT: ASTM calculation) by formation or soil type and state (dashed line shows 1:1 relationship); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. Shrinkage limit (SHRINKiT: graphical construction), v. shrinkage limit (SHRINKiT: ASTM calculation) by formation or soil type and state (dashed line shows 1:1 relationship); Und, undisturbed; Rem, remoulded. P. R. N. Hobbs et al. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2018;qjegh2018-100 © 2018 UKRI. The British Geological Survey. Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved