1993
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1993)119:8(1229)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cohesion Intercept in Effective Stress‐Stability Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
1
0
1

Year Published

1994
1994
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…o The average measured yield stress, 'y = 0.5 MPa (Figs. 3, 4a) together with the apparent cohesion, c' = 25 kPa reported by Zhang et al [63] from K0-consolidated, drained stresspath triaxial shear tests, are consistent with correlations between 'y and c' reported by Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar [31] for a large database of tests on stiff clays and clayey shales. o The intact Middle Zone material has a much lower in situ void ratio and exhibits a much higher yield stress ('y ≈ 3.4 MPa; Fig.…”
Section: Conceptual Modelsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…o The average measured yield stress, 'y = 0.5 MPa (Figs. 3, 4a) together with the apparent cohesion, c' = 25 kPa reported by Zhang et al [63] from K0-consolidated, drained stresspath triaxial shear tests, are consistent with correlations between 'y and c' reported by Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar [31] for a large database of tests on stiff clays and clayey shales. o The intact Middle Zone material has a much lower in situ void ratio and exhibits a much higher yield stress ('y ≈ 3.4 MPa; Fig.…”
Section: Conceptual Modelsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Other contributions supporting the fact that a mobilized shear strength of claystones may be at an intermediate value between the fully softened strength and residual strength have been reported by Chandler (1984), Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar (1993) and Potts et al (1997).However, there is nothing fundamental in this observation. The mobilized (average) friction angle at failure depends on many aspects (pore pressure generation and dissipation, clay brittleness, initial stress state…) and also on the external actions leading to the slope failure.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…The resulting concave shape will satisfy a FS FS D under the original f and c strength conditions. The proposed methodology was compared with results obtained via LEM and FEM analyses for soils with f 5 20, 30, and 40°and c=g ranging from 0.2 to 5 m, where the range c 5 5e40 kN=m 2 covers most of the cohesion values reported by Mesri and Abdel-Ghaffar (1993), and the range g 5 10e23 kN=m 3 covers most materials from clays to coarse granular soils [Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 1986]. Each combination of f and c=g describing a unique concave slope was analyzed for heights H s ranging from 2 to 100 m. The FEM analyses were conducted using Phase2 7.0, and the LEM analyses using Slide 6.0.…”
Section: Mechanical Stabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%