Determination of SWCC Using One Point Suction Measurement and Standard Curves

Houston, William N.; Dye, H. B.; Zapata, Claudia E.; Perera, Y. Y.; Harraz, Ahmed M.

doi:10.1061/40802(189)123

Cited by 33 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was found that the empirical equations of Houston et al (2006) provided unsatisfactory predictions of the SWCC for the materials in this study. For the RCO blends with plastic fines, the retention of water with drying was overestimated.…”

Section: Swcc Modelsmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…The models of van Genuchten (1980) and Fredlund and Xing (1994) were most suitable and relatively simple in their application for fitting of the SWCC, especially when compared with the model of Gould et al (2012). The one predictive SWCC model trialed (Houston et al, 2006) was found to provide unsatisfactory predictions of the SWCC for the materials in this study. Unbound granular materials can be influenced by suctions developed during laying and drying back of the material during construction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…However for the ARR blend with non-plastic fines, the water retention was underestimated. Difficulties with the application of the Houston et al (2006) model have been reported by Nam et al (2010), in a comprehensive study of the SWCC of subgrade soils. It was suggested by Nam et al, that the Houston et al (2006) model may be suitable for low suction values (< 1500 kPa).…”

Section: Swcc Modelsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Gravimetric water content is displayed on the primary vertical axis for the Fredlund and Xing (1994) and Gould et al (2012) models. The degree of saturation is shown on the secondary vertical axis for the van Genuchten (1980) model and the predictive model of Houston et al (2006). Regression parameters and correlation coefficients (R 2 ) of each model for each blend are presented in Table 4.…”

Section: Swcc Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fredlund et al (2011) rearranged the equation of Fredlund and Xing (1994) to make it simpler to apply. Houston et al (2006) provided two empirical equations for predicting the SWCC for both plastic and non-plastic soils. The basic equation for the SWCC was an extension of that proposed by Fredlund and Xing (1994).…”

Section: Soil Water Characteristic Curve Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Matric Suction in Recycled Unbound Granular Materials

Azam¹,

Cameron²,

Gabr³

et al. 2014

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The matric suction within unbound granular materials (UGMs) can be small when compared with cohesive soil, however suction can influence the engineering behavior of UGMs. Unfortunately, there are few studies on the potential matric suction in UGMs. This paper presents matric suctions for seven recycled products and one virgin aggregate. The products were recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) and recycled clay masonry blended with RCA. The percentage of masonry in the blended materials varied between 10% and 30% by mass. Soil water characteristic curves (SWCC) were established for each material by preparing samples at various moisture contents and measuring matric suction with filter papers in contact with the soil. In order to define the wet end of the SWCC, further samples were conditioned on a tension plate using a hanging water column. The recycled products had suctions higher than the virgin aggregate at an equivalent moisture state. Air entry values and residual suctions were determined for each material. Three published models were applied to fit SWCCs to the experimental data. Generally these models provided good fits to the data for each UGM. The influence of matric suction on both resilient modulus and permanent strain of the recycled materials are presented.

show abstract

Section: Swcc Modelsmentioning

confidence: 68%