2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-018-0411-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Key factors affecting prediction of seismic pore water pressures in silty sands based on damage parameter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 11 shows the residual excess pore water pressure ratio versus cumulative dissipated energy for Ticino clean sand specimens prepared in the same initial state (a combination of packing density and initial vertical effective stress) but reconstituted using three different reconstitution methods, namely moist tamping, air pluviation, and water sedimentation. Interestingly, different soil fabrics induced by different reconstitution methods do not influence significantly the trend of Ru vs. W. A similar conclusion was made in previous research considering a pore-water-pressure-strain-based approach, while for stress-based PWP models this finding does not appear applicable [41]. Figure 11 shows the residual excess pore water pressure ratio versus cumulative dissipated energy for Ticino clean sand specimens prepared in the same initial state (a combination of packing density and initial vertical effective stress) but reconstituted using three different reconstitution methods, namely moist tamping, air pluviation, and water sedimentation.…”
Section: Influence Of Initial Soil Fabric/reconstitution Methodssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Figure 11 shows the residual excess pore water pressure ratio versus cumulative dissipated energy for Ticino clean sand specimens prepared in the same initial state (a combination of packing density and initial vertical effective stress) but reconstituted using three different reconstitution methods, namely moist tamping, air pluviation, and water sedimentation. Interestingly, different soil fabrics induced by different reconstitution methods do not influence significantly the trend of Ru vs. W. A similar conclusion was made in previous research considering a pore-water-pressure-strain-based approach, while for stress-based PWP models this finding does not appear applicable [41]. Figure 11 shows the residual excess pore water pressure ratio versus cumulative dissipated energy for Ticino clean sand specimens prepared in the same initial state (a combination of packing density and initial vertical effective stress) but reconstituted using three different reconstitution methods, namely moist tamping, air pluviation, and water sedimentation.…”
Section: Influence Of Initial Soil Fabric/reconstitution Methodssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Figure 11 shows the residual excess pore water pressure ratio versus cumulative dissipated energy for Ticino clean sand specimens prepared in the same initial state (a combination of packing density and initial vertical effective stress) but reconstituted using three different reconstitution methods, namely moist tamping, air pluviation, and water sedimentation. Interestingly, different soil fabrics induced by different reconstitution methods do not influence significantly the trend of R u vs. W. A similar conclusion was made in previous research considering a pore-water-pressure-strain-based approach, while for stress-based PWP models this finding does not appear applicable [41].…”
Section: Influence Of Initial Soil Fabric/reconstitution Methodssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The characterisation of these materials turns out to be problematic in engineering geology practice due to some peculiar features distinguishing the behaviour of these intermediate materials from that of the so called "text-book materials" (i.e. clean sands and pure clays) (Carraro and ratio e (Dash and Sitharam 2009;Porcino et al 2018aPorcino et al , 2021Gobbi et al 2022;Rahman and Sitharam 2020), relative density D R (Carraro et al 2003;Chien et al 2002;Gobbi et al 2022), skeleton void ratio e s (Carraro et al 2003;Dash and Sitharam 2009;Kuerbis et al 1988), and finally equivalent granular void ratio e* (Gobbi et al 2022;Porcino et al 2021;Rahman and Sitharam 2020;.…”
Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%