 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Scale Effects of Direct Shear Box on Behavior of Geogrid-Sand Interface
Hamed Mirzaeifar
Full-Text PDF
XML 340 Views
DOI:10.17265/1934-7359/2024.11.006
Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Pardis Branch, Tehran, Iran
Direct shear test is one of the simplest and most economical tests to measure shear strength parameters of dry or saturated sandy soil as well as soil-geogrid interaction parameters. In the current study the effects of specimen size and density on soil-geogrid interaction parameters employing shear boxes of 6 × 6 cm, 10 × 10 cm and 30 × 30 cm have been investigated. Results show that increasing specimen size of unreinforced sand with constant density results in a decrease in angle of friction which has been attributed to reduced confinement effect using larger shear boxes. The rate of reduction in angle of friction is increased by increasing soil density and using geogrid as reinforcement.
Direct shear box, geogrid, shear strength, specimen size, direct shear test.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 18 (2024) 552-557 doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2024.11.006
[1] Parsons, J. D. 1936. “Progress Report on an Investigation of the Shearing Resistance of Cohesionless Soils.” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 2: 133-8.
[2] Palmeira, E. M., and Milligan, G. W. E. 1989. “Scale Effects in Direct Shear Tests on Sand.” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1 (1): 739-42.
[3] Cerato, A. B., and Lutenegger, A. J. 2006. “Specimen Size and Scale Effects of Direct Shear Box Tests of Sands.” Geotechnical Testing Journal 29 (6): 507-16.
[4] Wu, P. K., Matsushima, K., and Tatsuoka, F. 2007. “Effects of Specimen Size and Some Other Factors on the Strength and Deformation of Granular Soil in Direct Shear Tests.” Geotechnical Testing Journal 31 (1): 45-64.