Fig 1.
The particle size profile of silt soil in Suocaowozi Reservoir.
Table 1.
The natural moisture content and natural dry density of silted soil in Suocaowozi Reservoir.
Fig 2.
The gradation curve of sand-silt mixtures with different sand contents.
Table 2.
The basic physical indexes of sand-silt mixtures with different sand contents.
Fig 3.
The schematic diagram of stress-strain triaxial apparatus (GSY-SYL-100).
1—Lifting table; 2—Pore pressure sensor; 3—Pressure gauge; 4—Piston ejector rod; 5—Pressure sensor; 6—Displacement meter; 7—Testing machine; 8—Osmotic actuator; 9—Confining pressure actuator; 10—Data acquisition box; 11- Computer.
Fig 4.
The stress versus strain curves for samples with different sand contents (A)Fs = 0%; (B) Fs = 16.67%; (C) Fs = 28.57%; (D) Fs = 50%; and (E) Fs = 60%.
Fig 5.
The relationship between peak deviator stress and sand content.
Fig 6.
The relationship between peak deviator stress and sand content.
Table 3.
The fitting results of peak deviatoric stress and sand content.
Fig 7.
The fitting relationship between a and confining pressure σ3.
Fig 8.
Relationships between volumetric strain and axial strain:(A) Fs = 60%; (B) Fs = 50%; (C) Fs = 28.57%; (D) Fs = 16.67%; (E) Fs = 0%.
Fig 9.
The physical meaning of the model parameters.
Fig 10.
Comparison of experimental data and model stress-strain relationships of coral clay.
Table 4.
Model parameter values by the modified Duncan-Chang model for the coral clay.
Fig 11.
Comparison of experimental data and model stress-strain relationships of undisturbed loess.
Table 5.
Described parameter values for undisturbed loess.
Fig 12.
Lg(E0/pa) versus lg(σ3/pa) obtained from the CD tests with different sand contents: (A)Fs = 0%; (B) Fs = 16.67%; (C) Fs = 28.57%;(D) Fs = 50%; (E)Fs = 6 0%.
Table 6.
Values of K and n for different sand contents.
Fig 13.
Fitted correlation between K and sand content: (A) Fs<28.57%; (B) Fs⩾28.57%.
Fig 14.
Fitted correlation between n and sand content.
Fig 15.
The axial strain versus volumetric strain for sand-silt mixtures with different sand contents: (A) Fs = 60%; (B) Fs = 50%; (C) Fs = 28.57%; (D) Fs = 16.67%;(E) Fs = 0%.
Table 7.
Values of M1, M2, and M3.
Fig 16.
Fitted correlation between M1, M2, and M3 and confining pressure (σ3): (A) M1 vs.σ3; (B) M2 vs.σ3; (C) M3 vs.σ3.
Fig 17.
Fitted correlation between M1a, M1b, M2a, M2b, M3a, and M3b and Fs: (A) M1a vs. Fs; (B) M1b vs. Fs; (C) M2a vs. Fs; (D) M2b vs. Fs; (E) M3a vs. Fs; (F) M3b vs. Fs.
Fig 18.
Flow chart of UMAT development.
Fig 19.
Schematic diagram of the model.
Fig 20.
Comparison between experimental measurements and calculations for sand-silt mixtures with different sand contents under the confining pressure of 500 kPa: (A) Axial strain versus deviatoric stress; (B) Axial strain versus volumetric strain.
Table 8.
Calculated model parameters for sand-fine mixtures under the confining pressure of 500 kPa.
Fig 21.
Schematic diagram of the microstructure of sand-fine mixtures for the conceptual framework [26].