Cracking in Clay

Cracking in clay data report on
cracking of clay beams by 4-point

beam tests
N.I. Thusyanthan 1, S.P.G. Madabhushi2,
A.W. Take3 & M. D. Bolton4
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340 (2005)
Research Fellow, Churchill college, University of Cambridge
Senior Lecturer, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge
Assistant Professor , Department of Civil Engineering Queen's University Kingston, CANADA
Professor of Soil Mechanics, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge
Cracking in clay data report on cracking of clay beams by 4-point beam tests
__________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................................ PG
1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1
Specimen preparation ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2
Installation of PPTTs into the clay beams....................................................................................... 4
TESTING PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1
PIV analysis .................................................................................................................................... 9
RESULTS................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1
Beam AL15 .................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2
AL45 .............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1.3
AL75 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.4
AS45 .............................................................................................................................................. 15
4.1.5
AS80 .............................................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.6
AS62 .............................................................................................................................................. 17
4.1.7
AS75 .............................................................................................................................................. 18
4.1.8
AS80 .............................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.9
AS102 ............................................................................................................................................ 20
4.1.10
AS100 ....................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.11
AS25 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.12
BS22 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.13
BS46 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.14
BS92 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.15
BS65 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.16
BS45 ......................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.17
BS15 ......................................................................................................................................... 28
BEAM PICTURE AT THE START OF THE TEST AND AT THE INITIATION OF CRACK ..... 29
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
Introduction
Liner systems of a landfill perform the vital task of retaining the leachate produced by the
waste. A clay liner, with its characteristic very low permeability, has been the common form
of liner since the early days of landfill construction. Even though newer landfills have well
engineered composite liner systems with Geo-synthetic clay (GSC) liners, clay liners are still
commonly used in many countries of the world.
The low permeability of clay is the main property that makes it ideal for landfill liner
construction. The presence of cracks in clay impairs the main function of a clay liner.
Cracking in clay can be caused by many factors such as freezing and thawing, desiccation,
shrinkage and differential settlement (Fig. 1). The mass strength of the clay in liners,
foundations, embankments and slopes can be adversely affected by cracks in the clay. Cracks
provide a preferential flow path to fluids, thus increasing the hydraulic conductivity many
fold. Understanding the criteria for tensile crack initiation would enable us to better design
and manage clay foundations, embankments, slopes, dams and liners.
Fig. 1 Clay liner cracking (Environment Agency, R&D Technical Report P1-385/TR1Source).
Differential settlement of the landfill foundation can induce tension cracks in the clay liner.
Fig. 1 shows such tension cracks in the clay liner in a schematic cross section of a landfill.
These tension cracks can be difficult to observe in a landfill as they are below the waste fills
and could cause leachate leakage and hence ground water pollution. Understanding the
cracking phenomenon in clay is essential not only for landfill liners but also for other
common facilities such as embankments and dams whose performs depend on the strength
and permeability of clay.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
__________________________________________________________________________
This chapter presents an investigation into the stress-strain criteria for cracking in clays by
performing 4-point bending tests on consolidated kaolin clay beams (Thusyanthan et al.
2005e). The clay beams were obtained from specimens of kaolin clay one dimensionally
normally consolidated to a stress of 500 kPa or 250 kPa. Load controlled and strain controlled
tests were performed on clay beams with varying initial suction to understand the stress-strain
criteria for crack initiation in clay. Tensile strain to cracking was measured by performing
PIV analysis (White et al. 2003) on the digital images of the beams being subjected to
bending, while the suction was measured by pore pressure and tension transducers (PPTTs)
installed at three different locations within the beams.
Clay beams could have been formed from compacted clay; however the variability present in
the compacted clay would make comparing the results of different beams difficult.
Furthermore, compacted clay beams would invariably have some weak layering which may
vary from beam to beam; hence the failure stress may be unique to each beam.
Experimental setup
2.1.1 Specimen preparation
Load controlled and strain controlled 4-point bending tests were carried out on beams
trimmed from E-grade kaolin clay which had been one-dimensionally consolidated either to
500 kPa (type-A beams) or to 250 kPa (type-B beams).
E-grade kaolin clay powder was thoroughly mixed with an equal mass of water under vacuum
to produce a slurry. The kaolin slurry at 100% water content was then one-dimensionally
consolidated to an effective stress of 500 kPa or 250 kPa in a consolidation rig (Fig. 2(a)).
Beams 320 mm long (transverse to the consolidation loading) and of 80 mm cross-section,
weighing 4 kg, were cut from the consolidated clay specimens (Fig. 2(b)). All beams were
wrapped in polythene and stored in air-tight containers prior to testing. The E-grade kaolin
clay has a liquid limit of 51% a plastic limit of 30% and permeability of the order of 10-9 m/s
(Barker, 1998). The values of critical state parameters of E-grade kaolin clay from various
sources were summarised in section 3.5.2 in chapter 3- Thusyanthan 2005, Ph.D Thesis,
University of Cambridge.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
80 mm
320 mm
'v
80 mm
K0 'v
K0 'v
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 Kaolin clay : (a) Consolidated clay specimen; (b) 320 mm 80 mm 80 mm clay beam.
2.1.2 Installation of PPTTs into the clay beams

Prior to testing a beam, it was removed from the air-tight container and three PPTTs (one near
the compression face, one near the tension face and the other in the middle of the beam) were
installed at the mid-length of the beam by slowly drilling from one end of the beam. The
PPTTs were saturated under vacuum prior to installation. The details of the saturation process
are described in Take and Bolton (2003). Fig. 3(a) shows the location of PPTTs in the clay
beam. A wooden framework and an aluminium guide were used to ensure that the drilling
alignment and depth were correct (Fig. 3(b)) with the beam protected against evaporation by a
polythene cover. The PPTTs were installed on a diagonal of the cross section of the beam in
an attempt to mitigate their tendency to weaken the cross-section. The PPTTs were inserted
into the drilled holes, back filled with clay slurry and allowed to set (Fig. 3(c)). After the
installation of PPTTs, the pore pressure was monitored to ensure that it was uniform before
the polythene cover was removed. The elevation face of the beam which would face the
digital camera was dusted with dyed fine sand. This gives the surface some texture which is
required for good PIV analysis of the beam images.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
20 mm
40 mm
20 mm
__________________________________________________________________________
30 mm
80 mm
80
80 mm
160 mm
20 mm
b
80
240 mm
320 mm
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3 Preparation of clay beams: (a) PPT location; (b) Drilling into clay beam; (c) PPTs installed and
allowed to set.
Testing procedure
All the beams initially registered suction in the range 15 kPa to 30 kPa after the equilibration
of PPTTs. This suction increased slowly as the beams were allowed to air dry for different
periods to obtain various values of initial suction. An air fan was used to speed up the drying
process for beams requiring high suction for testing. Beams were rotated at regular intervals
to facilitate uniform drying from all sides. This was confirmed by the uniform readings of the
PPTTs. Fig. 4 shows the PPTT readings during installation, setting of back filled clay and
drying. The spikes in the PPTT readings during installation were caused when the PPTT
reached the end of the drilled hole and got pressed again the clay while the spikes during
setting and drying was caused when rotating the beam. Load-controlled and strain-controlled
bending tests were performed on the beams with various initial suctions. 30 mm diameter
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
perspex rods were used to apply load to the clay beams in the direction of their initial onedimensional consolidation. Table 3.1 summarises the tests carried out.
100
Tension
Middle
Compression
Pore pressure (kPa)
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time(s)
5000
6000
7000
Fig. 4 PPT reading during and after installation of PPTTs into the clay beam.
Table 3.1 Test program
Type of 4 point
bending tests
Load controlled tests
on clay type-A beams.
(2kg every 3 min.)
Test
Initial suction
measured (kPa)
AL15
15
AL45
45
AL75
75
AS25
25
AS45
45
Strain controlled tests
AS62
62
on clay type-A beams
AS75
75
AS82
82
AS80
80
AS100
100
AS102
102
BS15
15
Strain controlled tests
BS22
22
on clay type-B beams
BS45
45
BS46
46
BS65
65
BS92
92
type-A beam is from 500 kPa consolidated clay specimen
type-B beam is from 250 kPa consolidated clay specimen
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
Pore pressure
measurement
during test
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Faulty PPT
Faulty PPT
Faulty PPT
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Success
of PIV
analysis
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good
__________________________________________________________________________
Load-controlled tests were carried out on 3 beams of type-A using the set up shown in Fig.
5(a). A step load of 20 N was applied to the beam at intervals of 180s by allowing 2 kg of
water to flow into the bucket attached to the framework. Fig. 5(b) shows the set-up used in
strain-controlled tests. A motorised actuator was used to apply the load on the beam at a
uniform displacement rate of 0.23 mm/min. Pore pressure readings from all 3 PPTTs were
recorded throughout the tests.
Two digital cameras were mounted facing the beams, one to capture the central region of the
beam and the other to capture the entire beam, as the beam was subjected to bending. The
digital images were captured every 10 s during the test. These images were used in particle
image velocimetry (PIV) analysis (White et al. 2003) to obtain the displacement vectors in the
beam. A thin glass sheet, with a grid of black markers at known locations, was positioned
very close to the beam. These markers acted as control targets to normalise the PIV analysis.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
80 mm
Clay Beam
320 mm
40 mm
Base Plate
240 mm
80 mm
30 mm
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
Load Cell
Water container
(a)
Motorised
actuator
Load cell
glass sheet
Digital
camera 1
80 mm
Fig. 5 (a) Setup for load controlled test; (b) setup for stain controlled test.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
__________________________________________________________________________
3.1.1 PIV analysis

The experimental investigation of cracking described in this paper concentrates on the stressstrain behaviour of the mid-span of the beam where the bending moment was uniform at its
maximum value. The evolution of the magnitude and distribution of the longitudinal bending
strain, zz, at this location was precisely measured using the non-contact digital image
correlation technique of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV). This technique is described by
White et al. (2003) and Take (2003) and allows the precise determination of soil
displacements though a series of digital images without resorting to predefined target markers,
instead operating on the visual image texture of the soil (colour, grain orientation, etc.) In this
application, the grain size of the soil, E-grade Kaolin, ensured that the natural texture of the
material could only be seen at the microscopic level. Thus, using the technique described by
Take (2003), an artificial texture was applied to the elevation face of the beam using with
dyed fine sand. As shown in Fig. 6(a), the resulting image texture is a high contrast black and
white random pattern ideal for PIV analysis.
As PIV operates on image texture rather than pre-defined target markers, the displacement of
any location throughout the beam could be measured. In this application, 33 pairs of 32x32
pixel measurement patches were defined in the digital image on either side of the mid-span of
the beam throughout the full height (Fig. 6(a)). Thus, these pairs of displacement nodes can be
thought of as thirty-three virtual strain gauges and can be used to calculate the longitudinal
strains throughout the depth of the beam by dividing the horizontal movement of the two
patches making up each pair by the original distance between the patches (Fig. 6(b)).
Digital images of the beams were captured every 10s during flexural testing by two 4
Megapixel digital cameras: one focussed on a wide field of view to observe the behaviour of
the entire beam (Fig. 7)and the other zoomed to capture the detailed behaviour of the midspan (Fig. 6(a)). As shown in Fig. 6(a), a thin glass sheet containing a grid of black control
makers at known locations was placed in front of the beam to provide a reference coordinate
system visible in both cameras. This coordinate system was then used to improve the
precision of the measured strains using photogrammetric camera calibration to remove camera
errors such as the variation in scale factor due to imperfect camera positioning, radial and
tangential lens distortion, and refraction (White et al., 2003).
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
200
400
600
Pixels
800
1000
1200
1400
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Pixels
(a)
Zo
Patch in image 1
Strain = (Z1+Z2)/(Zo)
Z1
Patch in image 2
Z2
(b)
Fig. 6 (a) View from camera 1 and 32 32 pixel size patches used in PIV analysis; (b) strain calculation
from the patch movement
Fig. 7 Images from camera 2
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
10
__________________________________________________________________________
Results
All the beams failed by tension cracking near the mid-span of the beam. The load and hence
the bending moment experienced by the beams increased up to the onset of cracking. After
the initiation of a tension crack the load decreased and the crack grew through the beams.
Complete collapse of the beams was observed once the crack had propagated through about
two thirds of the beam thickness.
References
1.
Take, W. A. & Bolton, M. D. (2003). Tensiometer saturation and reliable

measurement of soil suction, Gotechnique 53, No. 2, 159-172.
2.
White D.J., Take W.A. & Bolton M.D. (2003). Soil deformation measurement
using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Gotechnique 53, No.
7, pp. 619-631.
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
11
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.1 Beam AL15

900
100
700
80
600
Time(s)
70
mm
Tension face
Compression face
800
90
60
50
500
400
300
40
200
30
100
20
-3
-2
-1
0
-3
-2
-1
0.9
0.8
3
0.7
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
Bending moment(N/m)
0
Strain(%)
Strain (%)
Strain (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
-1
0.1
-2
0
-0.1
300
400
0.2
0.3
500
Time(s)
600
700
800
100
200
300
400
500
Time(s)
600
700
800
Bending moment(N/m)
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
0.1
0.4
0.5
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.6
0.7
0.8
12
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2 AL45
1800
Tension face
Compression face
100
1600
90
1400
80
1200
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
1000
800
600
40
400
30
200
20
-3
-2
-1
0
-3
-2
-1
Strain (%)
Strain (%)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Curvature(1/m)
Bending moment(N/m)
0.8
Strain(%)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.1
0
-2
-0.1
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
1600
200
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
1600
Bending moment(N/m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.5
0.6
13
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.3 AL75
1800
100
90
1400
80
1200
Time(s)
70
mm
Tension face
Compression face
1600
60
50
1000
800
600
40
400
30
200
20
-3
-2
-1
0
-3
-2
-1
Strain (%)
Strain (%)
6
8
4
Bending moment(N/m)
Bending moment(N/m)
3
2
Strain(%)
1
0
-1
-2
200
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
1200
1400
1600
0.1
0.2
0.3
Curvature(1/m)
0.4
0.5
14
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.4 AS45
Every 50 s
1200
100
Tension face
Compression face
90
1000
80
800
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
400
40
30
200
20
-3
-2
-1
0
-3
-2
-1
Strain (%)
9
6
8
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
10
0
Strain(%)
Strain (%)
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
1
-4
200
400
600
Time(s)
800
1000
1200
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
9
8
7
E(MPa)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
15
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.5 AS80
(every 50s)
100
1400
90
1200
80
1000
Time(s)
70
mm
Tension face
Compression face
60
50
40
800
600
400
30
200
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
6
4
2
Strain(%)
-2
10
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
30
25
E(MPa)
20
15
10
5
0
-5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
16
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.6 AS62
Every 50 s
1200
100
90
Tension face
Compression face
1000
80
800
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
400
40
30
200
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
0.8
8
8
6
4
2
0
Strain(%)
-2
10
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
-2
6
5
4
3
2
-4
-6
200
400
600
800
Time(s)
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
1000
1200
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
25
20
E(MPa)
15
10
5
0
-5
0
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
17
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.7 AS75
Every 50 s
1200
Tension face
Compression face
100
1000
90
80
800
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
400
40
200
30
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
6
4
2
Strain(%)
-2
10
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
200
400
600
Time(s)
800
1000
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
30
25
E(MPa)
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
18
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.8 AS80
Every 50 s
90
1400
80
1200
70
1000
Time(s)
1600
mm
100
60
50
Tension face
Compression face
800
600
40
400
30
200
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
6
4
2
0
Strain(%)
-2
10
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
-4
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
0
0
1600
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
10
9
8
E(MPa)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
19
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.9 AS102
Every 50 s
1400
Tension face
Compression face
100
1200
90
80
1000
800
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
40
400
30
200
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
10
10
6
4
2
Strain(%)
0
-3
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
16
14
12
E(MPa)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
20
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.10 AS100
Every 50 s
1000
100
Tension face
Compression face
90
800
80
Time(s)
mm
70
60
600
400
50
40
200
30
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
9
8
Strain(%)
-2
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
7
6
5
4
3
2
-2
100
200
300
400
500 600
Time(s)
700
800
900
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
18
16
14
E(MPa)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
21
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.11 AS25
Every 50 s
1400
100
90
1200
80
1000
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
40
Tension face
Compression face
800
600
400
30
200
20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
0
-4
0
1
Strain (%)
3
2
1
0
-1
Strain(%)
-1
7
6
5
4
3
-2
-3
-4
0
-2
10
Bending moment(Nm)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
200
400
600
800
Time(s)
1000
1200
1400
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
12
10
E(MPa)
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
22
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.12 BS22
Every 50 s
1600
100
90
80
1200
70
1000
Time(s)
mm
Tension face
Compression face
1400
60
50
800
600
40
400
30
200
20
-4
-2
0
-5
-4
-3
Strain (%)
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
8
Bending moment(N/m)
Bending moment(Nm)
10
Strain(%)
-2
7
6
5
4
3
2
-4
-6
200
400
600
800
1000
Time(s)
1200
1400
1600
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
6
5
E(MPa)
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
23
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.13 BS46
Every 50 s
1000
Tension face
Compression face
100
800
90
80
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
400
40
200
30
20
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
4
3
2
1
0
Strain(%)
-1
-2
-3
200
400
600
Time(s)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
800
1000
24
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.14 BS92
Every 50 s
1000
100
90
Tension face
Compression face
800
80
Time(s)
mm
70
60
50
600
400
40
200
30
20
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
0
-3
-1
0
Strain (%)
Strain(%)
-2
10
Bending moment(N/m)
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
-2
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-4
200
400
600
Time(s)
800
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0
0
1000
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
12
10
E(MPa)
8
6
4
2
0
0
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
25
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.15 BS65
Every 50 s
PIVbeam15cam100001beam15cam100002.txt
mm
100
90
200
80
400
70
600
60
800
50
1000
40
1200
30
1400
20
1600
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
200
1000
Tension face
Compression face
Time(s)
800
600
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Bending moment(Nm)
-3
4
3
2
1
400
0
-1
0
-3
-2
-1
0
Strain (%)
Strain(%)
200
10
-2
-3
0
200
400
600
Time(s)
800
1000
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
20
15
7
6
E(MPa)
Bending moment(N/m)
5
4
10
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
0
0
0.2
26
__________________________________________________________________________
4.1.16 BS45
Every 50 s
100
200
90
400
80
600
70
mm
800
60
1000
50
1200
40
1400
30
1600
20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
600
Tension face
Compression face
500
400
Time(s)
200
300
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
4
2
0
-2
Strain(%)
200
100
0
-5
400
Bending moment(Nm)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
10
-4
-6
0
100
200
300
Time(s)
400
500
600
E(MPa)
Bending moment(N/m)
5
4
2
1
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
27
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
4.1.17 BS15
Every 50 s
mm
100
90
200
80
400
70
600
60
800
50
1000
40
1200
30
1400
20
1600
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
200
Bending moment(Nm)
-5
2000
Tension face
Compression face
Time(s)
1500
1000
400
600
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
-5
Strain(%)
500
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (%)
10
-4
-5
0
500
1000
Time(s)
1500
2000
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
E(MPa)
Bending moment(N/m)
5
4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
0.8
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature(1/m)
0.8
28
Beam picture at the start of the test and at the initiation of crack
AL15
At the start of the test
At initiation of crack
AL45
AL75
29
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
AS45
AS82
AS62
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
30
__________________________________________________________________________
AS75
AS80
AS102
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
31
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
AS100
AS25
BS22
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
32
__________________________________________________________________________
BS46
BS92
BS65
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
33
CUED/D-SOILS/TR336
BS16
BS15
CUED/D-SOILS/TR340
34

Cracking in Clay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cracking in Clay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cracking in clay data report on

cracking of clay beams by 4-point

Research Fellow, Churchill college, University of Cambridge

Senior Lecturer, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge

Assistant Professor , Department of Civil Engineering Queen's University Kingston, CANADA

Professor of Soil Mechanics, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge

Specimen preparation ..................................................................................................................... 3

Installation of PPTTs into the clay beams....................................................................................... 4

TESTING PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................... 5

PIV analysis .................................................................................................................................... 9

Beam AL15 .................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Installation of PPTTs into the clay beams

Pore pressure (kPa)

3.1.1 PIV analysis

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

Fig. 7 Images from camera 2

Take, W. A. & Bolton, M. D. (2003). Tensiometer saturation and reliable

4.1.1 Beam AL15

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

You might also like