Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur

Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in situ stress and strain response / Michael A. Mooney in Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, Vol. 135 N°2 (Février 2009) 

Public ISBD [article]  in Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering > Vol. 135 N°2 (Février 2009) . - pp. 199–208 Titre : Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in situ stress and strain response Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Michael A. Mooney, Auteur ; Patrick K. Miller, Auteur Année de publication : 2009 Article en page(s) : pp. 199–208 Note générale : Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Deflection  Stress  distribution  Measurement  Stress  strain  relations Résumé : The lightweight deflectometer (LWD) is gaining acceptance and popularity as an in situ spot-testing device for quality control/quality assurance of earthwork compaction. Little research has been conducted to investigate the stress–strain response within the soil during LWD testing. Similarly, little research has been performed to examine the appropriateness of using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half-space theory to estimate soil modulus (ELWD) from LWD results. With this aim, an array of vertical stress and strain sensors was placed within the soil to measure the stress–strain response during LWD loading. Measured in situ stress values matched well with stresses predicted using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half-space theory. In situ stress data revealed that the contact stress distribution between the soil surface and loading plate is a function of the soil type. Measured in situ strain values did not correspond well with strains predicted using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic elasticity. An exponentially increasing modulus function was required to match experimental with theoretical elastic strains. The results indicate that the commonly used form to predict ELWD is inappropriate if the goal is to extract constitutive soil properties. Analysis of strain data suggests the LWD depth of influence (measurement depth) is 0.9–1.1 times the plate diameter. En ligne : http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-0241%282009%29135%3A2%2819 [...] [article] Analysis of lightweight deflectometer test based on in situ stress and strain response [texte imprimé] / Michael A. Mooney, Auteur ; Patrick K. Miller, Auteur . - 2009 . - pp. 199–208. Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering > Vol. 135 N°2 (Février 2009) . - pp. 199–208 Mots-clés : Deflection  Stress  distribution  Measurement  Stress  strain  relations Résumé : The lightweight deflectometer (LWD) is gaining acceptance and popularity as an in situ spot-testing device for quality control/quality assurance of earthwork compaction. Little research has been conducted to investigate the stress–strain response within the soil during LWD testing. Similarly, little research has been performed to examine the appropriateness of using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half-space theory to estimate soil modulus (ELWD) from LWD results. With this aim, an array of vertical stress and strain sensors was placed within the soil to measure the stress–strain response during LWD loading. Measured in situ stress values matched well with stresses predicted using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic half-space theory. In situ stress data revealed that the contact stress distribution between the soil surface and loading plate is a function of the soil type. Measured in situ strain values did not correspond well with strains predicted using homogeneous, isotropic, linear elastic elasticity. An exponentially increasing modulus function was required to match experimental with theoretical elastic strains. The results indicate that the commonly used form to predict ELWD is inappropriate if the goal is to extract constitutive soil properties. Analysis of strain data suggests the LWD depth of influence (measurement depth) is 0.9–1.1 times the plate diameter. En ligne : http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-0241%282009%29135%3A2%2819 [...]