Technically you shouldn't make the test with a “molded” sample, as you need to simulate the confinement conditions that the soil is experiencing in situ (that's why the water in the chamber is needed, as you apply the according lateral force to the sample that generates the confinement stresses that the same soil sample was suffering while on the soil mass). It has to be an unaltered sample directly extracted from the studied place via a Shelby tube sampler, for example. They did it this way probably because they couldn't have access to a proper soil sample retrieved from field, and a compacted soil was the best way to mold the specimen to make it as close as an unaltered sample should be or “look like,” to put it some way.
I understand you, this reshaping criterion if I know it only that in my university it runs 5 layers with 15 strokes, so it seems curious to me since I do not find a more correct theory and it would be very difficult to find it since when reshaping you should simulate the natural conditions but the soils are very diverse so it is somewhat complicated to standardize the compaction energy so the most successful option would be to test with intact specimens.
@@danielf4302 You could say that a model where a hardening soil state is simulated this criteria *may* be somewhat acceptable. However, I do not have full knowledge regarding such modeling. Nonetheless, a triaxial test for a real project should always have unaltered conditions.
Of course, in the triaxial test they always have to maintain their natural conditions, however for uniaxial compression tests, direct cut test and consolidation test, such criteria are carried out for altered soils, a pleasure to exchange ideas.
Hello, could you tell me in which astm standard indicates what to mold the sample in the mold in 10 layers with 10 buffers per layer?, thanks.
Technically you shouldn't make the test with a “molded” sample, as you need to simulate the confinement conditions that the soil is experiencing in situ (that's why the water in the chamber is needed, as you apply the according lateral force to the sample that generates the confinement stresses that the same soil sample was suffering while on the soil mass). It has to be an unaltered sample directly extracted from the studied place via a Shelby tube sampler, for example.
They did it this way probably because they couldn't have access to a proper soil sample retrieved from field, and a compacted soil was the best way to mold the specimen to make it as close as an unaltered sample should be or “look like,” to put it some way.
I understand you, this reshaping criterion if I know it only that in my university it runs 5 layers with 15 strokes, so it seems curious to me since I do not find a more correct theory and it would be very difficult to find it since when reshaping you should simulate the natural conditions but the soils are very diverse so it is somewhat complicated to standardize the compaction energy so the most successful option would be to test with intact specimens.
@@danielf4302 You could say that a model where a hardening soil state is simulated this criteria *may* be somewhat acceptable. However, I do not have full knowledge regarding such modeling.
Nonetheless, a triaxial test for a real project should always have unaltered conditions.
Of course, in the triaxial test they always have to maintain their natural conditions, however for uniaxial compression tests, direct cut test and consolidation test, such criteria are carried out for altered soils, a pleasure to exchange ideas.
i have to contact u ...how can it be
I am Suprise that the University can not afford a caliper to measure the dimensions of the sample. I perform CU test very often.
ty