| Literature DB >> 31546757 |
Junhui Zhang1, Anshun Zhang2, Jue Li3, Feng Li4, Junhui Peng5.
Abstract
Construction and demolition (C&D) materials obtained from the demolition of buildings are proven to be qualified and sustainable subgrade fillers. The permanent deformation response of subgrade C&D materials under different moisture contents, degrees of compaction, deviator stresses, and confining pressures was revealed by carrying out dynamic triaxial texts. Then, using a four-factor and three-level orthogonal test and by calculating the Gray correlation degree of each factor, the influence degree of each factor on the permanent deformation was determined. The results indicated that two different response types of the permanent deformation of subgrade C&D materials, plastic shakedown and plastic creep, were identified as reason behind the increase in stress levels. Also, according to the Gray correlation analysis results, the permanent deformation of highway subgrade filled with C&D materials is influenced by the deviator stress most significantly, followed by moisture content, degree of compaction, and confining pressure. Finally, a permanent deformation prediction model about this kind of subgrade filler with a reasonable prediction accuracy was proposed.Entities:
Keywords: C& D materials; gray correlation; permanent deformation; prediction model; subgrade
Year: 2019 PMID: 31546757 PMCID: PMC6766301 DOI: 10.3390/ma12183035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Subgrade filler preparation process: (a) eliminating clutter; (b) sprinkling; (c) crushing; (d) screening.
Figure 2Construction waste of different particle size ranges after sieving: (a) 0–4.75 mm; (b) 4.75–9.5 mm; (c) 9.5–31.5 mm.
Figure 3Highway subgrade filled with construction and demolition (C&D) materials.
Figure 4Gradation curve of the used C&D materials.
Figure 5Deflection value field test.
Test results of deflection value.
| Section | K12 + 980 | K12 + 990 | K13 + 000 | K13 + 010 | K13 + 020 | K13 + 030 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deflection value (0.01 mm) | 177 | 183 | 205 | 185 | 189 | 157 |
Dynamic triaxial test plan. OMC—optimal moisture content.
| Test Number | Factor A, Ratio of Moisture Content to OMC | Factor B, Degree of Compaction (%) | Factor C, Confining Pressure (kPa) | Factor D, Deviator Stress (kPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9 | 90 | 12 | 28 |
| 2 | 0.9 | 93 | 28 | 48 |
| 3 | 0.9 | 96 | 42 | 69 |
| 4 | 1.0 | 90 | 28 | 69 |
| 5 | 1.0 | 93 | 42 | 28 |
| 6 | 1.0 | 96 | 12 | 48 |
| 7 | 1.1 | 90 | 42 | 48 |
| 8 | 1.1 | 93 | 12 | 69 |
| 9 | 1.1 | 96 | 28 | 28 |
Figure 6Forming mold: (a) components; (b) molding; (c) demolding.
Figure 7Completed specimens and dynamic triaxial apparatus: (a) specimens; (b) apparatus.
Figure 8Permanent deformation of C&D material specimens at different working conditions.
Dynamic triaxial test results of construction and demolition (C&D) materials.
| No. | Test | Final Permanent Deformation (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MC 0.9 OMC, C 90%, CP 12 kPa, DS 28 kPa | 0.357 |
| 2 | MC 0.9 OMC, C 93%, CP 28 kPa, DS 48 kPa | 0.492 |
| 3 | MC 0.9 OMC, C 96%, CP 42 kPa, DS 69 kPa | 0.612 |
| 4 | MC 1.0 OMC, C 90%, CP 28 kPa, DS 69 kPa | 1.253 |
| 5 | MC 1.0 OMC, C 93%, CP 42 kPa, DS 28 kPa | 0.329 |
| 6 | MC 1.0 OMC, C 96%, CP 12 kPa, DS 48 kPa | 0.914 |
| 7 | MC 1.1 OMC, C 90%, CP 42 kPa, DS 48 kPa | 0.593 |
| 8 | MC 1.1 OMC, C 93%, CP 12 kPa, DS 69 kPa | 1.912 |
| 9 | MC 1.1 OMC, C 96%, CP 28 kPa, DS 28 kPa | 0.842 |
MC—moisture content, C—degree of compaction, CP—confining pressure, DS—deviator stress.
Data after initiating treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| 1.0000 | 1.0333 | 2.3333 | 1.7143 | 1.3782 |
| 1.0000 | 1.0667 | 3.5000 | 2.4643 | 1.7143 |
| 1.1111 | 1.0000 | 2.3333 | 2.4643 | 3.5098 |
| 1.1111 | 1.0333 | 3.5000 | 1.0000 | 0.9216 |
| 1.1111 | 1.0667 | 1.0000 | 1.7143 | 2.5602 |
| 1.2222 | 1.0000 | 3.5000 | 1.7143 | 1.6611 |
| 1.2222 | 1.0333 | 1.0000 | 2.4643 | 5.3557 |
| 1.2222 | 1.0667 | 2.3333 | 1.0000 | 2.3585 |
Approach degree calculation results.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 0.3782 | 0.3448 | 0.9552 | 0.3361 |
| 0.7143 | 0.6476 | 1.7857 | 0.7500 |
| 2.3987 | 2.5098 | 1.1765 | 1.0455 |
| 0.1895 | 0.1118 | 2.5784 | 0.0784 |
| 1.4491 | 1.4936 | 1.5602 | 0.8459 |
| 0.4388 | 0.6611 | 1.8389 | 0.0532 |
| 4.1335 | 4.3224 | 4.3557 | 2.8915 |
| 1.1363 | 1.2919 | 0.0252 | 1.3585 |
Correlation degree calculation results.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0.8710 | 0.8811 | 0.7278 | 0.8837 |
| 0.7815 | 0.7977 | 0.5886 | 0.7730 |
| 0.5157 | 0.5044 | 0.6847 | 0.7096 |
| 0.9309 | 0.9581 | 0.4977 | 0.9702 |
| 0.6380 | 0.6310 | 0.6208 | 0.7512 |
| 0.8534 | 0.7944 | 0.5814 | 0.9796 |
| 0.3819 | 0.3714 | 0.3697 | 0.4690 |
| 0.6921 | 0.6641 | 0.9902 | 0.6528 |
Regression coefficients and model goodness.
| Prediction Model |
|
|
|
|
|
| adj- | RMSE | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.221 | 0.106 | — | — | — | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.31 | Inferior |
|
| 0.115 | 0.208 | — | — | — | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.29 | Inferior |
|
| 0.106 | 0.209 | −0.089 | — | — | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.30 | Inferior |
|
| 0.514 | 0.212 | −0.908 | 1.612 | — | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.17 | Good |
|
| 0.331 | 0.212 | −0.603 | 1.106 | 3.101 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.11 | Good |
Notes: adj-R2 is the adjusted R2; RMSE is the root-mean-square error.
Regression coefficients and goodness of the new model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| adj- | RMSE | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.631 | 0.212 | −0.615 | 1.108 | 3.076 | −0.329 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.11 | Excellent |
Test plan for verifying the new model.
| Test Number | Ratio of Moisture Content to OMC | Degree of Compaction (%) | Confining Pressure (kPa) | Deviator Stress (kPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9 | 96 | 28 | 28 |
| 2 | 1.0 | 96 | 42 | 69 |
| 3 | 1.1 | 96 | 12 | 48 |
| 4 | 0.9 | 93 | 12 | 28 |
| 5 | 1.0 | 93 | 28 | 69 |
| 6 | 1.1 | 93 | 42 | 48 |
| 7 | 0.9 | 90 | 28 | 48 |
| 8 | 1.0 | 90 | 12 | 28 |
| 9 | 1.1 | 90 | 42 | 69 |
Figure 9Predicted versus measured permanent deformation values for verifying the new model: (a) this study (Table 9); (b) test data of Azam et al.