Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion
Many years ago, a new concept called relative density was developed with the intention of appropriately defining the looseness and denseness of sand or sand–gravel soils in a meaningful way. Soon after, relative density found its way into ground improvement as an acceptance criterion by engineers wh...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
ICE Publishing
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/10317 |
| _version_ | 1848746199583031296 |
|---|---|
| author | Hamidi, Babak Varaksin, S. Nikraz, Hamid |
| author_facet | Hamidi, Babak Varaksin, S. Nikraz, Hamid |
| author_sort | Hamidi, Babak |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Many years ago, a new concept called relative density was developed with the intention of appropriately defining the looseness and denseness of sand or sand–gravel soils in a meaningful way. Soon after, relative density found its way into ground improvement as an acceptance criterion by engineers who were more familiar with the construction of engineered backfilling rather than thick mass treatment. There are considerable amounts of research and publications that are able to well demonstrate the unreliability of relative density as an acceptance criterion. Relative density has no real influence on the soil's performance, its range of application does not span across all soil types, and it is subject to large inherent errors that make its use a technical risk. Here, the reasons why the concept of relative density is unreliable and should not be used for a ground improvement acceptance criterion are presented and discussed |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T06:29:28Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-10317 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T06:29:28Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | ICE Publishing |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-103172017-09-13T14:49:27Z Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion Hamidi, Babak Varaksin, S. Nikraz, Hamid foundations geotechnical engineering strength and testing of materials Many years ago, a new concept called relative density was developed with the intention of appropriately defining the looseness and denseness of sand or sand–gravel soils in a meaningful way. Soon after, relative density found its way into ground improvement as an acceptance criterion by engineers who were more familiar with the construction of engineered backfilling rather than thick mass treatment. There are considerable amounts of research and publications that are able to well demonstrate the unreliability of relative density as an acceptance criterion. Relative density has no real influence on the soil's performance, its range of application does not span across all soil types, and it is subject to large inherent errors that make its use a technical risk. Here, the reasons why the concept of relative density is unreliable and should not be used for a ground improvement acceptance criterion are presented and discussed 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/10317 10.1680/grim.11.00014 ICE Publishing fulltext |
| spellingShingle | foundations geotechnical engineering strength and testing of materials Hamidi, Babak Varaksin, S. Nikraz, Hamid Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title | Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title_full | Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title_fullStr | Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title_short | Relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| title_sort | relative density concept is not a reliable criterion |
| topic | foundations geotechnical engineering strength and testing of materials |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/10317 |