Free Access
Rev. Fr. Geotech.
Number 154, 2018
Article Number 1
Number of page(s) 8
Published online 09 April 2018
  • Ashley GM. 1978. Interpretation of polymodal sediments. J Geol 86: 411–421. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Campbell JR. 2003. Limitations in the laser sizing of soils. In: Advances in regolith. Canberra, ACT (Australia): CRC LEME, pp. 38–42. [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP. 2004. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Can Geotech J 41(5): 787–795. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP. 2012a. Estimating the in situ porosity of sandy soils sampled in boreholes. Eng Geol 141–142: 57–64. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP. 2012b. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils: a review. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71(3): 401–434. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP. 2013. Permeability scale effects in sandy aquifers: a few case studies. Proc. 18th ICSMFE, Paris, Sept. 2013, Presses de l’École des Ponts, pp. 505–510. [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP. 2016. Extracting information from grain size distribution curves. Canada : Geotics Éditions Montreal. Distribution par BiTech Publishers. Available from [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP, Légaré PP. 1992. A simple method for determining the surface area of fine aggregates and fillers in bituminous mixtures. In: Effects of aggregates and mineral fillers on asphalt mixture performance. ASTM STP 1147: 177–186. [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP, Dallaire V, Saucier A. 2014. Getting information from modal decomposition of grain size distribution curves. Geotech Test J 37(2): 282–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapuis RP, Weber S, Duhaime F. 2015. Permeability test results with packed spheres and non-plastic soils. Geotech Test J 38(6): 950–964. [Google Scholar]
  • Christiansen C, Blaesild P, Dalsgaard K. 1984. Re-interpreting ’segmented’ grain-size distributions. Geol Mag 121: 47–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clark MW. 1976. Some methods for statistical analysis of multimodal distributions and their application to grain-size data. J Int Assoc Math Geol 8: 267–282. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dallaire V. 2004. Study of scale effects in an alluvial aquifer (in French). MSc Thesis, École Polytechnique, Montréal, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • Doeglas DJ. 1946. Interpretation of the results of mechanical analyses. J Sediment Pet 16: 19–40. [Google Scholar]
  • Folk RL, Ward WC. 1957. Brazos River Bar: A study in the significance of grain size parameters. J Sediment Pet 27: 3–26. [Google Scholar]
  • Krumbein WC. 1938. Size frequency distribution of sediments and the normal phi curve. J Sediment Pet 8: 84–90. [Google Scholar]
  • Leys J, McTainsh G, Koen T, Mooney B, Strong C. 2005. Testing a statistical curve-fitting procedure for quantifying sediment populations within multi-modal particle-size distributions. Earth Surf Process Landf 30: 579–590. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mercier JL. 2013. Indices granulométriques et lois de distributions. Géomorphol Relief Process Environ 19(4): 379–392. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Middleton GV. 1976. Hydraulic interpretation of sand size distributions. J Geol 84: 405–426. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sengupta S, Ghosh JK, Mazumder BS. 1991. Experimental–theoretical approach to interpretation of grain size frequency distributions. In: Principles, methods and application of particle size analysis. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, pp. 264–279. [Google Scholar]
  • Udden JA. 1914. Mechanical composition of clastic sediments. Bull Geol Soc Am 25: 655–744. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Visher GS. 1969. Grain size distributions and depositional processes. J Sediment Pet 39: 1074–1106. [Google Scholar]
  • Wentworth CK. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J Geol 30: 377–392. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.