00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

29 Ansichten12 SeitenA constitutive model for structured soils

Jan 12, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

A constitutive model for structured soils

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

29 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

A constitutive model for structured soils

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245410800

ARTICLE in GOTECHNIQUE JANUARY 2000

Impact Factor: 1.87 DOI: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.3.263

CITATIONS

READS

119

90

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Michael Kavvadas

National Technical University of Athens

46 PUBLICATIONS 399 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 06 January 2016

M . K AV VADA S a n d A . A M O RO S I {

Cette communication propose un Modele constitutif pour

Sols Structures (MSS) qui decrit les effets techniques du

developpement et de la degradation de la structure, par

exemple: rigidite intacte et resistance elevees, reduction

sensible de la rigidite et de la resistance sous l'effet de la

destructuration et de l'evolution de l'anisotropie induite par

la contrainte et la structure. Une des principales caracteristiques du modele est le traitement de pre-consolidation, en

tant que procede induisant la structure et la description

uniee de ces procedes a travers une Enveloppe a resistance

d'adhesion, qui est en rapport avec le debut d'une destructuration sensible et qui se distingue du debut de la deformation non elastique. Parmi les autres caracteristiques, on

indiquera les suivantes: un mecanisme de type d'endommagement, pour modeliser la degradation volumetrique et la

structure deviatrice, l'evolution de l'anisotropie induite par

contrainte et adhesion en utilisant un systeme a memoire

d'evanouissement; des dispositifs a prediction adaptables, en

fonction de la sophistication des donnees d'essai disponibles,

la modularite pour etendre son application a plusieurs types

de terrain; et la formulation mathematique dans un espace

d'allongement general, pour faciliter son incorporation dans

des codes aux elements nis. On evalue les capacites de

prevision du modele en fonction des resultats des tests de

laboratoire sur de l'argile Vallericca sur-consolidee rigide:

(i) tests de consolidation isotropiques et anisotropiques jusqu'a des pressions tres elevees et (ii) cisaillement triaxial

consolide par anisotropie a basse pression (reponse structuree de la matiere) et hautes pressions (reponse destructuree de la matiere).

(MSS) which describes the engineering effects of structure

development and degradation, such as: high intact stiffness

and strength, appreciable reduction of stiffness and strength

due to de-structuring, and evolution of stress- and structureinduced anisotropy. A key feature of the model is the

treatment of pre-consolidation as a structure-inducing process and the unied description of all such processes via a

`bond strength envelope' associated with the onset of appreciable de-structuring and distinguished from the onset of

plastic yielding. Other features include: a damage-type mechanism to model volumetric and deviatoric structure degradation, the evolution of stress- and bond-induced anisotropy

using a fading memory scheme, adaptable predictive capabilities depending on the sophistication of the available test

data, modularity to extend its applicability in several soil

types, and mathematical formulation in a general tensorial

space to facilitate its incorporation in nite element codes.

The predictive capabilities of the model are evaluated

against the results of laboratory tests on the stiff overconsolidated Vallericca clay: (a) isotropic and anisotropic consolidation tests up to very high pressures; and (b) anisotropically consolidated triaxial shearing at both low

pressures (structured material response) and high pressures

(de-structured material response).

soils; numerical modelling and analysis; anisotropy; clays.

stiff clays and clay shales (e.g. Calabresi & Scarpelli, 1985;

Rampello, 1989; Anagnostopoulos et al., 1991; Burland et al.,

1996; Cotecchia, 1996), granular soils (e.g. Mitchell & Solymar,

1984; Coop & Atkinson, 1993), residual soils (e.g. Vaughan,

1985, 1988; Wesley, 1990) and weak weathered rocks (e.g. Eliot

& Brown, 1985; Addis & Jones, 1990).

The importance of improving constitutive models to include

our present knowledge of the behaviour of structured soils has

been perceived by many researchers, who have generally followed three kinds of procedures

INTRODUCTION

models which can describe the deformation and strength of

natural soils with reasonable accuracy. The development of such

models is usually based on experimental studies of reconstituted

soils and the classical principles of soil mechanics which

involve the current state of the material (expressed by the

effective stresses and the void ratio) and its stress history

(usually compounded in the maximum pre-consolidation pressure). The critical state theory and its extensions have provided

the theoretical basis for many such models in the last 30 years

(e.g. Roscoe & Burland, 1968; Nova & Wood, 1979; Gens &

Potts, 1982; Kavvadas, 1983; Al-Tabbaa & Wood, 1989; Whittle

& Kavvadas, 1994). At the same time, it has become recognized

that natural soils have components of stiffness and strength

which cannot be accounted for by classical soil mechanics and

stem from the inuence of structure caused by cementation,

ageing or even overconsolidation (e.g. Leroueil & Vaughan,

1990; Burland, 1990; Gens & Nova, 1993; Clayton & Serratrice,

1993; Muir Wood, 1995a; Burland et al., 1996). Experimental

evidence of the effects of structure is reported in a wide variety

of natural soils and weak rocks, including soft clays (e.g.

Leroueil, 1977; Tavenas & Leroueil, 1990; Smith et al., 1992),

stiffness non-linearity in the `elastic' domain (e.g. Dafalias

& Herrmann, 1980; Jardine et al., 1986, 1991; Gunn, 1993;

Whittle & Kavvadas, 1994);

(b) renement of the material's memory of its stress history, by

adding a number of `yield' or `history' surfaces which

record key characteristics of the stress path (e.g. Mroz et

al., 1978, 1979; Prevost, 1978; Hashiguchi, 1985; AlTabbaa & Wood, 1989; Stallebrass & Taylor, 1997);

(c) description of the effects of material structure by a damagetype mechanism which permits the reduction of the size of

the yield surface due to bond degradationwhile the

principles of such damage-type models have been known

for a long time (e.g. Nova, 1977; Wilde, 1977), their

systematic application in soil modelling is fairly recent (e.g.

Pastor et al., 1990; Kavvadas, 1995; Lagioia & Nova, 1995;

Muir Wood, 1995b; Chazallon & Hicher, 1998).

October 1999.

Discussion on this paper closes 26 September 2000; for further details

see p. ii.

National Technical University of Athens, Greece.

{ Technical University of Bari, Italy; formerly University of Rome `La

Sapienza'.

structured soils (MSS) which combines and extends the above

procedures.

263

264

plasticity and the critical state concepts. Since the model

describes the response of the soil skeleton, all stresses are

effective stresses (the primes have been dropped for simplicity).

The dots over symbols indicate an innitesimal increment of

the corresponding quantity. Bold-face symbols indicate tensors.

Characteristic surfaces

The MSS model has two characteristic surfaces: an internal

plastic yield envelope (PYE) and an external bond strength

envelope (BSE). Fig. 1 depicts these surfaces in a stress space

which consists of the isotropic mean stress ( p) and the

deviatoric hyper-plane (s), or, equivalently, the transformed

deviatoric hyper-plane fS1 S2 S3 S4 S5 g (see Appendix 1).

While the ( , s) space is a tensorial space, geometrical insight

is preserved, since in the `triaxial' mode of deformation, the

deviatoric

hyper-plane has

p

p only one non-zero component,

S1 (2=3)( 1 3 ) (2=3)q and thus the representation

reduces to the common ( p, q) space. The internal surface

(PYE) plays the role of the classical `yield surface', that is it

delimits elastic and plastic states. The term `plastic' was added

to the `yield surface' to point out the difference between plastic

yielding and large-scale yielding (de-structuring) (e.g. Jardine et

al., 1991). Since most soils behave elastically in a very limited

domain, the model can accommodate an arbitrarily small PYE

without adverse side-effects, since the size of the PYE is

practically independent of the maximum pre-consolidation pressure (as in most classical models). A small plastic yield

envelope also helps in the realistic modelling of cyclic loading,

since it allows the accumulation of permanent strains even for

low-intensity stress cycles, the development of appreciable excess pore pressures during undrained loading (which may

eventually lead to liquefaction/cyclic mobility), and a progressive structure degradation due to a fatigue-type accumulation of

plastic strains.

The external surface (BSE) corresponds to material states

associated with appreciable rates of structure degradation. Since

plastic strains can develop inside the BSE, structure degradation

initiates before the material reaches the BSE, but, in this case,

the rate of de-structuring is small. Experimental evidence (e.g.

Vaughan, 1988; Smith et al., 1992; Lagioia & Nova, 1995)

suggests that the onset of appreciable de-structuring is usually

abrupt and easily identiable, thus facilitating the experimental

determination of the BSE by probing various directions in the

stress space.

In structured soils, the size of the BSE is controlled by the

magnitude of the bond strength, that is the pre-consolidation

pressure of overconsolidated clays and the strength of the

cementation/thixotropic bonds in cemented/aged clays. Since the

BSE is not necessarily spherical, the model can describe bonds

which degrade more easily by shearing than by compression.

Furthermore, since the BSE is not necessarily isotropic (i.e. it is

not centred on the isotropic axis), the model can account for

anisotropic bond development due to preferred particle orientations: for example, bonds may degrade more easily in extension

than in compression, or by shearing along a specic plane.

Finally, since the BSE is not necessarily circular in the deviatoric hyper-plane, the model can describe shear strength anisotropy by independently controlling the shear strength in various

modes of deformation (triaxial, plane strain, simple shear, etc.),

provided that such test data are available. In this way, the model

can improve the predictions of the modied CamClay (MCC)

family of models which over-predict the shear strength in

triaxial extension and simple shear when the model parameters

are selected by matching the shear strength in triaxial compression. (This feature of the model was not used in the following

evaluation, as the calibration of the model parameters with test

data of Vallericca clay was limited in the triaxial plane.)

In overconsolidated clays without appreciable ageing or cementation, the size and location of the BSE are controlled by

the stress history, in a way analogous to the classical critical

state models which determine the size of the (unique) yield

surface by the maximum pre-consolidation pressure. The proposed model generalizes this concept and records several other

characteristics of the stress history in the hardening variables of

the BSE (in addition to the maximum pre-consolidation pressure), namely the principal stress ratios and the directions of the

principal stresses at the maximum pre-consolidation pressure.

This is achieved via the degrees of freedom of the BSE (in

addition to its size along the isotropic axis), that is the

eccentricities along the deviatoric axes and the location of its

centre in the stress space. In strongly cemented soils, these

characteristics are controlled by the magnitude and spatial

distribution of the bond strengths, since the effects of the stress

history are masked by cementation. In weakly cemented soils,

both structure-inducing effects (i.e. the stress history and the

cementation bonds) have comparable magnitudes and the BSE

represents their combined effect. The MSS model allows standard overconsolidation to be modelled in the same way as any

other process causing irreversible bonding at the inter-particle

contacts (such as ageing and cementation), a fact which is also

appealing in conceptually unifying the effects of all these

processes.

The BSE is described by the function (the symbol `:'

indicates a summation of the products)

F(, K , )

(1)

FMCC (, )

1

s: s ( )2 2 0

c2

(2)

BSE in the stress space ( , s) is an ellipsoid centred at

point K with coordinates K s K K I, where I is the

isotropic unit tensor. The half-axes of the ellipsoid are equal to

along the isotropic axis and equal to c along each of the

deviatoric axes. The size of the BSE along all deviatoric axes

need not be the same, that is the ellipsoid need not be

symmetric about the isotropic axis: the half-axis along each of

the ve deviatoric stress axes (S i ) may be equal to c i where ci

is the corresponding eccentricity. In this case, equation (1) can

be written as (see Appendix 1)

F

1

(s s K ): (s s K ) ( K )2 2 0

c2

5

X

1

(S i S Ki )2 ( K )2 2 0

2

c

i1 i

the independent control of the shear strength in the various

shearing modes (triaxial, simple shear, plane strain, etc.). This

feature of the MSS model is very useful in modelling soils with

appreciable shear strength anisotropy; in such soils, the shear

strengths in the various modes are not interdependent and

certainly cannot be predicted by knowing the value of the shear

strength in triaxial compression.

For numerical simplicity, the PYE is assumed to be geometrically similar to the BSE (scaled by a factor 1) and is

described by the function

1

f (, L , ) 2 (s s L ): (s s L ) ( L )2 ()2 0

c

(3)

The PYE is centred at point L with coordinates L s L L I,

has size along the isotropic axis equal to , size along each of

the deviatoric axes equal to cor c i and is fully contained inside the BSE. Although the size of the PYE is scaled

to the size of the BSE, this dependence is very weak, as the

scaling factor is a very small number (of the order of 0001).

Hardening rules

The MSS model requires the hardening variables (; K , L )

which control the size and position of the characteristic surfaces. The evolution of the hardening variables during plastic

deformation is described by the hardening rules. Following

standard plasticity, it is assumed that the material does not

harden during elastic deformation (i.e. when the state is inside

the PYE). The proposed model possesses isotropic and kinematic hardening rules. The isotropic hardening controls the size

of the BSE, that is it describes the evolution of material

structure, while the kinematic hardening governs the motion of

the characteristic surfaces in the stress space, that is it describes

the evolution of the anisotropy.

Isotropic hardening. The change of the size of the BSE due to

the plastic strain increment (_pv , _ pq ) is

1e

_

v exp(v , pv ) _ pv

k

fq q exp(q , pq )g_pq

(4)

where _ pv _ p : I is the plastic volumetric strain increment, _ pq

p

[(2=3)(_ep :ep )] is the modulus of the plastic deviatoric strain

increment [_ep _ p (_pv I=3)], (pv , pq ) are the accumulated plastic volumetric and deviatoric strains, e is the void ratio, (, k)

are the intrinsic compressibility parameters during virgin compression and rebound, (v , v ) are the volumetric structure

degradation parameters, and (q , q , q ) are deviatoric structure

degradation parameters. Equation (4) reduces to the hardening

rule of the MCC model if all structure degradation parameters

are zero. The isotropic hardening of the MSS model has two

components, as follows.

(a) A volumetric component, which depends on the plastic

volumetric strain increment _ pv and models the intrinsic

volumetric hardening and the volumetric-strain-induced

structure degradation. In non-structured soils (v

v 0), the volumetric component is identical to the

isotropic hardening of the MCC model, that is the intrinsic

virgin compression is linear in a (log pe) plot. In

structured soils, the parameters (v , v ) dene the rate of

volumetric structure degradation in an exponential damagetype form analogous to that proposed by Wilde (1977),

Kavvadas (1995), Muir Wood (1995b) and Lagioia & Nova

(1995). This form decays at large accumulated plastic

strains with a rate depending on the value of the positive

parameter v. Positive values of the parameter v tend to

reduce the size of the BSE (and thus decrease the shear

strength) with the accumulation of plastic volumetric

strains. This collapse-type behaviour cannot be predicted

by classical critical state models, where volume reduction is

always associated with an increased shear strength.

(b) A deviatoric component, depending on the modulus of the

plastic deviatoric strain increment _ pq , which uses an

265

component and decays at large plastic shear strains with a

rate depending on the parameter q. A non-zero value of the

parameter q gives permanent structure degradation (or

hardening) but, in most applications, q 0. The deviatoric

component can be used to model shear-induced structure

degradation (q . 0), since shearing can cause a gradual

reduction in the size of the BSE even for stress paths inside

the BSE (fatigue-type structure degradation).

Kinematic hardening. The kinematic hardening describes the

evolution of material anisotropy during plastic deformation. This

is achieved by the translation of the characteristic surfaces (BSE

and PYE) in the stress space, that is by controlling the motion of

their centres K and L.

During plastic deformation, the centre K of the BSE moves

as follows.

For material states inside the BSE

_ K

_

K

(5a)

that is, the centre K of the BSE moves along a radial path

passing through the origin. In this respect, the proposed model

reduces to the MCC model if K I.

For material states on the BSE

_

_

s

_ K K

(5b)

sK

K

where , are parameters. The second term of the above

expression causes the centre K of the BSE to deviate from the

radial direction, that is to move in the deviatoric hyper-plane,

thus altering the anisotropy.

The kinematic hardening rule introduces a primary anisotropy tensor, b K s K = K which controls the offset of the centre

K of the BSE from the isotropic axis and depicts the tangent of

the angle of OK with the isotropic axis (Fig. 1). The model also

uses a secondary anisotropy tensor, b L s L = L , which controls

the deviation of the centre L of the PYE from the isotropic

axis. It can be seen that the MCC model lacks both types of

anisotropy, since its (single) yield surface is always centred on

the isotropic axis. The primary anisotropy of the proposed

model changes only during plastic deformation from material

states on the BSE and thus it represents the bond strength

anisotropy. During plastic deformation inside the BSE, the

centre K moves along a radial path (equation (5a)), and thus

the primary anisotropy does not change. The primary anisotropy

also does not change during loading along stabilized radial

stress paths, that is after sustained loading along a radial stress

path so that the material anisotropy has fully adjusted to the

preferred directions of this path. In fact, equation (5b) implies

that when a radial stress path (with direction s= ) has been

stabilized (i.e. the centre K also moves on a radial path), the

primary anisotropy of the material is such that s=

(s K = K ), that is the centre K moves along a radial path with

slope (s K = K ) which forms an angle with respect to the stress

path (s= ) controlled by the material constant .

During plastic deformation, the centre L of the PYE moves

as follows (see Fig. 1).

For material states on the BSE (i.e. when the two characteristic surfaces are in contact at a point corresponding to the

current stress state), the two surfaces remain in contact and the

position of L is dictated by the position of K

L K

(6)

) L (1 ) K

such that the PYE moves towards point M9, which is the

conjugate of the current state (point M). The geometric similarity of the two surfaces permits the denition of conjugate points

(M and M9) on the PYE and BSE, respectively, such that the

normal vectors at these points are parallel. The stress at the

266

1

MM9 (M9) ( L ) ( K )

(7)

_

_ L L _

(8)

_

rule, [(=)

L ], is a homothetic transformation which preserves

parallelity of the direction of the vector and as such it ensures

that the characteristic surfaces do not intersect even for nite

increments of the material state; when the two surfaces come

into contact, they contact at conjugate points which coincide

with the stress state. Similar translation rules have been proposed by Hashiguchi (1985), Al-Tabbaa & Wood (1989) and

Stallebrass & Taylor (1997). The factor _ is determined from

the `consistency condition', that is a requirement that during

plastic deformation the stress point remains on the PYE

( f_ 0), which gives

_

_

_

(1=c )(s s L ): (_s (=)s

( L )(_ (=)

)

2 [(1=c2 )(s s L ): (s s K ) ( L )( K ]

(9)

Flow rule

The ow rule determines the plastic strain increment _ p and

generally has the form

_

_ 1 (Q: )

_

_ p P

(10)

H

_ and the plastic potential P give the magnitude and

The scalar

the direction of the plastic strain increment, _ is the corresponding effective stress increment, H is a `plastic modulus' as

described in a following section, and Q @ f =@ is the gradient of the PYE. The plastic gradient Q has the following

isotropic and deviatoric components (using equation (3))

@f

2( L )

@

1

@f 1 @f

2

Q9 Q QI

: I I 2 (s s L )

3

@s 3 @s

c

Q Q: I

(11)

P Q.

Elasticity

The elastic component describes the behaviour inside the

PYE where deformation is by denition elastic. According to

standard plasticity, strain increments consist of elastic (i.e.

reversible) and plastic (i.e. irreversible) components which can

be split into volumetric and deviatoric parts as follows

_ _ e _ p ) _ v _ ev _ pv and e_ e_ e e_ p

(12)

linearly related to the corresponding effective stress increment

via an elastic stiffness C e

_ C e : _ e

(13)

material constants, the bulk modulus K and the shear modulus

G, and the stressstrain relationships are

_ K _ ev

s_ 2Ge_ e

(14)

Critical state models usually employ poro-elasticity, which assumes that the elastic volume compressibility is linearly related

to the logarithm of the mean effective stress. Such models have

a pressure-dependent bulk modulus given by K (1 e) =k,

where k is the CamClay compressibility parameter. In order to

improve the accuracy of the predictions (e.g. Wroth et al.,

1979; Houlsby, 1981), the elastic shear modulus is also assumed

can lead to theoretical and numerical difculties, especially in

cyclic loading, since the elasticity becomes non-conservative

(Houlsby, 1985). A solution which preserves the pressure dependence of (K, G) and, at the same time, maintains the conservative nature of elasticity, is hyper-elasticity. Hyper-elasticity has

the additional advantage of introducing coupling between the

volumetric and shear components in the stressstrain relationships, a fact commonly observed in practice.

The MSS model uses either poro-elasticity (equation (14)) or

hyper-elasticity (Houlsby, 1985)

e

v

1

3

e 2 e

1

(q ) _ v

_ p r exp

k

k

2k

2

e

e

_

(15a)

(e e )

k

e

2

s_ pr exp v

(15b)

ee _ ev 2 e_ e

k

k

Poro-elasticity requires the material constants k and G=K, while

hyper-elasticity requires material constants k k=(1 e), ,

and a reference pressure p r . An additional advantage of hyperelasticity (compared to isotropic poro-elasticity) is the ability to

predict the development of shear-induced excess pore pressures

during elastic undrained loading, and the related improvement

of the predicted effective stress path.

Plastic modulus H

For material states on the BSE, the plastic modulus is

determined from the `consistency condition', which ensures that

the stress point remains on the BSE (see Appendix 2)

H 2RT

(16)

at the top of the BSE, where R 0 (since P 0 and shearinduced degradation has ceased). For material states inside the

BSE, the plastic modulus is determined from the requirement

for a continuous variation of its magnitude as the PYE approaches the BSE. This requirement is satised if the plastic

modulus is obtained from the following interpolation rule (see

Appendix 2)

H H 0 j H 0jf[1 (=o )] 1g

(17)

where H 0 is

the

! value of the plastic modulus at point M 0

where vector OM intersects the BSE (Fig. 1), and is the

normalized length of MM 0 (M is the current state). Equation

(17) interpolates between: H 1 (upon initiation of yielding)

and: H H 0 (when the stress state reaches the BSE). More

details are included in Appendix 2.

Summary of model parameters

The MSS model requires the following eleven parameters.

Four of them are the parameters of the MCC model, while the

remaining seven control the structure degradation and anisotropic characteristics of the proposed model.

(a) k: poro-elastic compressibility. The corresponding parameter in hyper-elasticity is k k=(1 e).

(b) G=K or : elastic shear parameter in poro-elasticity or

hyper-elasticity, respectively.

(c) : intrinsic compressibility.

(d ) c (or c i ): eccentricity of the BSE. Controls the shear

strength in the appropriate mode (if different ci values are

used). In the simplest case, it is p

proportional to the M

parameter of the MCC model: c (2=3)M.

(e) (v , v ) and (q , q ): volumetric and deviatoric structure

degradation parameters.

( f ) (, ): parameters controlling the evolution of material

anisotropy, that is the motion of the BSE in the deviatoric

space.

( g) : parameter controlling the variation of the elasto-plastic

modulus ( H) in the early stages of structure degradation

(i.e. before the BSE is engaged). It controls the stiffness of

the stressstrain curve after the onset of plastic strains.

The MSS model may use the following optional parameters.

(a) : ratio of the sizes of the BSE and PYE. Controls the size

of the elastic domain. Usually it is set to a small number

(typically 0:0050:05).

(b) q : steady-state deviatoric structure degradation/hardening

parameter (usually q 0).

Each of the above parameters controls a specic aspect of

the model (modulus, strength, structure, anisotropy, etc.) without

appreciable interaction among parameters. In this way, the

determination of their values for a specic soil using standard

laboratory tests is simplied. Furthermore, the model parameters

are such that the sophistication of the predictions is adaptable

to the available test data.

In addition to the above parameters, the implementation of

the proposed model requires the determination of the initial

state of the material, which involves the following state variables.

(a) : effective stress components

(b) e: void ratio

(c) : size of the BSE (controls the bond strength and

consequently the shear strength)

(d ) K : position of the centre of the BSE (controls the primary

structure anisotropy)

(e) L : position of the centre of the PYE (controls the

secondary anisotropy).

267

experimental programme and the testing procedures are described in detail by Amorosi (1996); a brief summary is given

below, with the objective of providing the necessary information

for the evaluation of the model parameters and the comparisons

with the model predictions.

Large block samples of the natural clay were used for

trimming 38 mm dia. and 78 mm high cylindrical specimens for

triaxial testing. The experimental programme was performed in

three computer-controlled stress path triaxial apparatus, capable

of applying cell pressures up to 3, 10 and 14 MPa. It consisted

of two series of shear tests on samples consolidated to relatively

medium and high pressures, the results of which are shown in

Figs 27.

The rst series of tests, referred to as medium-pressure (MP)

tests, was performed on samples anisotropically consolidated

along the effective stress path shown by dotted lines in Fig. 5.

This stress path was selected to ensure that the radial strain was

very close to zero. All samples were compressed from an initial

isotropic effective stress state ( pk 400 kPa) to a nal state

having mean effective stress pmax 1770 kPa, and deviatoric

stress qmax 1210 kPa (effective stress ratio 3 = 1 0:53).

The vertical effective stress at the nal state ( vmax 2570 kPa)

is slightly lower than the vertical stress ( vy 2600 kPa) corresponding to the onset of appreciable rates of structure degradation, that is to the intersection of the stress path with the BSE.

After consolidation, performed in small steps to ensure minimal

The MCC model requires only the rst three state variables,

since it does not include strength anisotropy.

EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

comparing its predictions with the results of a series of laboratory tests on Vallericca clay, a natural Plio-Pleistocene marine

clay from a site a few kilometres north of Rome (Italy).

Vallericca clay is a stiff, overconsolidated, medium plasticity

and activity material characterized by a calcium carbonate content of about 30% and a remarkable absence of major macrostructures. Its average index properties are listed in Table 1.

Vallericca clay has been extensively studied in the last

decade (e.g. Rampello et al., 1993); a considerable proportion

of this research has been aimed at the investigation of the role

of structure in the mechanical behaviour of the material.

Burland et al. (1996) identied the inuence of microstructural

effects on the compressibility and shear strength of Vallericca

clay, comparing the results of oedometer and triaxial tests

carried out on natural and reconstituted samples. Further experimental research on Vallericca clay, recently carried out by

Amorosi (1996), conrmed that the mechanical behaviour of the

soil is signicantly affected by its natural structured state;

depending on the direction of the stress path, de-structuring can

occur during both the consolidation and the shear stages of the

tests, and is related to the cumulative volumetric and deviatoric

plastic strains. These features are explicitly described by the

proposed constitutive model, thus making meaningful the com-

Property

Clay fraction (,2 m)

Calcium carbonate content (CaCO3 )

Liquid limit

Plasticity index

Plastic limit

Natural moisture content

Specic gravity

Value: %

47

32

55

29

26

264

278

experimental data in: (a) anisotropic compression, (b) isotropic

compression

268

2000

q : kPa

q : kPa

2000

1000

1000

OCR = 1, undrained

0

OCR = 1, drained

5

Axial strain: %

10

5

Axial strain: %

5

Volumetric strain: %

u : kPa

1000

500

5

Axial strain: %

10

Model

Experiment

10

10

Fig. 3. Medium-pressure undrained and drained compression tests on anisotropically consolidated Vallericca clay. Normally consolidated samples (vo vmax 2570 kPa). Comparison

between model predictions and experimental data. Plots of deviatoric stress and excess pore

water pressure versus axial strain

1000

Model

q : kPa

q : kPa

q : kPa

2000

2000

2000

1000

1000

Experiment

0

5

Axial strain: %

10

1000

5

Axial strain: %

1000

5

Axial strain: %

10

500

5

Axial strain: %

10

OCR = 4

u : kPa

u : kPa

u : kPa

OCR = 24

500

500

OCR = 17

10

5

Axial strain: %

10

500

5

Axial strain: %

10

Fig. 4. Medium pressure undrained triaxial compression tests on anisotropically consolidated Vallericca clay (vmax 2570 kPa). Overconsolidated samples: OCR 17 (vo 1512 kPa), OCR 24 (vo 1071 kPa), and OCR 4 (vo 642 kPa). Comparison between model

predictions and experimental data. Plots of deviatoric stress and excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

(OCR vmax = vo 1) or rebounded to OCR values of 17,

24 and 4 and then sheared. Drained and undrained shearing

was carried out at axial strain rates equal to 11% and 58% per

day, respectively. The comparison of the proposed model with

the results of the MP series of tests allows us to assess the

model capability in predicting material behaviour for deviatoric

stress paths intersecting the initial BSE.

The second series of tests, referred to as high-pressure (HP)

tests, was performed on samples anisotropically compressed in

small steps along the extension of the consolidation path of the

MP tests, that is a path corresponding to a constant effective

stress ratio ( 3 = 1 0:53); the consolidation path of the HP

tests is shown by the dotted line in Fig. 7. At the nal state

( pmax 4630 kPa, qmax 3160 kPa), the vertical effective stress

( vmax 6750 kPa) is equal to about 26 times the value corresponding to the intersection of the consolidation path with the

BSE ( vy 2600 kPa). After consolidation, the samples were

either sheared directly (OCR 1) or rebounded to OCR values

of 17 and 24 prior to shearing. The comparison of the

us to assess the model capability in reproducing the mechanical

behaviour of Vallericca clay as observed after the de-structuring

process induced during high-pressure anisotropic consolidation.

The numerical predictions of the observed response during

the MP and HP series of tests were obtained using the set of

model parameters listed in Table 2. A very small elastic domain

was assumed ( 0:005) and behaviour in that region was

described by the hyper-elastic option of the model. The elastic

parameter k was determined from the slope of the initial

portion of the unloadingreloading line during anisotropic consolidation plotted in an ln pln(1 e) plane. The elastic parameter was determined from the orientation of the initial part

of the stress paths obtained from undrained triaxial compression

tests carried out on overconsolidated samples, as suggested by

Borja et al. (1997).

The isotropic hardening parameters of the model were estimated by a trial and error procedure, as described below, taking

into account the different relative weights of the deviatoric and

volumetric hardening during drained and undrained conditions.

Model

2000

269

Model

4000

D

3000

OCR = 1

q : kPa

q : kPa

1500

OCR = 1

2000

1000

OCR = 17

1000

OCR = 4

OCR = 24

500

OCR = 17

0

0

OCR = 24

0

500

1000

2000

4000

1500

3000

4000

5000

Experiment

2000

3000

Experiment

q : kPa

2000

1000

OCR = 1

2000

1500

OCR = 17

q : kPa

1000

OCR = 1

OCR = 24

1000

0

0

1000

2000

3000

p : kPa

OCR = 4

500

OCR = 24

0

500

1000

p : kPa

1500

2000

4000

3000

3000

3000

Experiment

5

Axial strain: %

2000

1000

Model

0

q : kPa

4000

1000

10

3000

5

Axial strain: %

10

3000

5

Axial strain: %

10

1000

5

Axial strain: %

10

OCR = 24

2000

u : kPa

u : kPa

1000

3000

OCR = 17

2000

2000

1000

OCR = 1

u : kPa

matching the observed behaviour along the undrained shearing

stress paths, while the volumetric hardening parameters (v , v )

were determined by a similar process using data from the

anisotropic consolidation and the drained shearing stress paths.

4000

q : kPa

q : kPa

Fig. 5. Medium-pressure triaxial compression tests on anisotropically consolidated Vallericca clay ( vmax 2570 kPa). Normally consolidated samples OCR 1 ( No vmax ) (D drained, U undrained); overconsolidated samples (u): OCR 17 (vo 1512 kPa),

OCR 24 (vo 1071 kPa), and OCR 4 (vo 642 kPa). Comparison between model predictions and experimental data. Effective

stress paths in p q plane

2000

5000

anisotropically consolidated Vallericca clay (vmax 6750 kPa).

Normally consolidated and overconsolidated samples: OCR 1

(vo 6750 kPa), OCR 17 (vo 3970 kPa), and OCR 24

(vo 2812 kPa). Comparison between model predictions and

experimental data. Effective stress paths in p q plane. The stress

paths of the medium-pressure tests are also shown for comparison

OCR = 17

4000

5

Axial strain: %

10

2000

1000

5

Axial strain: %

10

Fig. 6. High-pressure undrained triaxial compression tests on anisotropically consolidated Vallericca clay (vmax 6750 kPa). Normally

consolidated and overconsolidated samples: OCR 1 (vo 6750 kPa), OCR 17 (vo 3970 kPa), and OCR 24 (vo 2812 kPa).

Comparison between model predictions and experimental data. Plots of deviatoric stress and excess pore water pressure versus axial strain

270

Table 2. Values of the model parameters for Vallericca clay

Parameter

k

Value

Parameter

Value

Parameter

Value

0013

103

0118

085

v

v

q

q

5

50

3

05

1

01

14

0005

a negligible residual rate of structure degradation at large

deviatoric strain. The volumetric hardening parameter () was

evaluated with reference to the nal stages of the anisotropic

consolidation path in the HP series of tests; it can be seen that

the slope of this curve in an eln p plot is not exactly equal to

, as it would be according to classical critical state theory,

because the material is not fully de-structured and its compressibility is also inuenced by the structure degradation parameters. For the selected values of the structure degradation

parameters, the model predicts a more rapid degradation due to

volumetric plastic strains than due to deviatoric plastic strains.

However, since the magnitude of the deviatoric strains is larger

than that of the volumetric strains, structure degradation is

caused by a combination of both mechanisms.

The kinematic hardening parameters were selected assuming

that the motion of the BSE in the stress space was relatively

slow ( 0:1) and that, for continuous radial stress paths, the

centre of the BSE is located on the line of the stress path

( 1).

The parameter c1 was estimated from the results of undrained

triaxial compression tests carried out on the MP and HP normally consolidated samples. It was further assumed that c2

c3 c1 , since only tests in the triaxial plane were available and

evidence regarding shear strength anisotropy off the triaxial

plane could not be substantiated. However, as the model permits

independent control of the shear strength in the various shearing

modes (by varying c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 and c5 ), calibration off the

triaxial plane can be performed without affecting the calibration

in the triaxial plane, provided that such test data are available.

The material parameter () controlling the variation of the

plastic modulus H inside the BSE was evaluated from the

undrained triaxial compression tests carried out on overconsolidated samples.

For each of the MP and HP tests, the proposed model was

used to simulate the complete sequence of the consolidation,

rebound and shearing stress paths followed by the specimen in

the laboratory, starting from an initial isotropic effective stress

state ( pk 400 kPa). In particular, the simulations were performed under stress-controlled conditions during the consolidation and rebound stages of the tests, followed by the straincontrolled shearing stage. The initial size of the BSE was

determined from the anisotropic consolidation tests shown in

Fig. 2, and specically from the state where an abrupt stiffness

loss was observed ( vy 2600 kPa, hy 1378 kPa). This state

was considered to represent the intersection of the consolidation

path with the BSE. Using this information, the initial values of

the state variables were determined as: K 1400 kPa,

S1 K 230 kPa. Fig. 2 also shows the observed and predicted

compression curves during isotropic consolidation plotted in the

log p versus specic volume (1 e) plane. The two types of

tests are reproduced well by the proposed model. The elliptical

shape of the BSE appears to represent reasonably well the

structural characteristics of Vallericca clay, since the stress level

corresponding to a major loss in stiffness is accurately predicted

along both the isotropic and the anisotropic consolidation paths.

Figures 3 and 4 compare the experimental and the predicted

curves of the deviatoric stress (q) and the excess pore pressure

(u)/volumetric strain (v ) observed in selected undrained and

drained MP tests. The corresponding effective stress paths are

plotted in Fig. 5. The hyper-elastic formulation employed in the

model reproduces well the stiffness and the slope of the effec-

the onset of plastic strains and the initiation of structure

degradation. Fig. 3 shows that the model can reproduce well the

brittle stressstrain behaviour and the post-peak strain softening

observed in the normally consolidated undrained tests. The

model is also successful in predicting the monotonic strain

hardening observed in the drained test. The observed rates of

excess pore pressure development in the undrained tests and the

volumetric compression in the drained test are also reasonably

well predicted. According to the proposed model, structure

degradation inuences drained and undrained shearing differently: drained specimens are subjected to larger de-structuring

than undrained specimens, because of the additive deleterious

effects of the volumetric and deviatoric strains in the drained

specimen. Despite that, strain-softening is observed and predicted only in the undrained tests; this is due to the appreciable

volumetric compression of the drained tests, which enhances the

frictional shearing resistance of the material and masks the

deleterious effects of de-structuring, causing a net enlargement

of the BSE. In contrast, in the undrained tests, the size of the

BSE decreases due to the prevailing effects of shear-induced

structure degradation (since volumetric hardening is nil).

The MP overconsolidated samples sheared in undrained mode

(Figs 4 and 5) exhibit a brittle stressstrain behaviour which is

reproduced reasonably well by the proposed model. The samples

strain harden until the effective stress paths are inside the BSE.

When the paths reach the BSE, the rate of de-structuring

becomes appreciable and the material starts to strain soften. As

the OCR increases, the dilatant behaviour of the soil is enhanced,

while the rate of de-structuring decreases due to the larger

accumulated shear strains inside the BSE (Figs 4 and 5). This

type of behaviour is correctly reproduced by the proposed model.

The capabilities of the proposed model are also evaluated

using the results of the HP series of tests. Figs 6 and 7 compare

the experimental and predicted deviatoric stress and excess pore

pressure curves and the associated effective stress paths in

specimens anisotropically consolidated to very high pressure

(well above the BSE) and then sheared undrained at

OCR 1:0, 17 and 24. The experimental results show a brittle

stressstrain behaviour, coupled with an increase of u in the

nal part of the tests. Accordingly, the stress paths bend to the

left after peak strength, showing decreasing values of p and q.

This feature can only partly be attributed to the initial structured

state, as the high-pressure consolidation stage is likely to have

caused an appreciable amount of structure degradation. The

observed behaviour is more likely to be related to the anisotropic consolidation stress path imposed prior to shear. In fact,

similar softening responses were also observed on reconstituted

samples of other clays sheared undrained after anisotropic compression and swelling (e.g. Gens, 1982; Rossato et al., 1992).

To reproduce such observations, the model was calibrated in

order to retain some deviatoric structure degradation even at

high pressure. Figs 6 and 7 indicate that the model satisfactorily

reproduces the stressstrain behaviour during the HP shearing,

while it tends to overestimate the corresponding excess pore

water pressure. It should be pointed out that the model was

calibrated mainly by using the consolidation and MP test results

and was then employed in a comparison with the HP test

results. While this last comparison is not always satisfactory, it

should be realized that the stress levels of the MP and HP tests

are very different and thus the model was used under `unfavourable' circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper describes and evaluates a critical-state incremental-plasticity model for structured soils (MSS). The model

simulates the engineering effects of processes causing structure

development (pre-consolidation, ageing, cementation, etc.) and

structure degradation (remoulding by volumetric and/or deviatoric straining), such as high stiffness and strength at the intact

states, appreciable reduction of stiffness and strength during destructuring, and the evolution of stress-induced and structureinduced anisotropy. A novel feature of the model is the treatment of pre-consolidation as a structure-inducing process and

the unied description of all such processes via the BSE. The

proposed model distinguishes the concepts of `yielding' (i.e. the

onset of irreversible deformation upon reaching the PYE) and

the onset of major de-structuring which occurs when the BSE is

engaged. Thus, the model avoids the large elastic domain of

critical state models and permits the development of irreversible

strains even for small variations of the stress levels. Other

features of the MSS model include

(a) a general-purpose damage-type mechanism which can

model the structure degradation induced by volumetric

and deviatoric strains

(b) stress- and bond-induced anisotropy as well as memory of

the stress history, achieved by recording the offset of the

two model surfaces from the isotropic axisthese characteristics are gradually erasable (fading memory) as the

surfaces move and the material state adapts to more recent

stressing

(c) formulation in a tensorial space consisting of the isotropic

axis and the deviatoric hyper-planethis formulation

ensures the generality required for incorporation in nite

element codes without losing the geometrical insight of the

triaxial pq plane, and it facilitates the modelling of shear

strength anisotropy by decoupling the shear strength

parameters in the various shearing modes (triaxial, plane

strain, simple shear, etc.), thus permitting independent

control of the shear strength in these modes

(d ) downward compatibility with the MCC model when all

structural and anisotropic features are turned offfurthermore, these features can be turned on and off according to

the type of the available test data, thus adapting the level of

predictive sophistication to the available data.

The model is evaluated by comparing the predicted and

observed behaviour of the stiff overconsolidated Vallericca clay.

The experimental data used to investigate the predictive capabilities of the model consist of drained and undrained triaxial

compression tests performed on natural samples after consolidation and swelling along anisotropic stress paths to reach different levels of maximum stress and overconsolidation ratio. For

samples re-consolidated to stress levels below the BSE (MP

tests), the model predictions are in good agreement with the

observed behaviour. These results are of particular interest in

the prediction of the behaviour of geotechnical structures, since

most of these interact with natural soils subjected to low stress

levels. For samples re-consolidated to stress levels well above

the BSE (HP tests), the model satisfactorily reproduces the

stressstrain behaviour during undrained shearing. Comparison

of the observed and predicted effective stress paths of all tests

indicates that the model can reproduce with a satisfactory

degree of accuracy the overall behaviour of Vallericca clay as

observed in a wide range of stresses and loading conditions.

These transformed stress and strain measures are energy conjugate and,

compared to the standard tensorial quantities (, ), have the advantage

that the size of the space required to represent any loading path is the

absolute minimum; for example, a triaxial test can be represented in the

two-dimensional space ( , S1 ), a plane strain test in the threedimensional space ( , S1 , S2 ), etc.

For material states on the BSE, the plastic modulus is determined

from the `consistency condition', which requires that the material state

should remain on the BSE, that is

@F

@F

@F

@F

F_ 0 )

: _

_ 0

s_ K

_ K

@

@ K

@s K

@

However

@F

: _

@

(18)

1

1 _

@F

2( K );

Q : _

H;

@ K

@F

2

2 (s s K );

@s K

c

_ K

_

_

_

@F

K ; s_ K s K

s

2

sK ;

K

@

It can be seen that, in such cases, the material state () coincides with

the contact point of the PYE and the BSE. Furthermore (using equation

(10))

_ and _ p p [2(_ep : e_ p )] (sign )

_

_ p [2(P9: P9)]

_ pv P

q

3

3

where P and P9 are the volumetric and deviatoric components of the

plastic potential tensor P, respectively.

_

Thus, equation (4) gives _ R,

where

1e

R

v exp(v pv ) P

k

p p 2

_

(sign )f

q q exp(q q )g [3(P9: P9)]

Substitution of the above into equation (18) gives the plastic modulus

H 2RT

where

T ( K )

(19)

1

(s s K ): s s

sK

2

c

K

For material states inside the BSE, the plastic modulus H can be

determined from the requirement for a continuous variation of its value

as the PYE approaches the BSE and eventually the two surfaces come

into contact. At that nal stage, the material state will be located on the

BSE and the plastic modulus will be determined from equation (19). It is

noted that the consistency condition has already been used in the

determination of the translation of the PYE (equation (9)).

The requirement for a continuous variation of H is satised if the

plastic modulus is obtained from the following interpolation rule

H H 0 j H 0jf[1 (=o )] 1g

(20)

!

point M 0 where vector OM intersects the BSE (Fig. 1) and is computed

via equation (19). Point M 0 has coordinates ( > 1) and M is the

current stress state (coordinates:

). The parameter is computed from

p

the relationship: [(B B2 A )]=A, where

A

1

1

1

(s: s) 2 ; B 2 (s: s K ) K ; 2 (s K : s K ) 2K 2

c2

c

c

relationship

S

The MSS model is formulated in a general effective stress space

(Prevost, 1978; Kavvadas, 1983) consisting of the isotropic (mean) stress

axis ( x y z )=3 and the deviatoric

hyper-plane fS1 pS2

p

S3 S4 Sp5 g, where Sp1 (2 y x pz )= 6, S2 ( z x )= 2;

S3 xy 2, S4 xz 2 and S5 yz 2. The corresponding strain

measures consist of the volumetric strain v ( x y z ) and pthe

deviatoric vector

1 (2 y x z )=p 6,

p fE1 E2 E3 E4pE5 g where Ep

E2 ( z x )= 2, E3 xy = 2, E4 xz = 2 and E5 yz = 2.

271

Q

:

2kQk

and o is the value of the parameter upon initiation of yielding; that is,

o is reset to the value of each time yielding is reinitiated. Thus,

=o 1 upon initiation of yielding, =o , 1 at any later stage, and

0 when the material state lies on the BSE. Equation (20) is

essentially an interpolation rule between the value H 1 upon

initiation of yielding, and the value: H H 0 when the stress state

reaches the BSE. The material constant . 0 determines the rate of

variation of H in the range (1, H 0).

272

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

support offered by Professor G. Calabresi, Professor S. Rampello and Dr M. R. Coop during the experimental research on

Vallericca clay.

NOTATION

BSE

c (or ci )

dot (over a symbol)

e

e (superscript)

G=K

F

f

H

I

OCR

p (superscript)

PYE

q

R

s

Si

T

v

q

v , v , q , q

q

k

k

, p

vmax

vo

K

L

(, )

eccentricity of the BSE and the PYE

innitesimal increment of this quantity

void ratio

elastic component of strain

elastic shear parameter in poro-elasticity

function of the BSE

function of the PYE

elasto-plastic modulus

unit second-order tensor

overconsolidation ratio

plastic component of strain

plastic yield envelope

scalar stress deviator

auxiliary scalar quantity (dened in Appendix 2)

tensorial stress deviator

deviatoric stress components

auxiliary scalar quantity (dened in Appendix 2)

size of the BSE

elastic shear parameter in hyper-elasticity

parameter controlling the variation of the elastoplastic modulus ( H)

excess pore pressure

strain tensor

volumetric strain

scalar deviatoric strain

volumetric and deviatoric structure degradation

parameters

steady-state deviatoric structure degradation/

hardening parameter

poro-elastic compressibility

hyper-elastic compressibility

intrinsic compressibility

mean effective stress

maximum vertical pre-consolidation pressure

vertical consolidation pressure

effective stress tensor

coordinates of the centre of the BSE in the stress

space

coordinates of the centre of the PYE in the stress

space

ratio of the sizes of the BSE and PYE

parameters controlling the evolution of material

anisotropy

REFERENCES

Addis, M. A. & Jones, M. E. (1990). Mechanical behaviour and strainrate dependence of high porosity chalk. Proceedings of the International Chalk Symposium, Brighton, pp. 111116. London: Thomas

Telford.

Al-Tabbaa, A. & Wood, D. M. (1989). An experimentally based bubble

model for clay. In Numerical models in geomechanics, Niagara Falls

(edited by S. Pietruszczak and G. N. Pande), Rotterdam, pp. 9199.

Amorosi, A. (1996). Il comportamento meccanico di una argilla naturale consistente. Doctoral thesis, University of Rome `La Sapienza'.

Anagnostopoulos, A., Kalteziotis, N., Tsiambaos, G. K. & Kavvadas, M.

(1991). Geotechnical properties of the Corinth Canal marls. Geotech.

Geol. Engng 9, 126.

Borja, R. I., Tamagnini, C. & Amorosi, A. (1997). Coupling plasticity

and energy-conserving elasticity models for clays. J. Geotech.

Geoenv. Engng ASCE 123, 948957.

Burland, J. B. (1990). On the compressibility and shear strength of

natural clays. Geotechnique 40, No. 3, 329378.

Burland, J. B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V. N. & Calabresi, G.

(1996). A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays.

Geotechnique 46, No. 3, 491514.

Calabresi, G. & Scarpelli, G. (1985). Effects of swelling caused by

unloading in overconsolidated clays. Proc. 11th ICSMFE, San

Francisco 1, 411414.

Chazallon, C. & Hicher, P. Y. (1998). A constitutive model coupling

elastoplasticity and damage for cohesive-frictional materials. Mechanics Cohesive-Frictional Materials 3, 4163.

Clayton, C. R. I. & Serratrice, J. F. (1993). The mechanical properties

and behaviour of hard soils and soft rocks. Proceedings of the

international symposium on hard soilssoft rocks, Athens, pp.

18391877.

Coop, M. R. & Atkinson, J. H. (1993). The mechanics of cemented

carbonate sands. Geotechnique 43, No. 1, 5367.

Cotecchia, F. (1996). The effects of structure on the properties of an

Italian pleistocene clay. PhD thesis, University of London.

Dafalias, Y. F. & Herrmann, L. R. (1980). A bounding surface soil

plasticity model. Int. Symp. Soils Cyclic Transient Loading, Swansea

1, 335345.

Eliot, G. M. & Brown, E. T. (1985). Yield of a soft, high-porosity rock.

Geotechnique 35, No. 4, 413423.

Gens, A. (1982). Stressstrain and strength characteristic of a low

plasticity clay. PhD thesis, University of London.

Gens, A. & Nova, R. (1993). Conceptual bases for a constitutive model

for bonded soils and weak rocks. Proceedings of the international

symposium on hard soilssoft rocks, Athens, pp. 485494.

Gens, A. & Potts, D. M. (1982). A theoretical model for describing the

behaviour of soils not obeying Rendulic's principle. International

symposium on numerical models in geomechanics, Zurich, pp.

2432.

Gunn, M. J. (1993). The prediction of surface settlement proles due to

tunnelling. In Predictive soil mechanics (edited by G. T. Houlsby

and A. N. Schoeld), pp. 304316 London, Thomas Telford.

Hashiguchi, K. (1985). Two- and three-surface models of plasticity.

Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Numerical Methods Geomechanics, Nagoya,

125134.

Houlsby, G. T. (1981). A study of plasticity theories and their applicability to soils. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

Houlsby, G. T. (1985). The use of a variable shear modulus in elastic

plastic models for clays. Computers Geotechnics 1, 313.

Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986).

Studies of the inuence of non-linear stressstrain characteristics in

soilstructure interaction. Geotechnique 36, No. 2, 377396.

Jardine, R. J., St John, H. D., Hight, D. W. & Potts, D. M. (1991). Some

practical applications of a non-linear ground model. Proc. 10th Eur.

Conf. Soil Mechanics Found. Engng, Florence 1, 223228.

Kavvadas, M. (1983). A constitutive model for clays based on nonassociated anisotropic elasto-plasticity. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Constitutive Laws Engng Materials, Tucson, 263270.

Kavvadas, M. (1995). A plasticity approach to the mechanical behaviour

of bonded soils. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Computational Plasticity,

Barcelona.

Lagioia, R. & Nova, R. (1995). An experimental and theoretical study

of the behaviour of a calcarenite in triaxial compression. Geotechnique 45, No. 4, 633648.

Leroueil, S. (1977). Quelques considerations sur le comportement des

argiles sensibles. PhD thesis, Universite Laval, Quebec.

Leroueil, S. & Vaughan, P. R. (1990). The general and congruent effects

of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 40, No.

3, 467488.

Mitchell, J. K. & Solymar, Z. V. (1984). Time-dependent strength gain

in freshly deposited or densied sand. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering division ASCE 110, No. GT11, 15591576.

Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. & Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1978). An anisotropic

hardening model for soils and its application to cyclic loading. Int.

J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomechanics 2, 203221.

Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. & Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1979). Application of an

anisotropic hardening model in the analysis of elasto-plastic deformation of soils. Geotechnique 29, No. 1, 134.

Muir Wood, D. (1995a). Evaluation of material properties. Proc. Int.

Symp. Prefailure Deformation Characteristics Geomaterials, Hokkaido 2, 117999.

Muir Wood, D. (1995b). Kinematic hardening model for structured soil.

Proceedings of the international symposium on numerical models in

geomechanics, Davos, pp. 8388.

Nova, R. (1977). On the hardening of soils. Archwm Mech. Stosow 29,

No. 3, 445458.

Nova, R. & Wood, D. M. (1979). A constitutive model for sand in

triaxial compression. Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomechanics 3,

255278.

Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Leung, K. H. (1985). Simple model

for transient soil loading in earthquake analysis: II: Non-associative

models for sands. Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods Geomechanics 9,

477498.

Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Chan, A. H. C. (1990). Generalized

plasticity and the modelling of soil behaviour. Int. J. Num. Anal.

Methods Geomechanics 14, 151190.

Prevost, J. H. (1978). Plasticity theory for soil stressstrain behaviour. J.

Engng Mech. Div. ASCE 104, No. 5, 11771194.

Rampello, S. (1989). Effetti del rigonamento sul comportamento

meccanico di argille fortemente sovraconsolidate. Doctoral thesis,

University of Rome `La Sapienza'.

Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V. N. & Viggiani, G. (1993). Strength and

dilatancy of natural and reconstituted Vallericca clay. Proceedings of

the international symposium on hard soilssoft rocks, Athens, pp.

761768.

Roscoe, K. H. & Burland, J. B. (1968). On the generalized stressstrain

behaviour of wet clay. In Engineering plasticity (edited by J. Hayman and F. A. Leckie), pp. 535609. Cambridge University Press.

Rossato, G., Ninis, N. L. & Jardine, R. J. (1992). Properties of some

kaolin-based model clay soils. Geotech. Testing J. 15, No. 2, 166179.

Smith, P. R., Jardine, R. J. & Hight, D. W. (1992). The yielding of

Bothkennar clay. Geotechnique 42, No. 2, 257274.

Stallebrass, S. E. & Taylor, R. N. (1997). The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements

in overconsolidated clays. Geotechnique 47, No. 2, 235253.

Tavenas, F. & Leroueil, S. (1990). Laboratory and in-situ stressstrain

time behaviour of soft clays. Int. Symp. Geotech. Engng Soft Soils,

273

Mexico City 2.

Vaughan, P. R. (1985). Mechanical and hydraulic properties of in-situ

residual soils. Proc. First Int. Conf. Geomech. Tropical Soils,

Brasilia 3, 231263.

Vaughan, P. R. (1988). Characterizing the mechanical properties of insitu residual soil. Proc. Second Int. Conf. Geomech. Tropical Soils,

Singapore 2, 469487.

Wesley, L. D. (1990). Inuence of structure and composition on residual

soils. JGED, ASCE 116, No. 4, 589603.

Whittle, A. J. & Kavvadas, M. (1994). Formulation of the MIT-E3

constitutive model for overconsolidated clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering division, ASCE 120, No. 1, 173198.

Wilde, P. (1977). Two-invariants-dependent model of granular media,

Archwm Mech. Stosow 29, No. 4, 799809.

Wroth, C. P., Randolph, M. F., Houlsby, G. T. & Fahey, M. (1979).

Correlations for the engineering properties of soils, with particular

reference to the shear modulus. Engineeering Department, Cambridge University, CUED/D-Soils TR75.

Zienkiewicz, O. C., Leung, K. H. & Pastor, M. (1985). A simple model

for transient soil loading in earthquake analysis. Int. J. Num. Anal.

Methods Geomechanics 9, 953976.

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.