observations for monotonic loading conditions indicates that primary loading modulus values obtained from triaxial tests are
appropriate at low relative density, whereas perhaps higher values, in the repeated loading range, are appropriate at high
relative densities.
Key words: sand, deformation, analysis, hyperbolic, tangent stiffness, modulus, relative density, monotonic loading,
repeated loading.
Une analyse significative en contraintedtformation des structures de sol requiert une loi adkquate de comportement
effortdCformation. L'on prksente dans cet article des directives pour le choix de paramktres pour une loi incrkmentale hyper
bolique simple d'effortdCformation pour le sable, baske sur la tangente de rigiditt qui vane avec le niveau de contrainte. Les
paramktres sont obtenus en partant de l'examen des mesures en laboratoire et sur le terrain disponibles dans la littkrature, et
prksentks en fonction tant de la valeur de pCnCtration que de la densite relative. Les rCsultats de laboratoire indiquent l'impor
tance du premier chargement par rapport au chargement rCpCtC sur les valeurs du module. L'analyse h rebours des observations
sur le terrain pour les conditions de chargement monotonique indique que les valeurs de module correspondant au premier
chargement telles qu'obtenues par des essais triaxiaux sont adequates aux faibles densitCs relatives, alors que peut&tre des
valeurs plus ClevCes, dans le domaine de chargement rCpCtC, sont adkquates pour des densites relatives plus ClevCes.
For personal use only.
Mots elks : sable, dkformation, analyse, hyperbolique, tangente de rigiditC, module, densite relative, chargement mono
tonique, chargement rkpCt6.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. Geotech. J . 24, 366376 (1987)
i FIG. 1. Stressstrain curves for drained triaxial tests on sand, after Varadarajan and Mishra (1980).
For personal use only.
TABLE
3. Comparison of static and
dynamic k,
Static Dynamic 
Dynamic
Dr k~ k~ Static
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
0 0 .I 0.2 0.3
0 ( O/o )
FIG.3. Loading and unloading response in a conventional triaxial
path, after Negussey (1984). @ primary loading; A unloading;
+ reloading; A (Ei)loi,ding
= 220 MPa; B (Ei)rclondi,,g
= 340 MPa;
C = 460 MPa; D , = 50%; o; = 350 kPa.
For personal use only.
(q m 3 )
FIG.2. Initial and repeated loading.
Combining [6] and 191 and realizing that a; = a:, for triaxial
tests at low levels of deviator stress,
from which
[I I] k,  50(0.6Dr + 15)
Values of k , for various relative densities are shown in FIG.4. A comparison between E,,,., and various initial moduli E i ,
Table 2. after Negussey (1984). E,,,,,, resonant column; 0 E , , triaxial;
The values of Young's modulus number, k , , from static and A triaxial initial loading (primary), (Ei)loading= 220 MPa; B triaxial
reloading, (Ei)re~oading= 340 MPa; C triaxial un!oading, (Ei)unlonding


dynamic tests are compared in Table 3. It may be seen that the
k , values from dynamic or cyclic tests are 34 times the values 460 MPa; D , = 50%.
from static tests.
The major reason for the difference is illustrated in Fig. 2. on Ottawa sand as shown in Fig. 3. It may be seen that unload
The k, from static tests is based upon an E i computed from and reload curves are considerably stiffer than the curve for
extrapolation of data obtained at relatively high strain level, as primary loading. Negussey also obtained initial Young's mod
shown by the dashed line in Fig. 2. The actual stressstrain ulus values, E i , from uniaxial tests over a range of confining
curve at low strain for firsttime or primary loading will be stress and maximum Young's modulus values from resonant
quite different, as indicated by the solid line, so that E , and the column tests over the same range, and these are shown in
consequent k , from static tests are just fictitious initial values Fig. 4 together with the modulus values obtained from the tests
that define the stressstrain curve at higher strain values for in Fig. 3. It may be seen that the En,;,, from resonant column
primary loading conditions. Upon repeated loading the k , val tests are about 2.2 times higher than the E , values from primary
ues obtained from triaxial tests are much higher, as shown in loading uniaxial tests. The E , value from unloading (E,),,
Fig. 2, and are in reasonable agreement with the dynamic (point c) is about the same as that obtained from the resonant
values. column while the reloading E i is somewhat lower than (Ei)".
Support for this hypothesis is given by Negussey (1984), This finding is in reasonable agreement with Duncan et a/.,
who conducted loading, unloading, and reloading uniaxial tests who suggest that the unload and reload moduli are about the
BYRNE ET AL.
TABLE
4. Primary loadingLambe and TABLE
7. D'Appolonia et 01. data'"
Whitman (1968, Table 12.3)
Virgin Reload Virgin Reload
ka a{ tn, x lo' tn, x 10 ' M M
C o r r e c t i o n F a c t o r , CN
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
veroge
uncon et 0 1 .
N, = N C N
FIG. 7. Correction factor CNfor penetration tests after Peck et al.
lor Breokoble
(1974). ( 1 ton/ft2 = 101 kPa.)
01 I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relotive Density , Dr
For personal use only.
/
/
000
Cornforth 6" *a
\,/ **veroge
\
Observed Settlement ( m m )
0
0
I
20 40
. 60 80
I
100
FIG. 8. Observed and predicted settlements, after Meyerhof
(1965).
The values of k , that were shown in Table 1 correspond to the where Aq = the applied loading pressure (kPa); N = the stand
average line from Duncan et al. in Fig. 5 , and would be appro ard penetration value; p, = the predicted settlement (mm) and
priate for primary loading. is set to 25 mm by Terzaghi and Peck; b = the width of the strip
A summary of all k , values is shown in Fig. 6. It may be seen footing (m); and the water table is at depth greater than 2 b
that there is a wide range in values, with the Cornforth data below the base of the footing. Their chart is based upon the
providing an upper bound to the data. The values of k , that results of field plate load tests, field penetration tests, and
were listed in Table I correspond to the average line from the observations of field behaviour of footings.
Duncan et al. data in Fig. 6. Since settlement rather than loading pressure is desired, [13]
A comparison of average values of k , and kg from Duncan can be rewritten as
et al. suggests that they are related as follows: 0.75Aq 2b 2
[I4] P P = ? ( ~ )
BYRNE ET A L 37 1
s
Q 20
where f is a factor that can range between 0.125 and 0.75.


0
0
However, most field data fall within the range 0.25 <f < 0.5.
10 There is some controversy regarding the effect that the size
z 8 of footings has on settlement. If we consider footings of differ
ent sizes subjected to the same loading pressure and having the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
6

+ same depth ratio, then from [17], the settlement ratios will be
4 as follows:
2
e r z o g h ~8 Peck [18] P=(A)'
Po
(binm)
Peck et al. (1974), in discussing settlements, state that the used to backcalculate soil parameters for the proposed stress
information available in developing the 1948 chart was inter strain model.
preted conservatively, so that the actual settlements would be
less than 25 mm (1 in.), which subsequent experience has Soil constants from back analysis of field data
shown to be true. Hence [14] could be considered to give a The most important stressstrain constants for the proposed
conservative upper bound to the settlement. In addition, the N model are the Young's modulus number kc and exponent n ,
values upon which the charts were based are associated with an and the bulk modulus number k, and exponent rn. Field mea
average confining stress of 101 kPa (1 ton/ft" and hence N surements of penetration and settlement values do not allow
values used in [I41 should be corrected to N I as shown in these constants to be determined independently. However, as
Fig. 7. suming relationships between m and n and k L and k, based upon
Meyerhof (1965), in examining footing settlements, used an testing, actual values for these constants can be evaluated using
equation identical to 1141 for b > 1.2 m. He found it to give a a finite element stress and deformation analysis. It will be
conservative estimate of settlements as shown in Fig. 8. He shown that the exponents m and tz govern the increase in settle
suggested that the allowable pressure to produce a settlement of ment as a function of theigze of footing and are evaluated by
less than 25 mm could be increased by 50% over that suggested comparison with the observed trends shown in Fig. 9. Values
by Terzaghi and Peck, and that no correction for the depth of of k c and k g as a function of N I are then estimated from a
the water table need be considered, as it is already included in comparison with observed settlements. Based upon laboratory
the N value. Thus Meyerhof's equation is testing the relationships between the parameters are taken to be
I
Axis of Radial Symmetry
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
TABLE10. Relat~onsh~p
between h , and N l from
back analys~s
N I
Water table at
Dry sand base of foot~ng
kr d/0 = 0 cllb = 1 rllb = 0 dlb = 1
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
Normollzed P e n e t r o t ~ o nResistance, N ,
FIG. 13. Relationship between N , and D,, after Gibbs and Holtz
(1957).
TABLE
I I . k , values from back
analysis
For personal use only.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
N1
FIG. 12. Relationship between k E and N , from back analysis. the average values from Duncan et nl. At high relative densities
the backcalculated k r values are considerably higher than
those suggested by Duncan et al., with the upperbound values
3. Based upon the empirical eq. [ 171, the N , values required in the repeated loading range.
to give such settlements can be computed as follows: Sand constants in terms of Dr or N , and based upon back
analysis of observed settlements as well as laboratory tests are
shown in Table 12.
The model can also be extended to include dilatancy as
which, f o r b = 3, f = 0.25, and Aq = 100 kPa, gives the N , described by Byrne and Eldridge (1 982). Such dilatancy can be
values shown in Table 10. accounted for b_v a modifiecLformf Rowels stress  
dilatancy
It may be seen from Table 10 that the location of the water theory, provided the constant
 volume friction angle +IT rs
table has only a minor influence on the computed N , . In addi specified. Suggested +,,  
values are also included in Table 12.
tion, the analysis indicates that the effect of the footing depth,  ThCRFvalue really depends on the shape of the stressstrain
d, is well accounted for by the factor ( I  0.25cllb) suggested curve, which depends on both relative density and confining
by D'Appolonia et nl., so that it too has only a minor effect on stress. At high confining stress a dense sand has a stressstrain
the computed N I . response similar to that of a loose sand and vice versa. The
The relationship between k, and N , from Table 10 (f = 0.25) +
maximum friction angle given by [3] also depends on both
is shown in Fig. 12 and is seen to be nonlinear. The relationship relative density and confining stress and hence R s should be
for f = 0.5 is also shown. The most probable range of values related to +, and the following equation is proposed:
is bounded by these two lines. The normalized penetration
value, N , , can be correlated with relative density, D r . The most
commonly used relationship is the one proposed by Gibbs and
Holtz (1957) and is shown in Fig. 13. Based upon Figs. 12 and + +,
For stresses in the range of 101 kPa (I atm), = , and [20j
13 the values of k , given in Table 1 1, in terms of D , and N , , gives values of R, in close agreement with those shown in
are suggested. Table 12.
A comparison between the k, values predicted from back Sand constants can also be estimated from static cone re
analysis and those determined from laboratory and field mea sistance values, q,, based on empirical relationships with the
surements is shown in Fig. 14. It may be seen that at low standard penetration value, N . The q,/N ratio varies with grain
relative densities the backcalculated k E values are in the lower size and can be expected to range between 4 for silty sand and
range for primary loading condition and are in agreement with 8 for coarse sand (Robertson et al. 1983).
CAN. GEOTECH. .I.VOL. 24, 1981
Dr NI k ,; 11 k ,I .
I 41 Ad, + R,
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engi
neering Research Council of Canada for their financial support
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Cornell University on 12/02/12
Taking ko = 0.5 for virgin loading and 0.8 for reload, kB= 440
and 820, respectively, for primary and reload conditions. The
where x = a function of the relative density and for his data is sand in question had relative densities of 6570%.
given by
kg values from field meusuremetzts
[A21 x = 0.0655  0.0535 log Dr

10
Gould ( 1 954) has presented data on the compression behav
iour of 20 large earth dams in the United States as was shown
The constrained modulus, M , is given by in Table 8.
Beneath the crest of the dam it is not unreasonable to assume
onedimensional compression (no lateral bulging); hence the
secant constrained modulus, M,, is:
Equation [A31 can be written in a form similar to [4] in the text,
realizing that P a = 101.3 kPa:
28
[A61 kM =
D
0.06550.0535 log '

10
The bulk modulus, B , and the constrained modulus, M , are
related as follows: from which