0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

2 Aufrufe90 SeitenOct 17, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

ODT, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

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

2 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

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

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 90

1

First Author, Mekelle University

2

Co-Author, Mekelle University

Abstract

Soil stiffness at very small strain range (105) show non-linear relationship with the strain

level that gives an S-shaped degradation curve. In addition to this, experimental results show that

the small strain stiffness and its corresponding small strain levels is stress dependent. However,

existing small strain stiffness models do not show this stress dependency very well.

In this article stress dependency formulations for two selected small strain stiffness models (HS-

Small and extended hypoplasticity models) are incorporated. The two updated/proposed models

are validated and verified using element tests and boundary value problems using Plaxis-2D. The

updated models agree with experimental results at small strain level and improved results for

boundary value problems were obtained.

1. Introduction

The strain at which a soil behaves like elastic is very small. Researches show that the stiffness at

this strain level has a non-linear degradation with the strain level and plotting the small strain

stiffness against the shear strain at a smaller range gives an S-shaped degradation curve.

Figure 1.1: characteristic stiffness-strain behavior of soil with typical strain range for laboratory tests and structures

(Benz, 2007)

1

For the proper determination of soil-structure interaction, stiffness at a very small strain with its

non-linear dependency on strain amplitude should be considered. Analytical and numerical

results that are done without consideration of the behavior of small strain stiffness give

exaggerated results of settlement, deformation and heaving which is not real as we go deeper and

deeper to the ground. This problem can be improved by considering higher value of stiffness at

small strain ranges. Figure 1.2 shows the surface settlement for the field observation is higher

around the pile (the loaded part in general) and lower away from the excavation or unloaded part,

due to the small strain stiffness effect away from the loaded area. The part of excavation away

from the unloaded part is relatively rigid and hence lower settlement compared to the loaded area

where the small strain stiffness is no more different from the loading and unloading stiffness of

the soil cluster. Likewise, the deflection of the wall shows the same properties, i.e. the

deflection is high in the excavated portion and is lower away from the excavation. Actually, the

deflection is highly dependent on the depth of excavationtoo.

Figure 1.2: Typical wall deflection and ground surface settlement observed in the field and those obtained

through FEM analyses using models that do not consider small-strain behavior of soils (Gordon Tung-

Chin Kung,2009)

In addition to the non-linear dependency of stiffness on the strain level, it also depends on the

stress level. Experimental results confirm that higher small strain stiffness at higher stress level.

This is the case that is found when one goes deeper and deeper to the ground. Similarly many

experimental results show that thesmall strainitself is stress dependent i.e. just like the small

strain stiffness, it is expected higher strain at higher stress level. Therefore, boundary value

problems analyzed using models which incorporate this stress dependency of small strain

stiffness and small strain gives economical and better results.

ExperimentalResults

3.1. Experimental findings on stress dependency of small strainstiffness

A collection of experimental results on different soils from different literatures are summarized

below. Most of the results are reproduced to conveniently see the stress dependency of small

strain stiffness and towards the end; some of the experimental data collected to show the stress

dependency are again used to show if the small strain is stress dependent.

(a) (b)

120

80

60

e=0.64 e=0.60 e=0.62

e=0.57

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]

80

Gmax[MPa]

40

e=0.64 e=0.60

60 e=0.62 e=0.57

20

40

0

20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

20 40 60 80 100 120

P'/Pref[-]

P'[kPa]

Figure 2.1: Results of Bender Element Tests for Samples of Clean Sand at Various Initial Voids, Sagado et al. (2000)

(reproduced by B.W Ygzaw, 2010)

(a)

300 80 (b)

250

10% finess sand 60

10% fine sand

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]

Gmax[MPa]

200

40

e=0.49 e=0.47 e=0.53 e=0.53

e=0.54

20

100

50 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

P'[kPa] P'/Pref[-]

Figure 2.2: Results of Bender Element Tests for Samples of Sand with 10% Non plastic Silt at Various Initial Void

Ratios (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

G0 P' m

K 2.1

fe P'ref

Kis a coefficient that relates the small strain shear modulus with effective stress after

normalizing.

Table 2.1 : values ofKandmat different void ratios for clean sand (Sagado et al.,2000)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)

0.57 29.51 0.563

0.60 27.83 0.562

0.62 27.83 0.562

0.64 71.34 0.525

Table 2.2: values ofKandmat different void ratios for clean sand(Sagado et al.,2000)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)

0.47 58.95 0.706

0.49 65.89 0.631

0.53 57.76 0.627

0.54 46.37 0.691

0.57 54.97 0.636

(a) (b)

240

400 e=0.56 e=0.58 e=0.60 e=0.62 e=0.64 e=0.66

e=0.68

e=0.56 e=0.58 e=0.60 e=0.62 e=0.64 e=0.66

e=0.68

200

300

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]

160

Gmax[MPa]

200

120

100

80

0

40

0 200 400 600 800

0 2 4 6 8

s'3[kPa]

s'3/Pref[-]

Figure 2.3: Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. sigma 3 (b) normalized shear modulus vs. normalized '3,

Wichtmann et al., 2004 (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

in Figures 2.3 (a) and (b) (Wichtmann et al., 2004)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)

0,56 88.38 0,397

0,58 87.63 0,396

0,60 85.65 0,404

0,62 81.99 0,421

0,64 80.04 0,417

0,66 77.76 0,442

0,68 73.44 0,440

200

e0=0.69 e0=0.67 e0=0.64

e0=0.61

120

G0/F(e)[MPa]

160

G0[Mpa]

100

120

P'=s3 80

80 60

P'/Pref[-]

P'[kPa]

Figure 2.4: Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. mean stress (b) normalized shear modulus vs. normalized mean

stress, Wichtmann et al. (2004) (Reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

Table 2.4: Exponent m coefficients K, for different void ratios in Figure 2.4 (Wichtmann et al., 2004)

0.69 0.60 83.06 0.385

0.67 0.69 81.64 0.438

0.64 0.79 82.19 0.457

0.61 0.89 83.7 0.426

200 50

cyclic loading effects

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]

120 30

Gmax[MPa]

80

F2:DI0=54%,e=0.791 20 medium Fine

F1:DI0=48.5%, e=0.818

m2:DI0=51.8%,e=0.585

40 m1:DI0=49.8%,e=0.592 10

0 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 0 1 2 3 4 5

P'[kPa] P'/Pref[-]

Figure 2.5: Shows experimental results without cyclic: (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. mean stress (b) normalized

shear modulus vs. normalized mean stress (Y.G. Zhou et al., 2005)

(Wichtmannetal.,2004)

e DIo(%) K m

0,791 54 23.32 0,529

0,818 48,5 23.32 0,529

0,585 51,8 21.61 0,511

0,592 49,8 21.61 0,511

1 0.0006

0.8 0.0005

P=50kPa

P=100kPa g0.7=0.000252(P/Pref)0.536

0.6 P=200kPa 0.0004

G/Gmax[-]

P=400kPa

g0.7[-]

ts 63

All tes ID0=0.

0.4 full cylin -0.6 6

der 0.0003

0.2 0.0002

0

1E-0061 E - 0 0 5 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

0.01

Shear Strain amplitude, g0.7[-] 0.1 1 10

P'/Pref[-]

Figure 2.6: Degradation Curve (left), 0.7(right) vs. normalized stress of Toyoura sand (ID=0.630.66), Wichtmann

(2004) (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

(a) (b)

1 0.0003

( Pre f)0.6 31

sa/s r=

'

0.6 0kP 0kP 0.0002

G/Gmax[-]

P'=10 a

1

g0.7[-]

P'=20 a

=50

0.4 0.00015

0.2 0.0001

0

1E-006 5E-005

1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

SingleAmplitudeshearstrain,g[-] P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.7: (a) Degradation curve( I w a s a k i , 1978) (b) 0.7 vs. normalized stress for Toyoura sand

(reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

1 0.0006

0.0005

0.8

g0.7=0.00013 7(P'/Pref)0.507

0.0004

0.6

G/Gmax[-]

g0.7[-]

0.0003

0.4

0.0002

P'=25kPa P'=100kPa P'=400kPa P'=1600kPa

0.2

0.0001

0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0

0.1 1 10 100

Shear Strain,g [%]

P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.8: The effect of confining pressure on, Left: normalized modulus reduction curve (after Darendeli et

al., 2001) and Right: 0.7 vs. normalized stress for silty sands (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw,

2010)

1 0.06

0.8 0.05

g0.7=0.007(P'/Pref)0.4

0.6 P'=20kPa P'=50kPa P'=100kPa P'=200kPa P'=300kPa

0.04

G/Gmax[-]

g0.7[-]

0.4

0.03

0.2

0.02

0

0.0001 0.01

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1 10 100 1000

Shear strain ,g[%] P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.9: The effect of confining pressure on left: normalized modulus reduction (Kokusho, 1980), and

Right:2010 )

0.7vs. normalized mean

stress curves for Toyoura

Sand (Reproduced by B.W.

Ygzaw,

3. Stress dependency, enhancement of existingsmall

strain stiffnessmodels

3.1. Stress dependency, enhancement of the existing HS-Smallmodel

Experimental findings depicts that both the stiffness and the strain are stress dependent.

However, the numerical results of the existing HS-Small model do not show stress dependency

of shear strain. Considering this limitation analytical equation showing the stress dependency

will be seen and followed by numerical results of the updated model.

Numerical simulation was done using the PLAXIS built in HS-Small model formulated by Benz

(2007). Triaxial test considering a 15 nodded single element and axis symmetric is performed at

various stress levels (50kPa, 100kPa, 300kPa and 600kPa).

Figure 3.1: Stiffness degradation curve for the existing HS-Small model at various stress levels, Berlin

sand[left],stiffness degradation curve for the existing HS-Small model at various stress levels, Hostun sand [right]

(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011 )

The results in Figure 3.1show us that there is no dependence of the small strain on the level of

stress applied. Curves of various stress levels overlap each other. This result does not agree to the

actual behavior of soils collected for various experiments. This limitation is to be improved first

by developing analytical equations which capture this stress dependency of small strain stiffness

and then update the existing HS-Small model.

3.1.2. Analytical equations for stressdependency

As briefed in the very beginning of this research, soils show a non-linear stiffness even in the

very small strain range in which they are considered to be more elastic.

There are a lot of parameters that influence the small strain stiffness. But out of these parameters,

this research is limited to the main types of parameters which influence this stiffness, i.e. the

void ratio and the stress. Below are experimental results showing how the small strain stiffness

depends on meanstress.

Figure 3.2: Bender element test for (a): both void ratio and stress dependency, (b): stress dependency of maximum

shear stiffness (Sagado et al., 2000)

Figure 3.3: (a) both void ratio and stress dependency, (b): stress dependency of maximum shear stiffness

for Toyoura sand (Wichtmann, 2004)

An analytical solution to show this behavior or dependency of the small strain stiffness on

different parameters especially the void ratio and stress have been proposed by many researchers.

Some of these formulations are given inequation 3.1.

G

k 2.17e2

P

m Iwasaki et al. (1978)

,p

1e

3.4e 2

G A c Ishihara K.(1996)

max 1e

c

GCgP

1ng ege 2 Hardin and Richart (1963) 3.1

'ng

1e m

0

A

1nm

nm

GCgP1ngeag'ng Jmiolkowski(1991)

0

A

2.17e

m

2 P1m

G C B m Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (1977)

0

1e A m

GV2

0 s

wherek() is constant which increases asγdecreases, m() is exponent that depends on the level of

strain (), c in IshiharaK. represents an exponent for the stress dependency,Cg,ngandegare

intrinsic soil variables. In the Roesler aandprepresent normal effective stresses acting along

and perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation whereas c, n, m are fitting

parameters. The variableagin Jamiolkowski et al. (1991) is a regression constant.

FinallyC()andBin Iwasaki and Tatsuaka represent fitting parameters. The last formulation of

equation 3.1, which is result from bender element method ρ is total mass density of the soil, and

Vs represents shear- wave velocity.

Apart from the stress dependency of the small strain stiffness, the small strain itself is also stress

dependent. This is confirmed from a lot of experimental results.

Figure 3.4: stress dependency of small strain for Toyoura sand (Iwasaki, 1978)

Figure 3.5: stress dependency of small strain for Silty sand (Darendeli et al., 2001)

From the right side of Figures 3.4 to 3.5 one can see that there is an equation that shows the

correlation between the strain and the level of stress. This equation can in general be written as:

0.7 P'm

ref

0.7 3.2

P

ref

re

where is strain at a reference pressure andmis the fitting parameter which show the stress

0.7

f

dependency of strain. This reference strain can be approximated to be 0.0002; the experimental

results above more or less confirm this value of strain.

a) When strength parameters φ and c areknown

As a general case we know that the shear stress and shear strain are related by the shear stiffness

as:

G

3.3

For a soil with known values of initial void ratio, parameter A and the exponent of stress

dependencym, it is possible to compute G 0at various stress levels. According to Benz, 2007 the

strain at 30% reduction of the maximum shear stiffness is given by:

1 '

0.385 max 2c1cos2 sin2

'

3.4

0.7 max 1 3

G0 4

0.7 analytically for a given values of c, φ. This

analytical equation is compared with experimental results in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: comparison of the stress dependency of strain analytically and from experiment (experimental data are

reproduced from D’Elia, 2003)

In Figure 3.6 strength parameters of φ=340and c=0 are considered. It was not possible to find the

exact values of these strength parameters for that specific kind of Toyoura sand. Hence a partial

back calculation is done to fix these two parameters.

From the known values of0.7it is possible to compute strain at any level ofG/G0ratio and then

possible to draw the degradation curve from the following relation.

G 1 1 85

G0

0.3

0.7

3.5

So using the relation inequation 3.5,it is easy to develop the degradation curve for the Toyoura

sand give above.

Figure 3.7: comparing the analytical and experimental results of Toyoura sand (Reproduced by

B.W. Ygzaw)

In Figure 3.7 one can see that there is a small shift to the right in the analytical case as compared

to the experimental values; this is because the 0.7 for the analytical case is relatively higher and

that is dependent on the angle of friction.

b) When

ref

0.7 is known

In this case we can simply use the formulation inequation 3.2to compute the strain at different

stress levels. Actually the value of the reference strain is approximately 0.0002. So substituting

the value for0.7in toequation 3.5and further simplifying gives:

P'm

G ref0.7Pref 3.6

G P'm

0

ref 0.385

0.7 ref

P

Figure 3.8 shows the analytical and numerical results of the stress dependency of strainequation

3.6.

Figure 3.8: analytical solution of the stress dependency of strain (left), numerical result of the updated HS-Small

strain model (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

3.2.1. Numerical results of the Existing small strain stiffness containing HPmodel

Whatever sophisticated type of model used, the real behavior of soils is better observed from

experimental results. All the experimental results covered above confirm that both the stiffness

and the strain are stress-dependent. So the hypoplastic model is expected to show this behavior.

Figure 3.9:stiffness degradation curve for the existing HP-extended model at various stress levels, Berlin sand (left),

stiffness degradation curve for the existing HP-Extended model at various stress levels, Hostun sand (right)

(B.W.Ygzaw, 2011)

Similar to the existing HS-Small, it is needed to enhance the model further to capture the stress

dependency of the strain.

model

i. The parameter R

This parameter is the range of strain in which the intergranular strain is the only strain in the

deformation of a soil fabric. As proposed by Neimunis and Herle (1997), this parameter is stress

dependent i.e., its length is almost the same for every levels of stresses. Therefore it is impossible

to put the parameter R as stress dependent to have a stress dependent strain.

It is a parameter which controls the stiffness degradation curve. This parameter has similar

influence as the parameter R. Results of the extended hypoplastic model shows that the stiffness

degradation curve depends on the value of βrthat is considered. The higher the value of βrthe

smaller the strain is. Accordingly one of the proposed analytical equations is expressing the

parameter βr as stress dependent similar toequation 3.7(Tsegaye, 2011, private communication).

k

rr0 PP'

ref

3.7

βr0is fixed to beonein this research even if it needs further study using various experiments on

different types of soils and soil groups. The recommended values ofβras per to some literatures is

in the range of 0.1 to 0.6; but as per to Masin (2010) the values are from 0.09 to 0.5. In this

research, a value of 0.5 and 1 are consider as value of k andβrrespectively.

This parameter has similar effect like that of the parameterβr.The main difference withβris

that χ increases as strain increases. The common values of χ are between 0.7 and 6, with a

common value of 6. So a similar formulation is used for this parameter.

P'k

3.8

ref

ref

P

Due to lack of experimental results available to decide the value of the parameter χref, in this

research the value of is considered to be 2 and that ofk is 0.5 for both sands and clays.

ref

Figures 3.10shows how the two analytical formulations givenin equations 3.7 and 3.8show the

stress dependency of strain.

The limits for the normalized shear stiffness are fixed according to the known boundary

conditions of the following.

χ 0 for γ =R

ρ 1 for γ =εSOM 3.9

Substituting these boundary values it is possible to find the two limits ofG/GR.

Figure 3.10: stress dependency of strain from stress dependent βr for Berlin sand (analytical solution) (left), stress

dependent strain from stress dependent χ for Berlin sand (analytical solution) (right) (B.W. Ygzaw,2011)

equation

After incorporating the proposed formulation for the stress dependency of strain are plotted here

for the updated/enhanced HP model in figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11: numerical result of the updated HP-Small strain model (Berlin sand) (Left), numerical result of the

updated HP-Small strain model (Hostun sand) (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

From Figure3.11one can see that there is an improvement in the numerical results of the

proposed model.

4. Calibration of ModelParameters

4.1. Introduction

As there were no experimental results available, the calibration of the models is done one from

another model i.e. calibration of HP parameters from given HS-Small parameters and vice versa.

Parameters of the HS-Small model are going to be calibrated from given parameters of HP

model for Berlin sand taken from PLAXIS-2D, Karstunen and Brinkgreve (2010).

Table 4.1 contains the existing and updated HS-Small model parameters. However it was not

needed to calibrate all these parameters. Only few parameters need to be calibrated and the other

parameters are either internal parameter or can be calculated from other calibrated parameter

using different equations which relate one parameter to the other.

Table 4.1: Basic HS-Small model parameters

Parameter Symbol Unit Hardening HS-Small HS-Small-

SoilModel Updated

Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2]

Triaxial secant stiffness E ref

50

[kN/m 2

]

Oedometer tangent stiffness Eoed ref [kN/m 2

]

Unloading/reloading stiffness Eurref [kN/m2]

Effective friction angle φ [o]

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2]

Dilatancy angle ψ (o)

Power of stress dependency m [-]

Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2]

Failure ratio Rf [-]

K0-value (normal consolidation) K0 nc [-]

Poisson’s ratio νur [-]

Tensile strength σ tension [kN/m 2

]

Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] ---

Small strain stiffness Eoref [kN/m2] ---

Ratio of Gref

0

and G ur Gfac [-]

Skempton B-parameter [-]

Power for stress dependency of G0 m [-] --- ----

Exponent for γ0.7 m [-] --- ----

Internal parameters

ref

Initial secant stiffness Ei [kN/m2]

Cap parameter (steepness) α [-]

Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2]

Cap parameter (stiffness ratio) Ks/Kc [-]

State parameters

Parameter Symbol Unit Hardening HS-Small HS-Small-

SoilModel Updated

Plastic deviatoric strain γps [-] -- --

ps

Plastic shear strain γs [-] --

Pre-consolidation pressure PP (kN/m2)

Deviatoric strain history Hij [kN/m2] --

Triaxial and oedometer test were carried out using the given HP-model parameters and the

following procedures are followed to find the parameters of HS-Small model.

Triaxial test is done to calibrateE50ref, E0reforG0ref,Eurrefand γ0.7ref. So for this case a triaxial test with

the extended hypoplasticity model is done using the soil test in PLAXIS-2D.

Figure 4.1: Typical triaxial test for Berlin sand (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

- Computing theE50of the soil for each of the threetests

- Findinganequationwhichrelatesthe stressandtheE 50ofthesoiland wecans ee howthe

stiffness of the soil depends on the stress level, i.e.E

m

E ref

' P ref considering no

50 50 3

re

attraction, where f is the stiffness at a reference pressure, where here it is considered to be

E 50

100kPa. Here the exponentmcontrols the how the stiffness of the soil changes with the stress

range.

Figure 4.2: relation between the stress level and theE50of loose Berlin sand (B.W. Ygzaw,2011)

triaxial test before the test reaches the maximum strength as can be seen from Figure4.3.

Figure 4.3: the stiffness parameters of Berlin sand(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

ref

FromE0refit is possible to computeG0refusing,G 0.5E

ref

1and theγ0.7refis the strain

0 0

Similar to the triaxial test, an oedometric test is done to calibrate the rest of the parameters of the

HS-Small model, i.e.Eoedrefand theEref. Theufollowing oedometric model is takenforsimulating the

test. The same procedures like the once used in the triaxial test are followed to compute

bothErefand theEoed

ref

.

Figure 4.4: Typical oedometric test for Berlin sand using hypoplastic parameter (left), Comparison of the

settlement curves using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (loose Berlin sand) (right)(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.5: comparison of the strength of Berlin sand using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (loose Berlin sand)

(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.6: Stiffness degradation curve using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models for loose Berlin sand (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.7: Comparison of the settlement curves using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (dense Berlin sand)

(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.8: comparison of the strength of Berlin sand using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (dense Berlin

sand) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.9:stiffness degradation curve using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models for dense Berlin sand (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

HP-model has relatively large number of parameters to be calibrated than the corresponding HS-

Small model. Before proceeding to the direct calibration of HP-model parameters from given

HS-Small model parameters it is important to study what parameters are basic for HP-model and

determine their value from experiments.

These sets of parameters belong to the first set of parameters. The mechanical behavior of

granular soils (ranging from silt to gravel) can be modeled using the theory of hypoplasticity.

The model parameters depend mainly on the grain properties (grain shape and angularity,

distribution of grain sizes).Itis more appropriate to look for relations between constitutive

parameters and granulometric properties of grain assemblies instead of a detailed analysis of a

single grain.

The critical state is reached during monotonic shearing if both the stress rate and the volume

deformation rate vanish. For instance considering a cylindrical compression the following

conditions may be satisfied in a critical state condition.

The influence of the critical angle of friction on strength and strain for Berlin sand can be seen

inFigure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Influence of critical friction angle on, left: strength and right: strain of Berlin sand (numerical result)

(Reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

The parametershsis granulate hardness not the hardness of a single grain with the dimension of

stress and the exponentnis used to the pressure-sensitivity of grain skeleton (showing the non-

proportional increase of the incremental stiffness with increasing of mean stress). Both

parameters are better determined from oedometer test on loose (but not collapsible) soils, either

dry or fully saturated. Calibration of hs and n by direct regression is not recommended, but rather

adopt the physical meaning of the parameters. Small changes in measured data can cause large

scatter of calculatedhsandn.

Figure 4.11: Relation betweenei, ec, edwith the P (shaded zones denote in admissible states for simple grain

skeletons) (Herle and Gudehus, 1999)

and strain or deformation of Berlin sand.

Figure 4.12: influence of granulate hardness on, left: strength, right: strain or settlement (numerical result) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.13: influence of the exponent n on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,

2011)

iii. The parameters ed0,ei0and ec0

a)Parameter eco:it is a critical void ratio showing the position of the critical state line in the lnp vs. e p

space. void ratio at zero pressure can be computed from:

3Pn

ec0ecexp 4.1

h

s

In general the value ofecocorresponds exactly to the index test values of maximum void ratio

(emax) (Herle and Gudehus, 1999).

Figure 4.14: influence of critical void ratio on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,

2011)

b)Parameter ed0:corresponds to the minimum void ratio at zero pressure and controls position of the

minimum void ratio line. Best densification of granular materials can be generally reached by means of

cyclic shearing with small amplitude under constant pressure (Herle and Gudehus, 1999). Knowing a

single value foredtogether withhsandna minimum void ratio at zero pressure can be given by:

3Pn

ed0edexp 4.2

h

s

Figure 4.15: Influence of minimum void ratio on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,

2011)

c) Parameter ei0: maximum void ratio at zero pressure of a simple grain skeleton which is

reached during an isotropic consolidation of grain suspension in a gravity-free space (Herle and

Gudehus, 1999). It generally corresponds to the loosest possible state which is very difficult to

measure experimentally. Based on a study of idealized loosest packing of sphericalparticles

ei01.2ec0(Herle and Gudehus, 1999).

Figure 4.16: influence maximum void ratio on strength and settlement of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

a)Exponent: controls the influence of relative density,reon the peak friction angle,.

re= e-

4.3

edec-

ed

FromFigure 4.17one can also see how the critical and peak friction angles are related according

toequation 4.4.

c

tanktan 4.4

p

InFigure 4.17we can see the influence of the various values of the exponent α on strength and

settlement of Berlin sand.

Figure 4.17: influence of exponent α on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

b)Parameter: the parameterplays an important role only ifeis substantially lower thaneiwhich

is mostly the behavior of dense soils. Henceaccounts the void ratio dependence of stiffness.

ne -tr(T)n-1 e - e

i

E h 1+e 3 +a 2

-3a i0 d0

α

s

i

h s

e -e

c0 d0

ln

β= 2

3+ a-f d 3a

e

4.5

lni

e

The value ofis between0and2.5according to Herle and Gudehus (1999) and for natural sands it

is common to assume=1 independently of the granulometric properties. The influence of

these ranges of value of β can be observed fromFigure 4.18below.

Figure 4.18: influence of the exponent β on the strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical

result(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Apart from the common values used for the small strain parameters (mR=5, mT=2,

r=1,6)

some correlation are made below how to calibrate the values of the five parameters. In addition

to this the effect of these parameters on the stiffness degradation curve is shown using some

experimental results from literature and PLAXIS triaxial test with 100kPa confining pressure of

a Berlin sand with the soil parameters attached in the appendix is included under eachparameter.

a)The parameter mR: parameter controlling the initial (very-small-strain) shears modulus up on

180ostrain path reversal and in the initial loading. Finding the small strain stiffness for the

180oreversal (GR) from cyclic simple shear tests or if this tests are not available it can be

computed from empirical formula as are given in the following equations respectively.

mREur

GR mRGur 2(1v) from cyclic shear strain

ur

P m 4.6

G Af e OCR

k

emprical formula

R P

ref

fe is function of the void ratio (

2.17e2 (1e) formostsandsand 2.97e2 (1e) for most clay soils and fine grained

soils (Benz, 2007)), OCR is the effect of void ratio which is mostly taken to be 1 as the exponent

kis approximately 0 for most soils

Combining the two equations of equation 4.6 and solving formR(Tsegaye, 2009) has

proposedequation 4.7.

P m

2(1v)Af e OCR k

ur

mR Pref

2 4.7

Eur

The influence of the parametermRon stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand can be seen from

PLAXIS soil test below.

Figure 4.19: influence of the parametermRon the stiffness degradation curve of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

b) The parameter mT: parameter controlling the initial shear modulus up on 90 0strain reversal.

This strain reversal has relatively complex testing method for its determination, it is commonly

taken as mT=0.5mR>1.

degradation curve obtained using accurate local strainmeasurements.

Figure 4.20: effect ofRon the stiffness degradation curve (Masin, 2010)

Similarly, the numerical result inFigure 4.21confirms the influence of the elastic range in

Figure4.20.

Figure 4.21: influence of the parameter R on stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

Theparameters

r,control the stiffness degradation curves.

Figure 4.22: the influence ofrandon the stiffness degradation curves (Masin, 2010)

Similarly the influence of the two parameters in the stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand

can be seen inFigure 4.23.

Figure 4.23:Numerical Result for the influence of the parameter βr in the stiffness degradation curve in Berlin sand

(left) and influence of the parameterχin the stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

5. Validation and Verification ofmodels

The two updated models are validated and verified comparing their numerical resultsw i t h

similar numerical results simulated using their original models and

measured results, when available. Model validation is commonly done

using boundary value problems and element tests. One element test,

triaxial test and three boundary value problems, two excavations and

o n e t u n n e l a r e used.

Plaxis-2D is used for the calculation of the boundary value problems and some necessary results

are compared with available measured results and other results using original models.

5.1. Elementtests

For the element test, triaxial in this case, the data for the soils considered are taken from the J

Hintner et al. (2006). Dense Hostun sand is taken for the validation and verification of the two

models. The parameters for the HP-model are calibrated from the HS-Small. Some basic

properties of the soil considered are given in table 5.1.

Table 5.1: some basic properties of the dens sand used for the element test

1.7 0.35mm 0.63 1.0 0.63-0.68

The soil test in PLAXIS is used to simulate the triaxial test at sigma3 of 100kPa, 300kPa, and

600kPa.

Figure 5.1: triaxial test results showing stress dependency, solid and broken lines represent the updated and

original HSS model results)(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.2: triaxial test results showing stress dependency, solid and broken lines represent the updated and original

HP model results (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

i. Excavation-1

This excavation is taken from Karstunen and Brinkgreve (2011). It is a hypothetical submerged

excavation in granular soil and its construction is close to a river where it is excavated in order to

construct a tunnel. The excavation is 30m wide and a final depth of 20m. As it extends

longitudinally to a large distance, plane strain model is used. The excavation side is supported by

30 m long diaphragm walls, which are braced by horizontal struts at an interval of 5m. There are

soil parameters for hypoplastic model only. The parameters for the HS-small model are

calibrated from the HP-model parameters.. There were no measured results to compare with;

hence the updated models are compared with their respective original models.Inaddition a cross

comparison between the two models can be done in terms some known behavior ofsoils.

Figure 5.3: geometry of Berlin excavation-1 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

a) Deformed Mesh:the deformed mesh after the final excavation phase for the two models

HS-Small and HP models (original and updated in Figures5.4 and 5.5. Fromb o t h

Figures it can be seen that there is no consistency in the

maximum deformation the original and updated models are

c o m p a r e d . H o w e v e r, i t c a n b e s e e n t h a t t h e r e i s r e l a t i v e l y

s m a l l e r d e f o r m a t i o n i n t h e H S S - m o d e l c o m p a r e d t o t h e HP-model.

Figure 5.4: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HP-models, left and right

respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.5: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HSS-models, left and right

respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

b) Settlement below the surface:This is common that Hypoplastic models gives a softer

response in settlement results as compared to elastoplastic models, especially HS-Small

model which considers the stress dependency of small strain stiffness gives stiffer

response. There is a consistency in the results of the settlements of the two models, i.e.

both updated models show a relatively softer behavior as compared to the original

models. This is because the formulation added in the updated models affects the stiffness

of soils in two opposite ways depth on depth, i.e. as our reference pressure is 100kPa, the

model predicts softer response for a point which is above 10m depth and stiffer for a soil

element below 10m considering a soil type of effective unit weight of 10kN/m 3. The

larger part of the excavation is in a depth of less than 10m, where the effective stress is

less than 100kPa (lower than the reference pressureconsidered).

Figure 5.6: settlement below surface of Berlin excavation for different soil models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

c) Horizontal deflection of the diaphragm wall: the dominating deflection response for

the diaphragm wall is the horizontal deflection; hence the horizontal deflection using the

models considered is given in Figure 5.7. The HSS model has stiffer response than the

corresponding HP model. In addition to this there is no pronounced change of the updated

models especially in theHP-model.

d) Vertical heave on the excavated surface: a vertical heave was checked at a distance of

7m to the right side of the wall. Calculation results are as shown in Figure 5.7. The

updated HSS-model gives stiffer result than all other model’s result considered here.

There is no still large difference in the results of the original and updatedHP-model.

Figure 5.7: horizontal deflection of diaphragm wall using different models (left), vertical heave on the excavated

surface (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

ii. Excavation-2

This excavation is also on Berlin sand, but with different soil parameters and different geometry.

In this excavation there was not available soil parameters for the HP-model; hence calibration of

parameters is done from the given HS-Small model. The geometry of the excavation is given in

Figure 5.8. The soil properties and the geometry of the excavation directly taken from Benz

(2007)

Figure 5.8: geometry of the a triple anchored deep excavation on Berlin sand(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

In addition to those properties the anchor and plate properties are tabulated below. The interface

roughness is considered to be 0.8, except in the 1m extension indicated in the Figure. The 2D

deformation mesh and a detailed geometry for this excavation are included in appendix E.

Figure 5.9: settlement of the deep excavation using the different models considered (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure5.10: horizontal deflection results of the deep excavation for the different models (left), vertical heave for the

Tri anchored deep excavation (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

In this research work a tunnel constructed in the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM)

method of supporting is considered. The geometry and the soil properties of this tunnel problem

are taken from Benz (2007).

Actually, the material parameters for the HP-model are calibrated from the known HSS-model.

Plain strain method of analysis with a fine type of mesh is considered. The material type is

drained. As the NATM type of excavation is used mostly used in weak ground conditions the

weak marble layer in the tunnel periphery is strengthened by reinforcing with rock bolts and this

is modeled in PLAXIS by introducing additional cohesion, in this case it is considered cohesion

of 25kN/m2. The lining in the tunnel is considered as a plate of stiffness (EA) =3.75×10 6,

flexural rigidity (EI) = 1.95×104, Poisson’s ratio () = 0.2 and unit weight ofc=25kN/m3.

Using the tunnel reduction method the tunnel remains unsupported until an artificial support

pressure of βp0, where β is the load reduction factor where its value is between 0 and 1and

p0represents the initial rock mass pressure before excavation. The load reduction factor is

implemented in the calculation phase.Itwill be briefed below and a value of β =0.25 is used here.

An interface roughness,R=1 is considered in the lining and soil/rockinteraction.

Figure 5.11: geometry and layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.12: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation of tunnel using the original and updated HSS-models, left

and right respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.13: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HP-models, left and right

respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.14: Bending moment diagrams on the plate of the lining of the tunnel using HP- original and updated (left

and right respectively) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.15: Bending moment diagrams on the plate of the lining of the tunnel using HSS- original and updated (left

and right respectively) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.16: the settlement of the surface due to tunnel construction for the different models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

The settlement of the ground surface due to tunnel construction for the different models shows

variety of results. However, there is consistent stiffening of the updated models as compared to

their corresponding original models. Similar to the previous boundary value problems, the HSS-

model shows stiffer results than the HP-model.

6. Conclusion andRecommendation

6.1. Conclusion

From various experimental results, the maximum stiffness of soils is noted to depend on mean

stress, void ratio, over consolidation ratio (OCR) and plasticity index (PI). It is further noted that

the rate of degradation of the normalized stiffness is dependent on mean normal stress. In this

research this mean stress dependency of the degradation is studied by evaluating several

experiments reported elsewhere (Wichtmann et al., 2004; Sagado et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2005;

Iwasaki et al., 1978 etc). Furthermore two well known soil models are enhanced so that this

experimentally observed dependency is incorporated in their response.

The two models enhanced were the commercially available HS-Small (Benz, 2007) and the

Hypoplastic model by Wolffersdorff (1996) later enhanced by Niemunis and Herle (1997).

The HS-Small model is extended from the HS model (Schanz, 1999) by Benz (2007) by adding

small strain stiffness by the Overlay approach. Similarly, the Wolffersdorff (1996) Hypoplastic

model has been enhanced by the intergranular strain in the small strain range and during change

of direction (Niemunis and Herle, 1997). In such a way, its excessive ratcheting behavior and

accumulation of pore pressure were significantly reduced. However, it is noted that the response

of these models can be considerably enhanced further by considering the stress dependency of

the rate of degradation of the stiffness which makes the central theme of this research work.

Accordingly, both models have been enhanced and evaluated with this regard. The enhanced

models are further evaluated both analytically and numerically. Numerical results of element

tests and boundary value problems show better trend clearly showing the influence of confining

stress on the rate of degradation of small strainstiffness.

It is also noted that generally, the results from both updated and original HS-Small models are

stiffer than the corresponding HP-models.

Referring to the boundary value problems considered in this thesis, the following is concluded:

updated models, i.e., as the two updated models function to be stiff when the stress level

is greater than the reference stress (100kPa) considered. Therefore in both excavations

since the large part of the excavation is in a stress level less than this 100kPa.Inthe case

of the excavation of the tunnel the large portion of the excavation was in the stress level

which is greater than 100kPa; so that is why there is no a stiffer response in both updated

models.

2. Deflection: the deflection in the vertical wall can be seen along depth; hence we can see a

change of the updated models response from relatively softer response in a depth that can

produce a stress of less than 100kPa to a stiffer response in depths which produces stress

levels of greater than 100kPa. This behavior can better be seen in the Updated-HS-Small

model than the corresponding Updated HPmodel.

Vertical Heave:in the case of heave a nice result and the expected result is obtained in both

excavations and in both updated models. This is because the vertical heave considered in

both cases is at a depth that can produce a stress greater than the reference stress;

therefore a stiffer response of both updated models and that is what the two excavation

results confirmed.

6.2. Recommendation

It is believed that this thesis gets into a considerable depth in showing the influence of confining

stress on the rate of degradation of small strains. With this recognition two well known models

have been enhanced and evaluated.

Application of this concept on soil models is highly recommended. Further more tests on small

strain stiffness are still limited; it is thus believed that there is still a need for more experimental

results to confirm this stress dependency for many other types of soils.

There are no adequate boundary value problems (that the author is aware of) with sufficient

measurements (settlement, vertical heave and structure deflection) that allow a thorough

evaluation of such models at small strain level.Itis strongly recommended that the models should

be further evaluated with such measurements so that the gain by doing so is adequately

illustrated.

Considering the existing HP model a further investigation of the parameters should be done so

that a better parameter may also be obtained for the stress dependency, because there are model

parameters with similar influences in most respects.

7. References

Tsegaye, A.B., Ygzaw B.W. and Benz T. (2013) Stress-Dependency of Intergranular Strain. In:

Yang Q., Zhang JM., Zheng H., Yao Y. (eds) Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials.

Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Kolymbas, D. (2000). Introduction to hypoplasticity.Advances in geotechnical engineering

andtunneling.Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Wu, W. and Bauer, E. (1993). A hypoplastic model for barotropy and pycnotropy of granular

soils. In: D. Kolymbas (ed.),Modern Approaches to Plasticity,pp. 225-245.

Von Wolffersdorff, P. (1996). A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a predefined limit

state surface.Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials,1(4), pp. 251-271.

Herle, I. and Gudehus, G. (1999). Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive

model from properties of grain assemblies.Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials, 4,

pp. 461-486.

Bauer, E. (1996). Calibration of a comprehensive hypoplastic model for granular

materials.Soilsand Foundations.36(1), pp. 13-26.

Wu, W., Bauer, E. and Kolymbas, D. (1996). Hypoplastic constitutive model with critical state

for granular materials.Mechanics of Materials,23(1), pp. 45-69.

Gudehus, G. (1996). A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials.Soils

andFoundations,36(1), pp. 1-12.

Wu, W. and Kolymbas, D. (1990). Numerical testing of the stability criterion for hypoplastic

constitutive equations.Mechanics of Materials, 9(3), pp. 245-253.

Kolymbas, D. (1991). An outline of hypoplasticity.Archive of Applied Mechanics,61(3), pp.

143-151.

Neimunis, A. and Herle, I. (1997). Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain

range.Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials,2(4), pp. 279-299.

Hintner, J. Vermeer P. and Baun, C. (2006). Advanced finite element versus classical settlement

analyses. In: H. Schweiger (ed.),Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering.

London: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 539-546.

Masin, D. (2010). Hypoplasticity for practical applications. Ph. D Course Material on

Hypoplasticity, Charles University in Prague.

Niemunis, A. (2002).Extended hypoplastic models for soils. Ph. D. Thesis, Bochum University.

Tsegaye, A. (2009).Evaluation of material models for liquefaction. Master thesis. Delft

University of Technology.

Masin, D. (2010). PLAXIS implementation of hypoplasticity. Plaxis B.V., Delft.

Tsegaye, A.B. (2010). Modeling liquefaction behavior of sands by means of hypoplastic

model.NUMGE 2010,7thEuropean Conference Numerical Methods in

GeotechnicalEngineering, Benz and Nordal (eds), pp. 81-87.

Benz, T. (2007).Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences.Ph. D. Theis,

University of Stuttgart.

Kondner, R. and Zelasko, J. (1963). A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for

sands.2ndPanA m e r i c a n C o n f e r e n c e on Soil Mechanics and

F o u n d a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g , Brazil, pp. 289- 394.

Ishihara, K. (1996).Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jamiolkowski, M., Leroueil, S. and Lo Presti, D. C. F. (1991)Design parameters from theory

topractice, theme lecture,Proc., Geo-Coast, ‘91, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-41.

Wehnert, M. (2006).Ein Beitrag zur drainierten und undrainierten Analyse in derGéotechnique’,

Ph. D. Thesis. University Stuttgart.

Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1977). Effect of grain size and grading on dynamic shear moduli of

sands.Soils and Foundations, 17(3): 19-35.

Roesler, S. (1979). Anisotropic shear modulus due to stress an isotropy.Journal of

GeotechnicalEngineering. Div. ASCE, 105(7): 871-880.

Hardin, B. (1978). The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior for Soils,Earthquake Engineering

andSoil Dynamics, Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division

Specialty Conference, Pasadena, California, pp. 3-90.

Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Takagi,Y. (1978). Shear modulus of sands under cyclic torsional

shear loading.Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 18 (1),

pp..39-56.

Hardin, B. Richart , F. (1963). Elastic wave velocities in granular soils.Journal of SoilMechanics

and Foundations Division, ASCE, 89(1), pp.33-65.

Hardin B.O. and Black, W.L. (1969). Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay (closure).

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ASCE, 95(6), pp. 1531-1537.

Karstunen, M. and Brinkgreve, R. (2011). Soil modeling day. Advanced course in Computational

Geotechnics, 24 March. Schiphol, The Netherlands.

Soreide. O. K. (1990).Mixed hardening models for frictional soils. Ph. D Thesis, Norwegian

University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Tung-Chin Kung, G. Chang-Yu, O. and Hsein Juang , C. (2009). Modeling small-strain behavior

of Taipei clays for finite element analysis of braced excavations.Computersand

Geotechnics,36(1-2),pp.304-319.

D’Elia, B., Lanzo, G. and Pagliaroli, A. (2003). Small-Strain Stiffness and Damping of Soils in a

Direct Simple Shear Device.Pacific Conference on Earthquake

Engineering,Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Università di Roma

“La Sapienza”,Italy.

Salgado, R., Bandini, P. and Karim, A. 2000.Shear Strength and Stiffness of Silty Sands.Journal

ofGeotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(5), pp. 451-462.

Wichtmann, T., Niemunis, A. and Triantafyllidis, T. (2004). Dynamic properties of sand. Ruhr-

University Bochum, University of Patras, Greece, October 2004 (Retrieved on 20thof

May, 2011:

fromhttp://www.rz.unikarlsruhe.de/~gn97/torsten/vortraege/patras_dynamic_2004.pdf)

Wichtmann, T. and Triantafyllidis, T., (2004). Inﬂuence of a cyclic and dynamic loading history

on dynamic properties of dry sand, part II: cyclic axial preloading.Soil Dynamics

andEarthquake Engineering, 24(11), pp. 789-804.

Wood, D. (1990).Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Matsuoka, H., and Nakai, T. (1977).Stress-strain relationship of soil based on the ''SMP''Proc.

Specialty Session 9,Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics

andFoundations Engineering, Tokyo, pp. 153-162.

Rowe, P. (1962). The stress-dilatancy relation for the static equilibrium of an assembly of

particles in contact.In Proc. of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical

andPhysical Sciences, 269(1339), pp. 500-527.

Li, X. and Dafalias, Y. (2000). Dilatancy of cohesionless soils.Géotechnique,50(4), pp. 449- 460.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. and Bonnier, P. (1999). Formulation and verification of the Hardening-

Soil Model.Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 281-

290.

Benz, T., Vermeer, P. and Schwab, R. (2009). A small- strain overlay model.InternationalJournal

of Numerical and Analytical. Methods in Geo mechanics,33(1), pp. 25-40

Atkinson, J. (2000).Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.Géotechnique, 50(5),pp. 487- 508.

Jardine, R., Symes, M. and Burland, J. (1984).The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial

apparatus.Géotechnique, 34(3), pp. 323-340.

Clayton, C. and Khatrush, S. (1986). A new device for measuring local axial strains on triaxial

specimens.Géotechnique, 36 (4), pp. 593-597.

Zhou, Y. and Chen, Y. (2005). Inﬂuence of seismic cyclic loading history on small strain shear

modulus of saturated sands.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(5), pp. 341–

353.

Kumar, J. and Clayton, C. (2007). Effect of sample torsional stiffness on resonant column test

results.Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(2), pp. 221-230.

Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.( 1 9 4 3 ) . D e s c r i p t i o n o f s t r e s s - s t r a i n c u r v e s b y t h r e e

parameters

Technical Note No. 902,National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington DC.

Ezaoui, A. and Di Benedetto, H. (2009). Experimental measurements of the global anisotropic

elastic behavior of dry Hostun sand during triaxial tests and effect of sample

preparation,Géotechnique, 59(7), pp. 621-635.

Ygzaw, B. (2010).Stress dependency of small strain stiffness. Semester project, Norwegian

University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Ygzaw, B. W. (2011).Formulation and evaluation of two stress dependent small strain

stiffnessmodels. Master Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim .

Ibrahim, A., Orense, R., Pender, M. and Kikkawa, N. (2009). Quasi-elastic stiffness of

Auckland clays. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineeringconference, Dept of

Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland. ,pp.55-62.

Darendeli, M . (2001).Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction

andmaterial damping.Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

Idriss, I. (1990). Response of Soft Soil Sites during Earthquakes. Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed

Memorial Symposium, 2, pp. 273-289.

8. Appendix

8.1. AppendixA

ddepdp A.1

v v

If we consider the elastic swelling modulus, Ksand the elastoplastic compression modulus,

Kcsuch that:

ep dP'

d

v

Kc A.2

dedP'

v

Ks

From equation A.2 the plastic volumetric strain increment can be given by:

p ' ' K

v d dP dP Ks cdP'

Kc K s KcK s

A.3

Considering the plastic modulus, H the plastic strain in equation in A.3 can be further written as:

p '

d dP A.4

v

H

KsKc .

The cap is modified type of cam clay yield function put in an equation form as:

c

f q%

P'a 2 P' a 20 A.5

c

M2

Whereq%1123and a = ccotp

3. From plasticity theory (associated flow rule and normality of plastic strains to the plastic potential

function) we have:

g f

d d cd c2d

p

P'c

v c c c

A.6

P' P'

A.7

dPc' 2H(P'a)d

For a stress dependent modulus H, we may write the Janbu/Ohde stress dependency equation as:

Pam

HH ref

c A.8

a

ref

am

'

dP'2Href 3

P'ad A.9

c ref c

P a

Here'is3 the minimum eigenvalue of the stress tensor and Prefis the reference confining

pressure. Hrefis the reference is stiffness at the reference pressure.

4. Consistency condition

In the theory of plasticity, the consistency condition assures the condition that the stress state

should satisfy the yield function, thus:

df0

f f A.10

df d 0

ij

ij

Where k is the hardening parameter and relates the stress change to certain permanent

deformation or plastic deformation. In this case, plastic volumetric strain is related to the pre-

consolidation stressP'c. Thus we may further write equation A.10 as (for cap only):

f f f

d

dfc dP

'

0dP

'

d '

Pc c

f'

P

c

f

P' 2(P'a)2

f

q%

A.11

qf%M '

2

'2 P ac

P

c

f

T 2q%dp'

d 2P'a

2q%

2

2(P'a)d p' dq %

%

2

M dq M

A.12

Accounting the first line and fourth parts of equation A.11, equation A.12 we can have:

'

dp 'a dp'

c P '

Pc a

'am

'

dp 2Href 3 P'ad A.13

c

ref

c

P a

d dp'

c

ref a

' m

3

P'a

ref

P a

2H

d c

'

d A.14

c P am '

2Href c

ref

P a

c'

P a

From equation A.7 and A.14 we can have:

1 P'a m

dp

p

c dp' 1 P a

' 1m

v

HrefPrefa

c H P a m1m

v

ref ref

c

P a

'

Prefam

p c A.15

for m < 1

H 1m P ac

v ref '

8.2. AppendixB

Table B.1: Relations for shear modulus G0for CLEAN SANDS and GRAVELS (Benz, 2007)

Table B.2: Relations for shear modulus G0of CLAYS (Benz, 2007)

Table B.3: Proposed relationships for the shear modulus G0of entire soil groups (Benz, 2007)

8.3. AppendixC

parameters for some soils

Figure C.1: Effect of shearing rate on the strain-dependent (a) shear modulus and (b) normalized shear

modulus for Orewa residual soil (Ibrahim et al., 2009)

Figure C.2: the effect of over consolidation ratio on the variation of (a) shear modulus (b) normalized shear

modulus with shearing strain amplitude as measured in torsional resonant column (kaolinite specimen)

(reproduced from M.B. Darendeli, 2001)

Figure C.3:Maximum shear modulus vs. Void ratio for various confining stresses for Toyoura sand (T.

Wichtmann et al., 2004)

Figure C.3:Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. sigma3 (b) normalized shear modulus vs.

normalized sigma3 (reproduced from T. Wichtmann et al., 2004)

Figure C.4:Gmax/f (e) vs. normalized mean stress relationship of air –dry Toyoura sand (reproduced from Iwasaki et

al., 1978)

Figure C.5:Relationship of normalized shear modulus vs. normalized mean principal stress for

saturated Toyoura sand (Iwasaki et al., 1978)

Figure C.6:(a) Normalized modulus vs. Shear strain amplitude at different stress levels (b) gamma 0.7 vs.

normalized mean stress (T.Wichtmann et al., 2004)

Figure C.7: variation in empirical normalized modulus reduction curves, (a): EPRI (1993c), (b) Idris (1990)

for different types of soils (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

8.4. AppendixD

A) Flow chart for the numerical implementation of the proposed HP model inPLAXIS

Tˆ ; Tˆ * ; a; F; D;e; ed; ec;

ei; fe; fd; f

Compose L and N :

L fb f e

tr Tˆ 2

F 2

I a 2 Tˆ Tˆ

N fb f e f d Fa Tˆ Tˆ

tr Tˆ 2

Compose intergranular strain tensor :

included (mR > 2)?

h; h ; hˆ

Compose :

L : hˆ hˆ and N hˆ

Compose tangent

stiffness M

hˆ : D > 0 ?

mT 1 mR L

m Rm

T L :hhˆ ˆ

m LR

T m 1

1 m L : hh ˆˆˆNh

T

Compose exponent

r :

stress

dependent strain ? r r 0

Compose exponent

r :

Pref k

rr 0

P'

T M ; D; h

T 't t T't Tt; ht t ht ht; e = 1 etr(D)

B) Calibrationresults

Figure D.2: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (layer 20-40m) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Layer below 40m:Figures D.2 shows calibration results of this layer

Figure D.3: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (layer below 40m) (B.W. Ygzaw,

2011)

The calibration results of the various layers of the NATM tunnel excavated in Steinhaldenfeld

are given in Figures D.3 to D.6 below.

Figure D.4: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (fill) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure D.5: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (upper marble) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure D.6: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

For the limestone layer given in Figure D.6, the calibration result was complex and it is only the

calibration trial included here. This calibration is difficult, because the limestone layer is a rock;

hence this layer is considered as a rock with elastic material properties.

Figure D.7: calibration trial results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (limestone) (B.W.

Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure D.8: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

8.5. AppendixE

PLAXIS Results

Figure E.1: Excavation in Berlin sand: 2D mesh (left) and detail geometry (right) (Benz, 2007)

Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HSS models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HP models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

8.6. Appendix F

Material Parameters

Table F.1: existing hypoplastic model parameters for model comparison (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Soil type φc[0] hs [kPa] n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-] e0[-]

Hostun 32 3800000 0.29 0.61 0.91 1.09 0.134 1.35 0.65

sand

Berlin 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.608

sand

Parameters for intergranular strain concept

Soil type mR mT Rmax βr χ

Hostun 5 2 0.00006 0.5 2

sand

Berlin 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0

sand

Table F.2: existing HS-Small model parameters for Berlin sand for model comparison (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

ref ref

E50 [kPa] Eur [kPa]

ref

Soil type Eoedref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ[0] ψ[0] γ0.7ref[-] G0 [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]

Berlin 25000 28000 100000 0.55 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608

sand

Hostun 30000 30000 90000 0.55 0 42 16 0.0002 108000 0.25 0.65

sand

layer φc[0] hs [kPa] n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-] e0[-]

1(loose) 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.716

2(dense) 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.608

Additional parameters of extended HP

layer mR mT Rmax βr χ

1(loose) 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0

2(dense) 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0

Table F.4: calibrated HS-Small parameters for the Berlin sand- Excavation-2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

ref ref

E50 [kPa] Eur [kPa]

ref

layer Eoedref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ[0] ψ[0] γ0.7ref[-] G0 [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]

1(loose) 22500 23000 78960 0.6 1.0 340 0 0.00008 73000 0.25 0.716

4

2(dense) 25000 28000 100000 0.5 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608

5

Table F.5: Berlin sand parameters of the reference HS-Small model-excavation 2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

2

Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 75000 125000 131300

ref

Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 45000 75000 105000

ref

Unloading/reloading stiffness Eur [kN/m2] 180000 300000 315000

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 1 1 1

nc

K0-value K0 [-] 0.43 .38 0.38

0

Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

ref

Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 405000 675000 675000

of G0

of γ0.7

Internal parameters

Cap parameter (stiffness ratio) Ks/Kc [-] 2.15 2.07 1.59

Table F.6: calibrated HP- model parameters for Berlin sand in table F.5-Excavation-2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Critical friction [0] 31.5 32.5 31

angle,φc

Granulate [kPa] 5000000 10000000 14000000

hardness,hs

Exponent,n [-] 0.35 0.32 0.32

Critical void ratio, [-] 0.84 0.88 0.92

ec0

Minimum void [-] 0.54 0.5 0.4

ratio,ed0

Maximum void [-] 1.1 1.38 1.41

ratio,ei0

Exponent,α [-] 0.22 0.2 0.2

Exponent,β [-] 2.2 2.2 2.2

Initial void ratio,e0 [-] 0.75 0.72 0.68

ore

Additional parameters for modeling the intergranular strain

Intergranular 0.00006 0.00006 0.00007

radius,R [-]

Exponent,χ [-] 2 2 2

Factor,mR [-] 4 4 4

Factor,mT [-] 2 2 2

Exponent,k [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5

Parameter, βr0 [-] 1 1 1

Table F.7:Updated HP-model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

0

φc(deg) φc[ ] hs n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-]

[kPa]

33 3800000 0.29 0.61 0.91 1.09 0.134 1.35 0.65

Additional parameters of extended HP

mR mT Rmax r0 χ K Pcut

5.0 2.0 0.00006 0.5 2.0 1 1.0

Table F.8: Updated HS-Small model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test (B.W. Ygzaw,

2011)

Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 36000

ref

Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 30000

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 0

nc

K0-value (normal consolidation) K0 [-] 0.4

ref

Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 270000

Internal parameters

ref

Initial secant stiffness Ei [kN/m2] 65488

Table F.9: HSS- model material parameters for the all layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Parameter Symbol Unit Fill Upper Lower Limestone

marble marble

Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 12500 41666.67 20000 239583.33

ref

Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 10000 33000 16000 190000

ref

Unloading/reloading Eur [kN/m2] 30000 100000 48000 575000

stiffness

Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2] 100 100 100 100

nc

K0-value) K0 [-] 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.43

ref

Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 405000 675000 675000 2400000

7

Exponent for G0 m [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2] 10085.8 33840 16397 173187

ratio)

Table F.10: HP- model material parameters for the all layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

0

Critical friction [] 29 31 31 37

angle,φc

Granulate [kPa] 30900 52800 33800 15380000

hardness,hs

Exponent,n [-] 0.68 0.8 0.71 0.4

Critical void ratio, [-] 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

ec0

Minimum void [-] 0.65 0.69 0.68 1

ratio,ed0

Maximum void [-] 0,8 0.96 0.96 1.1

ratio,ei0

Exponent,α [-] 0.2 0.2 0.18 0.24

Exponent,β [-] 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.2

Initial void ratio,e0 [-] 0.7 0.69 0.68 0.65

ore

Additional parameters for m8odeling the intergranular strain

Intergranular 0.0001 0.00005 0.00015 0.00015

radius,R [-]

Exponent,χ [-] 2 2 2 1

Factor,mR [-] 8 8 8 8

Factor,mT [-] 2 2 2 2

Exponent,k [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Parameter, βr0 [-] 1 1 1 1

pcut 1 1 1 1

[kPa]

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

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

Jederzeit kündbar.