Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and at the final stages of failure [7]. Figure 1, shows the material behavior decomposition into the relative
intact and fully adjusted parts in a DSC model.
66
67
Peak
C.S.
42.2
38.9
38.4
36.7
36.1
38.0
35.8
36.4
36.0
36.1
50
100
200
400
800
4
3
Extension
Compression
2
1
0
-1
Yield Surface
-2
-3
-4
-4
-2
Figure 4 the Lade-Duncan failure envelope on the octahedral plane and the ultimate strengths of samples
45
44
43
42
Trendline
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
200
400
600
Confining Pressure (kPa)
800
1000
Figure 5 Variations of peak friction angles with confining pressure in different tests
68
(2)
where, the exponent M is a parameter, determined experimentally by plotting the initial tangent modulus of all
tests on a semi-logarithmic plot and Eref is the initial tangent modulus corresponding to the unit confining
pressure which can also be determined by extrapolation of the data to the unit confining pressure. Moreover,
Pa is the atmosphere pressure to make the equation dimensionless. It should be noted that the Poissons ratio
can also be easily determined from the axial strain-volume change diagram in the course of loading.
Material Behavior in the FA State
A hardening elasto-plastic behavior was assumed to govern the FA state. As a central assumption in
development of the DSC based constitutive model, it was assumed that the stress-strain behavior of samples
is governed by the FA state when the sample is tested at the highest confining pressure and at reasonably
large strains which guarantee an inelastic behavior to commence (e.g. beyond 2% to 3% axial strain).
Therefore, the model parameters can be calibrated by making use of the data obtained for the test at the
uppermost value of the confining pressure. In this stage, the yield criterion is of the highest importance since it
will be needed to find the plastic strain increments. Several attempts have been made to find the most general
form of a yield surface for coarse-graiend geomeaterials. To reduce the number of required model parameters
and based on the experimental observations, the yield criterion of Lade and Duncan has been adopted which
complied with the results reasonably:
(3)
f ( I1 , I 3 , k1 ) = I13 k1 I 3 = 0
I1 = tr ij = ii
(4a)
I 3 = Det ij = eijk i1 j 2 k 3
(4b)
69
where, I1 and I3 are the first and the third stress invariants respectively, k1 is a model parameter (always
greater than 27), eijk is the permutation symbol and [ij] is the matrix representation of the stress tensor. A
threshold value for k1 should be found experimentally beyond which, plastic strains start to develop. The
plastic potential function was also assumed to be the same in shape, as the yield criterion:
(5)
g ( I1 , I 3 , k2 ) = I13 k2 I 3
Again, k2 is a model parameters which is yet undetermined.
Since an elastic behavior must also be defined for this state, it was assumed to obey a linear elastic
stress-strain relationship with the same model parameters as for the relative intact state. As stated before, the
development of the DSC based constitutive model was started by assuming a nonlinear elastic stress-strain
behavior for the relative intact state. Having known this state, the stress-strain relationship can be
decomposed to RI and FA parts. Moreover, to find a relationship between the model parameter, k1 at different
stages of loading, i.e. to establish the hardening rule, the plastic strains have been first decomposed from the
observed stress-strain behavior of samples tested at the highest confining pressure, i.e. at 400kPa and
800kPa. Then, the trajectory of the plastic strains have been computed and plotted versus the computed
values of k1 at different stages of loading. This trajectory, D, is defined as:
D = ( d ijp d ijp )
1/ 2
(6)
The relationship between D and k1 was found from the results obtained for those samples which had
the most tendencies to show the FA state, i.e. those tested at the highest confining pressure. It should be
noted that decomposition at this stage was done by assuming that the material behaves, after some amount of
strains, completely in a fully adjusted state. It corresponds to setting the value of the disturbance parameter, D,
equal to unity when decomposing the plastic strains from the total strains. Figure 6 shows the variation of the
total plastic strain trajectory with k1 for different samples.
75 Toward the
RI state
70
65
60
k1k1
55
50
45
40
Equation
200kPa
400kPa
800kPa
35
30
25
0.02
0.04
D
xi-D
0.06
0.08
0.1
Figure 6 Relationship between the trajectory of the plastic strain and the model parameter, k1
A hyperbolic equation of the following form:
D
k1 =
1 + 1 D
(7)
was found to be reasonably fitted to the test data with parameters 1 and 1.
By the same analogy, a similar form was adopted for the variations of k2, the model parameter
accounting for the plastic potential function:
D
(8)
k2 =
2 + 2 D
70
Having known the plastic strains from the tests on samples at the highest confining pressure, it is
possible to find the unknown parameters 1 and 1 simply by a curve-fitting scheme. To determine the
relationship between the value of k2 and the total plastic strain trajectory however, it is required to compute k2
at different stages of loading. A parameter, p, is defined as the ratio of the lateral to the vertical plastic strain
increment as follows:
d p
6 I 2 2k
(9)
p = 3p = 1 2 2 12 3
d1
3I1 k 2 3
d ijp = d
g
g I1 g I 3
)
= d (
+
ij
I1 ij I 3 ij
d 1p = d
g
= d (3I12 k 2 32 )
1
(11a)
d 3p = d
g
= d (6 I12 2k2 1 3 )
3
(11a)
(10)
In these equations, d is the plastic multiplier and dijp is the plastic strain increment and d1p and d3p
are major and minor principal plastic strain increments. The parameter, p, is computed over the entire range
of the observed stress-strain data (when decamped to give only the plastic strains, having known the nonlinear
elastic RI state) after some threshold, and then applied to find the parameter k2. It should be noted that the
strain increment comprise the elastic and plastic strain increments. Therefore, once the plastic strain is
determined by the flow rule (which is here non-associative), the elastic behavior can be found by the elasticity
equations as follows:
(12)
d ij = Eijkl d kle
where, Eijkl is the elastic constitutive tensor. During any elasto-plastic deformation, the yield criterion must hold,
and hence, the consistency condition must be met [18]. Therefore:
df ( I1 , I 3 , k ) =
f
f k1
d ij +
d ijp = 0
p
ij
k1 ij
(13)
However, the plastic strain increment is related to the stress increment by the flow rule and hence:
df ( I1 , I 3 , k ) =
f
f k1
d ij +
ij
k1 ijp
g
d
ij
= 0
(14)
Moreover, the elasticity equations can be used to derive the stress increment-elastic strain increment:
d ij = Eijkl d kle = Eijkl (d kl d klp ) = Eijkl (d kl d
g
)
kl
(15)
This latter equation can be substituted in the consistency equation and further rearrangement will
result in the equation for the plastic multiplier as follows:
f
Eijkl d kl
ij
d =
f
g
f k1 g
Eijkl
ij
kl k1 ijp ij
(16)
employed as follows:
w s
D
D = Du 1 1 +
h
(17)
where w, s and h are parameters which control the width, shape and height of the disturbance function when
plotted against D. Du is a parameters which governs the actual value of D when the fully adjusted state is
reached. This means, the fully adjusted state cannot be reached unless in an idealized condition; in practice,
at relatively large strain, the portion of the fully adjusted state in the deforming matter is close to but not equal
to unity. Moreover, it is possible to make the following assumption [7]:
(18)
d ija = d iji = d ijc
It means that there is no relative motion between the RI and FA states, that is, the observed strain
increments are the same as the strains in the RI and FA parts. Such assumption, although leads to errors in
volume change prediction, simplifies the determination of the model parameters. Eventually, it is remarkable
that once the disturbance function has been found, the stress state at each stage of the loading can be
computed as follows:
(19)
d ija = (1 D ) d iji + Dd ijc + dD ( d ijc d iji )
In this equation, dija, diji and dijc are stress increments in the observed, RI and FA states
respectively as defined by Desai (2001).
Predictions Made by the Developed Constitutive Model
Once the calibrations were done and model parameters were found for a selected test results,
predictions were made for the remaining ones. Model parameters corresponding to the RI states are:
Eref=180kPa, =0.21, M=0.52 and b=100 (Pa). Model parameter a can be found from Ei. Model parameters for
the FA state are shown in Table 2. It is considerable that a threshold value for k1 was found to be roughly
equal to 38 computed at 2% axial strain, beyond which, material starts showing an inelastic behavior.
Table 2
1
1
2
2
w
h
s
Value
0.003
0.03
0.0001
0.045
2.05
0.25
200
A computer code in MATLAB was developed to predict the stress-strain-volume change behavior of
samples by this DSC based model. Figure 7 shows the predicted versus measured data points in terms of
stress-strain and axial strain-volumetric strain plots. As the plots say, predictions comply reasonably with the
measured data. As it is obvious, predictions are reasonably in agreement with measurements.
72
(a)
Predicted
(b)
Predicted
(c)
Predicted
(d)
Predicted
Figure 7 Predicted and measured data for the triaxial tests on rockfill materials:
(a) 3=100kPa, (b) 3=200kPa, (c) 3=400kPa and (d) 3=800kPa
Conclusions
The geomechnical behavior of rockfills was investigated through experimental large scale triaixial
compression and extension tests. Laboratory tests were carried out at different confining pressures and the
results were used to further study of the behavior of materials in a theoretical manner. An insight into the
73
results revealed that the material behavior can be described by a rather advanced constitutive model for
granular materials. The concept of the disturbed state was employed and the yield criterion of Lade and
Duncan was fitted to the results. Moreover, a nonlinear elastic behavior was assumed for the materials at
relative intact state. As a result, a complete elasto-plastic DSC based constitutive model was developed and
determination of the model parameters was described. Predictions were made showing that the model can
predict the geomechanical behavior of rockfills reasonably.
REFERENCES
[1] Lade, P. V. and Duncan, J. M. (1975). Elastoplastic Stress-Strain Theory for Cohesionless Soil, Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101 (GT10), pp.1037-1053.
[2] Nova, R. and Wood, D. M. (1979). A Constitutive Model for Sand in Triaxial Compression, Intl. J. Num.
Anal. Meth. Geomech,. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 255-278.
[3] Lade, P. V. and Kim, M. K. (1995). Single Hardening Constitutive Model for Soil, Rock and Concrete,
International Journal Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 14, pp. 1963-1978.
[4] Guo, R. and Li, G. (2008). Elasto-Plastic Constitutive Model for Geotechnical Materials with StrainSoftening Behaviour, Computers and Geotechnics, 34 (2008): 1423.
[5] Veiskarami, M., Jahanandish, M. and Ghahramani, A. (2010). Prediction of Foundations Behavior by a
Stress Level Based Hyperbolic Soil Model and the ZEL Method, Computational Methods in Civil
Engineering (CMCE), The University of Guilan Press., Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 37-54.
[6] Desai, C. S. and Toth, J. (1996). Disturbed State Constitutive Modeling Based on Stress-Strain and
Nondestructive Behavior, Int. J. Solids Structures, Elsevier, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 1619-1650.
[7] Desai, C. S. (2001). Mechanics of Materials and Interfaces - the Disturbed State Concept, CRC
Press.Bolton, M. D. (1986). The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands, Gotechnique, 36: 65-78.
[8] Varadarajan, A., Sharma, K. G., Venkatachalam, K. and Gupta, A. K. (2003). Testing and Modeling Two
Rockfill Materials, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp.
206-218.
[9] Varadarajan, A., Sharma, Abbas, S. M. and Dhawan, A. K. (2006). Constitutive Model for Rockfill
Materials and Determination of Material Constants, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp. 226-237.
[10] Ramamurthy, T. and Gupta, K. K. (1986). Response Paper to How Ought One to Determine Soil
Parameters to Be Used in the Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams, In Proc., Indian Geotech. Conf., New
Delhi, India, Vol. 2, pp. 15-19.
[11] Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai Sur une Application des rgles des Maximis et Minimis Quelques
Problemes de Statique Relatifs larchitecture, Mem. Acad. Roy. Pres. divers Sav., 5, 7.
[12] Matsuoka, T. and Nakai, K. (1974). Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Soil under Three
Different Principal Stresses, Proc. Japan. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 232, pp. 59-70.
[13] Bolton, M. D. (1986). The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands, Gotechnique, 36: 65-78.
[14] Clark. J.I.(1998) The settlement and bearing capacity of very large foundation on strong soils R.M. Hardy
Keynote Address, Can. Geotech. J., (35): 131-145.
[15] Maeda, K. and Miura, K. (1999). Confining Stress Dependency of Mechanical Properties of Sands, Soils
and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 5367, 1999.
[16] Kumar, J., Raju, K. V. S. B. and Kumar, A. (2007). Relationships between Rate of Dilation, Peak and
Critical State Friction Angles, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 37 (1) 2007, pp.53-63.
[17] Veiskarami, M., Jahanandish, M. and Ghahramani, A. (2011). Prediction of the Bearing Capacity and
Load-Displacement Behavior of Shallow Foundations by the Sstress-Level-Based ZEL Method, Scientia
Iranica, Elsevier, Vol. 18 (1): 16-27.
[18] Prager, W. (1949). Recent Developments of Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, J. Appl. Phys., No. 20,
p.235.
74