Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245410800
CITATIONS
READS
119
90
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Michael Kavvadas
National Technical University of Athens
46 PUBLICATIONS 399 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
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
264
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)
1
s: s ( )2 2 0
c2
(2)
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
265
_
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
266
(8)
_
_
(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)
(12)
(13)
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
(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)
(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.
267
The MCC model requires only the rst three state variables,
since it does not include strength anisotropy.
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL
Value: %
47
32
55
29
26
264
278
268
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
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
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
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
Value
Parameter
Value
Parameter
Value
0013
103
0118
085
v
v
q
q
5
50
3
05
1
01
14
0005
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.
(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)
1
1
1
(s: s) 2 ; B 2 (s: s K ) K ; 2 (s K : s K ) 2K 2
c2
c
c
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
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
(, )
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.
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.