| i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING i HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN PARAMETER SFO: : | NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES OF STRESSES AND MOVEMENTS IN SOIL MASSES by Koi S. Wong and J. M. Duncan a Report No. TE 74-3 Nation! Sefence Foundation DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Z \ ) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA + BERKELEY SFHYPERBOLIC STRESS~STRAIN PARAMETERS FOR NONLINEAR ] FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES OF STRESSES AND MOVEMENTS IN SOIL MASSES ] A Report of an Investigation by Kai S. Wong and J. M. Duncan a i under 4 Grant Gk-35894 with d National Science Foundation July 1976 t College of Engineering Office of Research Services University of California Berkeley, California Report No. TE-74-3 * Bt as "bale 1 amd St Ne Hd |it TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Now TNTRODUCTION 2 ! H HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS 2 Nonlinear Stress-Strain Curves Represented by Hyperbolas 2 Stress-Dependent Stress-Strain Behavior Represented by Varying £, and (¢,-0,),.,, with Confining Pressure 5 Relationship Between Z, and the Stresses 7 Inelastic Behavior Represented by Use of Different i Modulus Values for Loading and Unloading 3 ‘ Nonlinear Volume Change Behavior Represented by Hyperbolas 9 4g i Stress-Dependent Volume Change Behavior Represented by Varying V, with Confining Pressure un i Relationship Between V. and the Stresses uw J Sumeary of Hyperbolic Parameters a TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING VALUES OF THE HYPERBOLIC PARAMETERS {. | FROM LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 18 ' Selecting Data and Eliminating Inconsistencies 18 h Evaluation of c and $ for Cohesive Sotls 22 : t i } Evaluation of 6, and A} for Cohesionless Soils 26 i i ' Evaluation of K and n 28 Evaluation of K, 36 i ur : Evaluation of G, F, and d 36 | } Computer Program for Determination of Parameter Values 7 Evaluation of K and n Using Consolidation Test Data 41 | Evaluation of K,_ Using Consolidation Test Data 431 7 COMPILATIONS OF PARAMETER VALUES Classification Data and Parameter Velues for 7 Soils Tested Under Drained Conditions Factors Affecting Drained Stress-Strain Behavior Classification Data and Parameter Values for Soils Tested Under Undrained Conditions Factors Affecting Undrained Stress-Strain Behavior . SUIMARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT REFERENCES Appendix - COMPUTER PROGRAM SP-1 i i sat Page No. 49 50 50 5a 57 72 3 7% 78 iINTRODUCTION The finite elenent method provides a powerful technique for analysis of stresses and novenents in earth masses, and it has already been applied to a number of practical problems including exbankment dans, open excava~ ttons, braced excavations, and a variety of soll-structure interaction problens. If the results of soll deformation analyses are to be realistic and meaningful, it is important that the stress-strain characterietice of the soi be represented in the analyses in a reasonable way. Tats is digficule because the stress-strain characteristics of sofle are extrenely complex, and the behavior of soil ie nonlinear, inelastic, and highly dependent on the magnitudes of the stresses in the soil. The hyperbolic stress-strain relationships described fa this report were developed in an attempt to provide a simple framework encompassing the most important characteristics of soll stress-strain behavior, using the data available from conventional laboratory teste. These relationships have been used in finite element analyses of a nunber of different types of static sof mechantce problens (12, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 42), and values of the hyperbolic parameters have now been determined for about 150 different sotis. ‘The purposes of this report are to describe the hyperbolic relation- ships, to outline the procedures for evaluating the hyperbolic paraneters, and to present parameter values determined from drained and undrained tests on a number of coils.@ bee Tend ino HYPERBOLIC STRESS-STRAIN ‘LATIONSHIPS The hyperbolic stress-strain relationships (22, 33) were developed for use in incremental finite element analyses. In each increment of such analyses the stress-strain behavior of the soil is treated as being jinear, and the relationship between stress and strain is assumed to be governed by the Generalized Hooke's Law of elastic deformations, which may be expressed as follows for conditions of plane strain: a, 7 iv) Ye oO ae, tc yo" GAG] Ye GND - ary 7 “ -20,)/2 ey ° 9 awe} | or, In this equation bo, 40, and At, are the increnents of stress during a step of the analysis, and de,, Ae, and Sygy ate the corresponding tmerementa of strain. E, is the tangent value of Young's modulus, and Ye ts the tangent value of Poisson's ratio. The values of both F, and v, in each element are changed during each increment of loading in accordance with the calculated stresses in that element, in order to account for three important characteristics of the stress-strain behavior of sofls, namely nonlinearity, stress-dependency, and inelasticity. The ways that these characterietics are accounted for in the hyperbolic relationships are discussed in the folloving paragraphs. Nonlinear Stress-Strain Curves Represented by Hyperboles. Xondner and his co-workers (31, 32), have shown that the strese-atrain curves for a nunber of soils could be approxtmated reasonably accurate by hyperbolas like the one shova in Fig. 1, This hyperbola can be represented by an equation of the form:BAYND NIVYLS-SSAYIS V SO NOILVINSSAYdSY DTOBYAdAH 1 ‘91d U"Eo-1o) 13. (B= !0) +s a T 3 O3WHOISNVYL PEo-1o) 3 +3 7 ; (§0-!0) 3 Ww3y 2 (£0 -!0)/9 (S0-!'0) Pa me ee yez @) E, * Gpsp, wt lo vule While other types of curves could also be used, these hyperboles 5 * have two characteristics which make their use convenient: (1) The parameters which appear in the hyperbolic equation have physical significance. 2, de the initial tangent modulus or initial slope of the stress-strain curve and (0,-0,),.1, 18 the asymptotic value of stress difference which is-related closely to the strength of the soil. The value of (9,-0,).1. ie always greater than the compressive strength of the soil, + as discussed subsequently. train (2) The values of E, and (0,-<,),.,, for a given stress curve can be determined easily. If the hyperbolic equation a is transformed as shown in the lower part of Fig. 1, it represents a linear relationship between €/(0,-0,) and €. ‘Thus, to determine the best-fit hyperbola for the stress~ ~ strain curve, values of €/(0,-0,) are calculated from the test data and are plotted against €. The best-fit straight line on this transformed plot corresponda to the best-fit hyperbola on the stress-strain plot. 7 F When data from actual tests are plotted on the transformed plot, the pointe frequently are found to deviate from the ideal linear relation- ship. The data for stiff soile, such as dense sands, usually plot on a mild curve which 1s concave upward, vhereas the data for soft soila, such = cnn as loose sands, usually plot on a ntld curve which is concave downward. i Experience with several hundred stress-strain curves for well over aTr 7a hundred different soils indicates that a good match is usually achieved by selecting the straight line so that {t passes through the points where « 70% and 95% of the strength are nobilized (24, 34). Thus, in practice, ||} only two points for each stress-strain curve (the 70Z point and the 95% point) are plotted on the transformed diagram. Stress-Dependent Stress-Strain Behavior Represented by Varying Ey and (©y-J,) yy with Confining Pressure. For all sotls except fully satu rated sotle tested under wnconsolidated-undrained conditions, an increase in confining pressure will result in a steeper stress-strain curve and a higher strength, and the values of #, and (0)-0,).,,, therefore increase with increasing confining pressure. This stress-depeadency 4s taken into account by using empirical equations to represent the variations of By amd (6-0. dure the variation of E, with 0, 1s represented by an equation of the with confining pressure. following form, which was suggested by Janbu (30): - %, (2) @ ale The variation of Ey with oy corresponding to this equation is shown in Fig. 2. The parameter K in equation (3) 18 the modulus number, and o is the modulus exponent. Both are dimensionless numbers. p, is atmospheric pressure, introduced into the equation to make conversion from one system ‘of unite to another more convenient. The values of K and n are the same for any system of uits, and the units of E, are the same as the mits of Pe To change from one system of units to another it is only neceseary to introduce the appropriate value of p, in equation (3).Log (E,/Pq) Log (03/4) FIG. 2 VARIATION OF INITIAL TANGENT MODULUS i WITH CONFINING PRESSURE Vd Nee Hs Pee Pee ee a ee |he iret Lleol ne | \ oa The variation of (0)-0,),), with 0, is accounted for as shown in Fig. 3 by relating (0,-0,),,, 0 the compressive strength or stress ult atfference at fatlure, (0,-0,),, and then using the Mohr-Coulomb strength equation to relate (6)-0,), to 5. The values of ()-,),4, and (,-04), are related by: Gye = Ry Dape a) in which R, 4s the failure ratio. Because (0. is always smaller than | rae (4-0) 1g» the value of Ry ts alvays smaller than unity, and varies from 0.5 to 0.9 for most soils. The variation of (0,-0,), with 0, is represented by the famtltar Mohr-Coulomb strength relationship, which can be expressed as follows: 2c cosd + 20,8ind yee" Tat @) in which ¢ and $ are the cohesion intercept and the friction angle, as shown in Fig. 3. Relationship Between £, and the Stresses. The instantaneous slope of the stress-strain curve is the tangent modulus, E,. By differentiating equation (2) with respect to € and substituting the expressious of equations (3), (4), and (5) into the resulting expression for E,, the following equation can be derived: 2 a R, (1-sind) (0,-0,) g - ee 2 t [ Ze coap + 3, Sl (2) o This equation can be used co calculate the appropriate value of tangent modulus for eny stress conditions (0, and (¢,-0,)) 4£ the values of the Parameters K, n, c, $, and Ry are known.BYNSS3Yd ONINISNOD HIM HLONSYLS JO NOWWINVA ¢€ ‘91g o P (80-10) ty» 1(So~ toy NIS-1 See Sets NGp- oy $nis £02 + $ S09 92Inelastic Behavior Represented By Use of Different Modulus Values for Loading and Unloading. If a triaxial specimen is unloaded at some stage during a test, the stress-strain curve followed during unloadiag is steeper than the curve followed during primary loading, as shown in Fig. 4, If the specimen is subsequently reloaded, the stress-strain curve folloved ts also steeper than the curve for primary loading and is quite similar in slope to the unloading curve. Thus the soil behavior is inelastic, because the strains occurring during primary loading are only partially recoverable on unloading. On subsequent reloading there is always sone hysteresis, but it is usually reasonably accurate to approximate the behavior during unloading-reloading stress changes as linear and elastic, in effect ignoring any hysteresis effects, In the hyperbolic stress-strain relationships, the same value of wloading-reloading modulus, Z,., in used for both unloading and reloading. The value of E, is reiated to the confining pressure by an equation of the same form as equation (2): Pas fue Pal 2) o In this equation K,_ is che unloading-reloading modulus number. The ! value of KR is always larger than the value of K (for primary loading). } Roe may be 20% greater than K for stiff soils such as dense sands. For soft soils, like loose sands, ees may be three times as large as K. The value of the exponent n is always very similar for primary loading and unloading, and in the hyperbolic relationships it is assumed to be the same. Nonlinear Volume Change Behavior Represented by Hyperbolas. The value of tangent Poisson's ratio vhich appears in equation (1) may be determined by analyzing the volume changes vhich occur during a triaxialStee cia “te ee ge eee | J LE (9; -03) fr = zS K = 1320 gw 1*0.4 ES Ei (e504 aa Fe 1320(R) he) Ken rloy(G) 1 5 10 50 CONFINING PRESSURE, 93/P : Log (% 7) FIG.18 VARIATION OF INITIAL TANGENT MODULUS WITH : CONFINING PRESSURE FOR OROVILLE DAM SHELL MATERIAL (GP-6). ell — Al — lh — plaid — pd) —yadd —neall ld! elit — alll al ts antl — acl eal tl 8 SD |i ] 1 ] ] ! i A i i iy i i A 3 36 Evaluation of K,,. The value of K,, is usually determined assuming / that the value of the modulus exponent for unloading-reloading (equation 7): is the same as the value of the modulus exponent for prinary loading (equation 3). This has been found to be an accurate assumption in most cases vhere ouffictent data were available to check, and {t simplifies the determination of K,.. Oace the value of n has been determined as described in the preceding paragraph, the value of K,_ may be determined using data from a single unloading curve. The best straight line is fitted to the unloading curve, and the corresponding value of E,_ (slope of the line) is determined. Then the value of K,. is calculated using the equation Bue eae a (32) AC is the value of confining pressure during unloading, kK, ay a In this equation 0, and n is the modulus exponent for primary loading. Frequently, data for mloading 1s not available, and it is necessary to assume the value of K,.. The available data indicate that che value of K,, 48 always greater than the value of K, The ratio K,_/K varies from about 1.2 for stiff soils such as dense sands up to 3 or so for softer soils such as loose sands. If the zones undergoing unloading and/or reloading are not large and do not have a dominant effect on the results of the analysis, assuming the value of K,. within the range from 1.2K to 3K 4s probably suffictently accurate. Evaluation of G, F and d. Two steps are involved in determining the values of the Poisson's ratio parameters G, F and d. The first {s to determine the values of v, end d for each test, end the second is to plotonsite amet clit — yal yan pnt ied see ed sat ~via ne i i ee me 7 the values of v, against the logarithm of 0, to deternine the values of the parameters G and F. As in the case of the stress-strain curves, the hyperbolas are usually fitted to the radial strain-axial strain curves at the points corresponding to 70% and 95% strength mobilization, and only these points are used in determining the values of G, F and d. These points are indicated by the arrows on the volune change curves for the Oroville Dam shell material, which are show in the lower part of Fig. 16. The data for these points are listed in Table 3, together with corresponding values of €, which were calculated using equation (8). These values are plotted in a transformed axtal strain-radial strain diagram in Fig. 19. The intercepts of the straight lines in Fig. 19 are the values of Vy» or Poisson's ratio at zero strain, and the values of d are the slopes of the curves. A single value of d is used, which is determined by + averaging the values from the three teste. ‘The values of G and F are determined by plotting the values of vy from the individual tests against the logarithm of o4/p,, as shom tn Fig. 20. A straight ne on such a plot has an equation of the form 6. v2 6 - F 10 (3) cas) Pa The value of G is the intercept value of v, where the value of o,/p, is equal to unity. The value of F is the decrease in v, for a ten-fold increase in ,. Computer Program for Determination of Parameter Values. A computer Program has been developed for the determination of these parameters using least square procedures for fitting the curves illustrated in Figs. 14, 18, and 20, This computer progran 1s listed in Appendix A.tect see oe'T gD fore be tet Oe 68z Sty sop eee port gs yor’ tg a oet cose sy seT gt gy seer gg ttt se. ‘set Ge) () ) () aM (a Ged) 7 BAe, *5/ at 2 Pf fo Teas sseaag x56 Teasy 9eer3s xo, (9-a9)_TeT30: 32H Tous Bed eTTTA039 203 38d UIPAIS TETPUY-UPErIS TeTKY pouaoJsuRr, Jo UoTIBTNDTeD “¢ eTqEL39 oy +125 PSI 0.45 fo, +250 PSI 040 oO #425 PSI 0.25 STRAIN RATIO, ©/€g ° a & % oO cps) 125 0.26 64 250 0.252 69 425 0.212 9.9 AVERAGE 6* 7.73 0.20 ° ' 2 3 4 { q \ RADIAL STRAIN, E, (%) } q ! eh pd es pe Bid i a il ll i FIG.19 VARIATION OF POISSON'S RATIO WITH RADIAL ‘STRAIN FOR OROVILLE DAM SHELL MATERIAL (ep-6).ee ety ies’ Tai ‘ia’ Sint Send Bid ani 40 os : G =0.356 x F. =0.09 So Y, #0.356-0109 103/23 5 ee aR) = 06 a z 5 2 2 2 04 a < E 2 9 iv vr 10 100 CONFINING. PRESSURE, [3/Pq FIG. 20 VARIATION OF INITIAL POISSON'S RATIO WITH CONFINING PRESSURE FOR THE OROVILLE DAM SHELL MATERIAL (GP-6). — wat ph lw al olPRUGNAMA INTEG ae eotenle €:, ARR TEED. pea nanate tea poins — digedte ee al ternbe de peter (SE) 4 TF CSF), prem Gee fe pede tone Aiden nttin’ doves (ercicen) date + c(Thm) , ge, vy, ” Tl, Te) F , thiedle Fel wmv de pele te qr it davies (9-6) é Dereon, AstZU- sent) ERY Brteurd j Ce Vinee m as oD ay Or GE Ex, kK Cen Tint FicPore IWTEG.eTW 1 ACCEPT *,CE,FI,RNU,ERRE,RN WI=FIXO , 017453293 REx (1. -SIN (WI) )# (1.-2, #RNUD / (1, -RNUD + #CE®COS (WI) C=2, ¥SIN (WI) ¥RNU/ (1,-RNUD TYPE *,A,B,C RNU/ (10, 336% (1. -RNUD) ) #8RN P=Px (1. -RNUD / (1, -RNU-2, XRNUHH2) 2 ACCEPT *,S1,SF,F SINC=(SF-S1) /F Z=0. ae Hee SVONOGSANEOVaVOMSUNe J 4 T=TH. : SIG=S1+SINCK (2. *T-1)/2. Z=Z4SING/ ((1,-AXSIG/ (H+CRSIG) ) 24S IG**RND IF (T.LT.F) GO TO 4 J TYPE *,Z 3 ACCEPT x EPSILON EI=Z/(PxEPSTLON) ] 20 RK=EI/10.336 24 TYPE 5,CE,FI,RNU 22 S FORMAT C) ‘C=*,£16.8,' FI=',£16.8,' | NU=",E16.8) J 23 TYPE 6,ERRE,RN 24 $ FORMAT =',£16.8, N=',E16,8) 25 TYPE 7,81, SF ,EPSILON Jz 7 FORMAT’ SI=",£16.8,' SF=",£16.8,' DEF=",£16.8) 27 TYPE 8,EI,RK 28 @ FORMAT ('' EI=', €16.8,! Ke", £16.8) ] 29 ACCEPT *,1 Hee pentaaertesreernereren ey Tea) 30 TF (L.EQ.1) GOTO 2 315. ei min montane. Rug seamone + visonnee neat 31 IF (ElEQ.2) GOTO 2 5.2 > sas emus g sesae toon wEoie us Tioinle EHR nome ]2 9 To's NOaL ede ‘The computer program was used to determine values of the stress~ = strain and strength parameters for the Oroville Dam shell material using the data shown in Fig. 16, In Table 4 the values determined using the computer program are compared to the values determined by hand calcula~ tions, which are illustrated in Figs. 14 through 20. It may be seen that the values are not identical, but the differences between the two sets of values are snall, and the two sets of values are the sane for practical purposes. Evaluation of K and n Using Consolidation Test Data. Frequently, because of the length of time required, it is impractical to perform Sed drained triaxial tests on soils of low permeability. In such cases it is possible to determine the values of K and n fron consolidation test data 4£ the values of c', $', and R, are knom. The effective stress paraseters ct and $' may be determined from the results of drained direct shear cests or triaxial tests with pore pressure measurenents, and the value of R, may be estimated on the basis of values determined for similar soils. Values of E, may be calculated using the data for the primary loading portion of the consolidation curve, using the following equation which is adapted from the derivation of Clough and Duncan (15): 4p (1te,) [: : as] te GRD By go as) PORK) Re Le Kgp(ean®(4549/2)=1) + 2c! ran(45+$/2) tm which E, = initial tangent nodulus, as defined previously dp = increment of pressure in consolidation test fe = decrease in void ratio due to bp42 Table 4. Comparison of Stress-Strain Parameter Values for Oroville Dam Sheil Material Determined Using Computer Program and by Hand Calculations arenceer | Computer Program | and Calculation x 1289 1320 2 0.42 0.4 i 6 55 degrees | 53 degrees [| J ae 10 degrees || 8.5 degrees i % o.73 0.73 ¢ 0.35 0.36 i F 0.09 0.09 z 4 27 7~ L | 43 e, * void ratio at beginning of increment K, = coefficient of earth pressure at rest p ™ average pressure during iacreneat c’ = cohesion intercept (effective stress strength parameter 4" = angle of internal friction (effective stress strength paranecer) R, = failure ratio as defined previously ‘The value of K, may be estinated from the test results of Brooker and Ireland (6), which are shown in Fig, 21. When values of E, have been determined for several different load increments, they are plotted against the corresponding values of ¢, to determine the values of K and n for the soil. The average value of 3, during each increment is calculated using the equation “Kp (20) Clough and Duncan (15) used these procedures to determine values of K and a for the subsoils at the Port Allen lock site. Values of E, for the clays, silts, and sands beneath the lock were calculated from the available consolidation test data, and were plotted against che corresponding values ‘of 03 as shown in Fig. 22, The finite elenent analyses of Port Allen Lock were performed using the values of K and a shown in Table 5, which correspond to the average linear variations for each type of soil shown in Fig. 22. Evaluation of K,_ Using Consolidation Test Data. The value of the unloading-reloading modulus number can be determined from the rebound curve in the consolidation test, using the following equation adapted from Clough and Duncan (15). (——— —4a (ONV73N! PO YANXOONE Y313V) ‘OlLVY NOILVGMOSNOO -¥3A0 40 S3N7VA SNoIuWA dod 41 GNY °x N33M138 NOISY 4] 'X30NI ALIOLSId os Oz o9 os Ov of k4 al 12 ‘914 T T T T T Olive NOILVQITOSNOON3A0 VLvO S,NONGNSH WOXS C3LVTOdY3LNI J OL SINIOd °y ‘Isau Lv SUNSS3ud HLYV3.40 LN3I9114300ZZE~ Kt WEO, 070.5 3 2000 7 Km* 330, 0 *0.6 = 1000; 7 Km? 80, 1#0.85 a 200) MODULUS (TONS/FT?) 100) 60) & pill 36 05 10 2 4 6 10 20 40 CONFINING PRESSURE (TONS/FT?) FIG. 22 VARIATIONS OF INITIAL TANGENT MODULUS WITH CONFINING PRESSURE FOR PORT ALLEN LOCK SUBSOILS, DETERMINED FROM CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA. (AFTER CLOUGH ond DUNCAN)a K Kur Kur /K soit type | Averase | Average | Average | Range of Lean clays 0.85 80 200 1.4-3.2 silts 0.60 330 500 1.31.9 Dense sands 0.50 1160 1740 1.2+1.6 Table 5. Values of K, Ky, and a for Port Allen Lock Subsoils, Determined from Consolidation Test Data } | :47 “ : dptate,) 2x)? i Bt ae |p - ev He “ aK) ta untch x = che rasto of changes ta Latera) streso to changes fa vertical stress during unloading in a consolidation test. Values of K° vere derived from the data of Brooker and Ireland by Clough and Duncan (15), and the variation of e with plasticity index ts shown in Fig. 23. Clough and Duncan (15) noted that values of E. deternined from equation (21) vary souewhat depending on which portions of the unloadiag wit curve aze used in thetr determination, and they recomended that E,_ should be determined at the point on the curve where the pressure has been reduced to half of its value before unloading. Once a value of E,. has been determined, the value of K.. for the soil my be calculated using equation (17), with the value of n determined from the primary loading —t et data, ond the value of 0, determined from equation (20). Values of Ky. for the Port Allen Lock subsoils determined using these procedures are listed in Table 5, i: | |ee INCREMENTAL COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DURING UNLOADING, «3 48 OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO 16. ADAPTED FROM BROOKER and IRELAND (1965) Oo 20 40 60 80 PLASTICITY INDEX (%) FIG. 23 CORRELATION BETWEEN Ka AND Ip FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIOS. (AFTER CLOUGH and DUNCAN)“9 COMPILATIONS OF PARAM ER_VALUES The stress-strain and strength characteristics of soils, and the values of the hyperbolic parameters, vary over de ranges depending on the soll cype and cest conditions. when the paraneter values are deter- mined using the procedures described previously, or when insufficient test data are available and the values of sone of the paraneters aust be estisated, ic is very useful co have available a compilation of values for simflar sofis tested under the same conditions. Kuthawy, Duncan and Seed (34), in @ previous report, compiled parameter values for 47 solis tested under drained and unconsolidaced~ udrained test conditions. Using data fron theses, research reports, engineering reports, and published papers, this collection of data has now been expanded to encompass about 135 different soils. Sone of these data vere judged to be inconsistent or unseliable and have therefore been cumitted from this report, but data are included for 82 soils for which the stress-strain data were considered to be of the highest quality and the greatest dependability. These compilations of classification and stress-strain data have been found to be useful in three ways: (1) For purposes of Judging the reliability of paraneter values determined from laboratory test data. (2) For purposes of deternining the effects of various factors which Influence the values of the paraneters. (3) For purposes of estimating values of sone pareneters when the available test data are insufficient fon rheir determination,Classification Data and Parameter Values for Soils Tested Under Drained Conditions. Data for 42 soils tested under drained conditions are listed in Table 6. An explanation of the headings used in Table 6 is given in Table 7. Data for some of the soils listed in Table 6 were contained in the earlier report by Kulhawy, Duncan, and Seed (34). The values listed in Table 6 were calculated using the computer program in Appendix A, and the values are souewhat different from those given in the previous report. The differences are due to the different curve-natching procedures used in the two cases. In some cases the values of some of the parameters differ by fairly large percentages from those published previously. In these cases, however, the difference in the value of one parameter ’is offset by compensating differences in the value of other parameters. For example, a higher value of K 1s offset by a lover value of n or a higher value of Ry, and the net effect is not significanc. Factors Affecting the Parameter Values for Drained Conditions. The most important factors affecting the stress-strain and strength char- density, acteristics of soils under drained conditions are relat: gradation, particle shape, and mineral type. 4n increase in the density of a cohesionless soil will result in increased strength (higher value of ¢), increased stiffness (higher value of K), and increased tendency to dilate during shear (higher values of G and 4). These effects are illustrated by the tests on Sacramento River sand, which was tested at four different densities. For purposes of estimating the effects of changing from one relative density to another, the following approximate rules of thumb may be used: (2) The value of increases about one degree for each 6% increase in relative density.a Se mo me Pe ‘ws ‘ 32 Table 7. Explanation of Colum Headings in Tables 6 and 8 Heading Sot Group Sot} Description References Peor P3or Pro uw Pr compaction Type Maxtoun dry wate weight Optigum water content Dry unit weight Water Content Initial Void Ratio Relative Density Degree of Saturation Rating Particle shape Stress renge Explanation Classification according to Unified System Idencifying number Origin and characteristics of soil Publications from which data were obtained 60%, 30%, and 10% sizes in =m Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Compaction procedure-~Standard AASHO, Harvard kneading, or energy in ft-lbs per cubic ft Maximum dey uait weight as determined by the compaction tesc used (1b/ft’) optimum water content in the compaction test used G of dry weight) Initial dry unit weight of test specinens (p/ft*) Initial water content of test specimens (% of dry weight) Void ratio of test specimen at beginning of test ) D, * (jo9se7 ®/ Proose~ “dense Initial degree of saturation Estimated consistency and reliability of data, Judged by comparing stress-strain and volume change curves calculated using the listed parameters with the experimental curves. hae = Excellent, ** = Very Good, * = Good. Data of lesser quality were discarded. Average particle shape 2s described in reference Range of values of 7, used in tests (cons/£t*)Headinj Nusber of tests © Friction angle 53 Table 7. (Continued) Explanation Nurber of tests used in evaluating the stress~ strain parameters Cohesion intercept (tons/£t*) 4, and 49 (09 in parentheses) 6, 7 friction angle for 6, = 1 atmosphere Ad = reduction in friction angle for a 10-folé increase in 0, Modulus number Modulus exponent Failure ratio Poisson's ratio at zero strain (v,), for 9, = 1 atmosphere Reduction in v, for a 10-fold increase in 0, Rate of increase of Poisson's ratio with strain.5h (2) The value of Ad increases approximately in proportion with relative density. (3) The value of K increases approximately in proportion vith relative density. (4) The values of G and F and d increase approximately in proportion vith relative density. (S) The values of n and Ry are not much affected by changes in relative density. Poorly graded soils generally have higher values of K than well~graded soils of the same type, and they generally also have larger values of G and F, The values of 6, 4¢, m, Rg, and d do not appear to be related in a consistent way to gradation, at least so far as can be determined from the deta ta Table 6, Rounded particles are more resistant to breakage during shear than are angular particles, and as a result soils vith rounded particles usually have larger values of K, a, G, F and d than do soils with angular particles, and they generally have smaller values of Ag. Values of 6, and Ry for soils with rounded particles are generally about the same as for soils with angular particles. Classification Data and Parameter Values for Soils Tested Under Unconsolidated-Undrained Conditions. Data for 82 soils tested under unconsolidated-undrained test conditions are listed in Table 8. Data for some of the soils listed in Table 8 were contained in the earlier report ‘by Kulhawy, Duncan, and Seed (34). As noted previously in connection with Table 6, the values of some of the parameters listed in Table 8 differ from those published previously, The differences result from the different56aan I I 3? rve-matching procedures used in the two cases, and a difference in the value of one parameter will be found to be offset by compensating differences in the values of the other parameters, with a small net effect. Factors Affecting the Parameter Values for Unconsolidated-Undrained test Conditions. The most important factors affecting the stress-strain and strength characteristics of soils under un e, density, and water content. These deter- conditions are soil struct therefore control the train and strength behavior. ‘The structure of naturally occurring clayey soils is subject to dis- turbance during sampling, and the effects of disturbance on the values of the stress-strain and strength paraneters may be very large. It is there~ fore essential that samples used for determining parameters for naturally umder_unconsolidated-undrained conditioas be of the highest quality. The structure of compacted soils is determined by the compaction procedure, the density, and the compaction water content im relation to It 4s therefore desirable that samples used for determining optimum, ers for compacted soils under unconsoltdated-undrained conditions should be compacted using procedures similar to those used in the field, and it is essential that they ghould be compacted to the sane density and water content as the soil in the field. ‘The values of the hyperbolic parameters for compacted soils can vary over an extremely wide range depending on the density ond water content of the test specimens, Kulhawy, Duncan, and Seed (34) presented data for Pittsburg sandy clay vhich shoved how the values of the hyper~ bolic parameters varied with density and water content. The specinens were58 compacted using Harvard sintature kneading compaction equipnent £0 the densities and water contents shown in Fig. 24. The dats for these tests have bea reevaluated using the computer program in Appendix A, end the resulting values of the hyperbolic parameters are shown in Figs. 25 through 27. Similar data for three soils from Somerville Dan are showa in Figs. 28 through 36. Because volune changes vere not measured during these Fe9t2, de was not possible to calculate values of the Poisson's ratio paraneters G, P, and de the varlations of the parameters c, $, K, 2 and By with density and water content nay be seen to be sintlar for the Pittsburg sandy clay and the three Somerville Dan soils, but the values of the parameters Vary considerably depending on the soil type.AVTO AONVS OYNESLLIId GBLIVdWOD HOS SdIHSNOILVI3Y ALISNSG-3UNLSION bz ‘Old | (%) LN3LNOD Y3LVM ee oe 8t gt ol 82 92 ve 6lsId seen €2* AVI % Sb: LUS % Ss £E* ONYS % ALISN3O WAWIXWW su OHSYY G3IZIGOW @ Sdwwi 8106 O saw 8152 7 Sdwvl 81671 O UBAVY/SdWL SI ‘SUBAVT 2 NOLLOVdWOO ONIGVSNN “(39d) ALISN3ZO ANGpeg oa to DRY DENSITY (PCF) 60 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 25 STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED PITTSBURG SANDY CLAY TESTED UNDER UU TEST CONDITIONS. (KULHAWY, DUNCAN and SEED, 1969)| 61 + 125 1 LL #35 } 120} pt #19 K NS 2 Oy Ho 7 “ S 's000/" =-FPas 4 105) “ttt wo oo |7 & 6 68 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 g : LL #35 7 & '20F Pr sig 7 x Ss ] mous Ge. 3 3 7 g No tt aa 7 Sess AAG H : & 7075708 025 0| 025 - tooL Ltt iL 8 10 12 4 16 I8 2 22 24 4 125 120 i U5] { no a 105) 100 6 68 10 12 14 1 (6 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 26 MODULUS PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED PITTSBURG SANDY CLAY TESTED UNDER UU TEST CONDITIONS. (KULHAWY, DUNCAN and SEED, 1969)| 62 LL*35, 120 PT #19. G DRY DENSITY (PCF) 125 T | (20h PI #19 d 6 8 10 12 4 16 18 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 27 POISSON'S RATIO PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED PITTSBURG SANDY CLAY TESTED UNDER UU TEST CONDITIONS (1-5). (KULHAWY, DUNCAN and SEED, 1969)63 120) T T 1 STD AASHO COMPACTION : Ymax * 107.5 PCF us| Wopt * 16.8 % % SAND * 38 % SILT + 42 a : % CLAY* 20 Ho Lus25 | Pre t2 105 DRY DENSITY (PCF) stp Si 3 95 [EEIEEEE MEET EEEIE) 12 14 16 18 20 22 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 28 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-i0, SOMERVILLE DAM.120-—+ 7 LL +25 LPI 12 HO} 100} | | 105 | © a 120 T DRY DENSITY (PCF) @ 6 a T v 4 © no ‘ 105) \ 100 + to 5 & er 95 1 L 6 8 10 12 14 16 t8 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 29 STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-11), SOMERVILLE DAM. 64DRY DENSITY (PCF) 120-—5 1 LL +28 isk PL #12 1. Kk 10) 105, 100) 95 u 1207-—y WSEPI #12 to 95 '20-— US5PPLI 212 uO} 105 100, 95 6 8 10 12 4 16 18 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG.30 MODULUS PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-II), SOMERVILLE DAM. 65WATER CONTENT (%) SANDY CLAY (CL-12), SOMERVILLE DAM STD AASHO COMPACTION - %nax!06.7 PCF % SAND * 3 oes % SILT *45 us opt 16 fe % CLAY *20 — LL +38 PI = 25 N10} i oO & > E 105) E | 5 100 — 95) 90! 12 14 16 18 20 22 66 FIG. 31 MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS FOR COMPACTED} - 67 / | | DRY DENSITY (%) 6 8 10 1 4 #16 #18 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%} FIG. 32 STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-I2), SOMERVILLE DAMDRY DENSITY (PCF) (20) pq oo us Li. no PL* 95) 120, ve LL* 38 PIs 25 10) ed 120, us | LL +38 trol PL #25 105) 100) 95! 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%! FIG.33 MODULUS PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-12),, SOMERVILLE DAM 6869 | 120, 7 STD AASHO COMPACTI | e ON | SAND * 24 | ere % SILT #53 415) : Wopt "176 % % CLAY +23 ] LL +36 PL #23 , § uo} a bog 2 4 Z 05 a > a y a 100] YY 95 90 12 14 16 18 20 22 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG, 34 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL+13), SOMERVILLE DAMa DRY DENSITY (PCF) 120, 15) ito 100} 95 120 115) NO] iv 20 10 95 Li] [ee PF el 6 8 10 «12 4 6 18 20 22 4 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 35 STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR. COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-13), SOMERVILLE DAM120 Perce eer Fee EEE PEEVE eC us 110) 105, 105) ORY DENSITY (PCF) 100} 95 6 8 10 12 14 (6 (8 20 22 24 WATER CONTENT (%) FIG. 36 MODULUS PARAMETERS FOR COMPACTED SANDY CLAY (CL-13}, SOMERVILLE DAM mnSUMMARY If the results of a finite element analysis of stresses and move- nents in soil are to be meaningful end realistic, it 1s important that the stress-strain characteristics of the soil be represented in a reason~ able way. The hyperbolic stress-strain relationships described in this report can be used to represent three important characteristics of the stress~ strain behavior of soils: noalinearity, stress-dependency, and inelasticity. The values of the paraneters may be determined fron the results of conventional laboratory tests, and the paraneters may be used for analysis of stresses and movements in stable soil masses. The techniques used to determine values of the parameters from the results of laboratory tests are explained in detail, and compilations of parameter values are given for soils tested under both drained and unconsolidated-undrained test conditions,len lm Sa a” a lt 73 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Many people have participated in developing the concepts and the data contained in this report. The writers wish to express their appreciation for the contributions of FP. H. Kulhavy, C-Y. Chang, G. W. Clough, E. S. Nobari, Poul Lade, J. M. Simon, and Antonio Soriano.6. 10. a. 74 REFERENCES Bechtel Corporation (1969)"Report on Soil Tests for the Proposed New Don Pedro Dam," San Francisco. Becker, E., Chan, C. K. and Seed, H. Bolton (1972) "Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Rockfill Materials in Plane Strain and Triaxtal Compression Tests," Report No. TE~12-3, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley, California. Bird, J. M. (1961) "Uncertainties in Earth Dam Design,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 87, No. $3, June, pp. 33-68. Bishop, A. W. (1966) "The Strength of Soils as Engineering Materials," Geotechnique, Vol, 16, No. 2, June, pp, 89-130, Boughton, N. 0. (1970) "Elastic Analysis for Behavior of Rockfill," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Sept., pp. 1715-1733. Brooker, E, W, and Ireland, H. 0. (1965) "Earth Pressures at Rest Related to Stress History," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Ontario, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-15. Casagrande, A. and Hirschfeld, R. C. (1960) “First Progress Report on Investigation of Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Compacted Clays," "Soil Mechanics Series No. 61, Harvard University, May. Casagrande, A. and Hirschfeld, R. C. (1962) “Second Progress Report on Investigation of Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Compacted Clays," Soil Mechanics Series No. 65, Harvard University, April. Casagrande, A., Hirschfeld, R. C. and Poulos, S. J. (1963) "Third Progress Report on Investigation of Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Compacted Clays," Soil Mechanics Series No. 70, Harvard University, November, 1962, 67 p. Casagrande, A. and Poulos, S. J. (1964) “Fourth Report on Investigation of Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics of Compacted Clays," Soil Mechanics Series No. 74, Harvard University, October. Casagrande, A. (1965) "Hohe Staudame," Mitteflungen des Institutes fur Grundbau und Bodenmechanik, Technische Hochschule, Vienna, No. 6, December, 32 p. Chang, C-¥., and Duncan, J. M. (1970) “Analysis of Soil Movements Around a Deep Excavation,” Journal of Soil Nechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM5, Proc. Paper 7512, Sept., pp. 1655-1681.a A rd sd 13. ua 15. 16. a 18. 75 Clough, G. W. (1972) “Application of the Finite Elenent Method to Farth-Structure Interaction," State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings of the Symposium on Applications of the Finite Element Method in Geotechnical Engineering, U. 5. Aray Engineers Watervays Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippt, May. Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. (1971) “Finite Element Analyses of Retaining Wall Behavior,” Journal of the Soi] Mechanics and Foundations Diviston, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM12, Decesber. Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. (1969) "Finite Element Analyses of Port Allen and Old River Locks," Report No. TE 69-13, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (1961) “Proctor Dam: Design Memorandum," U. S. Department of the Army, Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers, 1961. Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (1961) "Somerville Dam: Design Menorandum,” U. S. Department of the Army, Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers, 1961. Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (1964) "Rodman Dam, Cross Florida Barge Canal Project: Design Memorandum," U. S. Department of the Army, Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, 1964. corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (1966) "Clinton Reservoir: Design Memorandum No. 10, Supplement A, Soll Data and Enbanknent Design," U. S. Department of the Army, Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, August 1967. Corps of Engineers, Louisville District (1960) "Monroe Reservoir: Design Memorandum No. 2, Appendix I, Laboratory Test Data," U. S. Department of the Army, Louisville District, Corps of Engineers, February 1960. Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (1968) “Chatf4eld Dam and Reservoir: Design Memorandum No. PC-24," U. S. Department of the Army, Onaha District, Corps of Engineers, 1968. Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (1972) “Birch Dam: Design Menorendus Wo. 6, Eubankment, Spillway and Outlet Works," U. S. Department of the Army, Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers, September 1972, Department of Water Resources (1969) “Report on Unconsclidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear Tests for the Core of Oroville Dam," State of California. Duncen, J. M. and Chang, Y-¥. (1970) “nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundaticns Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM5, September 1970. Duncan, J. M, and Clough, G. W. (1971) “Finite Element Analyses of Port Allen Lock,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM8, Proc. Paper, August 1971, pp. 1053-1068,iid lt id et at 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. a1. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 76 Duncan, J. M. and Lefebvre, G. (1973) “Earth Pressures on Structures Due to Fault Moveneat," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM12, Proc. Paper 10237, Deceuber 1973, pp. 115371163. Hall, E. B. and Gordon, B. B. (1963) "[rtaxial Testing with Large-Scale High Pressure Equipment,” STP 361 - Laboratory Shear Testing of Soils, ASTM, pp. 315-328. Hirschfeld, R. C. and Poulos, S. G. (1963) "High-Pressure Triaxial Tests on a Coupacted Sand and an Undisturbed Silt," STP 361 - Laboratory Shear Testing of Soils, ASTM, 1963, pp. 329-339. Insley, A. E. and Hillis, S. F. (1965) "Triaxial Shear Characteristics of a Compacted Glacial Till Under Unusvally High Confining Pressures," Proceedings, 6th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol, 1, Montreal, pp. 244-248. Janbu, Niimar (1963) "Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedoneter and Triaxial Tests," European Conference on Sofl Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wissbaden, Germany, Vol. 1, pp. 19-25. Kondner, R. L. (1963) "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SML, February, 1963, p. 115. Kondner, R. L. and Zelasko, J. S. (1963) "A Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Formulation of Sands," Proceedings of the 2nd PanAmerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Brazil, 1963, p- 289. Kulhavy, F. H. and Duncan, J. M. (1972) "Stresses and Movements in Oroville Dam," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM7, Proc. Paper 9016, July 1972, pp. 653-665. Kulhavy, F. H., Duncan, J. M. and Seed, H. B. (1969) “Finite Elenent Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Embankments During Construction;" Report No, TE 69-4, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley, California. Lade, P. (1971) "The Stress-Strain and Strength Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, August, 1972. Lee, K. L. (1965) "friaxtal Compressive Strength of Saturated Sand Under Seismic Loading Conditions," Dissertation presented to the University of California, Berkeley, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Lefebvre, G., Duncan, J. M. and Wilson, E. L. (1973) "three-Dinensional Finite Elenent Analyses of Dans," Journal of the Soil Mechanies and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM7, Proc. Paper 9857, July, 1973, pp. 495-507. Linell, K. A. and Shea, H. F. (1960) “Strength and Deformation Character— istics of Various Glacial Tills in New England," Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 275-314.39. 40. 4a. 42. 43. 4b. 45. “46. 7 Marachi, N. (1969) “Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Rock- fill Materials," Dissertation presented to the University of California, Berkeley, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Marsal, R. J., Gomez, E. M., Nunez, A.y “Cuellar, R. and Ramos, R. M. (1965) “Research on the Behavior of Granular Materials and Rock£ill Samples," Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, D. F., February, 1965, 76 p. Marsal, R. J. (1967) "Large Scale Testing of Rockfill Materials," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. Si2, March 1967, pp. 27-43. Nobari, E. $, and Duncan, J. M. (1972) "Effect of Reservoir Filling on Stresses and Movements in Earth and Rockfill Dams," Report No. TE-72-1, University of California, Berkeley, January, 1972. Shannon and Wilson (1961) “Report on Soil Tests: Round Butte Dan Project," Shannon and Wilson, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Seattle, Washington, July, 1961. Shannon and Wilson (1963) "Report on Construction Control and Record Tests for Round Butte Dam," Shannon and Wilson, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Seattle, Washington, 1963. Shannon and Wilson (1964) "Report on Construction Control and Record Tests for Round Butte Dam," Shannou and Wilson, Soil Mechanics end Foundation Engineers, Seattle, Washington, 1964. Sherman, W. C, and Trahan, C. C, (1968) “Analysis of Data from Instrumentation Program, Port Allen Lock," Technical Report S-68-7, U. S. Army Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, September 1968.ee ee 78 APPENDIX COMPUT: GRAM SP-1 This computer program evaluates the hyperbolic parameters ¢, $, K, a and Ry using stress-strain data and G, F and d using volume change data from conventional triaxial compression tests, Least-squares curve-fitting procedures are used in determining the parameter values. The program was developed by Kai Wong at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1973 and 1974, The following data are required for the program: Gard 2 (10A8) Colums 1-80 TITLEL. Title Card for program identification. Card 2 (615, F10.0) Colums 1-5 U.thmber of stress-strain curves. 6-10 L.Number of volume-change curves. li-15 JJ. Lé stress-strain data are given in terms of 0,/a, vs &, JJ= 0. If stress-strain data are given in terns of @,-3,) vs €, JI = 1. 16-20 IPUNCH. If no punched output is desired, IPUNCK = 0. If punched output is desired, IPUNCH = 1. 21-25 CHECK, If ICHECK = 1, corresponding values of (o,-0,) and € will be calculated using the parameters determined and the values printed. These are useful in checking the correspondence of the data and the parameters. If ICHECK = 0, these values are not calculated or printed. 26-30 ICOND. For ICOND = 0, a straight-line failure envelope is fitted to the data, and values of c and are determined. For ICOND = 1, a curved envelope is fitted to the data, and values of 4, and A} are determined. (See equation 14 and Figs. 13 and 14.)Columns 31-40 Atmospheric pressure, expressed in the system of units 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 used in the tests. p,7 14.7 Ib/in® op, Pp, 7 2116 lb/ee*> = 2 py 7 2.126 k/ft Pa p, 7 1.058 t/ée* = 1.033 kg/cm = 10.33 wetric toa/a* = 101.4 kN/m? Gard(s) 3 (6F10.0) Confining pressure, 0. 79 Stress ratio at failure, (01/05), or stress difference at failure, (0,-0,)¢- Axial strain at 70% stress level. Axial strain at 95% stress level. Volumetric strain at 70% stress level. Volumetric strain at 95% stress level. Repeat, one card for each test, total of M cards.Pantano sec suseninae) INC 20) oNSLOPE S¥INTER | 10020) sOPAC20) 1D9BI20) «DPF IZC1 wPAe 2raat2o) senoc 20) seval20) seve 20) #ZR4020) 4ERNLZO0¢ i sConeens ANCL cOSNoLIs Aeetecaaversir saves Stine: Bel 25) ev t20) oxi C209 x1 209 HP LAL +R (20 40L209 INPUT INFORMATION OF CACH SOIL nana 1 PEA 1106 THTLCI IF (EOF(19) 2eSez 2 TOP 3 CONTINUE 7 : READ 120+MeLsJue IPUNCH 6 ICHECK ¢ ICCND «PA nae EVALUATION OF C1 AND RF onnne Gruee XWAK = Ved XIN 2 1000.0 R=040 nO 5 fete BEAD 150+P( 1) gDPF ETD SEAACT I SEAR CT I SEVAC ED SEVOCLD IF(JueEOe1) GC To 6 QPF CT) 279 FORMAT (THe s2X01ZHSTRESS RANGE + 3X 46IINUMUER SUX s LHC SX 1B GHERICTIONG 1OX« 1106 1% 6 LHS OX «ZHRE 4 /OK SHETSE 1 OX #BHOF TESTS*OKe 2 SHCTSF) 6Sx4SHANGLED BOS FORMAT (IOP Sel eZH =o F501 e7X+ 123K oF 142s OeLeL 2K e158 2F 1U42) 290 FORMAT (IHOCESeLe2H ms F501 e7Xe12e3KeF1062+FOeL 2H (oF 562s 1M) ¥BX 1 s1847F 10629 230 FORMATE THU «8x4 IHGAOX 6 IME Foxe THUD 380 FORMATEIMG,3FIC.ad BSS FORMAT(F Se 1 o2H ~4F 501 67K 61293 10e26F Gel 13X01 369 FORMAT ¢ 1Ke1Ss 2F902) 370 FORMATISF IO. ND , 12ers Sennen neenaesseneneetenneeeess) F982) FSeLe2H ~4F S01 ox 1203KeF 1022 IeL2M (HF SeZeLHde D> SUBROUTINE LesoRe COMMON MsL oki JJ eXIN(20) 4 YIN( 20) ¢XSLOPE oY INTER 2000, ¥=0.0 Xx=049 ° x¥=2000 10.10 Taam XEXXINGTD YEYHVINGED XE XXOXING DD SINCTD XYEXINCLAYING ED 4xY + MSLOPE = (MOXVEXeY) /CAXR= XOX D YZ E CVARKAKERYD I MEXK=X EXD IF (kKeEQe0 » GO TO 2¢ YINTER = ¥Z GO To 30 YINTER © 10-08eyZ RETURN ENO 172 173 173, 175 176 177 178 179 180. ter 182 183 18a tes 186 187 180 189 iyo 191 1v2 193 ava 195 196 197 aye 199 2co 201 202 203 208 205. 206 207 208 209 210 in zie 213 2ia 21s 216 217 218 21984 SUBROUTINE ANGLE 220 COMMON MoU gk y IIe XING 2!) oY ING 20) eXSLOPE SY INTERS 221 19€ 20) «0PA( 201 .DPUC2I) DPF (20) Py 222 2FAAL ZO) +EADL 0) «CVALZUI SEVOEZE) +ERAL 20) ERI 20) 223 SSCOHESN+ ANGL 1 ¢DANGL? Bee 90 100 LeryM 225 BANG = (OPFEID/2¢U27UCOPFED) $20P01917200) 226 ANG * ASIN(AANG)/3«141681B06G 227 XINCT) = ALOGIOCPETIZPAD ze YIN) = ANG 229 100 CONTINUE 230 COHESN= G00 23t weet 232 CALL LESORE 233 ANGLI = YINTER 23a DANGLI ™ XSLOPE*(=1009 235 RETURN 236 eno 237 SUBROUTINE CHECK 236 COMMON MeL aii JJ eXIN(2C) YING 2S ) oXSLOPE SYINTERS 239 18 (20) 60PAC20) sOPUL2ZC) .OPF (20) sPae 200 AEAALPO) EARL 20) +EVA(2O) +EVD(2O} +ERAC2O) SERRE 20)» zai SSCOHESN+ ANGL I VOANGL 1+ Baz XK eXNGRAVE «Ge F ¢DAVE © ‘| 243 S TITLED C1Us gaa GET (29) 6V (20) oXP 1209 «XM 20) PPL ZS) RE (20) DK20) 2ay X *: COMESN/1.U58"PA za ANGL2 = ANGLI 207 @ANGL2=DANGLI 248 00 1000 t = ten 2a ANGL I= (ANGL2-DANGL 1 #ALOG1O€P C1 )/PAII/18U+08#3. 1816 280" DOF © (2s0#XMCOSLANGLI} + 2eC*PCTISINCANGLIDIZ(140 = SINCANGLID? 251 DFFeDOF . 22 TF(JSeEQ60) DOF S(DOF HRCI DIVPULD : 293 E = XKEPARIDCLIZPAISEXN | . 288 ANGGG2 ANGL 173s 1416818049 aso PRINT 100¢TITLEL 256 PRINT 200+BC1)+PAsDOF sCOHESN+ANGGG+ XK eXN«RAVE +GeF DAVE 2s7 IF(JJsEQs1> GO TO 115 258 PRINT 210 239 GO TO 120 260 115 pRINT 220 zen 120 CONTINUE, 262 © 263 ESPI = 0.0 eee © 00 145 J = 10s 266 € HYPERBOLIC FITTING OF STRESS-STRAIN CURVE eeu IFC JoLE 4207 Espis EsP1 + 0.co2zs 269 IF (366T +20) ESPi= ESP! + 0.01 a85 7 27% 7 272 SIGID = ESPL {1002 @ ESPIORAVEZOFFD 273 IFCJISEQe1) GO TO 125 eeai S1G138(SIGIS4PC 1) ULE 278 123 IF(L.6T~1) GO To 130 276 FSPPAESPI+ 10000 277 PRINT 230+ESPP 451613 278 IF(SIC13-GTsOF1~GO To 1000 279 Go To 145 2x0 130 CONTINUE zor © zuz € HYPERYOLIC FITTING OF VOLUME-CHANGE CURVE USING DeFe AND G 203 DD = 160 - DAVEEESPI zoe IF {DDsLE 2000) GO TO 135 2u5 © 286 POISI= (G-FRALOGIS(Pt 1) 2A) 9700 287 135 CONTINUE zou ESPP = ESPIF100~ aes ESPIA = POIST#LSHEHI~1603 2v0 - ESPVA = ESPP + 2eusESPIA ava shee 292 < : 293 140 PRINT 2405 ESPPs S1G13+ POISI. ESPIAvESEVA : 2va IF (SIG13«GT.O3F? GO TO 1000 a 148 CONTINUE eve 1009 CONTINUE Bv7 109 FORMATE IH1¥10407 : 298 : 209 FORMAT( INDLZINSIG3 seeaseeusseeeserr ose, 1OxeZdHATHOSPRERIC PRESS avy IURE #y FIO.a7 : : bide 1 224 STRESS AT FAILURE ##® sF1O.ay 301 e 22H COHESION (TSF) #eneme wFiOcas 302 5 22H ANGLE teteasexeuseeee GElUsas 3e3 2 22H K #eeettensseaneseans IFlOLee Boa 3 22H N Saneeeenerenaeeenes WF1Ccar Sos 3 22H RF eeentcesnennanenee GFLOLar 306 3 22H G taneesasenesnessaee \F1Ocar 307 8 22H F teeeasasernessouass SF1Ocas 368 7 22H D Seansenenenensenues GF1O0a) 309 210 FORMATE 1HU¥30xs1GHPARAMETERS DiF «GL 310 Issn ESPI SIG1/51G3 v Espa espv ” Bu A 220 FORMATE IHU »30Xs16HPARAMETERS O+ FOr Biz Iss ESP1 SiGi-siGa v espa spy a 313 230 FORMATCIM 2F 19029 ai 280 FORMAT(IH 42F100243F10.3) 315 ETURN 316 ND86 TRPUT DATA FOR EXAMPLE PROBLEM GP gP-6 SILTY SANDY GRAVEL (OROVILLE DAM? HALL AND GOHDON (19639 a 204, oo 8 8 1ae7 1256 6206 a 403 sa 2500 11006 265 505 1.08 425. 15500 Be 603 168sro esoeen: aneeeeeesoescoscenctocerceeseeen cosas, re soeeee — uaeut vases oo. 4 ° veneessasrenevreses aveneeteonsseneseucensansaanseene ncn ecgenees| seneecesooreteese tee ie eeet + 4996) 2898 70 © | gt0e = 0% 270NY (asa) S131 40 tasd) * ww ” x NOToTUs =D MBEWIN §«FONYE SSauLS Pesveweaeongseagareucwenozaeass eeveeerureretarewoneee Oe eereetenses . 0000c"*t avg 1 MONDDT «= F eMDBHDT «0 -MHONNET «= TPT OE 8D EH 9 mw rz? o2?eoey our aver 302 0° Oorosst oo*szy 206°9 tet 2s3! gerevcy ult Gor so gor Qdruott 0+ 0Ez 199"0 92" 192° eve000e Ov" ou vor 20" vorozg = 00*sat a a A Wa/TR — ANBOUBASS ANBDVFGOL ANBDYFGS© 4NJIWTdOL “HUN ys IV Ag53 aas3 1as3 1483 (e815) EvNOTS Perrier or (£961) voaueo ONY TTVH (WO BVWAOUT) TaAWYS AGNYS AdaTD G-s0 ad levensesceaeeeeoncens eenceore: evewens, Wrereccereens iaiiodd Fieve wor vove InainoBP GPG SELEY SANDY GRAVEL iOROVILLE Dam? a3 te if SHR2s8°"% 33529088 COWES TON a 2527208 128924276 S070 27253 tas7e 10877 717368 PARAMETERS 01740 ESP1 $161-5163 y €SP3 spy +250 inns? 4.271 2068 ous tbo 17443 217 i138 i223 175 24420 i2e2 wei2 2326 1609 2o7e7k tee 2423 ies 342477 2368 1150 Sarape vs SLAMS 2100 Sagas 4 2125 Spares 2150 sgice8 2175 Sis78 3:00 Sposaz Bes Santa 350 Sate 3175 Srat7s 00 Sazeq7 d 4625 Somes9 4150 609011 175 Sinead 5600 6270A7 8:00 bame29 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE © 38 WALL AND GORDON (19637 1667000 PARAMETERS Ly QeaeS{ 2s ! 7 oP aPme SILTY SANDY GRAVEL (OROVILLE DAM? WALL AND GORDON 15983; ] 8 250.0000 ATMOSPHERIC PHESSURE © 14.7000 7 STRESS AT FAILURE ete 106003712 ‘COHESTo! oe S2i0098 31289242748 7 +4070 67253 Bie 377 = 17369 | PARAMETERS 0oF 49 PARAHETERS LeGonoS i EsPL — s11es163 v €sP3 Espy 625 134018 74061 128 #80 2h9010 rales 1251 075 S4al32 1191 #369 1400 828667 76260 +401 1625 495.98 $387 1650 $57036 +687 175 61{eal +780 2000 Ssea6 1866 2025 1945 : : 2650 1.015 2675 076 128 15170 15200 1219 a 4.00 Lezas sees 16216- 4650 Lelge 475 Lise : $400 1039498 +635 \ 7000 1084078 woate90 GP GP=6—RELTY SANDY GRAVEL (OROVILLE OAM? GALL, ANG BORDON 219854 $163_seees: * B1RESS AT FarLUse COHESION. (7 ANGLE’ ee) 425.0000 ATHOSPHERIC PRESSURE © . 182329008 ERIC PRESSURE 18.7000 0 eeeerees 40,5810 seeaceees 1269.4278 24070 27253 3476 10677 7.7369 PARAMETERS DoF G PARAMETERS LQeReS EsP1] §161-5163 v ESP3 sey 171466 226 3lar7 3228 056 +138 Ae +272 s4acas +233 20175 +40 238 +524 +643 +756 862 962 1,055 +238 0243 2248 2256 +260 2668 272 «279 0286 3293 30r 555.49 0576 94605 heat