Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Jinjun Guo
Department of Civil Engineering, Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China
Wei Wang *
Department of Civil Engineering, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China * corresponding author, e-mail: wellsking.wang@gmail.com
Xiaoni Wang
Zijin College, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
ABSTRACT
Mathematical model for soil stress-strain curve is very important to theory study of soil mechanics and numerical simulation of corresponding geotechnical engineering; however it is not well solved. Based on experimental data of Yangtze River soil, shortcoming of traditional hyperbolic stress-strain model is pointed out. Composite two-segment hyperbolic model (CTH model) and composite hyperbolic-line model (CHL model) are presented to describe harden type and soften type stress-strain curves, respectively. These two improved models both can be simplified into hyperbolic model with their special parameters. Finally, one harden type and two soften type curves are put forwarded in order to validate the accuracy of CTH model and CHL model, and good agreements have been found between experimental curves and fitting results of the improved models. The results of this study put good foundation for numerical simulation and design of corresponding geotechnical engineering.
KEYWORDS:
INTRODUCTION
With the rapid economic growth, more and more engineering structures are built on foundations nearby rivers. Good geotechnical design should be made before these structures construction, which includes field investigation, foundation numerical simulation, et al. Accuracy of geotechnical engineering foundation numerical simulation depends strongly on soil constitutive law and mechanical parameters used during the simulation process. Understanding properly of mathematical description of stress-strain relationship is necessary to construct soil constitutive law, and great effort has been devoted to it recently (He and YANG, 2002; AlShayea, et al. 2003; Wang, et al. 2004; Xu, et al. 2011). Several empirical models based on - 1675 -
1676
experimental dada have been proposed to describe the relationship (Habibagahi and Mokhberi, 1998; Li and Ding, 2002; Ramu and Madhira, 2010). The work of Duacan and Chang is important for understanding the stress-strain behavior (Duncan and Chang, 2002). They proposed a hyperbolic model for it. At the same time, it had been found that stress-strain relationship can be divided into harden type and soften type. Hyperbolic model is available for not soften type but only harden type stress-strain relationship (Mitaim and Detournay, 2005; Wang, et al. 2010; Wang, 2012; Zhang, 2010). In order to rationally describe both harden type and soften type stress-strain relationship, some more general models are needed. Object of this study is to properly understand the stress-strain behavior and to establish mathematical models to well describe harden/soften type stress-strain curves of Yangtze River soil.
q=
a + b
(1)
where a and b are two undetermined soil parameters. It is obviously that in Eq. 1, there is a limit to the deviator stress, and the limiting deviator stress is 1/b, shown as Fig. 1.
q
1 b
Ei 1 Et
q= a+b
0
Figure 1:
Et =
a 1 = (1 bq) 2 2 (a + b ) a
(2)
1677
When q=0, the initial tangent modulus Ei=1/a. Thus the two parameters a and b are directly related to the limiting deviator stress and initial tangent modulus, respectively, shown as Fig. 1. Given p=/q, Eq. 1 can be converted as a linear expression:
p = a + b
(3)
where a is intercept and b is slope coefficient of the p- line, shown as Fig. 2. So we can easily determine the two parameters from Eq. 3 based on experimental data, and then this model is extensively used both to theory analysis and to engineering numerical simulation.
p p=a+b
1
a
0
Figure 2:
Typical p- Curves
Many experimental data show that hyperbolic model can not accurately fit the investigated q data of Yangtze River soil. Sometimes, the fitting error is considerable. In practical geotechnical engineering design, simulating initial deformation using hyperbolic model is often bigger than that of field investigations. This error is perhaps originated from the shortcomings of hyperbolic model itself. In order to properly understand the q- behavior of Yangtze River soil, triaxial tests of 25 set specimen are conducted by us. The tested data provide that p- curve of Yangtze River soil is not one strait line like Fig. 2 but one two-segment line, which may be the key source of hyperbolic model simulating error. In order to conveniently discuss the p- curves, we only take two typical specimens as examples, and they are named as No. 1 and No. 2 specimen, denoting soften and harden type q- curves respectively, shown as Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Fig. 3-4 demonstrate that p- curves are not only one strait line as Eq. 3, but one convex or concave two-segment line with one switch point. In fact, the convex two-segment line denotes the harden type q- curve and the concave one denotes the soften type q- curve. It is necessary to improve the p- description in Eq. 3. It is very important to determine the switch point, (s, qs) or (s, ps) of p- curve. According to the experimental data, we investigated that: (1) For convex type p- curve, s is depended strongly on soil failure strain f, and value s/f varies with a small area from 0.25 to 0.30.
1678
(2) Concave type p- curve is combined soil dilatancy with peak point (p, v) of -v curve, shown as Fig. 5, where v is volume strain. Further study find that s of concave type p- curve is almost equal to p of v- curve.
40 35 30 p / MPa 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 /% 6 8 10
-1
60 50 p / MPa
-1
40 30 20 10 0 0 2
8 /%
10
12
14
16
100 kPa
2 0 0 5
300 kPa
/%
10 15 20
v /%
-2 -4 -6
Figure 5: -v curve of of No. 2 soil specimen
1679
p = a1 + b1 p = a2 + b2
s > s
(4)
In Eq. 4, a1, b1, a2 and b2 are four undetermined soil parameters with similar physical meanings and calculating ways to those of parameters a and b, shown as Fig, 6. They have following relationship, a1<a, b1>b and a<a2, b>b2. So the q- model can be expressed:
q = a +b 1 1 q = a2 + b2
s
(5)
> s
When a1=a2 and b1=b2, Eq. 5 is degraded to Eq. 1, and the new model is degraded to conventional hyperbolic model. Because of its two parts, we name it as composite two-segment hyperbolic model (CTH model).
p a2 a1 0
( s , ps )
1 1
b2
b1
1680
1 2 Et = a (1 b1q) q qs 1 E = 1 (1 b q) 2 q > q 2 s t a2
It is obvious that when a1=a2 and b1=b2, Eq. 6 is degraded to Eq. 2.
(6)
Given two deviator stress q, one is less than qs and the other is bigger than qs, tangent modulus with various minimum principal stresses (3) of No. 1 soil specimen calculated by Eq. 2 and Eq. 5 are list in table 1. From this table we can make following conclusions: (1) As to this specimen, when q is less than qs, tangent module resulted from CTH model are bigger than that from conventional hyperbolic model. (2) When q is bigger than qs, tangent modulus of this specimen resulted from CTH model are similar to that from conventional hyperbolic model. These two properties enable CTH model to overcome the above mentioned shortcoming of hyperbolic model that simulating initial deformation is often bigger than that of field investigations.
1681
p=
a + b 1 k (a + b )
(7)
where k is a positive undetermined parameter. Because of (1-k(a+b))<1, Eq. 7 would appear concave shape like Fig. 3. If k=0, then Eq. 7 is degraded to Eq. 2 as a straight line. Then, one composite hyperbolic-line model (CHL model) can be obtained:
q=
a + b
-k
(8)
It is evident that CHL model is degraded to conventional hyperbolic model with k=0. Taking specimen 2 with two typical confining pressure 3=100kPa and 3=200kPa as example, its tested and fitted p- curves are presented in Fig. 7. This figure shows that fitted p- curves of CHL model are more closely to tested data than that of hyperbolic model.
70 60 50
-1
p / MPa
40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
/%
1682
30 25
-1
20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4
p / MPa
10
12
14
16
/%
Differentiating Eq. 8 with , the tangent modulus Et of CHL model can be deduced:
Et =
a -k (a + b ) 2
(9)
Because CTH model and CHL model are both built based on hyperbolic model, they two can be considered as improved hyperbolic models.
1683
q / kPa
100 50 0 0 2 4 6
10
12
/%
Figure 8: Tested and fitted q- curves of No. 1 soil specimen with 3=100kPa
500 400
q / kPa
/%
q / kPa
600 450 300 150 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 tested data hyperbolic model CHL model
/%
1684
These two figures demonstrate that CTH model and CHL model can offer better agreements with tests data than that of hyperbolic model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the reviewers who gave a through and careful reading to the original manuscript. Their comments are greatly appreciated and have help to improve the quality of this paper. This work is supported in part by the Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (NO. 211068), and by the Nature Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (NO. Y1080839). Some Laboratory tests were carried out by Dr. Zhang in Hohai University.
REFERENCES
1. Al-Shayea N., Abduljauwad S., Bashir R. and Al-Ghamedy (2003) Determination of parameters for a hyperbolic model of soils, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 156, 105-117. 2. L. Z. Wang, Z. Y. Zhao and L. L. Li (2004) Non-linear elastic model considering soil structural damage, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 83-89. 3. C. R. He and G. F. Yang (2002) Effects of parameters of Duncan-Chang model on calculated results, Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 24, 170-174. 4. X T. Xu, Y. M.Lai, Y. H. Dong and J. L. Qi (2011) Laboratory investigation on strength and deformation characteristics of ice-saturated frozen sandy soil, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 69, 98-104. 5. Ramu K. and Madhav Madhira R. (2010) Response of rigid footing on reinforced granular fill over soft soil, Geomach. Eng., 2, 281-302. 6. Habibagahi G. and Mokhberi M. (1998) A hyperbolic model for volume change behavior of collapsible soils, Can. Geotech. J., 35, 264-272.
1685
7. J. Li and D. Ding (2002) Nonlinear elastic behavior of fiber-reinforced soil under cyclic loading, Soil Dyn. Earthqu. Eng., 22, 977-983. 8. J. M. Duncan and C. Y. Chang (2002) Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils, Geotech. Spec. Publ., 118, 1347-1371. 9. Mitaim S. and Detournay E. (2005) Determination of ground reaction curve for hyperbolic soil model using the hodograph method. Can. Geotech. J., 42, 968. 10. W. Wang, X. J. Song, H. Ling, T. H. Lu and G. W. Zhou (2010) Composite exponential-hyperbolic model for stress-strain curve of seashore soft soil, Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 32, 1455-1459. 11. W. Wang. (2012) A new model for settlement process of closed municipal solid waste landfill, The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17(G), 947958. 12. Y. Zhang. (2010) A modified hyperbolic model containing strain softening, Int. Conf. Mech. Autom. Control Eng, 4359-4362.
2012 ejge