pa,pers
Field and laboratory
This paper, which was awarded the
Cooling prise for 1989, sets outs factors
which should be tsjzen into account
when investigating the small strain
stN'ness of soils in order to arrive at a
realfistic prediction of ground
movement.
Modelling small straixis
for analysis in
geotechnical
engineering
By SE Stallebrass, reseach student,
Geotechnical Engineering Research
Centre, The City University.
Introduction
At small strains, the behaviour of
overconsolidated soil is non-linear and
dependent on the current state and stress
histozy of the soil. In addition to the overall
history of the soil, described by the
overconsolidation ratio, the recent stress
history, for example a sudden change in
direction of loading, has a major effect on
the subsequent small strain soil stiffness
(Som, 1968;Atkinson, 19732;Richardson,
1983s).For realistic predictions of ground
movements stress-strain relationships
should be used which correspond not only
to the correct state, stress history and
strain level but also reflect the appropziate
recent stress history. This is particularly
important on sites where the recent stress
history of the soil may change significantly
across the site due to local geological
variations or to nearby construction.
Methods of modelling this non-linear,
recent history dependent behaviour
include empizical models derived from
specific experimental data (Jardine and
Potts, 1988 ), theoretically based
constitutive soil models which only
require basic soil parameters (Mroz et al,
1979 ) or mixed models which combine
theory and empirical formulations
26 (Simpson et at, 1979 ).
GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY/FEBRUARY
stress-strain relationship for
evidence of non-linearity
Detailed investigations of the small strain
stiffness of soils were prompted by
comparisons of stiffnesses measured in
routine laboratory tests with those
obtained by back-calculation from Geld
observations of ground movements (St
John, 1975 ). The laboratory-measured
stiffnesses were found to be significantly
lower than those dezived from Geld
observations. These differences may be
attzibuted to the inabiTity of routine tests to
measure stiffness at small strains.
The small strain stiffness of soil is critical
because the majority of the soil
surrounding structures such as retaining
walls, excavations, rigid footings and
piled foundations expezience shear
strains generally less than 0.1%.Elgnre l
illustrates the distribution of shear strain
behind a retaining wall calculated by
Simpson et al, (1979 ) assuming an upper
bound for settlements behind retaining
walls in Gzm ground as 0.2% of the wall
height (Peck, 1986'). It is clear from the
figure that shear strains exceed 0.1% only
very locally. Jardine et al (1986 ) also
showed the importance of smaQ strains
gess than 0.1%)when analysing
settlements below a rigid footing and
around piled foundations.
Improved techniques of measuring axial
strains in triaxial tests using local axial
strain transducers (Costa Filho, 1985";
Clayton et al, 1988")have provided data
which clearly show the non-linearity of the
r /
0 10%
/ I
/ I
0 07%
Hg.1.9trafa coatours around an excavatfon. Nzearstrafa coatonrsfor a ~~~~am
wall dfsplacemeat 02% of wall height, linear elastfc model (after Simpson et al
19?9).
1990
overconsolidated soils at small strains.
&gare 2shows data from a series of tests
by Jardine et al (1984', on reconstituted
samples of a low plasticity clay,
consolidated one dimensionally and
swelled to different overconsolidation
ratios. These data demonstrate both the
non-linearity of the defomiation and its
dependence on initial state and overall
stress history. The recent stress history
was identical for aH these stress-strain
curves.
&gaze 3 shows the results of numerical
analyses of ground movements near a wall
camed out using hnear and non-linear
elastic models. The results, which show
profiles of surface settlement,
demonstrate marked differences
between the results of the linear and
non-linear analyses. The results of the
non-linear analyses agree well with Geld
observations thus illustzating the
importance of modelling small strain
stiffness correctly.
Effect of recent stress history
The non-linear stress-strain cuzves shown
in Hg. 2are not unique for a given state
and overall stress history as might be
expected from conventional theory. A
series of tests on overconsolidated soils
by Richardson (1988s) established that the
deformation of the soil is also significantly
infiuenced by its recent stress history, in
particular recent stress history desczibed
by the direction of the previous loading
path.
0
I
I
I
/ /
/ %, I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
/ I I
/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I J
0 04% 0.01%
t Displacement veclprs
 120

R1 4
R1 Rl
R2
R4

80

R8
r'u R( 4~
b

b 40 n 2Me~~~edsb
b,b moarofa m~st'ated Xo
~~gggyii4is(ted low'++
R2

vari soff4fatf tf
R4
0 scale; b) strain on a loyantbmic scale.
R8
' '
recent hist ory
ry of the soil varies in the two
2 3 4 halves of the site. Half the site is occupi
Axial s1rain e: % by an existing building which is tobe
(a) hshed to allow construction of a
lar
larger structure covering the whole of the
12 site.. Tw o elements of soil are identifi 'A
beneath the existing building, and,
beneath the undeveloped portion of the
site.
Fiyare Sb shows the stress paths for the
ru soil elements before the site was initially
developed by construction of the existing
b
huildin . Element A was loaded in
b
4
co 'aded
compression and will he unl
the building is demolished, Hyars $c.
when

For element A the subsequent unloading

caused by the excavation of a deep
settl ement for the new structure is a
con 'inuation of the previous stress p ath,
10 I
whereas for element B the loading pa th
0 001 0005 001 005 01 05 1 5 10 hase ban g ed direction. Flymts 54f shows
Axial th e tw o different stress-strain curves
obtained for elements A and B during the
unloading due to excavation. In order to
H 4a shows stress paths for an
predict the ground movements associated
element of soil brought to the sam e state at the recent stress paths UX and WX were
X along the different paths UX and WX different. The variation in tangent shear
d then loaded drained at constant
the same path XY. Hyar(s s p'long

by the effect of recent stress history.

stress-strain curves OA an dOB Sa shows atypical example of a
corresponding to the same loading path site on overconsolidated clay, where the M~eg.
A method for predicting the small strain
behaviour of overconsolidated soils must
Computed by
Ward and
Buriand(t 973
Y Distance (rom wall. m.
0 510 20 30 40 50 60 70 borisontal
0 movemsnt)L the effect of recent stress history.
E
E ted Msear elastic Jardine et al (1988 consi er the
considered
ce 10 behaviour of soil at small strain as non-
E
e
20-
+ East wall total (measured)
cavation (measured)

South wall total (measured)

al, iy?8).
(a)
stiffn s against axial strain. These
E
E formulations were used as part o
e 20 ' East wall total (measured) lasti soil model in a finite element
c 5 ih all total(measured) analysis of piles in the North Sea Qardine
0
E
th wall during construchon (measured os,
an d Potts 1988 ).Provided that the
c Computed by Ward
a'nd Bur(and
labo Iatory tests correctly repre sent the
0 (1973)
g site conditions of loading and history the
o 0~
Z 0 (0 20 3() 40 50 ()0 rg 1 fulfills all the above criteria. For
Distance from wali m sites w h ere the soil stress state and stre ss
hist ory can be reproduced in alabora o
laboratory,
test stress path testing can be us used to
GROUND NGINEERING
EN . JANUARY/FE BRUARY 1990
 100.
q

(kpa)

50.

Hashiguchi (1988'4) and is de6ned in

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 stress space by three yield suzfaces as
CS (%) shown in Ffynzts S.The stress-strain
(a) (b)
behaviour of the soil is controlled by the
movement of the two inner kinematic
surfaces and the expansion or contraction
30- of all three surfaces. The addition of a third
G' surface enables the model to predict both
non-linearity and the effect of recent
(Mpa) KEY stress-history.
0 after UX In the model, deformations are elastic only
+ after WX
when the current stress state of the soil lies
20- 0 within the 'yield'urface. When the
0
loading path is 'dragging'he yield surface
+
plastic stzains occur. The overall history of
0 the soil is described by the size of the
++~ 'bounding'urface and recent history by
+
+ 0 the con6guration of the 'yield'nd
10- Hynzn Zilch shows the model
history'urfaces.

+
0 following the streLi paths UXY and WXY
d0 (see Hynzn 4n) ancl illustrates how the
0 surfaces translate duzing loading. In
0 lVyzzzn 8computer predictions using this
"00 model are compared with the
Ci
0 experimental cuzves from Hynze 4.
I I I I I I I

0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 These data illustrate how the model
CS (%)
successfully predicts the two major
characteristics of the behaviour i.e. non-
(c) linearity and the effect of recent stress-
history.

Fig.4. Exyerimentnl data 8lnstrating

the variation in the stresswtrnin
response ofsoil for different recent
histones. Data taken from tests on existing
building
samples ofrecanstitnted Lendan clay.
fRfchnzzfsan, le).
derive data from undisturbed or extent oi deep basement excavation
reconstituted soil samples by recreating I.

the long term and recent history of the soiL (a)

P
B
On a site where the recent history is not (b)
the same in different locations, a number
of stress path tests may have to be carried
out. This method of modelling small q'i I- J-I path followed by
strains has the advantage of being -K element A
li
relatively easy to implement in finite qi
I-K path followed by
element analyses which are able to element 8
accommodate non-linear elasticity,
although generating the correct data for a
complicated site could require a large
number of special multi-stage stress path P
tests to be performed.
An alternative to this largely empirical
approach is to formulate a soil model that
uses basic parameters and predicts all the
variations in stress-strain behaviour of the (c)
soil caused by state, overconsolidation Cs
ratio and recent stress history. A new (d)
model has been developed from the
kinematic multi-surface models of Al Hg.S. ff typical example ofa constrnction site in nrhich the recent stress history of
28 Tabbaa (1987', Mroz el al (1979 ) and the sail is not the same for all locatians.
GROUND ENGINEERING . JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990

ic region
Ct
Slg.6. Three surface hinematic yield
modeL
The main advantage of using this model to
predict the small strain behaviour of soils
is that it is no longer necessary to perform
large numbers of complicated stress path
tests. The model only requires a small
number of basic soil parameters; these are
the critical state angle of friction, M, the
coefficients of compressibQity, xl, and
swelling, pc, a point on the isotropic
compression curve, a maxim ~e elastic
shear stiffness and the ratios between the
sizes of the three surfaces. These latter
parameters can be obtained from
relatively simple isotropic compression,
swelling and recompression tests. The
model is therefore more flexible than
empirical formulations. At present it only
exists in a single element form and has yet
to be implemented as a soil model within a
Qnite element analysis.
Conclusions
For many structures in overconsolidated
soils, the majority of the soil experiences
shear strains which are less than 0.1%.At
these small strains the stiffness of the soil
is non-linear snd dependent not only on
the state and overconsolidation ratio but
also on the recent stress history of the soil.
30 KEY
G'MPc)
p +
20
10
0 I
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1.0
q',
(a) ofter loading from W (h) loading along path XY
(c) final configuration, at Y
p p
(d) aner loading from U (e) loading along path XY (f) final contiguration, at Y
Hg.?. 'fgfro serias ofatetchesshofNing the translation of the ttftro lrmematfc yield
surfacesas the soilis loaded along the stress path XF, aBerinitiafly beingloaded
along paths WXand fJXrespectively.
In order to predict both the magnitudes References
and the distributions of ground
1. Som, NN (1968).The effect of stress path on the
movements satisfactorily 89il models deformation and consolidation of London Clay. Ph.D.
should incorporate all these Thesis, University of London.
characteristics. This behaviour can be 2. Atkinson, JH (19?3)The deformation of undisturbed
modelled using a non-linear elastic London Clay. PkD. Thesis, University of London.
3. Richardson, D (1988).Investigations of threshold
relationship derived empirically from effects in soil deformaticms. PkD. Thesis. The City
appropriate data but these data can only University.
be obtained using special stress path 4. Jardine, RJ and Pons, DM(1888). Hutton terudon leg
testing, usually requiring local axial strain platform foundations: prediction of driven pile
behaviour. Geotechnique, Vol 38, No. 2, pp. 23 1-282.
measurement. Anew kinematic yield S. Mros, Z, Norris, VA and Zienkiewics, OC (1979).
model has been developed which uses Application of an anisotropic hardening model in the
easily obtained basic soil parameters to analysis of elasto-plastic deformation of soils.
model the stress-strain behaviour of soil. Geotechnique, VoL 89, No. I, pp. 1-34.
6. Simpson, B, O'Riordan, NJ and Croft, DD (1979).A
This provides a potentially simpler
computer model for the analysh of ground movements
method of predicting ground movements. in London Clay. Geotechniqtm, Vol 29, No. 2, pp.
149-17S.
Achnovgledgements 7. St John, HJ(1978). Field and theoretical studies of the
behaviour of gmund around deep excavations in
The author is supported by an SERG-CASE award in London Clay. PkD. Thesis, University of Cambridge.
collabomtion with Ove Arup St Partners. 8. Peck, RB (1969).Deep excavations and tunnelling in
soft grounfL Proc. Seventh Conf. Soil Mack Fdn
Elg.8. Cojnparison Engng, Mexico. State of the Art Report, pp. 228-290.
betvtreen 9. Jardine, RJ, Potts, DM, Founie, AB and Burigtnd, JB
experimental data
(1986).Studies of the inQuence of non-linear stress-
expemnental data strain characteristics in soil structure interaction.
computer predictions from tests on Geotechnique, Vol 36, No 3, pp377-396.
(3 surface model) Landon Clay, see 10. Costa Filho, L de M (198S).Measurement of Axial
Strainsi in Triaxial Tests on London Clay. ASTM,
Hgure 4, and Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 8, No. I, pp. 3- 13.
computer l
I Clayton, CRI, Khatrusk SA, Bica, AVD and
predictions using Siddique, A (1988).The use of hall effect
the three surface semiconductors in geotechnical instrumentation.
ASTM. Geotechnical Testing Journal VoL 12, No. I, pp.
model. 69-76.
12. Jardine, RJ, Symes, MJRP and Burland, JB (1984).
The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial
apparatus. Geotechnique, Vol 34, No. 3, pp. 232-340.
13. Al Tabbaa, A (1987).Permeability and stress-strain
response of speswhite kaolin. PkD. Thesis, University
of Cambridge.
14. Hashiguchi, K(1988).Two- and three-surface
models of plasticity. Pmc. Fifth Int. Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, pp. 288-292.
5.0
<s (K)
29
GROUND ENGINEERING . JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990