Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Appendix A
d v d vep d vp A.1
If we consider the elastic swelling modulus, Ks and the elastoplastic compression modulus, Kc such
that:
ep dP '
d v K
c
A.2
d e dP '
v
Ks
From equation A.2 the plastic volumetric strain increment can be given by:
dP ' dP ' K s K c
d vp dP ' A.3
Kc K s Kc K s
Considering the plastic modulus, H the plastic strain in equation in A.3 can be further written as:
dP '
d vp A.4
H
Kc K s
Where H represents .
K s Kc
2. The cap yield function
The cap is modified type of cam clay yield function put in an equation form as:
P ' a Pc' a 0
q
2
2
fc
2
A.5
M
3. From plasticity theory (associated flow rule and normality of plastic strains to the plastic
potential function) we have:
g c f
d vp d c d c c 2d c P ' c A.6
P ' P '
Comparing equations A.4 and A.6 and holding dp ' dpc' we have:
For a stress dependent modulus H, we may write the Janbu/Ohde stress dependency equation as:
Pc a
m
m
3' a
dP 2 H
' ref
ref P ' a d c A.9
P a
c
Here 3' is the minimum eigenvalue of the stress tensor and Pref is the reference confining pressure.
Href is the reference is stiffness at the reference pressure.
4. Consistency condition
In the theory of plasticity, the consistency condition assures the condition that the stress state should
satisfy the yield function, thus:
df 0
df f d f 0 A.10
ij
ij
Where k is the hardening parameter and relates the stress change to certain permanent deformation or
plastic deformation. In this case, plastic volumetric strain is related to the pre-consolidation stress Pc' .
Thus we may further write equation A.10 as (for cap only):
f
d
f f
df c d ' dPc 0 dPc
' '
Pc f
Pc'
f 2( P ' a)
P '
f 2q
2 A.11
q M
f
' 2 Pc a
'
Pc
f d 2 P ' a 2q 2( P ' a )dp ' 2q dq
T
dp '
M dq
2
M2
f
T
Accounting the first line and fourth parts of equation A.11, equation A.12 we can have:
dpc' P' ' a dp '
Pc a
m
' ref 3 a
'
2 H ref P ' a
P a
For a special case of isotropic loading it is considered that q 0 and thus dp ' dpc'
dpc'
d c m
A.14
Pc' a
2 H ref ref P a
'
P a
c
1 Pc' a
m
Pc' a
1 1 m
v d v ref ref
p p
dpc ref ref
'
H P a 1 m
m
H P a
A.15
m
Pc' a P ref a
v ref
p
for m < 1
H 1 m Pc' a
2. Appendix B
Table B.1: Relations for shear modulus G0 for CLEAN SANDS and GRAVELS (Benz, 2007)
Table B.2: Relations for shear modulus G0 of CLAYS (Benz, 2007)
Table B.3: Proposed relationships for the shear modulus G0 of entire soil groups (Benz, 2007)
3.
4. Appendix C
Figure C.1: Effect of shearing rate on the strain-dependent (a) shear modulus and (b) normalized shear
modulus for Orewa residual soil (Ibrahim et al., 2009)
Figure C.2: the effect of over consolidation ratio on the variation of (a) shear modulus (b) normalized shear
modulus with shearing strain amplitude as measured in torsional resonant column (kaolinite
specimen) (reproduced from M.B. Darendeli, 2001)
Figure C.3: Maximum shear modulus vs. Void ratio for various confining stresses for Toyoura sand
(T. Wichtmann et al., 2004)
Figure C.4: Gmax/f (e) vs. normalized mean stress relationship of air –dry Toyoura sand (reproduced from
Iwasaki et al., 1978)
Figure C.5: Relationship of normalized shear modulus vs. normalized mean principal stress for
saturated Toyoura sand (Iwasaki et al., 1978)
Figure C.6: (a) Normalized modulus vs. Shear strain amplitude at different stress levels (b) gamma 0.7 vs.
normalized mean stress (T.Wichtmann et al., 2004)
Figure C.7: variation in empirical normalized modulus reduction curves, (a): EPRI (1993c), (b) Idris
(1990) for different types of soils
5. Appendix D
Compose L and N :
L
fb f e
tr Tˆ 2
F 2 I a 2 Tˆ Tˆ
f f f Fa ˆ ˆ
N b e d2 T T
tr Tˆ
Intergranular
Compose intergranular
strain concept
strain tensor :
included (m R > 2)?
h; h ; hˆ
Compose :
L : hˆ hˆ and N hˆ
Compose tangent
stiffness M
hˆ : D > 0 ? mT 1 mR L mR mT L : hh
ˆˆ
mT 1 mR L 1 mT L : hh
ˆ ˆ Nhˆ
Compose exponent
r :
stress
dependent r r 0
strain ?
Compose exponent
r :
k
P ref
r r 0
P'
B) Calibration results
Layer below 40m: Figures D.2 shows calibration results of this layer
Figure D.2: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (layer below 40m)
The calibration results of the various layers of the NATM tunnel excavated in Steinhaldenfeld
are given in Figures D.3 to D.6 below.
Figure D.3: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (fill)
Figure D.4: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (upper marble)
Figure D.5: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble)
For the limestone layer given in Figure D.6, the calibration result was complex and it is only
the calibration trial included here. This calibration is difficult, because the limestone layer is a
rock; hence this layer is considered as a rock with elastic material properties.
Figure D.6: calibration trial results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (limestone)
Figure D.5: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble)
6. Appendix E
PLAXIS Results
Figure E.1: Excavation in Berlin sand: 2D mesh (left) and detail geometry (right) (Benz, 2007)
Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HSS models
Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HP models
7. Appendix F
Material Parameters
Table F.1: existing hypoplastic model parameters for model comparison
Soil type φc [0] hs [kPa] n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-] e0[-]
Hostun 32 3800000 0.29 0.61 0.91 1.09 0.134 1.35 0.65
sand
Berlin 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.608
sand
Parameters for intergranular strain concept
Soil type mR mT Rmax βr χ
Hostun 5 2 0.00006 0.5 2
sand
Berlin 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0
sand
Table F.2: existing HS-Small model parameters for Berlin sand for model comparison
Soil type E50ref[kPa] Eoedref[kPa] Eurref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ [0] ψ [0] γ0.7ref [-] G0ref [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]
Berlin 25000 28000 100000 0.55 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608
sand
Hostun 30000 30000 90000 0.55 0 42 16 0.0002 108000 0.25 0.65
sand
Table F.4: calibrated HS-Small parameters for the Berlin sand- Excavation-2
layer E50ref[kPa] Eoedref[kPa] Eurref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ [0] ψ [0] γ0.7ref [-] G0ref [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]
1(loose) 22500 23000 78960 0.6 1.0 340 0 0.00008 73000 0.25 0.716
4
2(dense) 25000 28000 100000 0.5 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608
5
Table F.5: Berlin sand parameters of the reference HS-Small model-excavation 2
Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 1 1 1
Dilatancy angle ψ (o ) 5 6 6
Table F.6: calibrated HP- model parameters for Berlin sand in table F.5-Excavation-2
Parameter Unit Sand layer-1 Sand layer-2 Sand layer-3
Critical friction [0] 31.5 32.5 31
angle, φc
Granulate [kPa] 5000000 10000000 14000000
hardness, hs
Exponent, n [-] 0.35 0.32 0.32
Critical void ratio, [-] 0.84 0.88 0.92
ec0
Minimum void [-] 0.54 0.5 0.4
ratio, ed0
Maximum void [-] 1.1 1.38 1.41
ratio, ei0
Exponent, α [-] 0.22 0.2 0.2
Exponent, β [-] 2.2 2.2 2.2
Initial void ratio,e0 [-] 0.75 0.72 0.68
or e
Additional parameters for modeling the intergranular strain
Intergranular 0.00006 0.00006 0.00007
radius, R [-]
Exponent, χ [-] 2 2 2
Factor, mR [-] 4 4 4
Factor, mT [-] 2 2 2
Exponent, k [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameter, βr0 [-] 1 1 1
Table F.7: Updated HP-model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test
Table F.8: Updated HS-Small model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test
User defined parameters
Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 0
Dilatancy angle ψ (o ) 16
Internal parameters
Table F.9: HSS- model material parameters for the all layers of the NATM tunnel
User defined parameters
Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2] 100 100 100 100
Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2] 10085.8 33840 16397 173187