Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

333

Observed and calculated load–settlement

relationship in a sandy gravel
Fernando Rodríguez-Roa

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to obtain a better understanding of the nonlinear stress–strain behavior of
the typical gravel of Santiago, Chile, due to the increasing needs for construction of high-rise buildings, multilevel un-
derground constructions, and new subway lines to be built under historical city landmarks. A finite-element computer
program to perform incremental stress–strain analyses of soils was developed on the basis of a modified version of the
hyperbolic elastic model. The changes herein proposed to this well-known constitutive model were based on triaxial
tests carried out on 150 mm diameter specimens of compacted sandy gravels which involved various stress paths. A
comparison was performed between the observed and calculated load–settlement relationship in a plate-load test that in-
cluded unloading–reloading cycles. From the good agreement obtained it is concluded that the modified version of the
hyperbolic model proposed represents reasonably well the behavior of the Santiago gravel.

Key words: constitutive relations, finite-element model, laboratory tests, field tests, soil properties, case history.

Résumé : Le but de cette recherche était d’acquérir une meilleure compréhension du comportement contrainte-
déformation non linéaire du gravier typique de Santiago (Chili), compte tenu des besoins accrus pour la construction de
tours d’habitation, de constructions souterraines à multiples étages, et de nouvelles lignes de métros qui seront
construites sous des repères historiques de la ville. On a développé un programme d’ordinateur en éléments finis pour
des analyses par incréments contrainte-déformation des sols sur la base d’une version modifiée du modèle hyperbolique
élastique. Les changements proposés ici à ce modèle de comportement bien connu ont été fondés sur des essais
triaxiaux réalisés le long de divers cheminements de contrainte sur des spécimens de 150 mm de graviers sableux
compactés. Une comparaison a été faite entre les relations contrainte-déformation calculée et observée dans un essai de
chargement de plaque qui incluait des cycles de déchargement-rechargement. Compte tenu de la bonne concordance
obtenue, on conclut que la version modifiée du modèle hyperbolique proposée représentee raisonnablement bien le
comportement du gravier de Santiago.
Mots clés : relations de comportement, modèle d’éléments finis, essais de laboratoire, essais de terrain, propriétés de
sols, histoire de cas.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Rodríguez-Roa 342

Introduction version of hyperbolic stress–strain relationships has been se-

The increasing construction of high-rise buildings, multi-
level underground parking lots, and new subway lines under
historical city landmarks located on the gravel of Santiago,
Chile, have led Chilean geotechnical engineers to perform
different types of field measurements (Escobar 1971;
Ortigosa et al. 1973; Kort et al. 1979; Campos 1981; Poblete
et al. 1981; Kort and Ortigosa 1995) and numerical analyses
(Bustamante 1987; Rodríguez-Roa 1998) to evaluate the
shear strength and stress–strain behavior of this soil.
The selection of an appropriate soil stress–strain relation-
ship is primarily involved with balancing simplicity and ac-
curacy. There is no benefit in using a very complex
relationship to analyze a geotechnical problem when a sim-
ple representation of the stress–strain behavior of the soil re-
sults in acceptable accuracy. In this paper, a modified
Received February 22, 1999. Accepted August 30, 1999.
F. Rodríguez-Roa. Department of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering, The Catholic University of Chile,
Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile.
lected because of its convenience and practicality, despite
the fact that these constitutive relationships are inherently
elastic and do not model plastic deformations in a fully logi-
cal way (Duncan 1996).
Elastoplastic and elastoviscoplastic stress–strain relation-
ships have the advantage that they model more realistically
coupling between shear and volumetric strains and the be-
havior of soils close to failure, at failure, and after failure
(Owen and Hinton 1980; Chen and Mizuno 1990). However,
they have the limitation that they are more complex (Duncan
1996).
Preliminary finite-element analyses based on two previous
formulations of the hyperbolic elastic model were carried
out to simulate a plate-load test that included unloading–re-
loading cycles (Kort and Ortigosa 1995). The first model
used was described by Duncan et al. (1980a), and the second
model by Boscardin et al. (1990). However, neither of these
two hyperbolic models was able to reproduce the whole
load–settlement relationship satisfactorily. These early nu-
merical results showed the need for introducing some im-
provements to existing hyperbolic models. The proposed
version of the hyperbolic elastic model, based on laboratory

Can. Geotech. J. 37: 333–342 (2000) © 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:11 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
334
Fig. 1. Grain-size distributions of the sandy gravels analyzed.
triaxial tests that involved various stress paths, is shown to
successfully reproduce the behavior of the Santiago gravel.
Geotechnical characteristics of Santiago
gravel
The fluvial gravel of Santiago is a thick deposit of dense,
sandy gravel containing about 3% fines, with plasticity indi-
ces ranging from 5 to 20, and subrounded coarse particles
with sizes of up to 0.30 m in diameter. The average particle-
size distribution curve obtained by Kort et al. (1979) is
shown in Fig. 1. Usually the gravel is overlaid by a 1.5–
3.0 m thick deposit of low-plasticity clay of medium to high
consistency. From its surface down to a depth of 5–7 m, the
gravel contains low-plasticity silty fines, with a cohesion, c,
of about 20 kPa, and an angle of internal friction, φ, of 45°
(Ortigosa 1994). This upper gravelly stratum is known as the
second deposit of the Mapocho River (Poblete et al. 1981).
Below this stratum, the gravelly deposit is still more dense,
usually with more plastic clayey fines, but particle-size dis-
tribution characteristics are very similar. From large-scale
triaxial tests on undisturbed samples, values of c = 24 kPa
and φ = 53° were determined by Kort et al. (1979) for this
lower gravelly stratum (first deposit of the Mapocho River).
These results were obtained from vacuum triaxial tests, so
the maximum confining pressure used was slightly lower
than atmospheric pressure.
Typical values of the unit weight of the second and first
gravelly deposits are 22.5 and 23.0 kN/m3, respectively.
Since the groundwater level is normally deeper than 30 m,
the gravels are unsaturated and have water contents usually
ranging from 4 to 6%.
The specific gravity of solid constituents varies from 2.66
for the coarse fraction retained on the number 4 sieve to 2.76
for the fraction passing the number 4 sieve.
The coarse fraction, derived mainly from andesitic rock,
has a high resistance to degradation by abrasion and impact.
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:12 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
Typical values obtained from Los Angeles Machine tests
(American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D-18
Standards, C535-89) range from 15 to 25%.
From earth pressure measurements performed at line 1 of
the Santiago subway system, Ortigosa et al. (1973) obtained
a coefficient of earth pressure at rest, k0, of 0.33. This value
was later confirmed by Kort et al. (1979) and Rodríguez-Roa
(1998).
When experimental data obtained from vertical load tests
have been compared with measurements from horizontal
load tests carried out at the same depth it has been observed
in this gravel that the initial horizontal modulus is larger
than the initial vertical modulus, but the difference is usually
less than 10% (Rodríguez-Roa 1998).
On the basis of a number of plate-load tests performed at
different sites and depths, and taking into account the settle-
ments measured during the construction process of three tall
buildings, Poblete (1982) proposed the following relation-
ships to evaluate the initial elastic moduli:
[1] E1 = 65 000 z
[2] E2 = 46 000 z
where E1 and E2 are the small-strain Young’s moduli
(in kPa) of the first and second deposits, respectively, of the
Mapocho River; and z is the depth (in m) of the point con-
sidered.
On the other hand, Campos (1981) subjected an undis-
turbed prismatical sample, 0.40 m high and 9.0 m deep,
which was trimmed by hand, to a simple field tensile test by
applying a gradually increasing axial force on its upper end.
The maximum tensile stress was approximately 8 kPa, and
the small-strain Young’s modulus, Ets, was 10 700 kPa.
Modified version of the hyperbolic elastic
model
Hyperbolic elastic stress–strain relationships have been
employed quite widely. Most of these applications have used
the equations derived by Duncan and Chang (1970) and
Duncan et al. (1980a). The tangent Young’s modulus on pri-
mary loading, Epl, is expressed as
2
 R (1 − sin φ)( σ1 − σ 3) 
[3] Epl = Ei 1 − f 
 2c cos φ + 2σ3 sin φ 
where σ3 is the minor principal stress; σ1 – σ3 is the princi-
pal stress difference; φ is the slope of the failure envelope or
angle of internal friction; c is the cohesion; and Rf is the fail-
ure ratio, defined as
(σ1 − σ3 )f
[4] Rf =
(σ1 − σ3 )ult
where (σ1 – σ3)f is the stress difference at failure; and (σ1 – σ3)ult
is the asymptotic value of stress difference at large axial
strains.
The symbol Ei in eq. [3] represents the initial tangent
Young’s modulus. This modulus is calculated herein as
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Rodríguez-Roa 335

Table 1. Index properties of the test material. Fig. 2. Experimental stress–strain curves and primary-loading hy-
perbola for isotropic compression test.
F (%) ωL IP ω (%) γ (kN/m ) 3

8.0 38.1 8.2 6.50 23.5

Note: F, percent passing the No. 200 sieve; ω L, liquid limit; IP,
plasticity index; ω, water content expressed in percent dry weight; γ, unit
weight.

n
σ 
[5] Ei = Kpa  23 
 pa 
where pa is the atmospheric pressure; K is the
nondimensional modulus number; n is the nondimensional
modulus exponent; and σ23 is the mean confining stress, cal-
culated as σ23 = (σ2 + σ3)/2, where σ2 is the intermediate
principal stress.
If the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for compressive
stress states is nonlinear, the following expression is used:
σ 
[6] φ = φ0 − ∆φ log  23 
 pa 
where φ 0 is the value of φ when σ23 = pa; and ∆φ is the reduc-
tion in φ per log-cycle increase in σ23.
For unloading–reloading stress changes, the Young’s
modulus Eur is expressed as
n 
σ 
[7] Eur = Kur pa  23 
 pa 
where Kur is the nondimensional unloading–reloading modu-
lus number; and the exponent n is assumed to be the same
for primary loading and unloading–reloading.
It should be pointed out that eqs. [5], [6], and [7] were
originally derived on the basis of data obtained from stan-
dard triaxial compression tests in which the intermediate
principal stress σ2 is equal to σ3. For cases in which three-
dimensional stresses are involved the constitutive model
should also include the value of σ2. The use of σ23 instead of
the original stress, σ3, is probably not the best solution but it
takes into account in some degree the value of σ2 and has the
advantage of maintaining the simplified form of the hyper-
bolic elastic stress–strain relationships.
From the different formulations used previously to evalu-
ate the second soil property needed, Poisson’s ratio or bulk
modulus, the procedure developed by Boscardin et al. (1990)
seems to be the most appropriate because it avoids many of
the problems involved in other formulations (Duncan 1996).
According to such a procedure, the results of an isotropic
compression loading can be represented by a hyperbolic
equation of the form
Bi εvol
[8] σm =
ε 
1 −  vol 

 εu  metric strains adequately. To maintain the modified
where σm is the mean normal stress; Bi is the initial tangent
bulk modulus; and εu is the asymptotic value of the volumet-
ric strain, εvol, at large values of σm.
Differentiating eq. [8] with respect to the volumetric
strain gives the following expression for the tangent bulk
modulus, Bpl, in terms of σm (Boscardin et al. 1990):
2
σ 
[9] Bpl = Bi 1 + m 
 B i εu 
where the subscript pl has been introduced instead of the
original subscript t to emphasize that this equation was de-
rived on the basis of isotropic compression on primary load-
ing.
Drained triaxial tests were carried out on 150 mm diame-
ter specimens using disturbed soil samples obtained from the
first deposit of the Mapocho River. The soil fraction passing
the 25 mm diameter sieve was used for the tests (Fig. 1).
The test material was prepared at the optimum water content
and compacted to 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum
dry density (ASTM D1557-91). Index properties of the com-
pacted material are summarized in Table 1.
The results of an isotropic compression triaxial test that
included cycles of unloading and reloading are shown in
Fig. 2. The inelastic behavior observed on unloading is
mainly due to sliding between soil grains. Particle crushing
of the Santiago gravel starts at stress levels above approxi-
mately 1500 kPa (P. Ortigosa, personal communication,
1995). If particle crushing occurs, the inelastic behavior will
be more marked. Because of the limitations of the triaxial
equipment used, the maximum stress applied during this iso-
tropic compression test was only 800 kPa.
In Fig. 3, the two unloading curves corresponding to the
first and second cycle of the test have been moved in a man-
ner parallel to the origin by modifying the abscissas or volu-
hyperbolic formulation as simple as possible it was assumed
that if particle crushing is not significant, these unloading
curves may be approximately characterized by a unique hy-
perbolic expression of the form of eq. [8]. This hyperbolic

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:14 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
336
Fig. 3. Unloading hyperbola and experimental stress–strain
curves for isotropic compression test.
Table 2. Hyperbolic parameters fitted to isotropic compression
test results.
Bi/pa εu Bi(ur)/pa εu(ur)
332.5 0.0165 486.1 0.0037
expression may be fitted to the mean relationship of unload-
ing curves available within the range of stresses to be ana-
lyzed. The instantaneous slope of this unique unloading
hyperbola, or bulk modulus Bur, may be represented by
eq. [9], but using the corresponding unloading parameters
Bi(ur) and ε u(ur) as follows:
2 stress paths of standard triaxial compression tests in which
 σm 
[10] Bur = Bi (ur) 1 +  during loading, or unloading, both SL and MNS move in the
 Bi (ur) εu (ur) 
On reloading, hysteresis is ignored, i.e., the unloading hy-
perbola is also accepted as the reloading curve in the model
used. The hyperbolic parameters fitted to the isotropic com-
pression test results are listed in Table 2.
To determine the remaining hyperbolic parameters corre-
sponding to the test material, three standard triaxial tests
were carried out under confining pressures of 50, 100, and
200 kPa. Each test included an unloading–reloading cycle at
approximately one third of the stress difference at failure.
However, for clarity, only one of these cycles has been in-
cluded in Fig. 4. The hyperbolic parameters fitted to the
standard triaxial test results are listed in Table 3. A value of
∆φ = 0 was assumed for the range of confining pressures
used.
The nonlinear and stress-dependent stress–strain proper-
ties of the soils are approximated by performing the numeri-
cal analysis in increments. Duncan et al. (1980b) proposed
using the unloading–reloading modulus when SL, the cur-
rent stress level of an element, falls below 95% of the previ-
ous maximum value, SLmax. The parameter SL is defined as
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:20 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
Fig. 4. Calculated and experimental stress–strain curves for stan-
dard triaxial tests.
Table 3. Hyperbolic parameters fitted to standard triaxial test
results.
K n Kur Rf c/pa φ0 (°) ∆φ
1660 0.52 2700 0.67 0.50 50.5 0.0
(σ1 − σ3 )
[11] SL =
(σ1 − σ3 )f
Similarly, when the current mean normal stress MNS, i.e.,
(σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3, falls below 95% of the previous maximum
value MNSmax, the unloading–reloading bulk modulus might
be used. These considerations are certainly valid for the
same direction, i.e., both parameters increase or decrease si-
multaneously. However, for other stress paths these parame-
ters may move in the opposite direction, and, consequently,
from a theoretical point of view it is possible to have a pri-
mary-loading Young’s modulus in conjunction with an un-
loading–reloading bulk modulus, or vice versa.
To support this new version of the hyperbolic model on
the basis of the experimental evidence, a special triaxial test
was performed. This test consisted of three stages to ana-
lyze various stress paths. In the first stage, the sample was
consolidated under a confining pressure of 200 kPa and then
gradually loaded to reach a value of σ1 equal to 600 kPa. An
unloading–reloading cycle was performed at σ1 = 400 kPa,
as seen in Fig. 5a. In the second stage, the vertical stress σ1 =
600 kPa was maintained while the horizontal stress σ3 was
gradually increased from 200 to 600 kPa (Fig. 5a). In the
third stage, still keeping σ1 constant at 600 kPa, the value of
σ3 was gradually decreased until the sample failed (Fig. 5b).
The first stage of the test contains typical stress paths of a
standard triaxial test, and therefore the hyperbolic model can
be used without difficulty. However, to obtain a better fit
with the experimental data during the second and third
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Rodríguez-Roa
Fig. 5. Calculated and experimental stress–strain curves for special triaxial test: (a) first and second loading stages; (b) third loading
stage.
stages of the special triaxial test, different analytical expres-
sions were tried for the moduli. The results of this study can
be expressed as follows: (i) if at the beginning of the incre-
ment, SL > 0.95SLmax and MNS > 0.95MNSmax, the moduli
to be used for the increment are Et = Epl and Bt = Bpl; (ii) if
SL < 0.95SLmax, then for any value of MNS, Et = Eur and Bt
= Bur; (iii) if SL > 0.95SLmax and MNS < 0.95MNSmax,
[12] Et = [SL]αEpl + [1 – (SL)α]Eur
and
[13] Bt = [SL]αBpl + [1 – (SL)α]Bur
where α is the stress-level exponent. Equations [12] and [13]
show that in this case a generalized unloading condition is
nearer the real situation when SL is close to zero, whereas a
generalized primary-loading condition is predominant when
SL is close to unity.
A comparison of the proposed hyperbolic model, the
Boscardin et al. (1990) hyperbolic model, and experimental
data, is shown in Figs. 5a and 5b. The numerical calcula-
tions were performed on the basis of the tangent stiffness
method and the incremental generalized Hooke’s law taking
into account the axisymmetric characteristics of the special
triaxial test. In addition, the following expression of the the-
ory of elasticity was used:
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:33 AM
337
3Bt − E t
[14] νt =
6Bt
where νt is Poisson’s ratio at the beginning of the increment.
It was assumed that allowable values of νt range from 0.0 to
0.49.
The numerical results showed a low sensitivity for varia-
tions of the parameter α between 0.8 and 1.2. A value of α =
1 was assumed in this case.
When the Boscardin et al. (1990) hyperbolic model was
applied, the following criterion was employed: (i) if SL >
0.95SLmax, Et = Epl and Bt = Bpl; (ii) if SL < 0.95SLmax, Et =
Eur and Bt = Bpl.
To improve the accuracy of the solution, very small stress
increments of 10 kPa were used in all the numerical calcula-
tions.
As expected, the results obtained with both models are
identical in the first loading stage. In the second stage, both
models present a similar agreement with the experimental
evidence (Fig. 5a); however, negative values of Poisson’s
ratio resulted when the Boscardin et al. (1990) model was
applied, and then νt was set equal to zero, keeping the value
of Et. Negative values of νt were also obtained with the
Boscardin et al. model during the initial part of the third
loading stage of the test. To analyze the third stage inde-
pendently of the previous stages, the axial strain of the spec-
imen was set equal to zero at the beginning of this third
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
338
Fig. 6. Typical inadmissible stress states: cases I, II, and III.
Failure envelope
Case I
ts
Case II
In I : * = GH
Case III
In II : * = CE
c In III : * = AD and *= BD
A B C GH
D E
Tensile Compressive
stresses stresses
where * = Fraction of the principal
stress to be eliminated
stage of the test (Fig. 5b). As illustrated in Fig. 5b, the re-
sults obtained show an excellent agreement between the pro-
posed model and the experimental data. The agreement
shown by the Boscardin et al. model is clearly unsatisfac-
tory.
Finite-element method
The computer program FEASOILS (finite element analy-
sis of soil structures) was used for the analysis. This pro-
gram uses several subroutines formulated previously by
Romero (1996) for the stress–strain analysis of axisymme-
tric and plane-strain problems. Six-node triangular elements,
eight-node quadrilateral elements, and six-node interface el-
ements were included. The nonlinear incremental procedure
is based on the tangent stiffness matrix method.
The program was developed to analyze soil structures sub-
mitted to compressive stress states. However, in nonlinear
elastic analyses low tensile stresses may occur in some
zones subjected to unloading. To take this aspect into ac-
count, the value of σ1 is checked in each element at the be-
ginning of a new increment. If σ1 is positive (compressive
stress), the proposed hyperbolic model is used, even if σ2
and (or) σ3 are negative (tensile stresses). In such a case ten-
sile stresses are replaced by a very small positive value:
0.1pa. This value was selected because eqs. [5] and [7]
should be used for values of σ23, larger than 0.1pa, to avoid
numerical problems (Duncan et al. 1980b). If σ1 is negative,
a linear elastic behavior is considered and tensile moduli are
used for the increment.
It is important to emphasize that the maximum values of
tensile and shear stresses are restricted at the end of each in-
crement by using the iterative “stress transfer” method pro-
posed by Zienkiewicz et al. (1968). The nonlinear failure
envelope into the region of compressive stresses and the
straight line Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope adopted for
tensile stresses as a simplification are illustrated in Fig. 6.
The internal friction angle, φts, for tensile stresses, shown in
Fig. 6, may be calculated from the maximum tensile stress
measured in a simple tensile test. Some typical inadmissible
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:35 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
stress states, and the corresponding fractions of principal
stresses to be eliminated, are also illustrated in Fig. 6.
Equation [6] was only used for mean confining stresses
larger than the atmospheric pressure because for confining
pressures lower than pa, the Santiago gravel presents a
straight failure envelope, as was shown by Kort et al. (1979).
On the other hand, the program assumes that if particle
crushing is not significant, the cohesion remains approxi-
mately constant despite a possible reduction in φ, when the
mean confining stress increases.
In evaluating the stiffness of the six-node interface ele-
ments, it was assumed that both normal and shear displace-
ments vary quadratically along the length of the element,
which is compatible with the external boundary displace-
ments of both eight-node quadrilateral elements and six-
node triangular elements.
The properties of the zero thickness interface element
consist of a normal stiffness, Kn, and a shear stiffness, Ks,
which are related to the normal and shear stresses acting on
the element by
[15] σn = Kn ∆n
and
[16] τ = K s ∆s
where σn and τ are the normal and shear stresses, respec-
tively, acting on the interface; ∆n is the average relative nor-
mal displacement across the element; and ∆s is the average
relative shear displacement along the element.
The stiffness values assigned to the interface elements
vary depending on the element stresses at the beginning of
each increment. If σn is a tensile stress, both Kn and Ks are
assigned very small values. For compression, the value of Kn
is made very high to prevent significant overlap of the adja-
cent finite elements, and the value of Ks is set equal to Kst,
as proposed by Clough and Duncan (1971):
m 2
σ   Rfi τ 
[17] Kst = KI γ w n 

1 −


 pa   τf 
where Kst is the tangent shear-stiffness value; KI is the
dimensionless shear-stiffness number; m is the shear-
stiffness exponent; γ w is the unit weight of water expressed
in the same units as Kst ; Rfi is the interface failure ratio; and
τ f is the maximum shear stress on the interface.
The maximum shear stress on a frictional interface may
be expressed in terms of the interface friction angle, δ, and
the normal stress as follows:
[18] τ f = σn tan δ
After an element has failed in shear, with the interface still
in compression, the value of Ks is reduced to a negligible
value but the value of Kn is kept large.
For unloading–reloading, i.e., when τ/ τ f falls below 95%
of the previous maximum value, the following expression is
adopted for Kst (Morrison and Duncan 1995):
σ 
m
[19] Kst = KI γ w  n 

 pa 
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Rodríguez-Roa
Fig. 7. Plate-load test arrangement at the CTC site (adapted from
Kort and Ortigosa 1995, their Fig. 2). D, diameter.
A scheme similar to the iterative “stress transfer” method is
employed to simultaneously eliminate, at the end of each in-
crement, tensile normal stresses and (or) excessive shear
stresses acting on interface elements.
Finite-element analysis performed
Because of the special features of the CTC building, the
tallest in Santiago, with 33 stories and three underground
basements, a plate-load test was performed by applying a
vertical load per unit area up to 5000 kPa as part of the soil
exploration during the project stage. Details of the equip-
ment and test procedure are described by Kort and Ortigosa
(1995). Figure 7 shows a cross section of the scheme used
for the test. At this site the groundwater level is at a depth of
14.2 m. The load was applied in increments by means of a
hydraulic jack reacting against a horizontal rigid steel beam
tied to a pair of anchor footings. The diameter of the plate
used was 0.80 m, and the vertical distance between the lower
surface of the plate and the groundwater level was 1.4 times
its diameter.
A cross section of the axisymmetric finite-element mesh
used in modeling this test is illustrated in Fig. 8. Interface
elements were inserted between the plate and the underlying
soil. From preliminary finite-element linear-elastic analyses
it was concluded that the vicinity of the anchor footings did
not significantly affect the relationship between the load ap-
plied and the settlement of the plate.
The simulation of the excavation process, previous to the
placement of the plate, and the location of the groundwater
level were included in the analysis to adequately evaluate the
initial effective stress field.
Because the finite-element procedure is based on the tan-
gent stiffness matrix method, very small increments were
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:37 AM
339
Fig. 8. Finite-element mesh for modeling plate-load test at the
CTC site. H, height.
Table 4. Hyperbolic parameters used for the soil–concrete inter-
face.
KI m Rfi δ (°) Kn/ γ w
40 000 1.0 0.9 35.3 5.0×108
Note: Kn, normal stiffness value for compressive stresses.
used for loading, unloading, and reloading to improve the
accuracy of the solution.
A linear elastic behavior of the reinforced-concrete mate-
rial of the plate was assumed, using a Young’s modulus of
15 000 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25. The hyperbolic
parameters used for the soil–concrete interface (Table 4)
were based on the values proposed by Clough and Duncan
(1971).
To reduce the computational effort during the trial-and-
error process, all available experimental data were used as
input, i.e., the coefficient of earth pressure at rest k0, the initial
elastic modulus (eq. [1]), and the stress–strain characteris-
tics and strength parameters obtained from the large-scale
triaxial and simple tensile tests. Thus, the following hyper-
bolic parameters were first selected for the first deposit of the
Mapocho River: k0 = 0.33; K = 2310; n = 0.5; Kur /K = 1.6
(mean value calculated by Rodríguez-Roa (1998) from ra-
tios Eur/Ei obtained from triaxial and plate-load tests); φ 0 =
53°; c = 30 kPa (in fact the cohesion derived from the large-
scale triaxial tests on undisturbed samples was equal to
24 kPa (Kort et al. 1979), but after a few trials it was found
that this value was slightly underestimating the real value,
probably due to the inevitable disturbance of the samples
which were trimmed by hand); φts = 74.8°; Ets = 10 700 kPa;
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

340 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Table 5. Hyperbolic parameters fitted to the first deposit of Fig. 10. Failed zones at different stages of the plate-load test.
Mapocho River.
Bi/pa εu Bi(ur)/pa εu(ur) ∆φ α
469.4 0.0115 729.0 0.004 4.0 1.1

Fig. 9. Calculated and experimental load–settlement relationship

for plate-load test at the CTC site.

Fig. 11. Stress paths at soil element 321.

D (277. 0 ; 1. 0 )
1. 0

νts = 0.25 (Poisson’s ratio for a three-dimensional state of

0.8
At stage B
{ SL max = 0.348

MNS max = 1321. 1kPa

Stress Level, SL

tensile stresses); and Rf = 0.7 (Duncan et al. 1980a).

Consequently, only the following soil parameters were
submitted to the trial-and-error process: Bi, ε u, Bi(ur), ε u(ur),
α, and ∆φ (the reduction in φ per log-cycle increase in σ23).
The values of the hyperbolic parameters finally adjusted to
the behavior of the first deposit of the Mapocho River are
listed in Table 5.
In Fig. 9, the load–settlement relationship measured is
compared with the fitted numerical results. Good agreement
was achieved, even for pressures over 1500 kPa. This obser-
vation shows that despite particle crushing, which could tend
to be significant for the highest pressures applied during the
test, it never actually did affect the results. This is probably
due to the particular resistance to crushing of subrounded
particles of the Santiago gravel. The low value fitted to ∆φ
compared with other published results (Duncan et al. 1980a)
is a confirmation of this aspect. Furthermore, it is concluded,
as pointed out by J.M. Duncan (personal communication,
1997), that dilatancy effects are indirectly reflected in the
values of the parameters that control the relationship be-
tween the bulk modulus and the stresses.
The occurrence of soil zones with values of SL greater
than 0.95, i.e., failed zones, has been examined at four dif-
ferent stages corresponding to points A, B, C, and D in
Fig. 9. There is no soil element that fulfills such a stress
condition at stage A. However, the situation at stages B, C,
and D is different, as seen in Fig. 10. From these results it is
observed that most critical stress states take place at the
highest loading level and at the end of the second unloading
cycle. This last aspect explains the marked curvature ob-
0.6
0 .4 C ( 2 095 . 5 ; 0 . 355 )
B ( 113 . 3 ; 0. 243 )
0.2
0.0
0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0
Mean Normal Stress, MNS (kPa)
served in the second unloading curve close to point D
(Fig. 9).
The stress path followed by element 321 (Fig. 8), which is
directly beneath the plate, is shown in Fig. 11 in terms of the
mean normal stress (MNS) and stress level (SL). For clarity,
only the results obtained from stages B to D have been in-
cluded in the figure. During this loading and unloading pro-
cess, all theoretically possible relative variations of MNS
and SL take place in element 321. The good agreement
observed in Fig. 9 between experimental and predicted re-
sponses has thus validated the loading–unloading moduli cri-
teria proposed herein.
Despite the fact that FEASOILS uses DOUBLE PRECI-
SION, numerical instability problems were found, i.e., small
changes in the hyperbolic parameters to be fitted implied
significant variations in the load–settlement relationship

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:48 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Rodríguez-Roa
calculated, mainly in the final parts of the unloading curves.
The loss of precision is caused by the large size of the finite-
element mesh used (number of nodes = 1646, with a half
band width of 138), added to the existence of soil elements
with values of SL close to unity, i.e., with low values of
Young’s modulus, near the concrete and interface elements
with high values of Young’s modulus and normal stiffness
for compressive stresses, respectively (Day and Potts 1994).
As part of this research, finite-element analyses were also
carried out to simulate two additional vertical load tests per-
formed at other sites in Santiago at depths of 10.5 and
20.0 m. The subsidence induced by the construction of a re-
cently built subway line in Santiago was also modeled.
These analyses were performed by considering the same pa-
rameters above fitted to the Santiago gravel, except small
changes for the cohesion (Rodríguez-Roa 1998). It was
found from the good agreements obtained that the ground-
water level did not significantly affect the plate-load test at
the CTC site. In addition, the numerical model also showed
a good performance for solving plane-strain problems1.
Conclusions
A finite-element computer program to perform incremen-
tal stress–strain analyses of soil structures has been formu-
lated on the basis of a modified version of the hyperbolic
elastic model. This constitutive model takes into account in
some degree the value of the intermediate principal stress
and considers that both Young’s modulus and the bulk
modulus depend on both the stress state and the stress his-
tory. For the dense sandy gravels analyzed the additional pa-
rameter α required for the model is close to unity.
The model has been shown to successfully simulate the
nonlinear behavior of the Santiago gravel (first deposit of the
Mapocho River) for loading, unloading, and reloading. The
fitted values of the hyperbolic parameters are in accordance
with the characteristics of a dense sandy gravel with
subrounded particles in contact with one another.
Further experimental work is needed to prove the validity
of the proposed constitutive model for other granular soils,
mainly when they are submitted to stress paths in which SL
increases and MNS decreases, or vice versa. On the other
hand, the present hyperbolic model might be incorporated
within a Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model so that “dilation”
and “failure” can be properly taken into account.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Chilean Fund for Re-
search (FONDECYT) under Research Project 1960271. This
support is gratefully acknowledged. The writer also wishes
to thank the comments formulated by professor Horacio
Musante during the development of this research.
References
Boscardin, M.D., Selig, E.T., Lin, R.S., and Yang, G.Y. 1990. Hy-
perbolic parameters for compacted soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(1): 88–104.
1
Rodríguez-Roa, F. 1999. Ground subsidence due to a shallow tunnel in a dense sandy gravel. Submitted for publication.
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:49 AM
341
Bustamante, E.F. 1987. Nonlinear behavior of a cohesionless soil
mass. C.Eng. thesis, School of Engineering, University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile. (In Spanish.)
Campos, J.A. 1981. Finite-element analysis of finite-length excava-
tions. C.Eng. thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of
Chile, Santiago, Chile. (In Spanish.)
Chen, W.F., and Mizuno, E. 1990. Nonlinear analysis in soil me-
chanics. Theory and Implementation. Elsevier Science Pub-
lishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clough, G.W., and Duncan, J.M. 1971. Finite-element analyses of
retaining wall behavior. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(12): 1657–1673.
Day, R.A., and Potts, D.M. 1994. Zero thickness interface elements
— numerical stability and application. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 18: 689–
708.
Duncan, J.M. 1996. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite-
element analysis of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 122(7): 577–596.
Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C.Y. 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress
and strain in soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tions Division, ASCE, 96(5): 1629–1653.
Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K.S., and Mabry, P. 1980a.
Strength, stress–strain and bulk modulus parameters for finite el-
ement analysis of stresses and movements in soil masses. Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, Calif., Report UCB/GT/80-01.
Duncan, J.M., Wong, K.S., and Ozawa, Y. 1980b. FEADAM: a
computer program for finite element analysis of dams. Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, Calif., Report UCB/GT/80-02.
Escobar, G. 1971. Shear strength parameters for the gravel of San-
tiago. C.Eng. thesis, School of Engineering, Catholic University
of Chile, Santiago, Chile. (In Spanish.)
Kort, I., and Ortigosa, P. 1995. Foundation of the CTC building on
the Santiago gravel. In Proceedings of the 10th Panamerican
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Guadalajara, Mexico, Vol. 2, pp. 1218–1229.
Kort, I., Musante, H., and Fahrenkrog, C. 1979. In-situ mechanical
properties measurements of gravelly soil used in an interaction
and foundation model for the Santiago Metro. In Proceedings of
the 6th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Lima, Perú, Vol. 2, pp. 217–224.
Morrison, C.S., and Duncan, J.M. 1995. User’s guide for SAGE: a
finite element program for static analysis of geotechnical engi-
neering problems. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va.
Ortigosa, P. 1994. Slope stability studies for Line 5 of the Santiago
subway system. Metro S.A., Santiago, Chile.
Ortigosa, P., Fahrenkrog, C., and Musante, H. 1973. Earth pressure
measurements at Line 1 of the Santiago subway system. Revista
del IDIEM, University of Chile, 12: 61–92. (In Spanish.)
Owen, D.R.J., and Hinton, E. 1980. Finite elements in plasticity:
theory and practice. Pineridge Press Limited, Swansea, U.K.
Poblete, M. 1982. Load deformation properties of some Chilean
granular soils. In Proceedings of the 1st Chilean Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Vol. 1, pp. 42–57.
(In Spanish.)
Poblete, M., Ortigosa, P., Caiozzi, P., and Scholz, A. 1981. Elastic
characteristics of the Santiago fluvial gravel. Revista del
IDIEM, University of Chile, 20: 71–84. (In Spanish.)
Rodríguez-Roa, F. 1998. Prediction of movements induced by ex-
cavations performed on the Santiago gravel. FONDECYT Re-
search Project 1960271, Final report, Santiago, Chile. (In Spanish.)
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

342 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Romero, M.L. 1996. Nonlinear stress–strain analysis of soil struc- γ unit weight (soil, water, and air)
tures using the finite-element method. M.Sc. thesis, Catholic γw unit weight of water
University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. (In Spanish.) δ interface friction angle
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Valliappan, B.E., and King, I.P. 1968. Stress ∆n average relative normal displacement across the
analysis of rock as a ‘no tension’ material. Géotechnique, 18: interface element
56–66. ∆s average relative shear displacement along the interface
element
List of symbols ∆φ reduction in φ per log-cycle increase in σ23
εa axial strain
Bi initial tangent bulk modulus on primary loading
εu asymptotic value of the volumetric strain at large mean
Bi(ur) initial tangent bulk modulus on unloading–reloading
normal stresses on primary loading
Bpl bulk modulus on primary loading
εu(ur) asymptotic value of the volumetric strain at large mean
Bt tangent bulk modulus at the beginning of the increment
normal stresses on unloading–reloading
Bur bulk modulus on unloading–reloading
εvol volumetric strain
c cohesion
φ slope of the failure envelope into the region of compres-
D diameter
sive stresses
Ei initial tangent Young’s modulus on primary loading
φts slope of the failure envelope into the region of tensile
Epl Young’s modulus on primary loading
stresses
Et tangent Young’s modulus at the beginning of the incre-
φ0 φ when σ23 = pa
ment
νt Poisson’s ratio at the beginning of the increment
Ets small-strain Young’s modulus from a simple tensile test
νts Poisson’s ratio for a three-dimensional state of tensile
Eur Young’s modulus on unloading–reloading
stresses
E1 small-strain Young’s modulus of the first deposit of the
τ shear stress
Mapocho River
τf maximum shear stress on the interface
E2 small-strain Young’s modulus of the second deposit of
σm mean normal stress
the Mapocho River
σn normal stress on the interface
F percentage passing the No. 200 sieve
σ1 major principal stress
H height
σ2 intermediate principal stress
IP plasticity index
σ3 minor principal stress
K modulus number on primary loading
σ23 mean confining stress
KI dimensionless shear-stiffness number at interface
σi* fraction of the principal stress σi to be eliminated
elements
(σ1 – σ3)f stress difference at failure
Kn normal stiffness value at interface elements
(σ1 – σ3)ult asymptotic value of stress difference at large axial strains
Ks shear stiffness value at interface elements
ω water content in percent dry weight
Kst tangent shear-stiffness value
ωL liquid limit
Kur modulus number on unloading–reloading
k0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest
m shear-stiffness exponent at interface elements Subscripts
MNS current mean normal stress f failure
n modulus exponent i initial
pa atmospheric pressure m mean
Rf failure ratio max maximum value
Rfi interface failure ratio pl primary loading
SL current stress level ts tensile stress
z depth of the point considered ult ultimate or asymptotic value
α stress-level exponent ur unloading reloading

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj04\T99-109.vp
Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:03:49 AM