GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2611

Applicability of Burger Model in Predicting the Response of Viscoelastic Soil Beds Arindam Dey*,1 and P. K. Basudhar2, A. M. ASCE
1,*

Senior Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, Uttar Pradesh, India. Ph (91) 9415484221; e-mail: aridey@iitk.ac.in, arindamdeyju@rediffmail.com Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur-208016, India. PH (91) 512-2597029; Fax (91) 512-2597395; email: pkbd@iitk.ac.in

ABSTRACT This paper presents a critical review of various viscoelastic lumped parameter models (Maxwell model, Kelvin-Voigt model, Poynting-Thompson model and Burger model) commonly used to represent the stress-strain-time behavior of a compressible viscoelastic medium. Efficacy of such models has been checked to suggest a rational model so as to represent the time-dependent behavior of such media. Though Burgers four element model can incorporate all the phenomena of viscoelastic behavior of materials and all other models can be degenerated to other lower order models, it has not yet found general acceptability amongst the soil engineers to model such behavior of soils. Through this study, an effort has been made to demonstrate that it is probably the most effective model to predict the behavior of structures resting on such soils. Therefore, the efficacy of the model so chosen has been demonstrated through a case-study available in literature. Based on the studies, it has been inferred that the Burger model possesses an excellent potential for proper representation of the time-dependent behavior of a saturated viscoelastic medium when subjected to loading an unloading phenomena. INTRODUCTION Since the proposition of Winklers model to represent the behavior of soils by a series of discrete springs, several such models have been proposed to simulate the response of elastic foundations to the externally applied loads. However, such models, consisting of either linear or nonlinear springs, are unable to simulate the viscoelastic and time-dependent behavior exhibited by saturated clayey soils. When subjected to any external loading, the elastic foundation beds primarily undergo instantaneous settlement, i.e. the majority of the total settlement is recorded at the instant of the application of load. Upon unloading, such beds exhibit an elastic recovery which does not change with time. The force-deformation response of such foundations can be modeled with the aid of Winkler springs and its variations. Contrary to the former type of foundations, viscoelastic foundation beds exhibit time-dependent response when subjected to the action of external loading, i.e., such

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2612

foundation beds record an instantaneous settlement directly after the loading and an additional settlement increasing linearly or non-linearly with time due to gradual outflow of pore water. Upon unloading, an instantaneous elastic recovery is noticeable, followed by a partial recovery that apparently attains a constant value with time [Tan (1959)]. Modeling of the time-dependent response of the viscoelastic beds is achieved by the use of mechanical elements such as Winkler springs (linear or nonlinear), Viscous dashpots (Newtonian or non-Newtonian) and their various combinations. Such modeling is a very interesting topic of research in the field of geotechnical engineering since a few decades. Several researchers have used various types of viscoelastic lumped parameter models to represent the behavior of a viscoelastic medium [Kerr (1961), Schiffman et al. (1964)]. Other viscoelastic models such as the Zener model, Bingham Elastosupple model, Sobotkas Elastosupple model etc. are used at specific situations in order to represent certain specific stress-strain-time behavior of the subgrade subjected to special loading conditions. Complex models such as chains of Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt are also in use. The constitutive relationships for such models can be found in standard reference books [Flugge (1967), Sobotka (1985)]. Murayama and Shibata (1961), and Schiffman et al. (1964) have proposed higher order complex viscoelastic models of five- and seven-parameters to represent the soil behavior. Due to the incorporation of more-and-more parameters affecting the force-deformation response of a viscoelastic medium, with the passage of time, these models turned out to be more and more complex in their physical and mathematical representation. Such progresses led to the improvement of the models so that the viscoelastic behavior of soil under various conditions could be simulated properly. The use of these various models has two prime aspects. Suitability of a model to correctly predict the viscoelastic soil behavior. Model parameter estimation. This paper primarily focuses on presenting a critical discussion of the former aspect in the following sections. RATIONAL CHOICE OF A VISCOELASTIC LUMPED PARAMETER MODEL In general, for foundations resting on viscoelastic subgrade, the conventional empirical approach by Buisman (1936) is followed to determine the primary and secondary consolidation of soil separately. However, rational theories of secondary consolidation treat both the consolidation processes to be occurring in unison. Biot (1956) provided the three-dimensional theories of secondary consolidation under effective viscoelastic stress-strain relationships. Tan (1957) used the two-parameter Maxwell model to analyze the settlement characteristics of foundations on clayey beds, which was supported by enough experimental evidences [Geuze and Tan (1954)]. However, the experiments exhibited a considerable deviation from the theoretical predictions [Schiffman et al. (1964)]. Taylor (1942) proposed the use of Kelvin-Voigt (KV) model to determine the coupled elastic-viscoelastic behavior of soft soil, which was improved further by adding an elastic element in series to the Kelvin unit [Tan (1957)]. It is observed that the KV model cannot take into account the immediate elastic settlement of a viscoelastic medium upon the application of

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2613

load. Rather, it directly follows the exponential increment in settlement. Similarly, upon unloading, it cannot model the immediate elastic recovery of the soft ground, though able to predict the exponential recovery with time. Thus, to avoid such difficulties, and to model the soft soil rationally adoption of the four-parameter standard viscoelastic Burger model could be more appropriate. But, the use of Burger model in Geotechnical Engineering has so far not been very popular. This is probably due to the fact that the early developmental stage of the theoretical soil mechanics in predicting the time dependent deformation behavior of soils was mostly based on Kelvin and Maxwell models and, familiarity of the geotechnical engineers with the same. The later stage of the development has been based more on the use of continuum mechanics approach with complicated constitutive relationships in conjunction with finite element methods (FEMs). In due course of time the traditional use of the lumped parameter models went out of focus due to their limitations vis--vis the use of FEM in solving such problems. But, within their limitations, these lumped parameter models can be very handy and capable in explaining the physical phenomenon of the material behavior. Apart from these, design of machine foundation till date is primarily based on such foundation models and thus their use can not be barred. However, a closer scrutiny of all such models is necessary before drawing any definite conclusion. The following section provides a detailed discussion on the various viscoelastic lumped parameter models developed in succession and also point out the capability of the Burger model to properly represent the time-dependent response of a viscoelastic medium. VARIOUS VISCOELASTIC LUMPED PARAMETER MODELS Brief descriptions of four models that are generally used to simulate the viscoelastic behavior of geomaterials are presented in the following sections. The models considered in the present study are: (i) The Maxwell viscoelastic liquid model (ii) The Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid model (iii) The Poynting-Thompson viscoelastic model (The three-parameter viscoelastic model) (iv) The standard four-parameter viscoelastic Burger model The above models are available in standard text and reference books [Flugge (1967), Sobotka (1985)]. However for the sake of completeness and sequential development of the topic these are briefly presented here. The inherent merits and demerits of these models are also discussed before converging to any decision regarding the model that can be adopted to simulate the time-dependent behavior of a viscoelastic medium, such as, a clay subgrade. The Maxwell viscoelastic liquid model Figure 1(a) depicts the rheological model of a Maxwell viscoelastic liquid element ( ME ) , which consists of a Hookean elastic element ( HE ) and the Newtonian viscous element ( NE ) connected in series. The corresponding rheological equation for the resultant strain is expressed as the sum of the strain rates in the elastic and

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2614

viscous sub-elements. If the stress = 0 does not vary with time i.e. the element is subjected to a constant stress, the element undergoes creep. The total strain at any instant of time ME ( t ) is expressed as a summation of instantaneous elastic
e c strain ME and the creep strain ME ( t ) defined by the following expression:
e c ME ( t ) = ME + ME ( t ) =

( )

0 0t + E

t ta

(1)

where, ta is the time period for which the constant normal stress ( 0 ) is applied, t is the elapsed time, E is the modulus of elasticity of the Hookean elastic element, and is the coefficient of normal viscosity of the Newtonian viscous element.

(a) (b) Figure 1. The rheological model of a Maxwell viscoelastic liquid element and its stress-strain-time behavior Figure 1(b) depicts the stress-time and the corresponding strain-time behavior of the Maxwell viscoelastic liquid element. At the instant of unloading, elastic recovery due to the retreat of the Hookean elastic element is observed and the initial instantaneous strain is entirely recovered. The viscous strain at the instant of unloading is maintained constant after unloading, which can be mathematically expressed as follows [Equation (2)]:

ME =

0t a

t > ta

(2)

The Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid model Figure 2(a) depicts the rheological model of a Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid element ( KV ) , which consists of a Hookean elastic element ( HE ) and a Newtonian

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2615

viscous element ( NE ) connected in parallel. In a Kelvin-Voigt model, the resulting stress is the sum of the components of stress carried by the elastic element ( H ) and the partial stress carries by the Newtonian viscous element ( N ) .

(a) (b) Figure 2. The rheological model of a Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid element and its stress-strain-time behavior For stresses remaining constant with time and in the absence of any initial strain at time t = t0 , the total strain in the KV model at any particular instant of

time k ( t ) is obtained as a solution of Equation 4, and is expressed as follows [Equation (3)]:

k (t ) =

Et 0 1 exp = E E

t 1 exp tr

t ta

(3)

where, tr is the retardation time ( tr = E ) . The retardation time is basically a measure of the degree of elastoviscosity of a material and hence governs the degree of rigidity (or fluidity) of a viscoelastic material. A very low retardation time indicates the material to be a highly elastic solid. In such a condition, the material behaves as a rigid body. On the other hand, when the retardation time is very high, the viscous property of the material overpowers the elastic property. Under such conditions, the material behaves as a fluid with instantaneous initial rigidity. It is observed from Figure 2(b) that the retardation time can be calculated from the intersection point of the initial tangent modulus and the asymptotic modulus. It is also understood that the presence of a viscous dashpot in parallel to an elastic element significantly reduces the magnitude of strain generated in the viscoelastic element. Figure 2(b) depicts the stress-time and the corresponding strain-time behavior of the Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid element. It is observed from Figure 2(b) that if

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2616

the KV element is loaded for an indefinite time-period, the strain-time curve tends asymptotically to the elastic value ( = 0 E ) . If the stress acting on the KV element is suddenly removed from the strained body at time t = ta , the body will revert to the unstrained state following the equation as follows [Equation (4)]: E ( t ta ) Et k ( t ) = 0 1 exp a exp t ta (4) E As time t , complete recovery of the strain takes place i.e. k ( ) 0 .
The Poynting-Thompson viscoelastic model (The three-parameter viscoelastic model) Figure 3(a) depicts the schematic diagram of the Poynting-Thompson model, wherein a Hookean elastic spring is attached in series with a viscoelastic KelvinVoigt element. Since the elements are connected in series, the stresses in both the branches are the same, while the strains in the two parts are additive. For stresses remaining constant with time and in the absence of any initial strain at time t = t0 ,

the relation for the total strain at any instant of time PT ( t ) for sustained loading which is expressed as a summation of the instantaneous elastic strain and delayed elastic strain as follows:

PT ( t ) =

E t + 0 1 exp 2 t ta E1 E2

(5)

where, E1, E2 are the coefficients of elasticity of the elastic elements.

(a) (b) Figure 3. The rheological model of a Poynting-Thompson element and its stressstrain-time behavior

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2617

Figure 3(b) depicts the stress-time and the corresponding strain-time behavior of the Poynting-Thompson viscoelastic element. After removal of the stress, if the Poynting-Thompson element is kept unloaded over an indefinite long period of time, the strain-time curve follows an exponential decay i.e. the total recovery of the strain occurs following an exponential curve, which is expressed as:

PT ( k ) =

E2 ( t ta ) 0 E2ta 1 + exp t ta exp E2

(6)

The standard four-parameter viscoelastic Burger model Figure 4(a) depicts the schematic sketch of the standard four-parameter viscoelastic Burger model, wherein a Maxwell element ( ME ) is connected in series

with a Kelvin-Voigt ( KV ) element. For stresses remaining constant with time, and in the absence of any initial strain, the strain in the Burger element at any instant of time is expressed as follows:

BU ( t ) = 0

1 E2t t 1 + + 1 exp t ta E1 1 E2 2

(7)

(a) (b) Figure 4. The rheological model of a four-parameter Burger element and its stress-strain-time behavior

The individual term of Equation 7 expresses the relevant deformational properties of the element. The first term expresses the elastic strain which appears instantaneously after loading and vanishes after the removal of the load. The second term represents the irreversible creep strain in the element once it is subjected to a constant stress. The third term expresses the delayed elastic strain which increases under the applied stress, and is recovered once the stress is removed and the element is kept unloaded for an indefinite period of time. Figure 4(b) depicts the stress-time and the corresponding strain-time behavior of the Four-element viscoelastic Burger

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2618

model. If the Burger element is kept unloaded for a long period of time, creep recovery of the element occur which is governed by the following equation [Equation (8)]:

BU ( t ) =

0 E2ta 1 exp E2 2

E2 ( t ta ) t t a + t exp 2

(8)

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE SUITABILITY OF BURGER MODEL In geotechnical engineering, the viscoelastic lumped parameter models that are commonly used to describe the stress-strain-time behavior of various viscoelastic medium are mainly restricted to the application of Maxwell and Kelvin-Voigt models. Three-parameter viscoelastic model as described earlier is also used at certain situations. These models are used frequently due to their simplicity and for the easy determination of their parameters by using simple mathematical or experimental techniques. However, as discussed in the previous sections, these models are found unsuitable for proper representation of the time-dependent behavior of the viscoelastic medium. On the other hand, the use of Burger model is mostly restricted in the field of rock mechanics. However, a detailed scrutiny about the evolution of the Burger model as described earlier, reveal that in comparison to the other models, this model has an immense potential in representing the deformation phenomena occurring in a viscoelastic subgrade when subjected to a loading and unloading process. Hence, in spite of the four-parameter Burger model being a simple model in the viscoelastic theory, this model has been selected as the best model to represent the rheological behavior of a viscoelastic subgrade. As the model is comprised of linear springs and dashpots, the applicability of this model would be limited and would not be able to incorporate nonlinearity or damage. However, these aspects can be incorporated in the model with ease by considering nonlinear springs and dashpots instead of linear mechanical elements. A critical review of the various lumped parameter models described above in terms of their capability of representing the constitutive behavior of the viscoelastic medium is presented as follows. From Figure 1(b), it is observed that the Maxwell model can reciprocate the instantaneous deformation and the instantaneous recovery due to the application and removal of stress respectively; and hence, represents the short-term behavior of a viscoelastic subgrade. However, the viscous strain due to a constant stress is found to increase linearly with time. Moreover, after the removal of stress, the viscous strain is found to remain constant with time. A viscoelastic subgrade, when subjected to a constant stress, shows a nonlinear increase in strain. Upon unloading, the strain recovery with time is also observed to be nonlinear. Thus, this model is incapable to represent the long-term behavior. It is observed from Figure 2(b) that the Kelvin-Voigt model is capable of interpreting the time-dependent settlement behavior, creep phenomenon and the quasi-viscous flow of a viscoelastic medium. However, on the other hand, it fails to predict the instantaneous settlement and the instantaneous partial recovery of the medium due to sudden loading and unloading respectively. Thus, it is observed that

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2619

the KV model is suitable for the representation of the long-term behavior of the soil. However, as observed from Figure 2(b), when kept unloaded for an indefinitely long period of time, the Kelvin-Voigt model undergoes total recovery of the strain which is not a usual phenomenon. Thus, this model also fails in representing properly the stress-strain-time behavior of viscoelastic medium. It is observed from Figure 3(b) that the Poynting-Thompson element is able to represent the instantaneous elastic deformation upon sudden loading, delayed elastic deformation or creep upon maintaining the sustained loading, instantaneous recovery upon unloading, and exponential strain recovery due to sustained unloading of the element. However, this model also lacks the ability to capture the permanent deformation obtained as a result of loading of a viscoelastic subgrade. Thus, amongst all the models discussed, Burger model can be stated to be the most generalized model which can be degenerated to all other lower models with suitable omission of the Hookean springs and/or Newtonian dashpots. It is observed from Figure 4(b) that the Burger model is capable of expressing correctly the complex phenomena associated with the long-term reversible and irreversible deformation, along with the modeling of instantaneous strain and recovery due to sudden loading and unloading of the element.

(a) (b) Figure 5: Loading and unloading sequence; and, comparative study of the predicted and observed Settlement of pile-top and pile-bottom with elapsed time [Data from static load test on a pile at M.I.T Centre for Space Research (Lambe and Whitman, 1979)]

The suitability of this model to soils is further explored hereunder by taking up a typical case study of static load test on a pile at M.I.T Centre for Space Research [Lambe and Whitman (1979)]. Figure 5 shows the experimentally observed values obtained from a static load test on one of the piles. Figure 5(a) and 5(b) depicts the load-time and settement-time of the pile respectively. Choosing appropriate relative model parameters ( E1 E2 = 7.5, 1 2 = 480 ) through several trials, the behavior of the pile for the given loading conditions was predicted using the Burger model. The values of the pile tip settlement with time as predicted in the present study by using the Burger model also presented in Figure 5(b). The comparative study of the behavior shows a very close agreement. Thus it can be concluded that the Burger

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2620

model can suitably model the pile-soil settlement behavior with time. The model has been further checked through several case studies where the tests were conducted for short and long durations. Comparison of the data presented above with all the four models is a very interesting idea; however, for the sake of space and brevity these are not presented here, and are to be included in an upcoming full paper.
CONCLUSIONS In the light of the above discussions, it can be concluded that the Burger model possesses an excellent potential for proper representation of the timedependent behavior of a viscoelastic medium (saturated clays/ clayey soils) subjected to loading and unloading. The correctness of the prediction of time-settlement behavior of pile tip using this model has been established and explored through an in-situ pile load test reported in literature. The predictions made are found to be in very close agreement with that of field measurement. Thus, it is established that the Burger model can be used with confidence in determining the time-dependent behavior of a viscoelastic medium. REFERENCES Biot, M. A. (1956) Theory and deformation of a porous viscoelastic anisotropic solid Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 459 467. Buisman, A. S. K. (1936) Results of long duration settlement tests Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harvard, USA, pp. 103 106. Flugge, W. (1967) Viscoelasticity, Blaisdell Publishers, London. Geuze, E. C. W. A. and Tan, T. K. (1954) The mechanical behavior of clays Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Rheology, New York, pp. 247 259. Kerr, A. D. (1961) Viscoelastic Winkler foundation with shear interactions Journal of the Engineering Mechanics division: Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 87, No. EM3, pp. 13 30. Murayama, S. and Shibata, T. (1961) Rheological properties of clays 5th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, France, Vol. 1, pp. 269 273. Schiffman, R. L., Ladd, C. C. and Chen, A. T. F. (1964) The secondary consolidation of clay Rheology and Soil Mechanics: Proceedings of the International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Symposium, Grenoble, Berlin, pp. 273 303. Sobotka, Z. (1985) Rheology of Materials and engineering structures: Rheology Series 2, Wiley Interscience Publication, Netherlands. Tan, T. K. (1957) Three-dimensional theory on the consolidation and flow of the clay-layers Scientica Sinica, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 203 215. Tan, T. K. (1959) Structure mechanics of clays Scientica Sinica Col. 8, No. 1, pp. 83 97. Taylor, D. W. (1942) Research report on consolidation of clays Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering, Publication No. 82.