Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

pa,pers

Field and laboratory stress-strain relationship for


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

recent stress history. This is particularly r /


I
I
I
I
important on sites where the recent stress I

history of the soil may change significantly I I

/ I I
across the site due to local geological 0 10% / I
I
I
I
variations or to nearby construction. / I
I

Methods of modelling this non-linear, / I


I
I

recent history dependent behaviour I J


include empizical models derived from 0 07% 0 04% 0.01%
specific experimental data (Jardine and
Potts, 1988 ), theoretically based
constitutive soil models which only
require basic soil parameters (Mroz et al,
t Displacement veclprs
1979 ) or mixed models which combine Hg.1.9trafa coatours around an excavatfon. Nzearstrafa coatonrsfor a ~~~~am
theory and empirical formulations wall dfsplacemeat 02% of wall height, linear elastfc model (after Simpson et al
26 (Simpson et at, 1979 ). 19?9).
GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990
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
q',

ic region

(a) ofter loading from W (h) loading along path XY


(c) final configuration, at Y

Ct

Slg.6. Three surface hinematic yield p p


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 (d) aner loading from U (e) loading along path XY (f) final contiguration, at Y

tests. The model only requires a small


number of basic soil parameters; these are Hg.?. 'fgfro serias ofatetchesshofNing the translation of the ttftro lrmematfc yield
the critical state angle of friction, M, the surfacesas the soilis loaded along the stress path XF, aBerinitiafly beingloaded
coefficients of compressibQity, xl, and along paths WXand fJXrespectively.
swelling, pc, a point on the isotropic
compression curve, a maxim ~e elastic In order to predict both the magnitudes References
shear stiffness and the ratios between the and the distributions of ground
1. Som, NN (1968).The effect of stress path on the
sizes of the three surfaces. These latter movements satisfactorily 89il models deformation and consolidation of London Clay. Ph.D.
parameters can be obtained from should incorporate all these Thesis, University of London.
relatively simple isotropic compression, characteristics. This behaviour can be 2. Atkinson, JH (19?3)The deformation of undisturbed
swelling and recompression tests. The modelled using a non-linear elastic London Clay. PkD. Thesis, University of London.
3. Richardson, D (1988).Investigations of threshold
model is therefore more flexible than relationship derived empirically from effects in soil deformaticms. PkD. Thesis. The City
empirical formulations. At present it only appropriate data but these data can only University.
exists in a single element form and has yet be obtained using special stress path 4. Jardine, RJ and Pons, DM(1888). Hutton terudon leg
to be implemented as a soil model within a testing, usually requiring local axial strain platform foundations: prediction of driven pile
behaviour. Geotechnique, Vol 38, No. 2, pp. 23 1-282.
Qnite element analysis. 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
Conclusions 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.
For many structures in overconsolidated 6. Simpson, B, O'Riordan, NJ and Croft, DD (1979).A
soils, the majority of the soil experiences This provides a potentially simpler
computer model for the analysh of ground movements
shear strains which are less than 0.1%.At method of predicting ground movements. in London Clay. Geotechniqtm, Vol 29, No. 2, pp.
these small strains the stiffness of the soil 149-17S.
Achnovgledgements 7. St John, HJ(1978). Field and theoretical studies of the
is non-linear snd dependent not only on behaviour of gmund around deep excavations in
the state and overconsolidation ratio but The author is supported by an SERG-CASE award in London Clay. PkD. Thesis, University of Cambridge.
also on the recent stress history of the soil. collabomtion with Ove Arup St Partners. 8. Peck, RB (1969).Deep excavations and tunnelling in
soft grounfL Proc. Seventh Conf. Soil Mack Fdn
30 KEY Elg.8. Cojnparison Engng, Mexico. State of the Art Report, pp. 228-290.
betvtreen 9. Jardine, RJ, Potts, DM, Founie, AB and Burigtnd, JB
G'MPc)
p + 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.
20 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.
10 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.

0 I

0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0

<s (K)
29
GROUND ENGINEERING . JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990