Performance of constitutive models in predicting behavior of remolded clay

The performance of several soil constitutive models was evaluated by comparing experimental results and simulated behavior of a medium plasticity clay. Input parameters for the soil constitutive models were obtained from triaxial compression and extension tests on normally and overconsolidated medium plasticity clay. The soil models employed for this study were the Cam Clay, Modified Cam Clay, 3-SKH, and S-CLAY1 models. In order to investigate the influence of some of the input parameters on the performance of the models, sensitivity analyses were also performed. The comparisons demonstrate that the Cam Clay model was able to predict the normally consolidated compressive behavior of medium plasticity clay. Both 3-SKH and Cam Clay models were able to produce acceptable predictions for stress–strain and stress path behavior for overconsolidated compression of the soil. The 3-SKH model did not perform satisfactorily for predicting pore pressure variations, while the Cam Clay model demonstrated fairly acceptable predictions. For the normally consolidated reduced extension test, the Modified Cam Clay and S-CLAY1 models performed better than the Cam Clay and 3-SKH models in predicting the stress–strain curve, pore pressure variations, and stress path.

[1]  M. Randolph,et al.  NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF COLLAPSE LOADS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS , 1982 .

[2]  Béatrice A. Baudet,et al.  A CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR STRUCTURED CLAYS , 2004 .

[3]  K. H. Head,et al.  Manual of soil laboratory testing , 1980 .

[4]  P. R. Vaughan,et al.  The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks , 1990 .

[5]  K. Roscoe,et al.  ON THE GENERALIZED STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF WET CLAY , 1968 .

[6]  A. Schofield,et al.  Critical State Soil Mechanics , 1968 .

[7]  Federica Cotecchia,et al.  A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of clays , 2000 .

[8]  Gioacchino Viggiani,et al.  Directional response of a reconstituted fine‐grained soil—Part II: performance of different constitutive models , 2006 .

[9]  S. E. Stallebrass,et al.  The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay , 1997 .

[10]  Angeliki Grammatikopoulou.  Development, implementation and application of kinematic hardening models for overconsolidated clays , 2004 .

[11]  C. Tamagnini,et al.  An Evaluation of Different Constitutive Models to Predict the Directional Response of a Reconstituted Fine-Grained Soil , 2006 .

[12]  Alexander M. Puzrin,et al.  The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction , 1997 .

[13]  J. Atkinson,et al.  The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations , 2007 .

[14]  S. Wheeler,et al.  An anisotropic elastoplastic model for soft clays , 2003 .

[15]  Richard J. Jardine,et al.  The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus , 1984 .

[16]  Pierre-Yves Hicher,et al.  Constitutive modeling of soils and rocks , 2008 .

[17]  J. Carter,et al.  A structured Cam Clay model , 2002 .