Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of constitutive models in predicting behavior of remolded clay

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Addenbrooke TI, Potts DM, Puzrin AM (1997) The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Géotechnique 47(3):693–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson J (2007) The mechanics of soils and foundations, 2nd edn. Taylor and Francis, NY., p 442

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baudet BA, Stallebrass SE (2004) A constitutive model for structured clays. Géotechnique 54(4):269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cotecchia F, Chandler RJ (2000) A general framework for the mechanical behavior of clays. Géotechnique 50(4):431–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crisp Consortium (1995) CRISP2D examples, CRISP tutorial manual. Crisp Consortium Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grammatikopoulou A (2004) Development, implementation and application of kinematic hardening models for overconsolidated clays, PhD thesis, University of London, London, England

  7. Head KH (1996) Manual of soil laboratory testing, vol 3. Halsted Press, NY, p 1238

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hicher PY, Shao JF (2008) Constitutive modeling of soils and rocks. ISTE Ltd and Wiley, NJ, p 448

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Ingram PJ (2000) The application of numerical models to natural stiff clays, Ph.D. thesis, City University, London

  10. Jardine RJ, Symes MJ, Burland JB (1984) The measurement of soil stiffness in triaxial apparatus. Géotechnique 34(3):323–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leroueil S, Vaughan PR (1990) The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Géotechnique 41(3):467–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu MD, Carter JP (2002) Structured cam clay model. Canadian Geotechnical J 39(6):1313–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Masin D (2004) Laboratory and numerical modeling of natural clays, M.Phil. thesis, City University, London, England

  14. Masin D, Tamagnini C, Viggiani G, Costanzo D (2006) Directional response of a reconstituted fine-grained soil (Part II): Performance of different constitutive models. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 30:1303–1336

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Messerklinger S (2006) Non-linearity and small strain behaviour in lacustrine clay, Doctor of science thesis, Eth Zurich University, Zurich, Switzerland

  16. Newell WL (2001) Geology of Kentucky-A text to accompany the geologic map of Kentucky. US Geological survey professional paper 115-H, Online Version 1.0. US Geological survey, Washington

  17. Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stress–strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay, Engineering plasticity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 553–609

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schofield A, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sloan SW, Randolph MF (1982) Numerical prediction of collapse loads using finite element method. Int J Num Analy Meth Geomech 6(1):47–76

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Stallebrass SE (1990) The effect of recent stress history on the deformation of overconsolidated soils, PhD thesis, City University, London, England

  21. Stallebrass SE, Grant RJ, Taylor RN (1996) A finite element study of ground movements measured in centrifuge model tests of tunnels, Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stallebrass SE, Taylor RN (1997) The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay. Géotechnique 47(2):235–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tamagnini C, Masin D, Costanzo D, Viggiani G (2006) An evaluation of different constitutive models to predict the directional response of a reconstituted fine-grain soil. In: Modern trends in geomechanics. Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 106, part II, pp. 143–157. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35724-7_9

  24. Wheeler SJ, Näätänen A, Karstunen M, Lojander M (2003) An anisotropic elastoplastic model for soft clays. Can Geotech J 40:403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, 161 Raymond Bldg., Lexington, KY, 40506-0281, USA

    L. Sebastian Bryson & Ali Salehian

Authors
  1. L. Sebastian Bryson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Salehian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Sebastian Bryson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bryson, L.S., Salehian, A. Performance of constitutive models in predicting behavior of remolded clay. Acta Geotech. 6, 143–154 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-011-0144-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-011-0144-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation