journal article·2019-08-10

The difficult challenge of modelling the non‐linear elastic behaviour of soils within a theoretically sound framework

Rocco Lagioia, Andrea Panteghini

Publisher page

Abstract

Summary Hypo‐elastic relations are often adopted to simulate the recoverable non‐linear behaviour of soils within elasto‐plastic constitutive models. In reality, they are unable to reproduce the elastic, ie, recoverable, response of materials; hence, they introduce severe inconsistencies in models based on the decomposition of the total strain tensor into its recoverable and permanent parts. Hyper‐elasticity should then be used. However, existing models developed within this framework do not satisfy a number of fundamental theoretical requirements. A new hyper‐elastic model is proposed, which is rigourously formulated by integrating some of the main relations which emerge from experimental results. The model satisfies all theoretical requirements and also possesses features that are fundamental for its numerical integration. The model can be considered as the correct hyper‐elastic version of the classical hypo‐elastic constitutive relation adopted in models based on the Critical State framework, such as the Modified Cam‐Clay, with a constant Poisson's ratio.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics · Soil and Unsaturated Flow · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

DICATAM University of Brescia Brescia Italy

References (60)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/nag.161008030510.1002/nag.1610080305 ↗
2. 10.1002/nag.223610.1002/nag.2236 ↗
3. A critical assessment of the requirements of yield and plastic potential functions in soil modelling
4. 10.1016/0266-352X(85)90012-610.1016/0266-352X(85)90012-6 ↗
5. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:10(948)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:10(948) ↗
6. 10.1016/S0045-7825(97)00141-210.1016/S0045-7825(97)00141-2 ↗
7. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:1(81)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:1(81) ↗
8. 10.1680/geot.2005.55.5.38310.1680/geot.2005.55.5.383 ↗
9. 10.3208/sandf1972.32.2_11110.3208/sandf1972.32.2_111 ↗
10. Duncan JM · 1976
11. LaddCC FoottR IshiharaK SchlosserF PoulosH.Stress‐deformation and strength characteristics. In: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Vol. 2.Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering;1977;Tokyo Japan:421‐494.
12. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000138210.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001382 ↗
13. Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001100 ↗
14. 10.1680/geot.13.P.22710.1680/geot.13.P.227 ↗
15. 10.1680/geot.1997.47.3.59310.1680/geot.1997.47.3.593 ↗
16. 10.1680/geot.1982.32.1.6210.1680/geot.1982.32.1.62 ↗
17. 10.1680/geot.1997.47.1.16710.1680/geot.1997.47.1.167 ↗
18. 10.3208/sandf1972.31.16910.3208/sandf1972.31.169 ↗
19. 10.1680/geot.2002.52.10.72710.1680/geot.2002.52.10.727 ↗
20. 10.3208/sandf1972.32.3_2610.3208/sandf1972.32.3_26 ↗
21. 10.1680/geot.1999.49.5.59510.1680/geot.1999.49.5.595 ↗
22. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(19990810)23:9<925::AID-NAG19>3.0.CO;2-M10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(19990810)23:9<925::AID-NAG19>3.0.CO;2-M ↗
23. 10.1680/jgeot.17.T.03110.1680/jgeot.17.T.031 ↗
24. Hypo‐elasticity
25. 10.1007/978-3-0348-6848-810.1007/978-3-0348-6848-8 ↗
26. 10.1007/978-3-642-46015-9_110.1007/978-3-642-46015-9_1 ↗
27. Schofield AN · 1968
28. Roscoe KH · 1968 · 535
29. BurlandJB.Deformation of soft clay.Ph.D.: University of Cambridge;1967.
30. 10.1002/nag.161002010710.1002/nag.1610020107 ↗
31. 10.1007/978-3-642-61634-1_2310.1007/978-3-642-61634-1_23 ↗
32. 10.1016/0955-7997(84)90049-310.1016/0955-7997(84)90049-3 ↗
33. On the continuity of solid and fluid states
34. 10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.40510.1680/geot.1990.40.3.405 ↗
35. 10.1680/geot.2004.54.4.26910.1680/geot.2004.54.4.269 ↗
36. 10.1680/jgeot.16.P.25710.1680/jgeot.16.P.257 ↗
37. Hibbitt H · 2011
38. 10.1088/0964-1726/25/5/05400910.1088/0964-1726/25/5/054009 ↗
39. 10.1098/rspa.2014.053810.1098/rspa.2014.0538 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jmps.2016.02.01010.1016/j.jmps.2016.02.010 ↗
41. 10.1002/nag.220810.1002/nag.2208 ↗
42. 10.1002/nag.222810.1002/nag.2228 ↗
43. 10.2208/jscej1969.1974.227_4510.2208/jscej1969.1974.227_45 ↗
44. 10.1680/geot.1979.29.4.46910.1680/geot.1979.29.4.469 ↗
45. 10.1016/0022-5096(58)90029-210.1016/0022-5096(58)90029-2 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.cma.2003.11.01110.1016/j.cma.2003.11.011 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.03.00210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.03.002 ↗
48. 10.1016/0148-9062(79)91445-110.1016/0148-9062(79)91445-1 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.02.01610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.02.016 ↗
50. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1484(199801)3:1<65::AID-CFM42>3.0.CO;2-910.1002/(SICI)1099-1484(199801)3:1<65::AID-CFM42>3.0.CO;2-9 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.03.03210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.03.032 ↗
52. 10.1016/0749-6419(90)90008-310.1016/0749-6419(90)90008-3 ↗
53. 10.1177/108128651772159910.1177/1081286517721599 ↗
54. An extended Modified Cam‐Clay yield surface for arbitrary meridional and deviatoric shapes retaining full convexity and double homothety
55. 10.1002/nag.276710.1002/nag.2767 ↗
56. 10.1098/rspa.2014.056810.1098/rspa.2014.0568 ↗
57. 10.1098/rspa.2015.071310.1098/rspa.2015.0713 ↗
58. Ferreira C · 2005 · 523
59. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.12.02410.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.12.024 ↗
60. 10.1007/s10659-006-9074-010.1007/s10659-006-9074-0 ↗