You are on page 1of 7




S. S. V y a l o v

Though the fundamentals of the s t a t i c s of g r a n u l a r m e d i a w e r e enunciated by Coulomb as e a r l y as the 18th century, soil m e c h a n i c s b e c a m e an independent b r a n c h of science only a f t e r Ko T e r z a g h i and N. M. G e r s e v a n o v developed the theory of soil m a s s e s and d e m o n s t r a t e d the feasibility of applying the theory of e l a s t i c i t y and its powerful m e c h a n i c o - m a t h e m a t i c a l a p p a r a t u s to soiIs. The theory of elasticity f u r n i s h e s the theoretical b a s e for m o d e r n soft m e c h a n i c s , and soil m e c h a n i c s owes its t r e m e n d o u s development only to this t h e o r y . However, at p r e s e n t the theory of e l a s t i c i t y is exhausted, and solving new p r o b l e m s confronted by soft m e c h a n i c s with the aid of this theory s e e m s to be m o r e and m o r e difficult It is welI known that the c l a s s i c a l model of an elastic h a l f - s p a c e does not fully r e p r e s e n t r e a l soils. Calculated values of s e t t l e m e n t s a r e often higher than the actual, the t h e o r e t i c a l contact p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u tion c u r v e s a r e in s h a r p c o n t r a s t to r e a l e a s e s , the actual and calculated r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the size of the loaded a r e a and settlement a r e at v a r i a n c e , etc. However, the chief d i s c r e p a n c y lies in the nature of the l o a d - s e t t l e m e n t relationship. The theory of e l a s t i c i t y p e r m i t s one to deal with only a p a r t of this r e lationship, i.e., the linear p a r t . The r e m a i n i n g portion, incidentally the bigger nonlinear portion, is not consideredo We then obtain a p a r a d o x i c a l p i c t u r e . The foundation is designed on the b a s i s of a limiting d e f o r m ation, while the magnitudes of these d e f o r m a t i o n s a r e governed by the limits of validity of the elastic theory; one such limiting value is the s h e a r s t r e n g t h R e given by the Code (Fig. 1) The p r o b l e m of f u r t h e r development of soil m e c h a n i c s lies in finding calculation methods such that the r e s u l t s obtained f r o m them would c o r r e s p o n d to the r e a l soil b e h a v i o r and r e p r e s e n t it in the entire s t r e s s range. This would furnish an opportunity f o r using the soft p r o p e r t i e s m o r e fully and executing engineering designs with g r e a t e r confidence The p r o b l e m m a y be solved e i t h e r by perfecting the p r e s e n t methods o r by developing new p r i n c i p a l l y different models for soils The f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e has been sufficiently well t r e a t e d in a n u m b e r of contributions (see, f o r instance, G o r b u n o v - P o s a d o v [1])o It m a y only be pointed out that the b a s i c p r o b l e m involving the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the non!inear nature of the l o a d - s e t t l e m e n t reIationship m a y be soIved, for instance, by t r e a t i n g a combined e l a s t o - p l a s t i c p r o b l e m , taking into account the selfweight, nonuniformity of the soil m a s s (along the depth), etc. The calculations and actual values m a y also be brought c l o s e r to each other by considering c o m p r e s sible s t r a t a to have limited depth, but this can be achieved only if a dependable method for calculating this depth is found. The second a l t e r n a t i v e needs a m o r e detailed t r e a t m e n t and f o r m s the theme of the p r e s e n t p a p e r . F i r s t of all, let us e x a m i n e p r e c i s e l y what a s p e c t s of the e l a s t i c h a l f - s p a c e model do not satisfy USo The p r e s e n t model a s s u m e s that the v o l u m e t r i c s t r a i n s a r e l i n e a r and grow unlimitedly; in fact, these s t r a i n s stabilize (Fig. l c ) . F u r t h e r , the r e a l s h e a r d i a g r a m m a y be a p p r o x i m a t e d by two s t r a i g h t lines i and II (Fig. lb); I c o r r e s p o n d s to the elastic ( p r e c i s e l y linear) stage; II r e p r e s e n t s the limiting stage. In the c a s e of section I, H o o k e ' s Law is vaIid, ~-= GT and the soil p r o p e r t i e s a r e fully d e s c r i b e d by the modulus of d e f o r m a t i o n and P o i s s o n ' s ratio. It is a l s o a s s u m e d that the d e f o r m a t i o n moduli have identical

Translated from Osnovaniya,


i Mekhanika

Gruntov, No. 2, pp. I0-13, March-April,


1970 Consultants Bureau, a division of Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West t7th Street, New York, N. Y. 1001I. ~ill rights reserved. This article cannot be reproduced for any purpose whatsoever without permission of the publisher..d copy of this article is available from the publisher for $15.00.


values in tension and compression and, consequently, tiU the limiting stage all Mohr envelopes are parallel to the abscissa% only the tangent to the limiting stress circles becoming inclined This means that such an important soil parameter as the angle of internal friction is not taken into account at any level below the limiting stage. In fact, the effect of internal friction (or the difference between the compressive and tensile resistance) is felt in whatever state the soil may beo The truth of this statement could be easily verified by conducting the simplest direct shear test on soilo The rate and magnitude of shear deformation decrease with an increase in normal stresses. Section II of the idealized diagram represents limiting conditions, and the condition ~n = C + ~ntan9 is presumed to exist, i.eo, internal friction is taken into account However, this parameter is not connected with the earlier elastic stage of soil behavior. Besides, while investigating the limiting conditions only the stress fields are determined, leaving the deformations unevaluated though the latter are important for any stage of deformation. Thus, by using the present elasto-plastic model the investigation is directed, dependinguponthe stress conditions, at two totally different media, governed by different relationships, totally unconnected with each other, and for each stage different problems are solved. Besides, in the present procedure time is not included as a parameter even though it has an exceptionally high significance for clayey soils ~ It is really alluring to think of a single generalized law which could describe the relationship between stress and strain in the entire range of behavior including the limiting stage and recognize its nonlinear nature, take into account the influence of internal friction of soil in the entire stress range, the variable nature of the stressdeformation characteristics with time, and the link between the limiting and preultimate stage characteristics Such a generalized law may be regarded as a rheologieal equation of state, connoting by the term "theology" not a narrow definition as the science of flow of materials but as a science studying the stressdeformation conditions and the changes in them with time for bodies whose behavior is not described by the classical theories of elasticity and plasticity. We shall immediately make it clear that adoption of such a law does not signify a rejection of the applications of the theories of elasticity and plasticity which, being special cases of the generalized theological equations, still furnish solutions for a large class of problems. Let us examine the basic propositions of the generalized rheological equation.

!t is assumed in the theory of elasto-plastie deformations that the shear strain (change in form) depends only on the shearing stresses, while the volumetric strain depends on the all-around pressure This is represented by the equation
~i = f (~,') ~ d :~o = ? (;o), (1)

where o 0 and G 0 are the first stress and strain invariants, respectively, characterizing the all-around pressure and volumetric strain, while ~i and ei are the second invariants of deviators of stresses and strains characterizing the shear stress and strain.
3 3

~i = I / ~,"


- 6 - [(~' - ~')~ + ( =~ - - M ~ + ( ~ - -

~1) 2] ,

However, this condition does not hold good in the case of soils. As was shown first by Ao Io Botkin and later by A o So Stroganov, So S. Vyalov, Eo P. Shusherina and So E= Gorodetskii, G. Mo Lomize, N. N. Ivashchenko and A o L. Kryzhanovskii, K. Roscoe and Ho Pooroshab, J. Coste, D. Drucker and Vo Prager, and others, the shear strains depend not only on the shear stress but also on the all-around pressure (Fig. 2a); the presence of the latter retards the shear strains. Experiments have also established that volumetric strains, in turn, depend not only on the all-around pressure but also on the shear stress (Fig. 2b), which may cause either additional compression or expansion (if the void ratio is below a certain critical value) of the soil. Accordingly, in the case of soils Eq. (i) should have the form


Fig i. Real and idealized (broken lines) settlement diagrams. (a) Shear, (b) volumetric; (c) strains.

Besides, as shown by G. M. Lomize and A. Lo Kryzhanovsldi, K. Roscoe and H. Pooroshab, and others, the nature of deformation also depends on the s t r e s s paths for taking into account the effect of which it is n e c e s s a r y to introduce the third invariant of the s t r e s s deviator c~j= (cr i - %) x (or z - %) (c%- %) into Eq. (1). Finally, Eq. (1) should also take into account the change in the s t r e s s - d e f o r m a t i o n conditions in time. Thus, we finally have

and %>o

~, = f ( % , %, %', 0 ~o= f* (~0, %, % ~), (2)


E x p r e s s i o n s (2) may be substituted in Hencky's equations linking components of s t r e s s e s and deformations ?

~ -Be +o

% = ?. ( % -- %) + "I.* %;





Fig. 2. Results of triaxial t e s t s (schematic), showing the dependence of s h e a r strains on the a l l - a r o u n d p r e s s u r e (a) and v o l u m e t r i c strains on the s h e a r s t r e s s (b).



~(~,, , %, ~1, t) 2 a~

f* (%, ~i, ~i' t)

The equations satisfy the theory of small e l a s t o - p l a s t i c deformations, which is valid (as p e r A o A. IFyushin) for the case of simple loading; the above-mentioned limitation is fully acceptable for the m a j o r i t y of engineering p r o b l e m s in soil mechanics. On the other hand the s o - c a l l e d flow theory, which considers not deformations themselves but t h e i r r a t e s , is equally acceptable. This theory is also f r e e f r o m the abovementioned limitations. Let us examine the nature of Eqs. (2) to begin with, without considering the effect of time. In the case of simple c o m p r e s s i o n (which may be considered to be a r e a s o n a b l e approximation f o r the majority of engineering problems) the effect of o-j is not significant. Thus, Eqs (2) may be stated, as shown e a r l i e r [2L as
~i = ~ (*i) + ~ (~i) (00);


In the equation for cri, the first term determines the resistance to pure shear while the second governs the fall in this resistance due to the all-around pressure In the equation for o0 the first term reflects the resistance to volumetric deformation, caused by the all-around pressure, while the second represents the positive (compression) or negative (expansion) action of the shear stress on this resistance. The function ~01 (el) may be taken as
~pi (at ) = A s m (with tn
G O" s at 1)

(5) The function ~' (%) should depict the stabilizing nature of the deformation p r o c e s s F o r instance,


consider here the loading process;



may be formulated

in the case of unloading.



~o ( ~ - - ~0)



The step functions ~p~ and ~* a r e the s i m p I e s t but have s o m e s h o r t c o m i n g s : f o r s m a l l d e f o r m a t i o n s the m o d u lus of deformation assumes an infinitely large value, while with the increase in strains the stresses increase unlimitedly. The relationship represented by a pair of straight lines is more difficult but free from these shortcomings Especially the increase in stresses is limited to ~i~Crs, i.eo, in the limit the law transforms into the limiting condition (though this assumes that ~i ~oo).

Analytical solutions of problems, especially those related to elastic half-spaces, have the limitation, as shown by Mo Vo Malyshev and Yu K Zaretskii, that the q) and ~* curves are required to be similar. These limitations vanish if the problems are solved on a computer. For engineering purposes a simpler procedure may be used. The stress distribution may be determined by the theory of elasticity while settlements may be computed by using the nonlinear law. Introducing a few assumptions, the first of the Eqs. (4) may be written as
( ~ z ) - O (%) ' (7)

w h e r e ~o = ~o 1 =~P2 a r e d e t e r m i n e d f r o m Eq. (5) while the function ~oL (%) m a y be adopted, f o r example, in the f o r m ~(o-0) = K (1 +o-0/H) oz, w h e r e , a s a s p e c i a l c a s e , ce m a y be equal to 1. Equation (7) m a y be r e p r e s e n t e d by i n v a r i a n t d i a g r a m s (Fig. 3).

The s e c o n d of E q s . (4), a s shown by S. E. G o r o d e t s k i i , m a y be w r i t t e n in the f o r m

~0 = f ~ (~o) f2 (%) ~z -- f~ (~0) i


or linearizing,

~o := a ~Yo :h b ff i - - c o


The t i m e p a r a m e t e r involved in the equation of state (3) depicts the c h a n g e s in d e f o r m a t i o n (creep) and s t r e s s e s (relaxation) in t i m e . It is n e c e s s a r y to c o n s i d e r c r e e p in the m a j o r i t y of p r o b l e m s c o n n e c t e d with the m e c h a n i c s of c l a y e y s o i l s , while r e l a x a t i o n is r e l a t e d to the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r e s s a c c o m p a n y i n g it, e.go, in a c o m p l e x s t r e s s condition o r when the P o i s s o n r s r a t i o c h a n g e s o r when the i n c r e a s e in d e f o r m a tion is h a m p e r e d due to c e r t a i n r e a s o n s , f o r i n s t a n c e , in the c a s e of s t r e s s conditions a r o u n d a d r i v e n pile [31. While studying c r e e p p h e n o m e n a it is n e c e s s a r y to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n the s h e a r and v o l u m e t r i c s t r a i n s (Fig. 4). The f o r m e r a r e c r e e p itself and m a y be of a s t a b i l i z i n g (if ~i < ~ ) o r n o n s t a b i l i z i n g (ori > c%) n a t u r e . V o l u m e t r i c s t r a i n s a l w a y s s t a b i l i z e . I n the c a s e of d e n s e ( q u a s i - s i n g l e phase) soils t h e s e s t r a i n s a r e c a u s e d b y v o l u m e t r i c c r e e p , and in s a t u r a t e d s o i l s b y s k e l e t a l c r e e p a s we!l as f i l t r a t i o n a l c o n s o l i d a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r a p o r e p r e s s u r e p [3-5]. F o r s u c h soils Eq. (3) m a y be stated a s %:~ : /~ (% -- %) + 7.* % --/.** P. Yxu =2"l.:xu . . . etc,, [** (P, (re, ~ i ' t) where ~ * * ~-p


I n c o r p o r a t i o n of the function f * * s h o w s that d e f o r m a t i o n s a r e c a u s e d not by the total s t r e s s e s but only by the effective s t r e s s e s . V a r i o u s t h e o r i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r d e s c r i b i n g the c r e e p and r e l a x a t i o n p r o c e s s e s . I n the s i m p l e s t c a s e (a c o n s t a n t o r m o n o t o n o u s l y i n c r e a s i n g load) the 'tageing~ t h e o r y is used in which t i m e is u s e d in an explicit f o r m . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y in Eq. (7), if the c r e e p function ,P(t) is i n t r o d u c e d in the n u m e r a t o r , we have

q~(~z ) = ,:v(,~o) ~(t).



I f(e~
t .........

Analogously the volt~metric creep function ~0*(t) and consolidation function ~**(t) may be introduced in Eq. (8). The creep function q~(t) is studied by various research workers, especially Vyalov [2] In the above theory the relaxation equation is written in the simplest form

Fig. 3. Generalized diagrams showing the relationship between shearing stresses and strains


=~p(zi ) F ( t ) ,

where f (l) -- ~2(t) "


b)! so

Fig. 4. Creep curves. metric strains.

a) S h e a r s t r a i n s ; b) v o l u -

In a more general form the time factor is introduced in a differential or integral form which admits of any type of change in the stress-deformation conditions. The most useful theory is (S. S. Vyalov, S. R. Mescharg Yu. K. Zaretskii) the inheritance creep theory of Volterra-Boltzman and Rabotnov. According to this theory the ereep relationship may be stated as

q~ (~z):::Jz(t) -- S g (l -- .,) o i d) ~z

(~) ,4 .,,


while relaxation is represented as




~i =~i[~ (t)] - j ' R (l--.,)~[~ i ('Old',,



Generalized physical relationships are obtained by the simultaneous solution of the imfegral creep equations presented above and Eqs. (4) or (7) and (8)~ It m a y be noted, that in a g e n e r a l c a s e , E q s . (4) o r (7) and (8) should a l s o be p r e s e n t e d in an i n t e g r a l f o r m . tn the c a s e of a c o n s t a n t load t h e s e equations b e c o m e identical to Eq. (10).

Fig. 5. Diagrams showing stress deformation relationship for preultimate (Section I) and limiting (Section II) states, a) Section I-o- i= Gel, section II-o'i=constant (the Mises condition); b) section I- ~i = Gci, section II- cr i = ~(~0) (the Mises-Schlikh e r - B o t k i n condition); c) section I--~/li(~0) = Gei, section I f - (T i/~(~i) = constant [generalized linearized Eq. (7); d) sectionI-cri/~(cr0)=f(ei), section I I - ~i/~(~r0) = constant [generalized nonlinear Eq

where K(t) is the creep function and l~(t) is the relaxation function. The function K(t) and ~P(t) are connected by the relationship K(t) = d / (dr) [,~(t)]. Equations analogous to (12) may also be written for volumetric strains.


F i n a l l y , the time p a r a m e t e r m a y be taken into a c c o u n t by c o n s i d e r i n g , in a c c o r d a n c e with the flow t h e o r y , not the d e f o r m a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s but t h e i r r a t e s (N. No Maslov, A. So Stroganov, Gzze, Tan, and others).

As far as the limiting condition is concerned special study is needed. that in a general case, the limiting condition may be written as

We may

however, observe,

q~U;i, no, a i ' t ) = O.


Introduction of the third invariant of the stress deviator crj shows (Go M. Lomize, A~ L. Kryzhanovskii) the influence of stress paths. This problem was studied by G. M. Lomize and others [6]. In the case of simple compression the effect of o-j may be ignored, but then the strength characteristics should be evaluated under the same stress conditions as in the problem under investigation. Under these circumstances we come to the Mises-Schleikher condition, with the difference that the influence of time is included. We may write


i where for o~ = 1 we obtain the Botkin condition:

Figure 5 shows the relationship between oi and ~i in the prelimiting and limiting conditions. If for the Mises criterion cri= crs= constant (Fig. 5a) the elasto-plastic diagram is invariant (inasmuch as the influence of cr0 is considered neither in the elastic nor in the plastic stage), then for the Mises-Shleikher conditions (Fig. 5b) the diagram already assumes an invariant form since for an elastic state the relationship between o" i and gi does not depend on the all-around pressure er0, while for the limiting stage such a dependence exists By introducing a relationship in terms of % for the preultimate conditions, as was done in the generalized Eq. (7), we obtain an invariant diagram which is either linear (Fig. 5c) or nonlinear (Fig 5d) depending upon the nature of the function ~o(~i). The time function F (t) characterizes and others, and Goldshtein [7, 8]. the fall in strength with time; its nature is analyzed by Vyalov

Thus, one must distinguish between the instantaneous (at t= 0), long-term (at t= ti), and ultimate longterm (at t=tul t) strengths. A design as per the first limiting criterion should aim at determining the load due to which, at a given moment (for example during the useful life of the structure), the induced stresses will not exceed the strength, while the second limiting condition criterion should be used for determining the load on the application of which the strain at a given moment does not exceed the limiting permissible value. We shall now consider, in brief, to what results the generalized rheologieal equation of state (3) leads

i) Since the effect of o0 on ~i retards deformations, its inclusion in an equation would lead to a reduction in the calculated settlement values, i.e., it is better than the elastic theory as far as the agreement between the predicted and actual values is concerned Examples of such comparisons for the axis-symmetrical problems (a cylinder of icelike material) were studied by the author. 2) In half-space problems, consideration of nonlinearity and the mutual influence between ~i and o0 leads, as shown by E. F. Vinokurov and V. A. Kuzmitskii, to a steeper fall in deformations with depth, in comparison to the elastic theory. This brings the problem closer to the case of a compressible layer of limited depth and gives better agreement with the actual conditions: 3) Taking into account nonlinearity, as shown by Yuo K. Zaretskii, leads to a better shape for the contact pressure distribution curve for a rigid foundation. The edge ordinates register a steep fail, bringing the theoretical curve closer to the actual conditions. The agreement is even better if the change in soil density with depth is also taken into account. If the relationship of Eqo (5) is assumed in the form of a pair of straight lines of different slopes, a finite value of contact pressure is obtained at the edge, (since o~crs) , which removes a weak point in the treatment based on the elastic theory. The above-mentioned results for the method of taking into account the nonlinearity, mutual influence of cr i and cr0 on the nature of the stress-deformation conditions in the soil half-space are confirmed by the computer solutions of these problems obtained by the Chelyabinsk Polytechnical Institute in collaboration with the NII Osnovanii [9], and by Vinokurov at Minsk [i0]. Finally, by taking into account the nonlinearity of the stress-deformation relationship, the soilbehavior can be described in the entire stress range and introduction of the time parameter in the equation of state affords an opportunity to determine the deformation not only in the preultimate condition but also at the limiting stage Thus, if the basic physical relationships are adopted in the generalized form obtained are significantly closer to the factual data than the theory of elasticity. of Eq. (3), the results

A doubt may arise about the advisability of adopting a more complex model which complicates the solution and does not justify itself due to the wide deviations in the soil properties and concealment of the effect of some factor or other. However, there is no need to be afraid of complexities, as these problems can be solved on a computer, which opens up tremendous possibilities for compiling auxiliary tables, charts, nomograms, etc. The inclusion of a large number of factors in the basic equation does not necessitate their appearance in the solution. Such an inclusion is primarily important for evaluating the degree of influence of various factors. If it is discovered that a certain parameter has a negligible influence it may be


excluded. However, such exclusion should be done after due is often done at present, thus leading to discrepancy between ing this gap and consequently for a greater and fuller use of adopt a generalized equation of state, which, after evaluating may be stated in a simpler form.

consideration and not through ignorance as i~ the calculated and observed values. For closthe real soil characteristics it is essential to the degree of influence of the various factors,

Obviously, with this the role played by experimentation increases, and conducting experimental investigations into the basic relationships and verification of the results so obtained becomes an essential step In the same fashion, taking into account the increase in the number of design characteristics, the necessity of developing more reliable methods for the determination of these characteristics also increases. LITERATURE CITED

i M.I. Gorbunov-Posadov, Present Status of the Scientific Considerations in Foundation Engineering, Nauka (1967). 2. S. S Vyalov, "Problems of the theory of deformability of cohesive soils, ~ Osnovaniya Fundamenty i Mekhanilm Gruntov, No. 3 (1966)o 3. N.A. Tsytovieh and others, Settlement-Rate Prediction for Structures, Stroiizdat {1967). 4o V Ao Florin, Foundations of Soil Mechanics Vol. II Gosstroiizdat (1961)o 5. Yu. K. Zaretskii, Theory of Consolidation of Soils, Nauka (1969). 6o Go M. Lomize et al., ~Problems of deformability and strength of soil media ~ in: Deformability and Strength Problems in Soils, Azerb Gos Izd. Baku (1966)o 7 So S Vyalov, No K. Pekarskaya, Ro V. Maksimyak, NAbout the Physical validity of deformation and failure in soils, ~ Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 1 (1970)o 8o M N. Golrdshtein, ~Certain problems in the rheology of soils, ~ Proceedings of the Coordinating Conference on Hydrotechnics, No 38, Energiya (1968)o 9. Vo N. Shirokov, V. I Solomin, M. Vo Malyshev, and Yu. Ko Zaretskii, ~Stress conditions and displacements of a nonlinear deformable soil half-space having self weight under a circular rigid footing," Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No 1 (1970). !0. E. F. Vinkurov, ~Moraines as foundations for structures, -~'Nauka i Tekhnika, Minsk (1968)o