This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Sydney NSW 2006
**

AUSTRALIA

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

Centre for Geotechnical Research

Research Report No R814

A Structured Cam Clay Model

By

Martin D Liu BE MPhil PhD

John P Carter BE PhD FIEAust MASCE

March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Centre for Geotechnical Research

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/

A Structured Cam Clay Model

Research Report No R814

Martin D Liu, BE, MPhil, PhD

John P Carter, BE, PhD, FIEAust, MASCE

ABSTRACT

A theoretical study of the behaviour of structured soil is presented. A new

model, which is referred to as the Structured Cam Clay model, is formulated by

introducing the influence of soil structure into Modified Cam Clay. The

proposed model is hierarchical, i.e., it is identical to the Modified Cam Clay soil

model if a soil has no structure or if its structure is removed by loading. Three

new parameters describing the effects of soil structure are introduced and the

results of a parametric study are also presented. The proposed model has been

used to predict the behaviour of structured soils in both compression and

shearing tests. By making comparisons of predictions with experimental data

and by conducting the parametric study it is demonstrated that the new model

provides satisfactory qualitative and quantitative modelling of many important

features of the behaviour of structured soils.

Keywords:

calcareous soils, clays, fabric, structure, constitutive relations, plasticity.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

2

Copyright Notice

Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report R814

A Structured Cam Clay Model

© 2002 MD Liu and JP Carter

m.liu@civil.usyd.edu.au; j.carter@civil.usyd.edu.au

This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original

form without the consent of the copyright owner.

Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must

be appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the

author.

Published by:

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Sydney NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA

March 2002

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

3

Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................5

2. Generalisation of Modified Cam Clay.............................................................................6

2.1 Influence of soil structure on virgin isotropic compression .........................................8

2.2 Yield surface for structured clay ..................................................................................9

2.3 Volumetric deformation for virgin yielding along general stress paths .......................9

2.4 Flow rule.....................................................................................................................13

2.5 Additional assumptions ..............................................................................................14

3. Stress-Strain Relationships ............................................................................................15

3.1 Elastic deformation.....................................................................................................15

3.2 Virgin yielding............................................................................................................15

3.3 Softening.....................................................................................................................15

4. Parameter Determination ...............................................................................................17

5. Features of the Model ....................................................................................................20

5.1 Parameter b.................................................................................................................21

5.2 Parameter p′

y,i

.............................................................................................................23

5.3 Parameter ω................................................................................................................24

6. Model Evaluation...........................................................................................................25

6.1 Background.................................................................................................................25

6.2 Compression behaviour of three clays........................................................................27

6.2.1 Leda Clay.............................................................................................................27

6.2.2 Bangkok Clay.......................................................................................................28

6.2.3 Artificially Cemented Clay..................................................................................29

6.3 Behaviour of a natural calcarenite..............................................................................31

6.4 Behaviour of Corinth marl..........................................................................................37

6.5 Behaviour of La Biche clayshale................................................................................38

7. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................40

8. Acknowledgements........................................................................................................41

9. References......................................................................................................................41

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

4

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

5

1. Introduction

Soils in situ usually possess natural structure, which enables them to behave

differently from the same material in a reconstituted state (e.g., Burland, 1990;

Leroueil and Vaughan, 1990; Cuccovillo and Coop; 1999). Recently, there

have been important developments in formulating constitutive models

incorporating the influence of soil structure, such as those proposed by Gens

and Nova (1993), Whittle (1993), Wheeler (1997), Rouainia and Muir Wood

(2000), and Kavvadas and Amorosi (2000). In this paper a new constitutive

model for structured clays is proposed. The main objective of this new

formulation is to provide a constitutive model suitable for the solution of

boundary value problems encountered in geotechnical engineering practice. It

is intended therefore, that the new model should be relatively simple and should

have few parameters, each of which has a clear physical meaning and can be

conveniently identified. The model should also be relatively easy to understand

and apply.

The Modified Cam Clay model (Roscoe and Burland, 1968) is widely

referenced and has been widely used in solving boundary value problems in

geotechnical engineering practice (e.g., Gens and Potts, 1988; Yu, 1998; Potts

and Zdravkovic, 1999), although it was developed originally for reconstituted

clays. Because of some familiarity with the model by the geotechnical

profession and because it captures well the essential behaviour of reconstituted

soil, the Modified Cam Clay model was chosen as the basis for the current

research. A new model has been formulated by introducing the influence of soil

structure into Modified Cam Clay. A parametric study demonstrating the

capabilities and limitations of this new model is presented. The model has also

been used to predict the behaviour of a variety of structured natural soils in both

compression and shearing tests, allowing a reasonably comprehensive

evaluation of it to be undertaken. It is demonstrated that the proposed new

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

6

model is suitable for describing the behaviour of a variety of natural clays and

cemented soils.

2. Generalisation of Modified Cam Clay

The Modified Cam Clay model was proposed by Roscoe and Burland (1968)

and a description and systematic study of the model can be found in the text by

Muir Wood (1990). Formulations of this model suitable for use in finite

element analysis can also be found in various texts (e.g., Britto and Gun, 1987;

Potts and Zdravkovic, 1999). In this paper, the Modified Cam Clay model is

employed as a basis for formulating a hierarchical model for structured clays,

which is referred to as the “Structured Cam Clay” model.

It is assumed that the behaviour of soil in a reconstituted state can be described

adequately by the Modified Cam Clay model. The term “soil structure” is used

here to mean the arrangement and bonding of the soil constituents, and for

simplicity it encompasses all features of a soil that are different from those of

the corresponding reconstituted soil. Following the suggestion of Burland

(1990), the properties of a reconstituted soil are called the intrinsic properties,

and are denoted by the symbol * attached to the relevant mathematical symbols.

Hence, under all stress conditions, the influence of soil structure can be

measured by comparing its behaviour with the intrinsic behaviour.

The formation and development of soil structure often produces anisotropy in

the mechanical response of soil to changes in stress. Destructuring usually

leads to the reduction of anisotropy. In order to concentrate on introducing the

physical concepts of the framework and to avoid unnecessary complexity of

mathematical detail, only the isotropic effects of soil structure are included in

the proposed theoretical framework. The extension required to include the

influence of soil anisotropy shall be a future research topic, however it is noted

that others have previously considered this feature of soil behaviour, e.g.,

Dafalias (1987), Whittle and Kavvadas (1994), Wheeler (1997) and Rouainia

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

7

and Muir Wood (2000). It should also be noted that coaxiality between the

principal axes of plastic strain increment and those of stress is assumed in the

proposed framework.

The stress and strain quantities used in the present formulation are defined as

follows. σ′

ij

and ε

ij

are the cartesian components of effective stress and of strain

respectively. The simplified forms for stress and strain conditions in

conventional triaxial tests are also listed, where σ′

1

(or ε

1

) and σ′

3

(or ε

3

) are the

axial effective stress (strain), and the radial effective stress (strain) respectively.

The mean effective stress p′, deviatoric stress q and stress ratio η are given by

( )

( ) tests, triaxial al convention for 2

3

1

3

1

3 1

33 22 11

σ σ

σ σ σ

′ + ′

′ ′ ′ ′ + + p

(1)

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]

( ) tests, triaxial al convention for

6

2

1

3 1

31 23 12

2

11 33

2

33 22

2

22 11

2 2 2

σ σ

σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ

′ − ′

′ + ′ + ′ + ′ − ′ + ′ − ′ + ′ − ′ q

(2)

p

q

′

η . (3)

The corresponding (work-conjugate) volumetric strain increment, dε

v,

, and

deviatoric strain increment, dε

d

, are defined by

tests triaxial al convention for 2

3 1

33 22 11

ε ε

ε ε ε ε

d d

d d d d

v

+

+ +

(4)

and

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

8

( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]

( ) . tests triaxial al convention for

3

2

) ( 6

3

2

3 1

31 23 12

2

11 33

2

33 22

2

22 11

2 2 2

ε ε

ε ε ε ε ε ε ε ε ε ε

d d

d d d d d d d d d d

d

−

+ + + − + − + −

(5)

2.1 Influence of soil structure on virgin isotropic compression

The work by Liu and Carter (1999 and 2000) is employed here as a starting

point for including the effects of soil structure in the model. The material

idealisation of the isotropic compression behaviour of structured clay is

illustrated in Fig. 1. In this figure e represents the voids ratio for a structured

clay, e* is the voids ratio for the corresponding reconstituted soil at the same

stress state during virgin yielding, p′

y,i

is the mean effective stress at which

virgin yielding of the structured soil begins, and ∆e, the additional voids ratio, is

the difference in voids ratio between a structured soil and the corresponding

reconstituted soil at the same stress state. Hence, the virgin isotropic

compression behaviour of a structured soil can be expressed by the following

equation,

e e e ∆ + * . (6)

The following equation was proposed by Liu and Carter (2000) to describe the

volumetric behaviour of natural clays during virgin isotropic compression,

b

i y

i

p

p

e e e

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′

′

∆ +

,

*

. (7)

∆e

i

is the additional voids ratio at p′ = p′

y,i

, where virgin yielding of the

structured soil begins (Fig. 1). b is a parameter quantifying the rate of

destructuring and it is referred to here as the destructuring index. The value of

b depends on soil type and structure and generally b ≥ 1 for soft structured clays

and b < 1 for stiff clays. For the thirty different clays studied by Liu and Carter

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

9

(1999, 2000), it was found that generally 0 ≤ b ≤ 30. For clay samples of a

given mineralogy and with similar geological stress history but different depths

below the surface, it is found that b depends mainly on the liquidity index.

2.2 Yield surface for structured clay

In the Modified Cam Clay model, the behaviour of a clay is divided into virgin

yielding behaviour and elastic behaviour by its current elliptical yield surface.

The size of the yield surface can be identified uniquely according to the stress

state and the voids ratio and is a function of stress history. In the proposed

Structured Cam Clay model, the behaviour of clay is also divided into virgin

yielding behaviour and elastic behaviour by its current yield surface, which is

dependent on soil structure as well as stress history. Hence, the current yield

surface of a structured clay, named as the structural yield surface, is defined by

its current stress state, voids ratio, stress history, and soil structure. Similar to

the original proposal by Roscoe and Burland (1968), the yield surface of a

structured soil in p′-q space is assumed to be elliptical in shape and it passes

through the origin of the stress coordinates (Fig. 2). The aspect ratio for the

structural yield surface is Μ*, the critical state strength of the reconstituted soil.

One axis of the ellipse coincides with the p′ axis. p′

s

, the value of the p′

coordinate where the ellipse again intersects the axis, represents the size of the

yield surface. The yield surface is thus given by the yield function f, where

0 1

5 . 0

5 . 0

* 5 . 0

2 2

−

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′

′ − ′

+

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′ Μ

s

s

s

p

p p

p

q

f

. (8)

2.3 Volumetric deformation for virgin yielding along general

stress paths

As illustrated in Fig. 1, virgin yielding and elastic behaviour of reconstituted

clay, i.e., a clay where structure is completely removed, are both linear in e -

lnp′ space, with gradients λ* and κ* respectively. The isotropic virgin

compression line for the reconstituted soil, i.e., ICL*, is given by

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

10

p e e

IC

′ − ln * * * λ

(9)

where e

*

IC

is the voids ratio of the reconstituted soil when p′ = 1 kPa during

virgin isotropic compression. We seek now to generalise equation (9) for a soil

that possesses structure.

Consider loading where the current stress state stays on the yield surface, and

the size of the current yield surface is denoted as p′

s

. For monotonic loading,

virgin yielding occurs if p′

s

≥ p′

y,i

.

Under the assumption that the hardening of structured soil is dependent on the

plastic volumetric deformation, the yield surface for a structured soil is defined

by all stress states that have the same accumulation of absolute plastic

volumetric strain. In such a model the plastic volumetric deformation is

dependent on the change in size of the yield surface only. If the elastic

deformation for a structured soil is assumed to be the same as that of the

reconstituted soil, any change in the additional voids ratio sustained by soil

structure must also be associated with plastic volumetric deformation, and

therefore is also dependent on the size of the yield surface. Consequently, the

variable p′ in formula (7) may be written in terms of the size of the current yield

surface p′

s

. On substituting equation (9) into equation (7), the following

expression for the variation of the voids ratio is obtained

i y s

b

s

i y

i IC

p p p

p

p

e e e

,

,

for ln * * ′ ≥ ′ ′ −

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′

′

∆ + λ

. (10)

p′

y,i

is the value of the mean effective stress at the initial yield point for an

isotropic stress state, and is numerically equal to the size of the initial yield

surface associated with the initial soil structure.

According to Critical State Soil Mechanics (Schofield and Wroth, 1968), for

compression along a general stress path the volumetric deformation defined by

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

11

λ*ln p′, which is associated with intrinsic soil properties, can be divided into

two parts. The elastic part is defined by κ*ln p′, which is dependent on the

current mean effective stress, and the plastic part is given by (λ*-κ*)ln p

s

′,

which is dependent on the size of the yield surface. The voids ratio for a

structured soil during virgin compression along a general stress path is thus

obtained as follows:

( ) p p

p

p

e e e

s

b

s

i y

i IC

′ − ′ − −

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′

′

∆ + ln * ln * * *

,

κ κ λ

. (11)

The general compression equation (11) states that voids ratio for a structured

soil during virgin compression is dependent on two parts, viz. the elastic part

which is dependent on the current mean effective stress, and the plastic part

which is dependent on the size of the current yield surface. The plastic part is

again subdivided into two parts, viz. the part associated with the intrinsic

properties of the soil and that associated with soil structure.

Differentiating equation (11) and noting equations (6) and (7), the total

volumetric strain increment for compression along a general stress path is

obtained as follows

( )

( ) ( ) ( )p e

p d

p e

p d

e b

p e

p d

d

s

s

s

s

v

′ +

′

+

′ +

′

∆ +

′ +

′

−

1

*

1 1

* * κ κ λ ε

. (12)

The last part of the expression for the total volumetric strain, i.e., the last term

on the right hand side of equation (12), is associated with elastic deformation.

Hence

( )p e

p d

d

e

v

′ +

′

1

* κ ε

(13)

and

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

12

( )

( ) ( )

s

s

s

s p

v

p e

p d

e b

p e

p d

d

′ +

′

∆ +

′ +

′

−

1 1

* * κ λ ε

. (14)

The plastic volumetric strain is therefore made up of two parts. The first part is

dependent on the intrinsic soil properties and has been described already by the

Modified Cam Clay model. The second part is dependent on soil structure and

is responsible for the reduction of the additional voids ratio sustained by soil

structure. Hence, this part represents the effect of structure and destructuring.

It may be seen from equation (14) as well as equation (11) that the plastic

volumetric deformation associated with destructuring is also dependent on the

change in size of the yield surface, irrespective of the magnitude of the current

shear stress. Considering the mechanism of shearing, it is rational to assume

that destructuring and the associated plastic volumetric deformation should be

dependent on both the change in size of the yield surface and the magnitude of

the current shear stress. Therefore, a modification of equation (14) is made so

that the effect of shear stress on destructuring is also considered, i.e.,

( )

( ) ( )

s

s

s

s p

v

p e

p d

e b

p e

p d

d

′ +

′

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− Μ

+ ∆ +

′ +

′

−

1 *

1

1

* *

η

η

κ λ ε

(15)

where η is the shear stress ratio defined in equation (3). It may be seen from

equation (15) that the effect of destructuring, which is described as the reduction

of the additional voids ratio, increases with the value of the current stress ratio.

Alternatively, equation (15) can be rewritten as

( )

( ) ( )

s

s

s

s p

v

p e

p d

e b

p e

p d

d

′ +

′

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− Μ

Μ

∆ +

′ +

′

−

1 *

*

1

* *

η

κ λ ε

. (16)

Because of the modification made to equation (12), the new hardening rule for a

structured soil is no longer dependent only on the plastic volumetric

deformation. It also depends on the shear stress ratio, η.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

13

In summary, structured clay is idealised here as an isotropic hardening and

destructuring material with elastic and virgin yielding behaviour. It is assumed

that during virgin yielding the yield surface includes the current stress state and

expands isotropically causing destructuring of the material.

2.4 Flow rule

In the Modified Cam Clay model, associated plastic flow is assumed. Thus, the

yield surface is also the plastic potential and the flow rule is given as

2 2

*

2

η

η

ε

ε

− Μ

p

v

p

d

d

d

. (17)

The structure of soil also has influence on the flow rule. It is observed that a

structured clay with positive ∆e generally has a lower value for the strain

increment ratio dε

p

d

/dε

p

v

than the corresponding reconstituted soil at the same

virgin yielding stress state (e.g., Olson, 1962; Graham and Li, 1985; Cotecchia

and Chandler, 1997). The following equation is therefore proposed as a flow

rule for structured clay,

( )

2 2

*

1 2

η

η ω

ε

ε

− Μ

∆ −

e

d

d

p

v

p

d

. (18)

ω is a new model parameter which describes the influence of soil structure on

the flow rule. The modifier should not be negative otherwise the plastic strain

increment vector will always be directed inside the yield surface. Hence, based

on the need to meet this condition at all times, including the start of virgin

yielding, the following constraint is imposed:

1 1 0 ≤ ∆ − <

i

e ω

(19)

and therefore

i

e ∆

≤ ≤

1

0 ω

. (20)

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

14

Equation (18) implies a non-associated plastic flow rule for the new model. This

feature has important consequences for numerical solution schemes employing

the model to solve boundary value problems. In particular, it generally results

in the governing equations being non-symmetric.

2.5 Additional assumptions

For the proposed new model the following additional assumptions are made.

(1) The behaviour of structured soil is divided into an elastic region and a virgin

yielding region by the current yield surface.

(2) During virgin yielding the yield surface expands isotropically and includes

the current stress state.

Consequently, the initial yield surface, denoted as p′

y,i

, is the current yield

surface for any stress excursion inside the initial yield surface. The current

yield surface is defined as the maximum yield surface the soil has ever

experienced if the stress state of the soil has exceeded the initial yield surface.

Therefore, the current yield surface in the proposed model is assumed as the

maximum yield surface encountered by the soil, and the minimum value of p′

s

is

numerically equal to p′

y,i

.

(3) The effect of anisotropy on soil deformation is not considered.

In this model, structured clay is idealised as an isotropic hardening and

destructuring material with elastic and virgin yielding behaviour. The influence

of soil anisotropy is not considered in this paper in order to provide a relatively

simple model within the well-known Cam Clay framework. Modelling the

anisotropic properties of soils can be found in works such as those reported by

Dafalias (1987), Whittle and Kavvada (1994), Wheeler (1997) and Rouainia and

Muir Wood (2000).

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

15

3. Stress-Strain Relationships

3.1 Elastic deformation

For stress excursions within the current yield surface, only elastic deformation

occurs. The elastic deformation of a structured soil is assumed to be

independent of soil structure. According to the Modified Cam Clay model, the

elastic strain increment can be expressed as

p

p d

e

d

e

v

′

′

(

,

\

,

(

j

+

1

* κ

ε

(21)

( )

( ) p

dq

e

d

e

d

′

(

,

\

,

(

j

+ −

+

1

*

* 2 1 9

* 1 2 κ

ν

ν

ε

(22)

where ν* is Poisson’s ratio. The assumption of a constant Poisson’s ratio leads

to a non-conservative response to cyclic loading, but is a common feature of the

Cam clay models.

3.2 Virgin yielding

For stress states on the yield surface and with dp′

s

> 0, virgin yielding occurs.

Based on the plastic volumetric deformation, i.e., equation (16), the flow rule

given by equation (18) and considering the elastic deformation, the following

stress and strain relationships for virgin yielding are obtained

( )

( )

( ) ( )

s

s

s

s

v

p e

p d

e b

p e

p d

p e

p d

d

′ +

′

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− Μ

Μ

∆ +

′ +

′

− +

′ +

′

1 *

*

1

* *

1

*

η

κ λ κ ε

, (23)

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

s

s

d

p e

p d

e b

e

p

dq

e

d

′ +

′

]

]

]

,

¸

,

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− Μ

Μ

∆ + −

− Μ

∆ −

+

′

(

,

\

,

(

j

+ −

+

1 *

*

* *

*

1 2

1

*

* 2 1 9

* 1 2

2 2

η

κ λ

η

ω η κ

ν

ν

ε . (24)

3.3 Softening

Soil is regarded as an elastic material for loading inside the virgin yield surface.

When the current stress state reaches the virgin yield surface at a point with

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

16

dp′

s

> 0 virgin yielding occurs. If the soil reaches the yield surface with

η > Μ*, softening occurs if the boundary conditions allow appropriate

adjustment of the stress state. Otherwise, catastrophic failure will be predicted.

During the softening process, soil structure will be broken down, and the yield

surface shrinks with the current stress state always remaining on it. In such

cases the yield surface contracts until the soil reaches a critical state of

deformation where the structure of the soil is completely removed. It follows,

therefore, that the softening behaviour of a soil should be described by virgin

yielding equations. Consequently, the plastic volumetric strain increment given

by equation (16) should also be valid for the softening process. It may be

noticed that because the yield surface shrinks the volumetric deformation

associated with intrinsic soil properties is negative, i.e., expansive. However,

the volumetric deformation associated with the destructuring is determined by

∆e, because both the terms (Μ*-η) and dp′

s

are negative. If ∆e is positive, this

part of the overall volumetric deformation is positive. If ∆e is negative, the

structural part of the volumetric deformation is negative. This is rational

because destructuring occurs during the softening process, and consequently the

additional voids ratio sustained by soil structure necessarily decreases. As a

result, softening of structured clays can be accompanied by either overall

volumetric expansion (negative pore pressure for undrained tests), or overall

volumetric compression (positive pore pressure for undrained tests). This

tendency can be seen in test data for both natural soils and artificially structured

soils reported by several researchers, including Lo (1972), Nambiar et al.

(1985), Burland et al. (1996), and Carter et al. (2000).

The plastic deviatoric strain increment during softening is proposed as follows,

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

s

s p

d

p e

p d

e b e d

′ +

′

− Μ

]

]

]

,

¸

,

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

− Μ

Μ

∆ − − ∆ −

1 * *

*

1 2

2 2

* *

η

η

η

κ λ ω ε

. (25)

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

17

Compared with equation (24), it can be seen that only the sign of the plastic

deviatoric strain associated with destructuring is changed, so that the strain

increment vector will point outside the yield surface.

The elastic part of the deformation can be calculated by equations (21) and (22).

The total strain increments during softening are thus fully determined. As

softening is a strained-controlled process, the change in the stress state can be

decided from the size of the current structural yield surface. When condition

η = Μ* is reached, the structure of soil is usually completely destroyed with

∆e = 0, and therefore, the structured clay has reached the critical state of

deformation.

It may be noticed that for both virgin yielding and softening behaviour the soil

may reach a state with η = Μ* but with ∆e ≠ 0. A specific example is the case

where a soil reaches critical state by loading entirely inside the yield surface. In

this case virgin yielding commences once the yield surface is reached and,

according to equations (23) and (24), the soil is also in a state where it can be

distorted continuously at constant volume (dεvp = 0 and dεvp → ¥). Hence, the

proposed model predicts that under special stress paths a soil may reach a

critical state of deformation with its structure having not been removed

completely. Consequently, in such cases the soil state will not be on the critical

state line defined in e - p′ space. If there is evidence that the structure of a soil

is destroyed completely after the soil reaches the critical state of deformation

then destructuring could be described by the plastic distortional strain instead of

the current stress ratio. However, this possibility has not been pursued here.

4. Parameter Determination

Eight parameters define the proposed model, and they are Μ*, e*

IC

, λ*,κ*, ν*,

b, p′

y,i

, and ω. The first five parameters, denoted by the symbol *, are intrinsic

soil properties and are independent of soil structure. These five intrinsic

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

18

parameters are the same as those adopted in the Modified Cam Clay model

(Roscoe and Burland, 1968). The influence of these parameters will not be

investigated in this paper since studies of them are well documented (e.g., see

Muir Wood, 1990).

Three new parameters, viz., b, p′

y,i

and ω, are introduced to describe the

influence of soil structure on its mechanical behaviour. The value of the

destructuring index, b, indicates the rate of the destructuring during virgin

yielding (Fig. 1), and p′

y,i

represents the size of the initial yield surface for a

structured soil (Fig. 5). The values of these two parameters can be determined

directly from an isotropic compression test on an intact (undisturbed) soil

specimen. Parameter ω was introduced to describe the influence of soil

structure on the flow rule (e.g., see equation (18)), and its value can be

determined by applying the flow rule to the strains measured in a shearing test

on an intact specimen provided that the elastic properties of the soil are known.

Values of five of the model parameters, viz., e*

IC

, λ*,κ*, b, and p′

y,i

can be

determined from isotropic compression tests. The values of parameters λ* and

κ* and b can be determined directly from any compression tests with constant

η, whereas the values of e*

IC

and p′

y,i

can only be determined directly from

isotropic tests. In geotechnical engineering practice oedometer tests on soils are

much more widespread than isotropic compression tests. Therefore

approximate methods for obtaining soil parameters e*

IC

and p′

y,i

from oedometer

tests, as well as any constant η tests, are also proposed.

The behaviour of reconstituted clay is assumed to follow the assumptions of

Critical State Soil Mechanics (e.g., details see Muir Wood, 1990). For a

reconstituted soil with a given mineralogy, the compression lines with different

stress ratio η are therefore assumed parallel (Fig. 4). The difference in voids

ratio between e*

IC

and e*

η

, the voids ratio at p′ = 1 kPa for a compression test

with constant η, can therefore be expressed as

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

19

( )

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

′

′

− +

p

p

e e

o

IC

ln * * * * κ λ

η . (26)

The size of a yield surface p′

o

and the mean effective stress for a stress state on

the yield surface with stress ratio η are related as follows,

2 2

2

*

*

η + Μ

Μ

′

′

o

p

p

. (27)

Based on equations (26) and (27), the size of the initial yield surface p′

y,i

can be

computed if the value of the mean effective stress at the virgin yield point is

measured from a compression test with constant η, and the soil parameter e*

IC

can therefore be computed from the measured value of e*

η

.

For oedometer tests, an approximation is made based on Jacky’s empirical

equation (Jacky, 1944), in which the horizontal effective stress σ′

v

and the

vertical effective stress σ′

h

for a soil during one dimensional virgin compression

is expressed as

cs

v

h

ϕ

σ

σ

sin 1− ≈

′

′

(28)

where ϕ

cs

is the critical state friction angle measured from a triaxial

compression test. The critical state strength parameter Μ* can be expressed in

terms of ϕ

cs

as

cs

cs

ϕ

ϕ

sin 3

sin 6

*

−

Μ

. (29)

The relationship between σ′

v

and p′ for one-dimensional compression can be

obtained as

cs

v

p ϕ

σ

sin 2 3

3

−

′

′

. (30)

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

20

Thus the stress ratio for a one-dimensional compression test can be expressed as

cs

cs

ϕ

ϕ

η

sin 2 3

sin 3

−

. (31)

Consequently, the following equation can be derived for estimating the size of

the initial yield surface based on the initial vertical yield stress measured from

an oedometer test,

i vy

cs

cs

cs i y

p

,

2

,

sin 4 6

sin 3

1 sin

3

2

1 σ

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ ′

]

]

]

]

,

,

¸

,

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

−

−

+

(

,

\

,

(

j

− ′

. (32)

e*

IC

can be related to the value of e*

η

obtained from an oedometer test by the

following equation,

( )

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

]

]

]

]

,

,

¸

,

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j

−

−

+

(

,

\

,

(

j

− − +

2

sin 4 6

sin 3

1 sin

3

2

1 ln * * * *

cs

cs

cs IC

e e

ϕ

ϕ

ϕ κ λ

η

. (33)

It should be pointed out that the proposed methods, based on the results of

oedometer tests, are approximate and should be used only when more accurate

methods for deriving the soil parameters are not available.

5. Features of the Model

The influence of the three new parameters b, p′

y,i

and ω, and some features of

the new Structured Cam Clay model are described in this section. Example

calculations have been made using the new model and the values of the intrinsic

soil properties adopted are listed in Table 1. Based on these values, it is found

that e*

cs

= 2.1, where e*

cs

is the well known parameter defining the position of

the critical state line in e – p′ space.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

21

Table 1 Model parameters

Parameter Μ* λ* κ* e*

IC

ν*

Value 1.20 0.16 0.05 2.176 0.25

5.1 Parameter b

The influence of the destructuring index b is demonstrated by the simulations

shown in Figs 5 and 6. The following values of parameters for the soil structure

were employed in these calculations: p′

y,i

= 100 kPa and ω = 1. Eight different

values of b were assumed and they are 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 100. The

initial stress state was p′ =100 kPa and q = 0, and the initial value of the

additional voids ratio was ∆e

i

= 0.8.

It can be seen that the destructuring index b has the following effects on the

simulated isotropic compression behaviour (Fig. 5).

The compression behaviour of structured soil is asymptotic to that of the

corresponding reconstituted soil for situations with b > 0.

The rate of reduction in the additional voids ratio maintained by soil structure

increases with the magnitude of b. For situations with b ≥ 100, there is almost

an immediate collapse of soil structure when the initial yield stress is surpassed.

For b = 0, the virgin compression line for a structured soil and that for its

corresponding reconstituted soil are parallel in the e – lnp′ space. Theoretically,

in this case no destructuring takes place during the virgin yielding and ∆e

remains unchanged.

The simulated shearing behaviour of a structured soil with different values of

the destructuring index b is shown in Fig. 6. The effective stress paths

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

22

simulated follow those in a conventional drained triaxial test by increasing the

axial loading only. The following features of soil behaviour are simulated.

Except for the unlikely situation with b = 0, the final state for a structured soil

under monotonic shearing is independent of soil structure and is at the critical

state of deformation. At this state the structure of soil has been completely

removed. For the simulated cases where the initial stress state and voids ratio

and the loading path are the exactly the same, the final states for all seven cases

fall onto the same point on the critical state line (Fig 6a), and the final values of

the deviatoric stress and the volumetric strain are the same (Figs 6b and 6c).

Therefore parameter b has no influence on the final state of the soil under

monotonic shearing if b > 0.

As has been discussed previously, there is no destructuring for the situation with

b = 0. The final state of the soil does not fall onto the critical state line (Fig. 6a).

The structure of the soil remains intact even when the soil is sheared to failure,

i.e., where the soil has no resistance to further distortional deformation. This

particular situation is most likely a hypothetical limit state of the resistance of

soil structure. Whether the structure of real geotechnical materials under

extreme situations may respond to shearing in a manner similar to that described

by b = 0 is probably unlikely but needs further investigation.

It can be seen from the stress path in the e-lnp′ coordinates (Fig. 6a) that the rate

of destructuring increases with the value of b. For the situation with b = 100

soil structure is destroyed almost immediately, where there is a sharp drop in

voids ratio when shearing commences. After the structure of the soil has been

removed, the reduction in the voids with loading is much slower and the

behaviour of the original structured soil is the same as that of the corresponding

reconstituted soil. This conclusion is confirmed by the deviatoric and

volumetric strain relationship (Fig. 6b). The final volumetric strain for all the

cases simulated is the same, however the deviatoric strain at which the soil

reaches its final volumetric strain decreases with the increase of b.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

23

For small strains, say ε

d

< 1%, the shear stiffness decreases with b. For

relatively large deformation, to say with ε

d

> 1%, the shear stiffness is more

complicated and the change of shear stiffness with b is not monotonic.

5.2 Parameter p′ ′′ ′

y,i

To illustrate the influence of the size of the initial yield surface defined by p′

y,i

,

the soil parameters listed in Table 1, together with b = 1 and ω = 1, were

adopted. Six different values of p′

y,i

were assumed and they are 100, 150, 200,

334, 500 and 1,000 kPa. The influence of parameter p′

y,i

on the simulations is

shown in Fig. 7. The effective stress paths simulated follow those in a

conventional drained triaxial test in which the axial loading only is increased.

The initial stress state for all six cases is the same, with p′ =100 kPa and q = 0,

and the initial voids ratio was e

i

= 1.439. For this initial soil state and the given

intrinsic soil properties, the initial yield surface for the corresponding

reconstituted soil is p′

o

= 100 kPa. Therefore, for the particular situation with

p′

y,i

= 100 kPa the soil is in a reconstituted state and has no structure. The soil is

structured for situations with p′

y,i

> 100 kPa. Thus, this set of computations

simulates the development of structure for soil at constant voids ratio and the

same stress state. The following features are simulated.

As indicated in the previous paragraphs, the final state for a structured soil

under monotonic shearing with b > 0 is the critical state of deformation.

Because the final deviatoric stress for all six cases is the same (Fig. 7a), their

final states are the same, i.e., the same critical state of deformation with the

same stress state and voids ratio. Hence, the final state of a structured soil

under monotonic shearing is independent of the size of the initial yield surface.

For soil of a given mineralogy in a given initial condition, i.e., stress state and

voids ratio, and tested under a given stress path, a peak strength may or may not

be mobilised, depending on the size of the initial yield surface. Consequently, a

structured soil may be able to resist a much higher shear stress than the

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

24

corresponding reconstituted soil at the same initial stress state and the same

voids ratio.

During the softening process the higher the peak strength, the quicker the

reduction in the soil strength with the respect to the deviatoric strain. Hence, if

softening occurs the peak strength of a structured soil reduces to the critical

state strength more rapidly than the corresponding reconstituted soil.

The response pattern usually labelled “dry behaviour” (Schofield and Wroth,

1968) may not be observed for a structured soil, i.e., volumetric expansion may

not occur when the softening process starts. It is seen that for the case with

p′

y,i

= 500 kPa there is a continuous volumetric compression accompanying the

softening process. For the simulation with p′

y,i

= 1000 kPa, volumetric

expansion, although observed, starts only after a considerable amount of

softening has occurred.

An interesting phenomenon is observed in the simulation with p′

y,i

= 334 kPa.

The soil behaves entirely elastically before the stress state reaches the yield

surface. When the stress state reaches the point on the yield surface with the

critical state stress ratio, virgin yielding also starts (see the inset in Fig. 7a).

Because of the special feature of this stress state, the structured soil has no

further resistance to shear deformation. However, the volumetric strain

increases continuously with the deviatoric strain after this stress state is reached

indicating that the soil has not yet reached the critical state of deformation. It

reaches a critical state of deformation after the additional voids ratio due to the

initial structure is completely diminished.

5.3 Parameter ω ωω ω

To illustrate the influence of parameter ω, the soil parameters listed in Table 1

were adopted, together with b = 1 and p′

y,i

= 100 kPa. The initial stress state is

defined as p′ =100 kPa and q = 0, and the initial value of the additional voids

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

25

ratio is ∆e

i

= 0.8. Five different values of ω were assumed, i.e., ω = 0, 0.313,

0.625, 0.938 and 1.25 (the corresponding values of ω∆e

i

are 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75

and 1 respectively). The influence of parameter ω on the simulated behaviour is

shown in Fig. 8. The effective stress paths simulated follow those in a

conventional drained triaxial test in which the axial loading only is increased.

As can be seen from the volumetric deformation, equation (23), parameter ω has

no influence on the volumetric strain. In the figure showing the deviatoric and

volumetric strain relationship, the variation in this relationship is attributed

entirely to the influence of ω on the deviatoric strain. The higher is the value of

ω the stiffer is the shear deformation.

Based on the study of the three parameters describing soil structure, it can be

concluded that the final state of a structured soil under monotonic shearing,

predicted by the proposed model for situations with b > 0, is the critical state of

deformation. At such a state, the structure of the soil is completely removed.

Thus the final state of a structured soil is independent of soil structure and

consequently is not influenced by the three new parameters, which describe

only the influence of soil structure on soil deformation. The existence of the

critical state of deformation for geo-materials and the implication that the

associated mechanical properties are independent of material structure have

been widely observed features of soil behaviour (e.g., Been and Jefferies, 1985;

Ishihara, 1993; Novello et al, 1995; Carter et al, 2000).

6. Model Evaluation

6.1 Background

The proposed model was also used to simulate the behaviour of soils with

structure, and the model was evaluated based on comparisons between the

model performance and the corresponding experimental data. The compression

behaviour of three different clays is considered first, and they are natural Leda

clay, weathered Bangkok clay, and an artificially cemented clay. The shearing

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

26

behaviour of three other structured soils was also considered, and they are a

natural calcarenite, natural Corinth marl and a natural clay shale.

Two different types of computation were made using the proposed model:

simulations and predictions. If the model is used to describe the behaviour of a

soil in a particular test or a set of tests and the same experimental data have

been employed previously in the determination of the model parameters, this

type of computation is defined here as a “simulation”. If the model is used to

describe the behaviour of a soil in a particular test or a set of tests and all the

model parameters have been determined independently of that test or that set of

tests, this type of computation is defined as a “prediction”.

The following methods were used in the determination of model parameters: (a)

values were measured directly from a test and have a physical meaning, (b) use

was of empirical equations, (c) some parameters were determined by curve

fitting, and (d) others were based on assumed values. For the last method,

selection of the value of a parameter is usually based on experience in

geotechnical engineering practice. It is proposed that if no experimental data

are available the value of parameter ω is determined by the following equation,

5 . 0 1 ∆ −

i

e ω . (34)

It may be seen that this assumption implies a mid-range value, based on the

constraint conditions imposed on parameter ω, i.e., equation (19).

In all computations the stress units adopted are kPa. In presenting the results of

the computations, experimental data for structured soils are represented in the

figures by solid circles or squares, which in some cases are linked by thin lines.

Data for reconstituted soils are represented by open circles, which in some cases

are linked by thin lines. The model simulations are represented by solid lines

and those for reconstituted soils by broken lines.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

27

6.2 Compression behaviour of three clays

Three sets of compression tests on different soils are simulated and for these

tests only the volumetric deformation has been computed. As can be seen from

equation (23), the volumetric deformation is not influenced by the values of

parameters ν* and ω. Hence, there is no need to determine or specify values for

these parameters.

6.2.1 Leda Clay

The first group of test data includes five compression tests on natural soft Leda

clay performed by Yong and Nagaraji (1977) and Walker and Raymond (1969).

The two oedometer tests on the natural and reconstituted Leda clay reported by

Yong and Nagaraji (1977) were used to identified soil parameters, and their

values are listed in Table 2. The values of parameters λ* and κ* and b and σ′

vy,i

were obtained directly from the experimental data. The critical state strength of

Leda clay was reported by Walker and Raymond (1969) as Μ* = 1.2. The

intrinsic soil property e*

IC

was estimated according to equation (33). It was

found from the experimental data (Fig. 9) that e*

η

for one-dimensional

compression is equal to 2.353, which gives e*

IC

= 2.338.

The initial state of the structured soil is σ′

v

= 20 kPa and e = 1.96. As shown in

Fig. 9, the compression behaviour of Leda clay is well simulated by the model.

Table 2 Model parameters for Leda clay

Parameter Μ* λ* κ* e*

IC

b σ′

vy,i

(kPa)

Value 1.2 0.223 0.03 2.338 1 168.6

Three tests performed by Walker and Raymond (1969) were used to evaluate

the model’s predictions. Although all the specimens tested by both Yong and

Nagaraji (1977) and Walker and Raymond (1969) were Leda clay, they were

obtained from different locations in the same area. It is assumed that these

specimens differed only in the size of the initial yield surface, i.e., the different

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

28

Leda clay samples possessed the same mineralogy and type of structure but may

have had different magnitudes of structure. The three compression tests were

with η = 0, 0.63 and 1 respectively. The experimental data for the test with

η = 0 were used to identify the size of the yield surface, and it was found that

p′

y,i

= 265 kPa. The predicted compression behaviour of the Leda clay is shown

in Fig. 10. For comparison, the virgin isotropic compression line for the

reconstituted Leda clay is also represented in the figure by a broken line. It may

be observed that the initial voids ratios of the samples for the tests with η = 0.63

and 1 are essentially the same at the same mean effective stress in the elastic

region, but different from that for the test with η = 0. This indicates that some

difference in p′

y,i

may exist between the first two samples and the third sample.

It is seen that the proposed model gives an approximate but reasonable

description of the compression behaviour of natural Leda clay.

6.2.2 Bangkok Clay

The second group of test data includes the results of five compression tests on

weathered Bangkok clay performed by Balasubramanian and Hwang (1980).

The stress ratios for the five tests are 0, 0.16, 0.43, 0.6 and 0.75. The authors

were unable to obtain information on the behaviour of reconstituted Bangkok

clay. However, the liquid limit value for the clay was 123%, and so the one-

dimensional compression curve for the reconstituted soil type was estimated by

the empirical method suggested by Burland (1990). Based on the estimated

one-dimensional compression curve, values of parameters λ* and e*

η

for one-

dimensional compression were obtained. The isotropic test on the weathered

clay was used to identify soil parameters b and p′

y,i

. The critical state strength

for the clay was reported by Balasubramanian and Hwang (1980) as Μ* = 0.9.

The intrinsic soil property e*

IC

was estimated based on equation (33). The

values of these soil parameters are listed in Table 3. The simulated behaviour of

Bangkok clay is shown in Fig. 11. It may be noticed that the compression

behaviour of the Bangkok clay is well simulated in this case.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

29

Table 3 Model parameters for weathered Bangkok clay

Parameter Μ* λ* κ* e*

IC

b σ′

vy,i

(kPa)

Value 0.9 0.4 0.1 3.82 0.55 35

The predicted compression behaviour of Bangkok clay with η = 0.16, 0.43, 0.6

and 0.75 is shown in Fig. 12. As may be seen in the inset in Fig. 11, some

differences in the initial soil structure exist among the samples used for the five

tests. The test specimens were obtained from the field and some variation in the

specimens would normally be expected. It may be seen that the initial soil

states for the five specimens may be divided into three groups, i.e., the test with

η = 0, the test with η = 0.16, and tests with η = 0.43 and 0.6 and 0.75. It is

assumed in the simulations that the differences in the initial states of the soil can

be represented adequately by the differences in the sizes of the initial structural

yield surfaces. It may be seen from the compression curve that the initial stress

state for the test with η = 0.16 is on the yield surface, i.e., p′

y,i

= 67.6 kPa. The

size of the initial yield surface for the other three specimens is 45 kPa (the test

with η = 0.43 is used to identify the value of this parameter). Overall, it is seen

that the proposed model gives a reasonably good approximation of the

compression behaviour of weathered Bangkok clay.

6.2.3 Artificially Cemented Clay

The third group of test data includes the results of five compression tests on an

artificially cemented clay performed by Burghignoli et al (1998). The soil was

composed of a natural Avezzano clay, commercial bentonite, ordinary 425

Portland cement, and distilled water. Homogeneous and fully saturated

artificially cemented specimens were made (for details of the sample

preparation see the report by Burghignoli et al, 1998). Based on two oedometer

tests on the reconstituted clay and the structured clay, model parameters were

identified and they are listed in Table 4. The authors were not able to obtain

data for the critical state strength and a value of Μ* = 1.2 was assumed, which

corresponds to a critical state friction angle of 30°. e*

IC

was estimated based on

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

30

the proposed equation (33). The behaviour of the clay with structure and in a

reconstituted state under cyclic oedometer tests was simulated and the results

are shown in Fig. 13. The cyclic compression behaviour of the artificially

cemented clay in the oedometer test is well simulated.

Table 4 Model parameters for an artificially cemented clay

Parameter Μ* λ* κ* e*

IC

b σ′

vy,i

(kPa)

Value 1.20 0.505 0.02 5.383 0.7 430

Burghignoli et al also performed three sets of compression tests in order to

investigate the anisotropic properties of the structured clay generated by

anisotropic compression. In one set of these tests, isotropic samples were

created. Three of these tests were chosen for prediction. Because at this stage

of development the proposed model only takes account of the isotropic

properties of a soil with and without structure, it would not be meaningful to

examine the performance of the model in describing the anisotropic behaviour

of soil.

The three identical samples were loaded isotropically from stress state A

(Fig. 14) with p′ = 25 kPa and e

i

= 3.5 to state B with p′ = 300 kPa. They were

unloaded isotropically to state C with p′ = 140 kPa. Subsequently, the first

sample was loaded again isotropically. The second sample was sheared with

constant mean effective stress to a state D with p′ = 140 kPa and q = 75 kPa.

This sample was then loaded at constant η, i.e., η = 0.5. The third sample was

sheared with constant mean effective stress to a state E with p′ = 140 kPa and

q = 140 kPa. This sample was then loaded at constant η, i.e., η = 1. The stress

paths for the three tests are shown schematically in the inset to Fig. 14.

The size of the initial yield surface, identified from the isotropic test, is

p′

y,i

= 212 kPa. The value of p′

y,i

for this set of tests is much smaller than that

obtained from the oedometer test, but it should be noted that the samples in

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

31

these two sets of tests were different. It was observed that the yield surface for

the structured clay after the initial virgin loading to the isotropic stress state B

with p′ = 300 kPa, plus subsequent isotropic unloading and reloading along

stress path BCB, is 340 kPa, a value larger than the maximum yield stress the

soil has ever experienced. This phenomenon has been confirmed by

Burghignoli et al (1998) as a material property for this artificially structured

clay and it is highly likely that it is associated with the development of soil

structure during the duration of the test, perhaps due to the ageing effect of the

cement. In the prediction, this development of soil structure was considered by

choosing p′

y,i

= 340 kPa for the clay for reloading after point C.

The simulation of the isotropic test and the predictions for the two tests with

constant shear stress ratio are shown in Fig. 14. It is seen that the proposed

model gives an approximate but reasonable description of the compression

behaviour of the artificially structured clay.

In this section, descriptions of how the model was employed to simulate and

predict the compression behaviour of structured soils have been presented.

Overall, it may be concluded that the proposed model provides a good

qualitative description of the soil behaviour, but the quantitative description is

only approximate. In the selection of experimental data for model evaluation,

only tests performed on structured soil with isotropic mechanical properties

were selected because the current version of the model does not allow for

anisotropic behaviour of the soil.

6.3 Behaviour of a natural calcarenite

Results of the experimental work carried out by Lagioia and Nova (1995) on a

natural calcarenite have been compared with the model predictions and

simulations. The natural calcarenite was formed by marine deposition. It is a

coarse-grained material with a high degree of uniformity and calcareous inter-

particle cement. An isotropic compression test on the soil was used to identify

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

32

soil parameters and their values are listed in Table 5. The isotropic compression

behaviour of the calcarenite and its simulation are shown in Fig. 15.

Table 5 Model parameters for a natural calcarenite

Parameter Μ* λ* κ* e*

IC

ν* b

ω p′

y,i

(kPa)

Value 1.45 0.208 0.0165 2.57 0.25 30 3.33 2400

The values of parameters e*

IC

and λ* and κ* and b and p′

y,i

were obtained

directly from the experimental data. The value of Poisson’s ratio was assumed.

The critical state strength for the natural clacarenite was reported by Lagioia

and Nova (1995) as Μ* = 1.45. The initial state for the structured soil is

defined by p′ = 147 kPa and e = 1.148. Thus, the initial value of the additional

voids ratio sustained by the soil structure is found as ∆e

i

= 0.15. The value of

parameter ω was estimated using equation (34).

By using the values of the model parameters listed in Table 5, the behaviour of

the natural calcarenite under conventional drained triaxial tests was predicted.

There are eight tests in total and the stress paths for the predictions are as

follows. Firstly, the soil was loaded or unloaded isotropically from the initial

isotropic state with p′ = 147 kPa and e = 1.148 to the chosen state, i.e., p′ = 25,

200, 400, 600, 900, 1,100, 2,000 and 3,500 kPa. The confining pressure σ′

3

was

then kept constant and the axial loading was increased until failure of the

sample was observed. The test results and the predictions are shown in Figs 16

to 24. For the test with σ′

3

= 3,500 kPa, the initial stress state is much larger

than the size of the initial structural yield surface. According to the proposed

model, the structure of the soil at σ′

3

= 3,500 kPa is actually completely

destroyed since the soil has a very high destructuring index, i.e., b = 30. Thus,

the soil in this test behaves as a reconstituted material throughout this test.

Destructuring of this sample was confirmed by Lagioia and Nova (1995).

Considering the wide range of initial stresses, it is seen that the proposed model

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

33

gives a successful prediction of the behaviour of this natural and highly

structured calcarenite.

Simulations of the behaviour of the calcarenite have also been made, where a

part of the test data was employed to determine the model parameters. The

values of the model parameters used for the simulations (as opposed to

“predictions”) are listed in Table 6. Comparison with values listed in Table 5

reveals that the values for the following parameters are different: e*

IC

, κ* (or

K*), ν*, ω and p′

y,i

. In the previous predictions the values for parameters ν*

and ω were assumed. In these simulations, the value for ν* suggested by

Lagioia and Nova (1995) was adopted, while the value for ω was obtaining by

curve fitting. In Table 6, a value of Young’s modulus E* is given, instead of a

value for κ*. It was observed by Lagioia and Nova (1995) that the pre-yielding

behaviour of the calcarenite, although elastic, is not linear in the e-lnp′

coordinates. Hence, a constant parameter κ* over the full range of stress

explored is inappropriate for this material, and so Lagioia and Nova suggested a

constant Young’s modulus, i.e., E* = 76,923 kPa. Based on the definition of the

Young’s modulus and that for parameter κ*, the following relationship between

E* and κ* is obtained

( )( )

*

* 2 1 1 3

*

E

p e ′ − +

ν

κ

. (35)

Because the mean effective stress p′ generally varies during a test and E* is now

considered as a material constant, κ* is actually a variable, rather than a

constant. However, the basic equations of the proposed model, such as those

given by equations (15), (23) and (24), were derived based on the assumption

that both the virgin yielding behaviour and the elastic behaviour of a soil under

isotropic loading are linear in the e - lnp′ coordinates. Therefore, in order to

employ the equations of the Structured Cam Clay model for these simulations,

different values of the “constant” parameter κ∗ were determined for each

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

34

individual test, according to equation (35). It is necessary to make such an

approximation in order to retain use of this relatively simple constitutive model.

It is obvious that the constitutive equations of the proposed model can be

reformulated so that the linear elastic behaviour of soil in the e – p′ space can be

modelled accurately. A method for such formulation can be found from a paper

by Liu and Carter (2001). The reformulation is not introduced in this paper.

The above approximate method is suggested instead. The idea for this

approximation is widely used in geotechnical engineering, and is consistent

with the method of stress path analysis (Lambe, 1964; Wood, 1984).

In order to determine the “constant” value of κ* for a particular test, a particular

value of p′ must be selected for substitution into equation (35). The value of the

initial mean effective stress is an obvious and also the simplest choice.

However, an average value of the mean effective stress may be more

appropriate, but this selection would cause difficulty in many applications

because the stress paths of soil elements are usually not known a priori. In the

simulations considered here, the stress paths of the tests are known. Hence, the

average value of p′ for the stress path from the initial stress state to the state at

the yield surface was used to compute κ* for each individual test.

A revised value of parameter e*

IC

was determined based on a comparison

between the predictions and the experimental data in the e-lnp′ coordinates (Fig.

25). It is seen that the measured final state of the soil during monotonic

shearing does not fall onto the critical state line predicted by the model, but

rather falls onto a line below and parallel to the predicted critical state line. The

difference between the two lines in the vertical direction can be measured from

the figure and it is found that ∆e = 0.187. Therefore, the value for e*

IC

was

modified as e*

IC

= 2.57 - 0.187 = 2.383 for the simulations.

The initial yield surface for the calcarenite adopted in the predictions is an

ellipse with the aspect ratio being Μ* and the size defined by p′

y,i

= 2,400 kPa,

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

35

as identified from the isotropic compression test. The actual initial yield points

for the soil measured by Lagioia and Nova (1995) are shown in Fig. 26. It is

found that the initial yield points constitute approximately an ellipse, with an

aspect ratio being 1.12, different from that of the critical state strength. In the

simulations the latter value of the aspect ratio was adopted only for

determination of the initial yield points.

Table 6 Revised values of model parameters for a natural calcarenite

Parameter Μ* λ*

E*

(kPa)

e*

IC

ν* B

ω p′

y,i

(kPa)

Value 1.45 0.208 76,923 2.383 0.13 30 3 2,400 kPa; the aspect ratio

of the yield surface = 1.12.

Comparisons between the theoretical simulations and the experimental data are

also shown in Figs 16 to 24. The simulations are represented by broken lines.

The range of the variation of the mean effective stress simulated for this series

of tests is from 25 kPa to 3,500 kPa and the structure of the soil varies from

intact to completely destructured. It can be seen that the behaviour of the

natural calcarenite has been simulated satisfactorily with one set of revised

model parameters (given that κ* varies from test to test while E* is held

constant).

A qualitative difference is observed between the experimental data and the

predictions during the softening and destructuring of the calcarenite (e.g., see

Figs 16, 17 and 18). It is observed in the experiments that after softening starts

the strength of the calcarenite immediately drops to a very low value, near the

final critical state strength. After this reduction of the soil strength the

deviatoric stress and strain relationship is basically flat. According to Lagioia

and Nova’s explanation (Lagioia and Nova, 1995), the immediate drop of soil

strength is attributed to the fact that the structure of the calcarenite is not stable.

Lagioia and Nova (1995) explained that even during an isotropic compression

test the structure of this soil is removed immediately and completely when the

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

36

soil is loaded to a virgin yield stress state. They observed that during

destructuring the mean effective stress was actually reduced by a small amount

in the strain-controlled test. That is to say, this particular structure of the

calcarenite cannot sustain the initial yield stress without destructuring when the

soil is loaded to that stress state. However, for the shearing tests shown in Figs.

16 and 17 and 18, the data indicate that the capacity of the structured soil to

sustain additional voids ratio is not diminished in step with the shear strength of

the soil. It may also be observed that there is no great amount of volumetric

deformation during the whole softening process. Why the capacity to sustain

additional voids ratio associated with soil structure does not diminish in step

with the reduction in soil strength appears to need further investigation.

In the predictions, destructuring occurs as the material softens. Because of the

highly sensitive nature of the soil structure, the deformation of the soil at the

beginning of the softening is dominated by destructuring and the destructuring

is completed within a small decrease of stress, or shrinkage of the yield surface.

Consequently, it is predicted that there is basically a flat deviatoric stress and

strain curve after the occurrence of softening. After the structure of the soil is

removed, some softening continues and the reduction of soil strength from the

peak strength to the critical state strength is achieved mainly during this period

of deformation. The model predicts consistently that the additional voids ratio

sustained by soil structure is reduced to zero in accordance with the

destructuring.

A conclusion may be drawn about the qualitative difference between the

experimental data and the predictions of destructuring during softening. The

proposed model is suitable to describe the destructuring of soil resulting from a

variation of stress, but not the instability of soil structure, i.e., catastrophic

collapse of structure the moment the soil reaches a virgin yield stress state. The

authors have studied the destructuring of over fifty different naturally and

artificially structured soils from over a dozen of countries, and found almost all

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

37

the soil structures are relatively stable and are capable of sustaining the initial

yield stress under isotropic and one-dimensional compression (Liu and Carter

1999, 2000; Liu et al. 2000). From these observations it is deduced that the

mechanism of destructuring proposed in the model is valid for most soils found

in situ.

6.4 Behaviour of Corinth marl

Results of the experimental work performed by Anagnostopoulos et al (1991)

on a natural Corinth marl have been compared with the model simulations.

Two sets of tests were reported: a set of three isotropic compression tests on

both natural and reconstituted Corinth marl, and a set of five shearing tests on

the intact and partially destructured soil. From the first set of tests, the soil

parameters e*

IC

, λ*, κ*, b and p′

y,i

have been identified, and their values are

listed in Table 7. The measured and simulated behaviour of the soil in isotropic

compression is shown in Fig. 27. Two isotropic compression tests on

reconstituted Corinth marl are reported, and some small discrepancies on the

isotropic compression line are observed between the two test samples, which

were assumed to be identical. For most natural soils, i.e., not artificially

manufactured samples, some discrepancy in the stress and strain behaviour is

expected due to material variance. The isotropic test which gave the better

simulation of the shearing behaviour of the Corinth marl was selected for

identifying the model parameters.

The initial value of the additional voids ratio, i.e., ∆e

i

, was found to be 0.102.

The value of parameter ω was estimated based on equation (34). The value of

Poisson’s ratio was assumed as 0.25. The critical state strength Μ* was

determined based on the second set of tests, i.e., the final strength of the soil

reached under monotonic shearing. The value of Μ* is the only parameter

determined from the data from the shearing tests. The behaviour of the intact

and partially destructured soil during conventional drained triaxial compression

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

38

tests was simulated, based on the values of model parameters listed in Table 7.

Both the simulations and the experimental data are shown in Fig. 28.

Table 7 Model parameters for natural Corinth marl

Parameter Μ* λ*

κ κκ κ*

e*

IC

ν* b

ω p′

y,i

(kPa)

Value 1.38 0.04 0.008 0.775 0.25 0.4 4.9 3,800 kPa

For all five compression tests, the confining pressures were kept constant at 98,

294, 903, 1,500 and 4,000 kPa respectively, and the axial loading was increased

until the specimens failed. The initial state of the soil was obtained from the

isotropic test reported by Anagnostopoulos et al (1991), as shown in Fig. 27,

with p′ = 34.6 kPa and e = 0.585. The initial states of the specimens for the four

tests were calculated based on the proposed model. They are: p′ = 98 kPa and

e = 0.577, p′ = 294 kPa and e = 0.568, p′ = 903 kPa and e = 0.559,

p′ = 1,500 kPa and e = 0.555 and p′ = 4,000 kPa and e = 0.543. For the first

four tests, the initial stress state of the soil was within the initial structural yield

surface, defined by p′

y,i

= 3,800 kPa, and therefore the soil samples for these

tests are assumed to be intact. For the fifth test, the initial stress state of the soil

exceeds the initial structural yield surface and the soil sample has experienced

partial destructuring. It is seen that the proposed model gives a reasonable

representation of the behaviour of the highly structured, stiff Corinth marl.

6.5 Behaviour of La Biche clayshale

Results of the experimental work performed by Wong (1980) on a natural

clayshale have been compared with the model simulations. The clayshale

specimens were obtained by core sampling. The soil is a highly over-

consolidated, compacted shale. The water content for the natural shale was

between 11.5% and 12.4% with an average water content of 12.1%. Three

conventional drained triaxial tests on the natural clayshale were simulated in

order to demonstrate the capability of the proposed model. The values of model

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

39

parameters employed for the simulation are listed in Table 8. A comparison

between the simulations and the experimental data is shown in Fig. 29. For all

the tests, the confining pressures were kept constant at 50, 250 and 500 kPa

respectively.

Table 8 Model parameters for a natural clayshale

Parameter Μ* λ*

E*

(kPa)

e*

IC

ν* b

ω p′

y,i

(kPa)

Value 1.45 0.06 73,000 0.668 0.25 0.2 4 3,800 kPa

The values of parameters Μ* and p′

y,i

and E* were obtained from the

experimental data. It can be observed from Fig. 29(a), that the shear behaviour

of the clayshale before the peak strength is reached is essentially independent of

the initial confining pressure. Consequently, the behaviour of the soil before the

peak strength can be interpreted as elastic and the elastic shear modulus is

constant. The value of Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0.25. Based on the

elastic shear modulus of the clayshale and the value of ν*, the Young modulus

for the soil was found as E* = 73,000 kPa. The values of λ*, e*

IC

, b and ω were

determined by best fitting.

The initial water content for the clayshale at p′ = 50 kPa was assumed to be

12.1%, the average water content of the soil at natural state, and so the initial

sate is given by p′ = 50 kPa and e = 0.327. Thus the initial voids ratio sustained

by the soil structure can be calculated as ∆e

i

= 0.076. The initial states for the

soil in the other two tests were calculated to be p′ = 250 kPa, e = 0.322, and

p′ = 500 kPa, e = 0.317.

As explained previously, adopting a constant value of E* overall implies a value

of κ* that varies between tests. The following values were used here:

κ* = 0.005 for the test with σ′

3

= 50 kPa, κ* = 0.012 for the test with

σ′

3

= 250 kPa, and κ* = 0.02 for the test with σ′

3

= 500 kPa.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

40

It is seen from Fig. 29 that the proposed model has the capability of modelling

the behaviour of this structured clayshale. For the clayshale in the test with

σ′

3

= 500 kPa, the volumetric deformation remains compressive even though the

shear strength of the soil softens from a peak of 2,600 kPa to 1,800 kPa. This

type of behaviour has been widely observed in structured clays and clayshales

(e.g., Bishop et al, 1965; Lo, 1972; Georgiannou et al, 1993; Robinet et al,

1999; Carter et al, 2000).

7. Conclusion

The Modified Cam Clay model has been generalised so that the isotropic

variation of the mechanical properties resulting from the presence of soil

structure can be described. A new hierarchal model, referred to as the

Structured Cam Clay model, was proposed. Besides the original five

parameters introduced in the Modified Cam Clay model, three new parameters

have been introduced. They are: b, the destructuring index, p′

y,i

, the size of the

initial structural yield surface, and ω, a parameter describing the effect of soil

structure on the plastic flow rule. Values of the first two parameters can be

determined from an isotropic compression test or an oedometer test. The third

parameter can be determined from the volumetric strain and deviatoric strain

curve obtained from a shearing test.

Overall, the proposed model has been used to predict both the compression and

shearing behaviour of six structured soils. The computations cover a wide

range of stress, initial voids ratio and soil structure, both naturally and

artificially formed. It has been demonstrated that the proposed model describes

successfully many important features of the behaviour of structured soils and

has improved significantly the performance of the Modified Cam Clay model

by quantifying the important influence of soil structure. In particular, the fact

that the new model is able to predict simultaneous material softening and

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

41

compressive volumetric strain is considered to be a distinct advantage of the

new model over Modified Cam Clay.

Because the Modified Cam Clay model is the basis of the new model, obviously

the new model is suitable only for those soils for which the behaviour of the

reconstituted materials can be described adequately by Modified Cam Clay.

Anisotropic features of soil behaviour, either due to the reconstituted parent soil

or due to the presence of soil structure, were not studied in this paper, but will

be the topics of future research.

This paper has concentrated on introducing the new model and its basic

features, and therefore only the behaviour of soil under fully drained conditions

has been considered. The authors also plan a future investigation of the

performance of the model for undrained conditions and a systematic study on

the identification of model parameters from tests commonly carried out by

engineers in geotechnical practice.

8. Acknowledgements

Some of the work described here forms part of the research program of the

Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established and

supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research Centres Program.

In addition, a Large Grant from the Australian Research Council in partial

support of this work is also gratefully acknowledged.

9. References

Anagnostopoulos A. G., Kalteziotis N., Tsiambaos G. K., and Kavvadas M. (1991),

“Geotechnical properties of the Corinth Canal marls”, Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering, Vol. 9(1), pp.1-26.

Arces M., Nocilla N., Aversa S. and Cicero G. L. (1998), “Geological and geotechnical

features of the Calcarenite di Marsala”, The Geotechnics of Hard Soils - Soft Rocks,

Evangelista and Picarelli (eds), pp.15-25.

Balasubramaniam A. S. and Hwang Z. M. (1980), “Yielding of weathered Bankok clay”,

Soils and Foundations, Vol. 20(2), pp.1-15.

Been K. and Jefferies M. G. (1985), “A state parameter for sands”, Géotechnique, Vol. 35(1),

pp.99-112.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

42

Bishop A. W., Webb D. L., and Lewin P. I. (1965), “Undisturbed samples of London clay

from the Ashford Common shaft: strength-effective stress relationship”, Géotechnique,

Vol. 15(1), pp.1-13.

Britto A. M. and Gunn M. J. (1987), Critical State Soil Mechanics via Finite Elements,

Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.

Burland J. B. (1990), “On the compressibility and shear strength of natural soils”,

Géotechnique, Vol. 40(3), pp.329-378.

Burland J. B., Rampello S., Georgiannou V. N., and Calabresi G. (1996), “A laboratory study

of the strength of four stiff clays”, Géotechnique, Vol. 46(3), pp.491-514.

Burghignoli A., Milizaano S., and Soccodato F. M. (1998), “The effect of bond degradation

in cemented clayey soils”, The Geotechnics of Hard Soils - Soft Rocks, Evangelista and

Picarelli (eds), pp.465-472.

Carter J. P., Airey D. W. and Fahey M. (2000), “A review of laboratory testing of calcareous

soils’, Engineering for Calcareous Sediments, Al-Shafei (ed), Vol. 2, pp.401-431.

Cotecchia F. and Chandler R. J. (1997), “The influence of structure on the pre-failure

behaviour of a natural clay”, Géotechnique, Vol. 47(3), pp.523-544.

Cuccovillo T. and Coop M. R. (1999), “On the mechanics of structured sands”,

Géotechnique, Vol. 49(6), pp.741-760.

Dafalias Y. F. (1987), “An anisotropic critical state clay plasticity model”, Proc. 2

nd

Int.

Conf. On Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, Tucson, Arizona, Vol. 1, pp.513-

521.

Gens A. and Potts D. M. (1988), “Critical state models in computational geomechanics”,

Engineering Computation, Vol. 5, pp.178-197.

Gens A. and Nova R. (1993), “Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and

weak rocks”, Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks, Anagnostopoulos et al

(ed), Vol. 1, pp.485-494.

Georgiannou V. N., Burland J. B., Hight D. W. (1993), “The behaviour of two hard clays in

direct shear”, Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks, Anagnostopoulos et al

(ed), Vol. 1, pp.501-507.

Graham J. and Li C. C. (1985), “Comparison of natural and remoulded plastic clay”, J.

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111(7), pp.865-881.

Ishihara K. (1993), “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes”, Géotechnique, Vol.

43(3), pp.351-415.

Jacky J. (1944), “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest”, J. of the Society of Hungarian

Engineers and Architects, Budapest, pp.355-358.

Kavvadas M. and Amorosi A. (2000), “A constitutive model for structured soils”,

Géotechnique, Vol. 50(3), pp.263-273.

Lagioia R. and Nova R. (1995), “An experimental and theoretical study of the behaviour of a

calcarenite in triaxial compression”, Géotechnique, Vol. 45(4), pp.633-648.

Lambe T. W. (1964), “Method of estimating settlement”, J. Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE, Vol. 90, pp.43-67.

Leroueil S. and Vaughan P. R. (1990), “The general and congruent effects of structure in

natural soils and weak rocks”, Géotechnique, Vol. 40(3), pp.467-488.

Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (1999), “Virgin compression of structured soils”, Géotechnique,

Vol. 49(1), pp.43-57.

Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (2000), “Modelling the destructuring of soils during virgin

compression”, Géotechnique, Vol. 50(4), pp.479-483.

Liu M. D., Carter J. P., Desai C. S. and Xu K. J. (2000), “Analysis of the compression of

structured soils using the disturbed state concept”, Int. J. for Numerical and Analytical

Methods in Geomechanics. Vol. 24, pp.723-735.

Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (2001), “A conceptual framework for modelling the mechanical

behaviour of structured soils”, Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, edts

Desai, Kundu, Harpalani, Contractor & Kemeny, Vol. 1, pp.347-354.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002

Department of Civil Engineering

Research Report No. R814

43

Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (2002), “A structured Cam Clay Model”, Research Report,

University of Sydney.

Lo K. Y. (1972), “An approach to the problem of progressive failure”, Canadian

Geotechnical. J., Vol. 9(4), pp.407-429.

Muir-Wood D. (1990), Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics, Cambridge

University Press.

Nambiar M. R. M., Rao G. V., and Gulhati S. K. (1985), “The nature and engineering

behaviour of fine-grained carbonate soil from off the west coast of India”, Marine

Geotechnology, Vol. 6(2), pp.145-171.Novello E. and Johnston I. W. (1995), “Geotechnical

materials and the critical state”, Géotechnique, Vol. 45(2), pp.223-235.

Novello E. and Johnston I. W. (1995), “Geotechnical materials and the critical state”,

Géotechnique, Vol. 45(2), pp.223-235.

Olson R. E. (1962), “The shear strength properties of calcium illite”, Géotechnique, Vol.

12(1), pp.23-43.

Potts D. M. and Zdravkovic L. (1999), Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering:

Theory, London, Thomas Telford.

Robinet J. C., Pakzad M., Jullien A., and Plas F. (1999), “A general modelling of expansive

and non-expansive clays”, Int. J. Numerical and Analytical Method in Geomechanics, Vol.

23, pp.1319-1335.

Roscoe K. H. and Burland J. B. (1968), “On the generalised stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet

clay’ ”, Engineering Plasticity, Heyman and Leckie (ed), pp.535-609.

Rouainia M. and Muir Wood D. (2000), “A kinematic hardening model for natural clays with

loss of structure”, Géotechnique, Vol. 50(2), pp.153-164.

Schofield A. N. and Wroth C. P. (1968), Critical State Soil Mechanics, MacGraw-Hill,

London.

Walker L. K. and Raymond G. P. (1969), “The prediction of consolidation rates in a

cemented clay”, Canadian Geotechnical J., Vol. 6(4), pp.193-216.

Wheeler S. J. (1997), “A rotational hardening elasto-plastic model for clays”, Proc. 14

th

Int.

Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.431-434.

Whittle A. J. (1993), “Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays”,

Géotechnique, Vol. 43(2), pp.289-314.

Whittle A. J. and Kavvadas M. J. (1994), “Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model for

overconsolidated clays”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120(1), pp.

199-224.

Wong R. C. K. (1980), “Swelling and softening behaviour of La Biche shale”, Canadian

Geotechnical J., Vol. 35, pp.206-221.Yong R. N. and Nagaraj T. S. (1977), “Investigation of

fabric and compressibility of a sensitive clay”, Proc. Int. Symposium on Soft Clay, Asian

Institute of Technology, pp.327-333.

Wood D. M. (1984), “Choice of models for geotechnical predictions”, Mechanics of

Engineering Materials, Desai & Gallagher (ed), pp.633-654.

Yu H. S. (1998), “CASM: a unified state parameter model for clay and sand”, Int. J.

Numerical Analytical Method in Geomechanics, Vol. 22(8), pp.621-653.

Fig. 1 Idealization of the isotropic compression behaviour of

reconstituted and structured soils

q

p'

M*

p'

s

Fig. 2 The yield surface for structured soils

Mean effective stress lnp'

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Structured soil:

e = e * + ∆ ∆e

Reconstituted soil: e *

e *

∆ ∆e

e

∆ ∆e

i

p'

y,i p'

Fig. 3 Compression behaviour of reconstituted clay based on

Critical State Soil Mechanics

p'

e

Isotropic compression

line

Compression line with

constant η η

e *

IC

e *

η η

p' = 1 kPa

0.6

1.1

1.6

2.1

10 100 1000 10000

Mean effective stress p'

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Fig. 4 Influence of parameter b on isotropic compression

behaviour

b =0

b =0.25

b =5

b =2

b =1

b=0.5

b =100

b =10

ICL*

1

1.3

1.6

1.9

2.2

100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

b =0

b =0.25

b =0.5

b =1

b =2

b =5

b =10

b =100

CSL

p'

q

CSL

3

Stress path of the tests

p'

y,i

Fig. 5 Influence of destructuring index b on the shearing

behaviour of soil in the e-p' space

0

0.2

0.4

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

0

100

200

0 0.25 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

b =100 b =10 b =5

b =0.25

b =0.5

b =1

b =2

b =0

b =0

b =0.25

b =0.5

b =1

b =2

b =5

b =100

b =10

(a) Stress and strain relationship

0

50

100

150

0 0.01 0.02

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

b =2

b =5

b =0

b =0.25

b =0.5

b =1

b =100

b =10

0

100

200

0 1 2 3

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Fig. 6 Influence of destructuring index b on the shearing

behaviour of soil

(b) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship at different scales

Fig. 7 Influence of the size of the initial yield surface on

simulated soil behaviour

0

150

300

450

600

0 0.25 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

p'

y,i

=1000 kPa

p'

y,i

=500 kPa

p'

y,i

=334 kPa

p'

y,i

=150 kPa

p'

y,i

=100 kPa

p'

y,i

=200 kPa

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain

(b) Deviatoric and volumetric strains

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0 0.25 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

p'

y,i

=200 kPa

p'

y,i

=500 kPa

p'

y,i

=100 kPa

p'

y,i

=150 kPa

p'

y,i

=334 kPa

p'

y,i

=1000 kPa

p'

q

CSL

p'

y,i

=

1000 kPa

500 kPa

334 kPa

Stress path of the tests

200 kPa

150 kPa

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.25

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.5

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.75

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=1

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.25

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.5

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=0.75

ω∆ ω∆e

i

=1

(b) Deviatoric and volumetric strains

Fig. 8 The Influence of parameter ω ω on soil behaviour

simulated

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain

0.7

1.1

1.5

1.9

10 100 1000 10000

Vertical effective stress σ σ'

v

(kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Fig. 9 Behaviour of Leda clay in an oedometer test (Test data after

Yong ang Nagaraji, 1977)

Fig. 10 Compression behaviour of Leda clay with different values

of η η (Test data after Walker and Raymond, 1969)

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

10 100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

4

η=0 η=0

η=0.63 η=0.63

η=1 η=1

7

9

ICL* (estimated)

η η=0

η η=0.63

η η=1

Experiment

Prediction

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

10 100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

1.4

1.9

2.4

2.9

3.4

3.9

10 100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

η=0.16 η=0.16

η=0.43 η=0.43

η=0.6 η=0.6

η=0.75 η=0.75

Fig. 11 Isotropic compression behaviour of weathered Bankok clay

(Test data after Balasubramanian and Hwang, 1980)

ICL*

(estimated)

Fig. 12 Compression behaviour of weathered Bankok clay (Test data

after Balasubramanian and Hwang, 1980)

η η=0.6

η η=0.75

η η=0.16

η η=0.43

lnp'

e

Comparison of soil

initial states

η η=0

η η=0.43, 0.6 0.75

η η=0.16

Fig. 13 Oedometer tests on an artificially cemented clay (Test data

after Burghignoli et al , 1998)

1.6

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.6

10 100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

0

1

2

3

4

10 100 1000 10000

Vertical effective stress σ σ'

v

(kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Fig. 14 Compression behaviour of an artificially cemented clay (Test

data after Burghignoli et al , 1998)

η η=0

η η=0.5

η η=1

ICL*

(estimated)

A B C

D

E

η η=0

η η=0.5

η η=1

p'

q

Stress paths

Fig. 15 Isotropic compression test on a calcarenite (Test data after

Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

0.75

0.95

1.15

100 1000 10000

Mean effective stress p'

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Exp. data

Simulation

Reconstituted soil

Structured soil

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 16 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 25 kPa (Test data

after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 17 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 200 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 18 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 400 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

400

800

1200

1600

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 19 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 600 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

Fig. 20 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 900 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatroic strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

Fig. 21 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 1100 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

0

800

1600

2400

3200

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 22 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 1300 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

Fig. 23 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 2000 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp.data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

Exp. data

Prediction

Simulation

Fig. 24 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ σ'

3

= 3500 kPa (Test

data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

Aspect ratio

= 1.12

Aspect ratio

=1.45

Fig. 26 The initial yield points for a natural calcarenite (Test data

after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

100 1000 10000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

ICL

200 kPa

1100 kPa

2000 kPa

3500 kPa

Fig. 25 Stress paths in the e -lnp' space for tests on a natural

calcarenite (Test data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

CSL assumed

CSL predicted

ICL*

Prediction

σ σ'

3

=2000kPa

σ σ'

3

=3500kPa

Prediction

σ σ'

3

=200 kPa

σ σ'

3

=11000kPa

Fig. 27 Isotropic compression behaviour of Corinth marl (Test

data after Anagnostopoulos et al , 1991)

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

10 100 1000 10000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

V

o

i

d

s

r

a

t

i

o

e

Data (structured)

Data (reconstituted)

Data (reconstituted)

Simulation

Natural Corinth marl

Reconstituted Corinth

marl

elastic behaviour

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

σ σ'

3

=294 kPa

σ σ'

3

=1500 kPa

σ σ'

3

=4000 kPa

σ σ'

3

=903 kPa

σ σ'

3

=98 kPa

-0.035

0.005

0.045

0.085

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

(b) Volumetric and deviatoric strain relationship

Fig. 28 Behaviour of natural Corinth marl (Test data after

Anagnostopoulos et al , 1991)

σ σ'

3

=98 kPa

σ σ'

3

=294 kPa

σ σ'

3

=903 kPa

σ σ'

3

=1500 kPa

σ σ'

3

=4000 kPa

0

600

1200

1800

2400

3000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

D

e

v

i

a

t

o

r

i

c

s

t

r

e

s

s

q

(

k

P

a

)

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

σ σ'

3

=250 kPa

σ σ'

3

=500 kPa

σ σ'

3

=50 kPa

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deviatoric strain ε ε

d

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

s

t

r

a

i

n

ε ε

v

(b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship

Fig. 29 Shearing behaviour of a clayshale (Test data after Wong,

1980)

σ σ'

3

=50 kPa

σ σ'

3

=250 kPa

σ σ'

3

=500 kPa

Department of Civil Engineering Centre for Geotechnical Research http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/

**A Structured Cam Clay Model
**

Research Report No R814 Martin D Liu, BE, MPhil, PhD John P Carter, BE, PhD, FIEAust, MASCE

ABSTRACT A theoretical study of the behaviour of structured soil is presented. A new model, which is referred to as the Structured Cam Clay model, is formulated by introducing the influence of soil structure into Modified Cam Clay. The proposed model is hierarchical, i.e., it is identical to the Modified Cam Clay soil model if a soil has no structure or if its structure is removed by loading. Three new parameters describing the effects of soil structure are introduced and the results of a parametric study are also presented. The proposed model has been used to predict the behaviour of structured soils in both compression and shearing tests. By making comparisons of predictions with experimental data and by conducting the parametric study it is demonstrated that the new model provides satisfactory qualitative and quantitative modelling of many important features of the behaviour of structured soils. Keywords: calcareous soils, clays, fabric, structure, constitutive relations, plasticity.

A Structured Cam Clay Model

March 2002

Copyright Notice Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report R814 A Structured Cam Clay Model © 2002 MD Liu and JP Carter m.liu@civil.usyd.edu.au; j.carter@civil.usyd.edu.au This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original form without the consent of the copyright owner. Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must be appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the author. Published by: Department of Civil Engineering The University of Sydney Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA March 2002 http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. R814

2

.....................................38 7...9 2...............20 5........................................................................................25 6..................................................24 6............... Conclusion ....6 2......................................27 6....................2 Parameter p′y...........................................................................................................29 6...................41 1......................2..............25 6.............2............. Parameter Determination .......A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Contents Introduction..........................1 Background.............................................................2 Compression behaviour of three clays.........................37 6..........................1 Parameter b .............3 Volumetric deformation for virgin yielding along general stress paths .................................................21 5.................... Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No...........................................................................................3 Softening.................................................... Model Evaluation............................................27 6.....................................28 6..................................................................1 Influence of soil structure on virgin isotropic compression .........................................................................................................................8 2..............3 Artificially Cemented Clay .................................................5 Additional assumptions ..................................... Stress-Strain Relationships .13 2...................................................3 Parameter ω ...................................................................23 5....1 Elastic deformation........................................15 3........15 4...................................................................3 Behaviour of a natural calcarenite .4 Flow rule...............41 9...............................................................................................................14 3......................................................................................................................31 6.....................................................................................................9 2.......................................................................................................................................................................................5 Behaviour of La Biche clayshale.................................................... Acknowledgements.............................................................................2 Yield surface for structured clay .....................................................................15 3.......................................................40 8......................................................2..................................................................4 Behaviour of Corinth marl. Features of the Model .......................17 5.............2 Virgin yielding.....1 Leda Clay.............................................................. 2........................................... R814 3 ..............2 Bangkok Clay...................15 3...................................................5 Generalisation of Modified Cam Clay.......................................................i ................................................................. References...................

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. R814 4 .

The main objective of this new formulation is to provide a constitutive model suitable for the solution of boundary value problems encountered in geotechnical engineering practice. The model has also been used to predict the behaviour of a variety of structured natural soils in both compression and shearing tests. Introduction Soils in situ usually possess natural structure. It is demonstrated that the proposed new Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. which enables them to behave differently from the same material in a reconstituted state (e. Leroueil and Vaughan. each of which has a clear physical meaning and can be conveniently identified. 1988. Gens and Potts. Whittle (1993). 1990.g. allowing a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of it to be undertaken. Wheeler (1997). the Modified Cam Clay model was chosen as the basis for the current research. R814 5 . Rouainia and Muir Wood (2000). 1998.. The model should also be relatively easy to understand and apply. 1990. Burland. 1999). 1999). A parametric study demonstrating the capabilities and limitations of this new model is presented.g. although it was developed originally for reconstituted clays. that the new model should be relatively simple and should have few parameters. The Modified Cam Clay model (Roscoe and Burland. there have been important developments in formulating constitutive models incorporating the influence of soil structure. Recently. Cuccovillo and Coop. A new model has been formulated by introducing the influence of soil structure into Modified Cam Clay. Yu. 1968) is widely referenced and has been widely used in solving boundary value problems in geotechnical engineering practice (e. It is intended therefore. In this paper a new constitutive model for structured clays is proposed.. Potts and Zdravkovic. Because of some familiarity with the model by the geotechnical profession and because it captures well the essential behaviour of reconstituted soil.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 1. such as those proposed by Gens and Nova (1993). and Kavvadas and Amorosi (2000).

Generalisation of Modified Cam Clay The Modified Cam Clay model was proposed by Roscoe and Burland (1968) and a description and systematic study of the model can be found in the text by Muir Wood (1990). Following the suggestion of Burland (1990). the influence of soil structure can be measured by comparing its behaviour with the intrinsic behaviour. Wheeler (1997) and Rouainia Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.g. however it is noted that others have previously considered this feature of soil behaviour.. It is assumed that the behaviour of soil in a reconstituted state can be described adequately by the Modified Cam Clay model. Destructuring usually leads to the reduction of anisotropy. Britto and Gun. 1987. e. Whittle and Kavvadas (1994).A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 model is suitable for describing the behaviour of a variety of natural clays and cemented soils. The term “soil structure” is used here to mean the arrangement and bonding of the soil constituents. 1999). Formulations of this model suitable for use in finite element analysis can also be found in various texts (e. Potts and Zdravkovic. In order to concentrate on introducing the physical concepts of the framework and to avoid unnecessary complexity of mathematical detail..g. the properties of a reconstituted soil are called the intrinsic properties. Hence. the Modified Cam Clay model is employed as a basis for formulating a hierarchical model for structured clays. only the isotropic effects of soil structure are included in the proposed theoretical framework. 2. and are denoted by the symbol * attached to the relevant mathematical symbols. and for simplicity it encompasses all features of a soil that are different from those of the corresponding reconstituted soil. The extension required to include the influence of soil anisotropy shall be a future research topic. The formation and development of soil structure often produces anisotropy in the mechanical response of soil to changes in stress. which is referred to as the “Structured Cam Clay” model. under all stress conditions. Dafalias (1987). In this paper. R814 6 .

The stress and strain quantities used in the present formulation are defined as follows. dεd. and deviatoric strain increment. It should also be noted that coaxiality between the principal axes of plastic strain increment and those of stress is assumed in the proposed framework.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 and Muir Wood (2000). The simplified forms for stress and strain conditions in conventional triaxial tests are also listed. The mean effective stress p′. η= q . R814 7 . deviatoric stress q and stress ratio η are given by p′ = 1 ′ ′ ′ (σ 11 + σ 22 + σ 33 ) 3 1 ′ ′ = (σ 1 + 2σ 3 ) for conventional triaxial tests. σ′ij and εij are the cartesian components of effective stress and of strain respectively. where σ′1 (or ε1) and σ′3 (or ε3) are the axial effective stress (strain). p′ (3) The corresponding (work-conjugate) volumetric strain increment. 3 1 (1) q= 2 ′ ′ = (σ 1 − σ 3 ) [(σ ′ 11 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ − σ 22 ) + (σ 22 − σ 33 ) + (σ 33 − σ 11 ) + 6 σ 12 + σ 23 + σ 31 2 2 2 2 2 ( 2 )] (2) for conventional triaxial tests. dεv. are defined by dε v = dε 11 + dε 22 + dε 33 = dε 1 + 2dε 3 for convention al triaxial tests and (4) Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. and the radial effective stress (strain) respectively..

i. 1. and ∆e.i is the mean effective stress at which virgin yielding of the structured soil begins. is the difference in voids ratio between a structured soil and the corresponding reconstituted soil at the same stress state. where virgin yielding of the structured soil begins (Fig. p′y. e* is the voids ratio for the corresponding reconstituted soil at the same stress state during virgin yielding. (6) The following equation was proposed by Liu and Carter (2000) to describe the volumetric behaviour of natural clays during virgin isotropic compression. the virgin isotropic compression behaviour of a structured soil can be expressed by the following e = e * + ∆e . b is a parameter quantifying the rate of destructuring and it is referred to here as the destructuring index.1 Influence of soil structure on virgin isotropic compression The work by Liu and Carter (1999 and 2000) is employed here as a starting point for including the effects of soil structure in the model. R814 8 . b (7) ∆ei is the additional voids ratio at p′ = p′y. In this figure e represents the voids ratio for a structured clay. The material idealisation of the isotropic compression behaviour of structured clay is illustrated in Fig.i y e = e * + ∆ei p′ . For the thirty different clays studied by Liu and Carter Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. 3 (5) 2. equation.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 dε d = = 2 3 [(dε 11 − dε 22 )2 + (dε 22 − dε 33 )2 + (dε 33 − dε11 )2 + 6(dε12 + dε 23 + dε 31 ) 2 2 2 ] 2 al (dε1 − dε 3 ) for convention triaxialtests. The value of b depends on soil type and structure and generally b ≥ 1 for soft structured clays and b < 1 for stiff clays. Hence. p ′ . 1). the additional voids ratio.

One axis of the ellipse coincides with the p′ axis. are both linear in e lnp′ space. Similar to the original proposal by Roscoe and Burland (1968).A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 (1999. the behaviour of a clay is divided into virgin yielding behaviour and elastic behaviour by its current elliptical yield surface. is defined by its current stress state.5 p ′ − 1 = 0 . and soil structure.5Μ * p ′ + 0.. a clay where structure is completely removed. R814 The isotropic virgin compression line for the reconstituted soil. i. where p ′ − 0. it was found that generally 0 ≤ b ≤ 30. Hence. 2000). which is dependent on soil structure as well as stress history.e. The aspect ratio for the structural yield surface is Μ*. the value of the p′ coordinate where the ellipse again intersects the axis. it is found that b depends mainly on the liquidity index.e. the current yield surface of a structured clay. 2). virgin yielding and elastic behaviour of reconstituted clay. the behaviour of clay is also divided into virgin yielding behaviour and elastic behaviour by its current yield surface. stress history. The size of the yield surface can be identified uniquely according to the stress state and the voids ratio and is a function of stress history. voids ratio. s s 2 2 (8) 2. i. the yield surface of a structured soil in p′-q space is assumed to be elliptical in shape and it passes through the origin of the stress coordinates (Fig. 1.3 Volumetric deformation for virgin yielding along general stress paths As illustrated in Fig. with gradients λ* and κ* respectively.. the critical state strength of the reconstituted soil.5 p ′ q s f = 0. p′s. is given by 9 . named as the structural yield surface. ICL*.2 Yield surface for structured clay In the Modified Cam Clay model. In the proposed Structured Cam Clay model. 2. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. represents the size of the yield surface. For clay samples of a given mineralogy and with similar geological stress history but different depths below the surface. The yield surface is thus given by the yield function f.

s b (10) p′y. for compression along a general stress path the volumetric deformation defined by Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.i. For monotonic loading. We seek now to generalise equation (9) for a soil that possesses structure. According to Critical State Soil Mechanics (Schofield and Wroth. the yield surface for a structured soil is defined by all stress states that have the same accumulation of absolute plastic volumetric strain. deformation for a structured soil is assumed to be the same as that of the reconstituted soil. and is numerically equal to the size of the initial yield surface associated with the initial soil structure.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 e* = e *IC −λ * ln p ′ (9) where e*IC is the voids ratio of the reconstituted soil when p′ = 1 kPa during virgin isotropic compression.i e = e *IC + ∆ei s p ′ − λ * ln p ′ for p ′ ≥ p ′y .i . and therefore is also dependent on the size of the yield surface. On substituting equation (9) into equation (7). Consequently. Consider loading where the current stress state stays on the yield surface. virgin yielding occurs if p′s ≥ p′y. and the size of the current yield surface is denoted as p′s. Under the assumption that the hardening of structured soil is dependent on the plastic volumetric deformation. any change in the additional voids ratio sustained by soil structure must also be associated with plastic volumetric deformation. In such a model the plastic volumetric deformation is If the elastic dependent on the change in size of the yield surface only. 1968). R814 10 . the following expression for the variation of the voids ratio is obtained p ′y . the variable p′ in formula (7) may be written in terms of the size of the current yield surface p′s.i is the value of the mean effective stress at the initial yield point for an isotropic stress state.

which is dependent on the size of the yield surface. Hence e dε v = κ * dp ′ (1 + e)p ′ (13) and Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. is associated with elastic deformation. can be divided into two parts.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 λ*ln p′. which is dependent on the current mean effective stress. the last term on the right hand side of equation (12). i.i e = e *IC + ∆ei s p ′ − (λ * −κ *)ln p ′ − κ * ln p ′ . the total volumetric strain increment for compression along a general stress path is obtained as follows dε v = (λ * −κ *) ′ dp s dp′ dp′ s + b∆e +κ * (1 + e)p′s (1 + e)p′s (1 + e)p′ . Differentiating equation (11) and noting equations (6) and (7). R814 11 . viz. viz. and the plastic part which is dependent on the size of the current yield surface. The plastic part is again subdivided into two parts. The elastic part is defined by κ*ln p′.. the part associated with the intrinsic properties of the soil and that associated with soil structure. and the plastic part is given by (λ*-κ*)ln ps′. s b (11) The general compression equation (11) states that voids ratio for a structured soil during virgin compression is dependent on two parts.e. which is associated with intrinsic soil properties. the elastic part which is dependent on the current mean effective stress. (12) The last part of the expression for the total volumetric strain. The voids ratio for a structured soil during virgin compression along a general stress path is thus obtained as follows: p ′y .

equation (15) can be rewritten as dε vp = (λ * −κ *) Μ * dp ′ dp ′ s s + b∆e Μ * −η (1 + e )p ′ . this part represents the effect of structure and destructuring. Alternatively. irrespective of the magnitude of the current shear stress. η. a modification of equation (14) is made so that the effect of shear stress on destructuring is also considered. It may be seen from equation (15) that the effect of destructuring. The first part is dependent on the intrinsic soil properties and has been described already by the Modified Cam Clay model. It also depends on the shear stress ratio. it is rational to assume that destructuring and the associated plastic volumetric deformation should be dependent on both the change in size of the yield surface and the magnitude of the current shear stress. (14) The plastic volumetric strain is therefore made up of two parts. which is described as the reduction of the additional voids ratio. the new hardening rule for a structured soil is no longer dependent only on the plastic volumetric deformation. increases with the value of the current stress ratio. R814 12 .e. Considering the mechanism of shearing. The second part is dependent on soil structure and is responsible for the reduction of the additional voids ratio sustained by soil structure.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 dε vp = (λ * −κ *) dp′ dp ′ s s + b∆e (1 + e)p′s (1 + e)p′s . Therefore. i.. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. (1 + e )p′s s (16) Because of the modification made to equation (12). dε vp = (λ * −κ *) dp ′ η dp ′ s s + b∆e1 + Μ * −η (1 + e )p ′ (1 + e)p s′ s (15) where η is the shear stress ratio defined in equation (3). It may be seen from equation (14) as well as equation (11) that the plastic volumetric deformation associated with destructuring is also dependent on the change in size of the yield surface. Hence.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 In summary. Graham and Li.g. Cotecchia and Chandler. the following constraint is imposed: 0 < 1 − ω∆ei ≤ 1 and therefore 0 ≤ω ≤ 1 . associated plastic flow is assumed. 1985. The modifier should not be negative otherwise the plastic strain increment vector will always be directed inside the yield surface. Hence. based on the need to meet this condition at all times. The following equation is therefore proposed as a flow rule for structured clay. ∆ei 13 (19) (20) Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. dε dp 2(1 − ω∆e ) η = . Olson. dε vp Μ *2 −η 2 (17) The structure of soil also has influence on the flow rule. R814 . the yield surface is also the plastic potential and the flow rule is given as dε dp 2η = . including the start of virgin yielding. It is observed that a structured clay with positive ∆e generally has a lower value for the strain increment ratio dεpd/dεpv than the corresponding reconstituted soil at the same virgin yielding stress state (e. It is assumed that during virgin yielding the yield surface includes the current stress state and expands isotropically causing destructuring of the material. Thus. structured clay is idealised here as an isotropic hardening and destructuring material with elastic and virgin yielding behaviour.4 Flow rule In the Modified Cam Clay model. 2.. p 2 2 Μ * −η dε v (18) ω is a new model parameter which describes the influence of soil structure on the flow rule. 1997). 1962.

Consequently. Wheeler (1997) and Rouainia and Muir Wood (2000). R814 14 .5 Additional assumptions For the proposed new model the following additional assumptions are made. is the current yield surface for any stress excursion inside the initial yield surface. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. denoted as p′y.i. the initial yield surface. (1) The behaviour of structured soil is divided into an elastic region and a virgin yielding region by the current yield surface. (3) The effect of anisotropy on soil deformation is not considered. the current yield surface in the proposed model is assumed as the maximum yield surface encountered by the soil. and the minimum value of p′s is numerically equal to p′y. 2.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Equation (18) implies a non-associated plastic flow rule for the new model. Modelling the anisotropic properties of soils can be found in works such as those reported by Dafalias (1987). In this model. (2) During virgin yielding the yield surface expands isotropically and includes the current stress state. The current yield surface is defined as the maximum yield surface the soil has ever experienced if the stress state of the soil has exceeded the initial yield surface. In particular. The influence of soil anisotropy is not considered in this paper in order to provide a relatively simple model within the well-known Cam Clay framework. This feature has important consequences for numerical solution schemes employing the model to solve boundary value problems. Therefore. Whittle and Kavvada (1994).i. it generally results in the governing equations being non-symmetric. structured clay is idealised as an isotropic hardening and destructuring material with elastic and virgin yielding behaviour.

. the flow rule given by equation (18) and considering the elastic deformation. According to the Modified Cam Clay model.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 3. Stress-Strain Relationships 3.3 Softening Soil is regarded as an elastic material for loading inside the virgin yield surface. 3. i.1 Elastic deformation For stress excursions within the current yield surface. The assumption of a constant Poisson’s ratio leads to a non-conservative response to cyclic loading. the elastic strain increment can be expressed as κ * dp ′ dε ve = 1 + e p′ e dε d = (21) 2(1 + ν *) κ * dq 9(1 − 2ν *) 1 + e p ′ (22) where ν* is Poisson’s ratio. (1 + e)p ′ (1 + e)p′s s (23) dε d = ′ 2(1 + ν *) κ * dq 2η (1 − ω∆e ) (λ * −κ *) + b∆e Μ * dp s . The elastic deformation of a structured soil is assumed to be independent of soil structure. the following stress and strain relationships for virgin yielding are obtained dε v = κ * dp ′ Μ * dp ′ dp ′ s s + (λ * −κ *) + b∆e Μ * −η (1 + e ) p ′ . virgin yielding occurs. Based on the plastic volumetric deformation. When the current stress state reaches the virgin yield surface at a point with Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. equation (16).2 Virgin yielding For stress states on the yield surface and with dp′s > 0. but is a common feature of the Cam clay models. (24) + 2 2 Μ * −η (1 + e )p ′ 9(1 − 2ν *) 1 + e p ′ Μ * −η s ( ) 3.e. R814 15 . only elastic deformation occurs.

softening of structured clays can be accompanied by either overall volumetric expansion (negative pore pressure for undrained tests). i. If ∆e is negative. Nambiar et al.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 dp′s > 0 virgin yielding occurs..e. However. (1985). this part of the overall volumetric deformation is positive. Consequently. and the yield surface shrinks with the current stress state always remaining on it. soil structure will be broken down. If ∆e is positive. the plastic volumetric strain increment given by equation (16) should also be valid for the softening process. Μ * dp ′ η s dε dp = 2(1 − ω∆e ) λ* − κ * − b∆e Μ *2 −η 2 (1 + e )p ′ . As a result. and Carter et al. therefore. catastrophic failure will be predicted. This tendency can be seen in test data for both natural soils and artificially structured soils reported by several researchers. Otherwise. softening occurs if the boundary conditions allow appropriate adjustment of the stress state. The plastic deviatoric strain increment during softening is proposed as follows. During the softening process. If the soil reaches the yield surface with η > Μ*. expansive. Μ * −η s ( ) ( ) (25) Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Burland et al. R814 16 . It may be noticed that because the yield surface shrinks the volumetric deformation associated with intrinsic soil properties is negative. (2000). including Lo (1972). (1996). that the softening behaviour of a soil should be described by virgin yielding equations. the volumetric deformation associated with the destructuring is determined by ∆e. or overall volumetric compression (positive pore pressure for undrained tests). the structural part of the volumetric deformation is negative. and consequently the additional voids ratio sustained by soil structure necessarily decreases. It follows. because both the terms (Μ*-η) and dp′s are negative. This is rational because destructuring occurs during the softening process. In such cases the yield surface contracts until the soil reaches a critical state of deformation where the structure of the soil is completely removed.

are intrinsic soil properties and are independent of soil structure. In this case virgin yielding commences once the yield surface is reached and.p′ space. Parameter Determination Eight parameters define the proposed model. it can be seen that only the sign of the plastic deviatoric strain associated with destructuring is changed. the proposed model predicts that under special stress paths a soil may reach a critical state of deformation with its structure having not been removed completely.i.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Compared with equation (24). ν*. so that the strain increment vector will point outside the yield surface. and therefore. The elastic part of the deformation can be calculated by equations (21) and (22). denoted by the symbol *. the structure of soil is usually completely destroyed with ∆e = 0. As softening is a strained-controlled process. If there is evidence that the structure of a soil is destroyed completely after the soil reaches the critical state of deformation then destructuring could be described by the plastic distortional strain instead of the current stress ratio. e*IC. However. The total strain increments during softening are thus fully determined. in such cases the soil state will not be on the critical state line defined in e . this possibility has not been pursued here. the change in the stress state can be decided from the size of the current structural yield surface. the structured clay has reached the critical state of deformation.κ*. Hence. and they are Μ*. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. 4. and ω. R814 These five intrinsic 17 . A specific example is the case where a soil reaches critical state by loading entirely inside the yield surface. b. p′y. according to equations (23) and (24). the soil is also in a state where it can be distorted continuously at constant volume (dεvp = 0 and dεvp → ¥). Consequently. It may be noticed that for both virgin yielding and softening behaviour the soil may reach a state with η = Μ* but with ∆e ≠ 0. λ*. The first five parameters. When condition η = Μ* is reached.

i can only be determined directly from isotropic tests. 1). 1990). Values of five of the model parameters.i can be determined from isotropic compression tests. The behaviour of reconstituted clay is assumed to follow the assumptions of Critical State Soil Mechanics (e. details see Muir Wood. b. and its value can be determined by applying the flow rule to the strains measured in a shearing test on an intact specimen provided that the elastic properties of the soil are known. indicates the rate of the destructuring during virgin yielding (Fig. p′y.. Parameter ω was introduced to describe the influence of soil structure on the flow rule (e. 1990). e*IC. can therefore be expressed as Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. The values of these two parameters can be determined directly from an isotropic compression test on an intact (undisturbed) soil specimen. λ*. tests. are also proposed. viz..g..i represents the size of the initial yield surface for a structured soil (Fig. The difference in voids ratio between e*IC and e*η.g. b. 5). 1968). For a reconstituted soil with a given mineralogy.. The values of parameters λ* and κ* and b can be determined directly from any compression tests with constant η. as well as any constant η tests. see equation (18)). are introduced to describe the influence of soil structure on its mechanical behaviour. the compression lines with different stress ratio η are therefore assumed parallel (Fig. In geotechnical engineering practice oedometer tests on soils are much more widespread than isotropic compression tests.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 parameters are the same as those adopted in the Modified Cam Clay model (Roscoe and Burland. and p′y.g. and p′y.i and ω. The value of the destructuring index.i from oedometer 18 . viz..κ*. whereas the values of e*IC and p′y. 4). see Muir Wood. R814 Therefore approximate methods for obtaining soil parameters e*IC and p′y. Three new parameters. The influence of these parameters will not be investigated in this paper since studies of them are well documented (e. the voids ratio at p′ = 1 kPa for a compression test with constant η. b.

p′ Μ *2 = . p′ (26) The size of a yield surface p′o and the mean effective stress for a stress state on the yield surface with stress ratio η are related as follows. 1944). in which the horizontal effective stress σ′v and the vertical effective stress σ′h for a soil during one dimensional virgin compression is expressed as ′ σh ≈ 1 − sin ϕ cs ′ σv (28) where ϕcs is the critical state friction angle measured from a triaxial compression test. The critical state strength parameter Μ* can be expressed in terms of ϕcs as Μ* = 6 sin ϕ cs . p ′ 3 − 2 sin ϕ cs Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. and the soil parameter e*IC can therefore be computed from the measured value of e*η. an approximation is made based on Jacky’s empirical equation (Jacky. the size of the initial yield surface p′y. R814 (30) 19 . For oedometer tests.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 p′ e *IC = e *η +(λ * −κ *)ln o .i can be computed if the value of the mean effective stress at the virgin yield point is measured from a compression test with constant η. 3 − sin ϕ cs (29) The relationship between σ′v and p′ for one-dimensional compression can be obtained as ′ σv 3 = . ′ po Μ *2 +η 2 (27) Based on equations (26) and (27).

the following equation can be derived for estimating the size of the initial yield surface based on the initial vertical yield stress measured from an oedometer test. 3 − 2 sin ϕ cs (31) Consequently. p′y. Based on these values. 3 cs (32) e*IC can be related to the value of e*η obtained from an oedometer test by the following equation. 2 3 − sin ϕ cs ′ 2 p ′ . 2 3 − sin ϕ cs = e *η + (λ * −κ *)ln 1 − sin ϕ cs 1 + 6 − 4 sin ϕ cs 3 2 e * IC . R814 20 .i = 1 − sin ϕ cs 1 + y 6 − 4 sin ϕ σ vy . based on the results of oedometer tests. Example calculations have been made using the new model and the values of the intrinsic soil properties adopted are listed in Table 1. (33) It should be pointed out that the proposed methods.1. are approximate and should be used only when more accurate methods for deriving the soil parameters are not available. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.i . where e*cs is the well known parameter defining the position of the critical state line in e – p′ space. Features of the Model The influence of the three new parameters b. and some features of the new Structured Cam Clay model are described in this section.i and ω. it is found that e*cs = 2.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Thus the stress ratio for a one-dimensional compression test can be expressed as η= 3 sin ϕ cs . 5.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Table 1 Model parameters Parameter Value Μ* 1.i = 100 kPa and ω = 1. Theoretically.5.25. 0. The initial stress state was p′ =100 kPa and q = 0. The compression behaviour of structured soil is asymptotic to that of the corresponding reconstituted soil for situations with b > 0. It can be seen that the destructuring index b has the following effects on the simulated isotropic compression behaviour (Fig.8. Eight different values of b were assumed and they are 0.05 e*IC 2. For b = 0.1 Parameter b The influence of the destructuring index b is demonstrated by the simulations shown in Figs 5 and 6. The following values of parameters for the soil structure were employed in these calculations: p′y. The effective stress paths Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.176 ν* 0. For situations with b ≥ 100. The simulated shearing behaviour of a structured soil with different values of the destructuring index b is shown in Fig. 5). the virgin compression line for a structured soil and that for its corresponding reconstituted soil are parallel in the e – lnp′ space.25 5. 2. in this case no destructuring takes place during the virgin yielding and ∆e remains unchanged. 10 and 100. 6. and the initial value of the additional voids ratio was ∆ei = 0.20 λ* 0. The rate of reduction in the additional voids ratio maintained by soil structure increases with the magnitude of b. R814 21 . 5. 1.16 κ* 0. there is almost an immediate collapse of soil structure when the initial yield stress is surpassed. 0.

Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. where the soil has no resistance to further distortional deformation.e. The structure of the soil remains intact even when the soil is sheared to failure.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 simulated follow those in a conventional drained triaxial test by increasing the axial loading only. This particular situation is most likely a hypothetical limit state of the resistance of soil structure. The final state of the soil does not fall onto the critical state line (Fig.. the final states for all seven cases fall onto the same point on the critical state line (Fig 6a). This conclusion is confirmed by the deviatoric and volumetric strain relationship (Fig. Therefore parameter b has no influence on the final state of the soil under monotonic shearing if b > 0. and the final values of the deviatoric stress and the volumetric strain are the same (Figs 6b and 6c). R814 22 . i. For the simulated cases where the initial stress state and voids ratio and the loading path are the exactly the same. there is no destructuring for the situation with b = 0. It can be seen from the stress path in the e-lnp′ coordinates (Fig. the final state for a structured soil under monotonic shearing is independent of soil structure and is at the critical state of deformation. Whether the structure of real geotechnical materials under extreme situations may respond to shearing in a manner similar to that described by b = 0 is probably unlikely but needs further investigation. 6a) that the rate of destructuring increases with the value of b. the reduction in the voids with loading is much slower and the behaviour of the original structured soil is the same as that of the corresponding reconstituted soil. After the structure of the soil has been removed. Except for the unlikely situation with b = 0. As has been discussed previously. The following features of soil behaviour are simulated. however the deviatoric strain at which the soil reaches its final volumetric strain decreases with the increase of b. where there is a sharp drop in voids ratio when shearing commences. For the situation with b = 100 soil structure is destroyed almost immediately. 6b). The final volumetric strain for all the cases simulated is the same. At this state the structure of soil has been completely removed. 6a).

complicated and the change of shear stiffness with b is not monotonic. a structured soil may be able to resist a much higher shear stress than the Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.2 Parameter p′y.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 For small strains.i were assumed and they are 100. Because the final deviatoric stress for all six cases is the same (Fig. the shear stiffness is more 5. For relatively large deformation.e. 7. the final state for a structured soil under monotonic shearing with b > 0 is the critical state of deformation. and the initial voids ratio was ei = 1. The soil is structured for situations with p′y. R814 23 . the shear stiffness decreases with b. together with b = 1 and ω = 1. to say with εd > 1%. Thus. this set of computations simulates the development of structure for soil at constant voids ratio and the same stress state.i To illustrate the influence of the size of the initial yield surface defined by p′y. and tested under a given stress path. i.439.i. 334. i. the soil parameters listed in Table 1.i > 100 kPa. were adopted. As indicated in the previous paragraphs.e. the same critical state of deformation with the same stress state and voids ratio. The following features are simulated. 200. depending on the size of the initial yield surface. Hence. Six different values of p′y. with p′ =100 kPa and q = 0. the final state of a structured soil under monotonic shearing is independent of the size of the initial yield surface.000 kPa. a peak strength may or may not be mobilised. say εd < 1%. 150. for the particular situation with p′y. The initial stress state for all six cases is the same. Therefore. stress state and voids ratio. For this initial soil state and the given intrinsic soil properties. the initial yield surface for the corresponding reconstituted soil is p′o = 100 kPa. Consequently.. For soil of a given mineralogy in a given initial condition.. their final states are the same.i on the simulations is shown in Fig.i = 100 kPa the soil is in a reconstituted state and has no structure. 7a). The influence of parameter p′y. The effective stress paths simulated follow those in a conventional drained triaxial test in which the axial loading only is increased. 500 and 1.

i = 334 kPa. The response pattern usually labelled “dry behaviour” (Schofield and Wroth. i. Because of the special feature of this stress state. the soil parameters listed in Table 1 were adopted. R814 24 . 5.i = 100 kPa. It reaches a critical state of deformation after the additional voids ratio due to the initial structure is completely diminished. During the softening process the higher the peak strength. the quicker the reduction in the soil strength with the respect to the deviatoric strain.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 corresponding reconstituted soil at the same initial stress state and the same voids ratio. virgin yielding also starts (see the inset in Fig. the volumetric strain increases continuously with the deviatoric strain after this stress state is reached indicating that the soil has not yet reached the critical state of deformation. 7a). When the stress state reaches the point on the yield surface with the critical state stress ratio. 1968) may not be observed for a structured soil. The initial stress state is defined as p′ =100 kPa and q = 0. volumetric expansion. and the initial value of the additional voids Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. For the simulation with p′y. It is seen that for the case with p′y. the structured soil has no further resistance to shear deformation.e. Hence. starts only after a considerable amount of softening has occurred. although observed.3 Parameter ω To illustrate the influence of parameter ω. An interesting phenomenon is observed in the simulation with p′y.. However. The soil behaves entirely elastically before the stress state reaches the yield surface. volumetric expansion may not occur when the softening process starts.i = 500 kPa there is a continuous volumetric compression accompanying the softening process. if softening occurs the peak strength of a structured soil reduces to the critical state strength more rapidly than the corresponding reconstituted soil. together with b = 1 and p′y.i = 1000 kPa.

ω = 0. The shearing Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.e. the structure of the soil is completely removed. In the figure showing the deviatoric and volumetric strain relationship.75 and 1 respectively).. 0. 1995. 2000). is the critical state of deformation. 0. Based on the study of the three parameters describing soil structure.25. The higher is the value of ω the stiffer is the shear deformation. it can be concluded that the final state of a structured soil under monotonic shearing. The compression behaviour of three different clays is considered first. and the model was evaluated based on comparisons between the model performance and the corresponding experimental data.1 Background The proposed model was also used to simulate the behaviour of soils with structure.g. parameter ω has no influence on the volumetric strain. 6.5. Model Evaluation 6.313. Carter et al.8. predicted by the proposed model for situations with b > 0.625. 8. 0. At such a state. which describe only the influence of soil structure on soil deformation. Five different values of ω were assumed. The effective stress paths simulated follow those in a conventional drained triaxial test in which the axial loading only is increased. weathered Bangkok clay.25 (the corresponding values of ω∆ei are 0. As can be seen from the volumetric deformation. 1993.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 ratio is ∆ei = 0.. The existence of the critical state of deformation for geo-materials and the implication that the associated mechanical properties are independent of material structure have been widely observed features of soil behaviour (e. R814 25 . 0. the variation in this relationship is attributed entirely to the influence of ω on the deviatoric strain. Thus the final state of a structured soil is independent of soil structure and consequently is not influenced by the three new parameters. i. equation (23). 0. Been and Jefferies. and they are natural Leda clay. 1985. 0. Novello et al. The influence of parameter ω on the simulated behaviour is shown in Fig. and an artificially cemented clay. Ishihara.938 and 1.

which in some cases are linked by thin lines. The model simulations are represented by solid lines and those for reconstituted soils by broken lines..e. i. (b) use was of empirical equations. 1 − ω∆ei = 0. In presenting the results of the computations. this type of computation is defined as a “prediction”. If the model is used to describe the behaviour of a soil in a particular test or a set of tests and the same experimental data have been employed previously in the determination of the model parameters. and they are a natural calcarenite. natural Corinth marl and a natural clay shale. It is proposed that if no experimental data are available the value of parameter ω is determined by the following equation. which in some cases are linked by thin lines. R814 26 . equation (19). In all computations the stress units adopted are kPa. If the model is used to describe the behaviour of a soil in a particular test or a set of tests and all the model parameters have been determined independently of that test or that set of tests. (c) some parameters were determined by curve fitting.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 behaviour of three other structured soils was also considered. Data for reconstituted soils are represented by open circles. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. (34) It may be seen that this assumption implies a mid-range value. selection of the value of a parameter is usually based on experience in geotechnical engineering practice. experimental data for structured soils are represented in the figures by solid circles or squares. this type of computation is defined here as a “simulation”. For the last method. and (d) others were based on assumed values. based on the constraint conditions imposed on parameter ω.5 . The following methods were used in the determination of model parameters: (a) values were measured directly from a test and have a physical meaning. Two different types of computation were made using the proposed model: simulations and predictions.

A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 6. there is no need to determine or specify values for these parameters. The critical state strength of Leda clay was reported by Walker and Raymond (1969) as Μ* = 1. Although all the specimens tested by both Yong and Nagaraji (1977) and Walker and Raymond (1969) were Leda clay.1 Leda Clay The first group of test data includes five compression tests on natural soft Leda clay performed by Yong and Nagaraji (1977) and Walker and Raymond (1969). Table 2 Model parameters for Leda clay Parameter Value Μ* 1. 6. The initial state of the structured soil is σ′v = 20 kPa and e = 1.96.i (kPa) 168. R814 27 .2 Compression behaviour of three clays Three sets of compression tests on different soils are simulated and for these tests only the volumetric deformation has been computed.2. It was found from the experimental data (Fig. the different Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.353.2 λ* 0.. the compression behaviour of Leda clay is well simulated by the model.338.223 κ* 0. and their values are listed in Table 2. 9.6 Three tests performed by Walker and Raymond (1969) were used to evaluate the model’s predictions. i. As can be seen from equation (23).2. which gives e*IC = 2. Hence.i were obtained directly from the experimental data.03 e*IC 2. As shown in Fig. The values of parameters λ* and κ* and b and σ′vy. the volumetric deformation is not influenced by the values of parameters ν* and ω. The intrinsic soil property e*IC was estimated according to equation (33). they were obtained from different locations in the same area. The two oedometer tests on the natural and reconstituted Leda clay reported by Yong and Nagaraji (1977) were used to identified soil parameters. 9) that e*η for one-dimensional compression is equal to 2.e. It is assumed that these specimens differed only in the size of the initial yield surface.338 b 1 σ′vy.

The stress ratios for the five tests are 0.i may exist between the first two samples and the third sample. values of parameters λ* and e*η for onedimensional compression were obtained. the virgin isotropic compression line for the reconstituted Leda clay is also represented in the figure by a broken line. 11.i = 265 kPa. However.i. It is seen that the proposed model gives an approximate but reasonable description of the compression behaviour of natural Leda clay. Based on the estimated one-dimensional compression curve. but different from that for the test with η = 0. It may be noticed that the compression behaviour of the Bangkok clay is well simulated in this case.75. The three compression tests were with η = 0.2. The intrinsic soil property e*IC was estimated based on equation (33). The simulated behaviour of Bangkok clay is shown in Fig. This indicates that some difference in p′y. For comparison. R814 28 . 0. and it was found that p′y. The experimental data for the test with η = 0 were used to identify the size of the yield surface. The authors were unable to obtain information on the behaviour of reconstituted Bangkok clay.43.9.63 and 1 are essentially the same at the same mean effective stress in the elastic region. 10. The values of these soil parameters are listed in Table 3. the liquid limit value for the clay was 123%.2 Bangkok Clay The second group of test data includes the results of five compression tests on weathered Bangkok clay performed by Balasubramanian and Hwang (1980). The critical state strength for the clay was reported by Balasubramanian and Hwang (1980) as Μ* = 0. The predicted compression behaviour of the Leda clay is shown in Fig. 6.63 and 1 respectively. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. It may be observed that the initial voids ratios of the samples for the tests with η = 0. 0. The isotropic test on the weathered clay was used to identify soil parameters b and p′y.16. 0.6 and 0.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Leda clay samples possessed the same mineralogy and type of structure but may have had different magnitudes of structure. and so the onedimensional compression curve for the reconstituted soil type was estimated by the empirical method suggested by Burland (1990). 0.

which corresponds to a critical state friction angle of 30°. 0. it is seen that the proposed model gives a reasonably good approximation of the compression behaviour of weathered Bangkok clay. 12. some differences in the initial soil structure exist among the samples used for the five tests.1 e*IC 3. commercial bentonite. The test specimens were obtained from the field and some variation in the specimens would normally be expected.. Based on two oedometer tests on the reconstituted clay and the structured clay.75 is shown in Fig. 0. The size of the initial yield surface for the other three specimens is 45 kPa (the test with η = 0.75. 6. ordinary 425 Portland cement.i = 67.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Table 3 Model parameters for weathered Bangkok clay Parameter Value Μ* 0. It may be seen that the initial soil states for the five specimens may be divided into three groups. the test with η = 0.16. the test with η = 0.3 Artificially Cemented Clay The third group of test data includes the results of five compression tests on an artificially cemented clay performed by Burghignoli et al (1998).2 was assumed.. i.6 and 0. model parameters were identified and they are listed in Table 4. The soil was composed of a natural Avezzano clay.4 κ* 0. The authors were not able to obtain data for the critical state strength and a value of Μ* = 1. As may be seen in the inset in Fig.9 λ* 0.e.i (kPa) 35 The predicted compression behaviour of Bangkok clay with η = 0. 1998). It is assumed in the simulations that the differences in the initial states of the soil can be represented adequately by the differences in the sizes of the initial structural yield surfaces. and tests with η = 0.6 and 0. R814 29 .16 is on the yield surface.82 b 0.43 and 0. Overall. e*IC was estimated based on Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.e.43.43 is used to identify the value of this parameter).6 kPa. p′y. i. and distilled water.2. Homogeneous and fully saturated artificially cemented specimens were made (for details of the sample preparation see the report by Burghignoli et al.16. It may be seen from the compression curve that the initial stress state for the test with η = 0.55 σ′vy. 11.

. This sample was then loaded at constant η. R814 30 .5. Three of these tests were chosen for prediction.. identified from the isotropic test. The value of p′y.i for this set of tests is much smaller than that obtained from the oedometer test.5 to state B with p′ = 300 kPa. i. The cyclic compression behaviour of the artificially cemented clay in the oedometer test is well simulated. The behaviour of the clay with structure and in a reconstituted state under cyclic oedometer tests was simulated and the results are shown in Fig. but it should be noted that the samples in Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Table 4 Model parameters for an artificially cemented clay Parameter Value Μ* 1. 14. The three identical samples were loaded isotropically from stress state A (Fig. 14) with p′ = 25 kPa and ei = 3. They were unloaded isotropically to state C with p′ = 140 kPa. Subsequently.7 σ′vy. The third sample was sheared with constant mean effective stress to a state E with p′ = 140 kPa and q = 140 kPa.383 b 0.20 λ* 0. The stress paths for the three tests are shown schematically in the inset to Fig. is p′y. isotropic samples were created. η = 0.i (kPa) 430 Burghignoli et al also performed three sets of compression tests in order to investigate the anisotropic properties of the structured clay generated by anisotropic compression.i = 212 kPa.e.505 κ* 0. i. The size of the initial yield surface. This sample was then loaded at constant η. η = 1. it would not be meaningful to examine the performance of the model in describing the anisotropic behaviour of soil. 13. the first sample was loaded again isotropically.02 e*IC 5.e. In one set of these tests. Because at this stage of development the proposed model only takes account of the isotropic properties of a soil with and without structure. The second sample was sheared with constant mean effective stress to a state D with p′ = 140 kPa and q = 75 kPa.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 the proposed equation (33).

i = 340 kPa for the clay for reloading after point C. It is a coarse-grained material with a high degree of uniformity and calcareous interparticle cement. In the selection of experimental data for model evaluation. An isotropic compression test on the soil was used to identify Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Overall. It was observed that the yield surface for the structured clay after the initial virgin loading to the isotropic stress state B with p′ = 300 kPa. descriptions of how the model was employed to simulate and predict the compression behaviour of structured soils have been presented. but the quantitative description is only approximate. It is seen that the proposed model gives an approximate but reasonable description of the compression behaviour of the artificially structured clay. perhaps due to the ageing effect of the cement. plus subsequent isotropic unloading and reloading along stress path BCB. only tests performed on structured soil with isotropic mechanical properties were selected because the current version of the model does not allow for anisotropic behaviour of the soil. it may be concluded that the proposed model provides a good qualitative description of the soil behaviour. The simulation of the isotropic test and the predictions for the two tests with constant shear stress ratio are shown in Fig. is 340 kPa. this development of soil structure was considered by choosing p′y. The natural calcarenite was formed by marine deposition.3 Behaviour of a natural calcarenite Results of the experimental work carried out by Lagioia and Nova (1995) on a natural calcarenite have been compared with the model predictions and simulations. In this section. 6. 14. This phenomenon has been confirmed by Burghignoli et al (1998) as a material property for this artificially structured clay and it is highly likely that it is associated with the development of soil structure during the duration of the test.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 these two sets of tests were different. R814 31 . In the prediction. a value larger than the maximum yield stress the soil has ever experienced.

The isotropic compression behaviour of the calcarenite and its simulation are shown in Fig. p′ = 25. the soil was loaded or unloaded isotropically from the initial isotropic state with p′ = 147 kPa and e = 1.500 kPa is actually completely destroyed since the soil has a very high destructuring index. The test results and the predictions are shown in Figs 16 to 24.45 λ* 0. i. 900. it is seen that the proposed model Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. 200. The confining pressure σ′3 was then kept constant and the axial loading was increased until failure of the sample was observed.0165 e*IC 2. The initial state for the structured soil is defined by p′ = 147 kPa and e = 1. According to the proposed model. the initial value of the additional voids ratio sustained by the soil structure is found as ∆ei = 0. Firstly. 400.e. 15. the structure of the soil at σ′3 = 3. 2.33 p′y. i. There are eight tests in total and the stress paths for the predictions are as follows.500 kPa. The critical state strength for the natural clacarenite was reported by Lagioia and Nova (1995) as Μ* = 1.i were obtained directly from the experimental data. The value of parameter ω was estimated using equation (34).208 κ* 0.. For the test with σ′3 = 3. Considering the wide range of initial stresses. The value of Poisson’s ratio was assumed.57 ν* 0. the behaviour of the natural calcarenite under conventional drained triaxial tests was predicted.148 to the chosen state.148.100.e. Thus.15. b = 30.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 soil parameters and their values are listed in Table 5.. Table 5 Model parameters for a natural calcarenite Parameter Value Μ* 1.000 and 3. 1.i (kPa) 2400 The values of parameters e*IC and λ* and κ* and b and p′y. 600. Destructuring of this sample was confirmed by Lagioia and Nova (1995). By using the values of the model parameters listed in Table 5. the soil in this test behaves as a reconstituted material throughout this test. the initial stress state is much larger than the size of the initial structural yield surface.500 kPa. Thus.25 b 30 ω 3.45. R814 32 .

is not linear in the e-lnp′ coordinates. although elastic.. such as those given by equations (15).A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 gives a successful prediction of the behaviour of this natural and highly structured calcarenite.e. (23) and (24). In these simulations. rather than a constant. i. the value for ν* suggested by Lagioia and Nova (1995) was adopted. The values of the model parameters used for the simulations (as opposed to “predictions”) are listed in Table 6. E* = 76. where a part of the test data was employed to determine the model parameters. were derived based on the assumption that both the virgin yielding behaviour and the elastic behaviour of a soil under isotropic loading are linear in the e .923 kPa. Comparison with values listed in Table 5 reveals that the values for the following parameters are different: e*IC. Therefore. the following relationship between E* and κ* is obtained κ* = 3(1 + e )(1 − 2ν *) p′ . It was observed by Lagioia and Nova (1995) that the pre-yielding behaviour of the calcarenite. R814 33 . the basic equations of the proposed model. Hence. E* (35) Because the mean effective stress p′ generally varies during a test and E* is now considered as a material constant. In Table 6. ν*. and so Lagioia and Nova suggested a constant Young’s modulus. κ* is actually a variable. Based on the definition of the Young’s modulus and that for parameter κ*. instead of a value for κ*. different values of the “constant” parameter κ∗ were determined for each Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. In the previous predictions the values for parameters ν* and ω were assumed.i. Simulations of the behaviour of the calcarenite have also been made. a constant parameter κ* over the full range of stress explored is inappropriate for this material. κ* (or K*).lnp′ coordinates. while the value for ω was obtaining by curve fitting. ω and p′y. However. in order to employ the equations of the Structured Cam Clay model for these simulations. a value of Young’s modulus E* is given.

57 .0. 1984). The initial yield surface for the calcarenite adopted in the predictions is an ellipse with the aspect ratio being Μ* and the size defined by p′y. and is consistent with the method of stress path analysis (Lambe. A method for such formulation can be found from a paper by Liu and Carter (2001). 1964. The idea for this approximation is widely used in geotechnical engineering.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 individual test. In order to determine the “constant” value of κ* for a particular test. R814 34 . Hence. The reformulation is not introduced in this paper. It is obvious that the constitutive equations of the proposed model can be reformulated so that the linear elastic behaviour of soil in the e – p′ space can be modelled accurately. The difference between the two lines in the vertical direction can be measured from the figure and it is found that ∆e = 0.400 kPa. The value of the initial mean effective stress is an obvious and also the simplest choice. but this selection would cause difficulty in many applications because the stress paths of soil elements are usually not known a priori. but rather falls onto a line below and parallel to the predicted critical state line. the average value of p′ for the stress path from the initial stress state to the state at the yield surface was used to compute κ* for each individual test. an average value of the mean effective stress may be more appropriate.383 for the simulations. It is seen that the measured final state of the soil during monotonic shearing does not fall onto the critical state line predicted by the model. The above approximate method is suggested instead. A revised value of parameter e*IC was determined based on a comparison between the predictions and the experimental data in the e-lnp′ coordinates (Fig. the stress paths of the tests are known. the value for e*IC was modified as e*IC = 2. a particular value of p′ must be selected for substitution into equation (35).187 = 2. according to equation (35). In the simulations considered here.187.i = 2. It is necessary to make such an approximation in order to retain use of this relatively simple constitutive model. 25). Therefore. However. Wood. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.

923 e*IC 2. The simulations are represented by broken lines.12. Comparisons between the theoretical simulations and the experimental data are also shown in Figs 16 to 24.13 B 30 ω 3 p′y. 1995).500 kPa and the structure of the soil varies from intact to completely destructured. Table 6 Revised values of model parameters for a natural calcarenite Parameter Value Μ* 1. The range of the variation of the mean effective stress simulated for this series of tests is from 25 kPa to 3.400 kPa.12. different from that of the critical state strength. with an aspect ratio being 1. 26. The actual initial yield points for the soil measured by Lagioia and Nova (1995) are shown in Fig. It can be seen that the behaviour of the natural calcarenite has been simulated satisfactorily with one set of revised model parameters (given that κ* varies from test to test while E* is held constant). In the simulations the latter value of the aspect ratio was adopted only for determination of the initial yield points. After this reduction of the soil strength the deviatoric stress and strain relationship is basically flat.208 E* (kPa) 76. It is observed in the experiments that after softening starts the strength of the calcarenite immediately drops to a very low value. see Figs 16.45 λ* 0. the immediate drop of soil strength is attributed to the fact that the structure of the calcarenite is not stable. It is found that the initial yield points constitute approximately an ellipse. 17 and 18).i (kPa) 2. According to Lagioia and Nova’s explanation (Lagioia and Nova. near the final critical state strength. A qualitative difference is observed between the experimental data and the predictions during the softening and destructuring of the calcarenite (e..g.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 as identified from the isotropic compression test. R814 35 . Lagioia and Nova (1995) explained that even during an isotropic compression test the structure of this soil is removed immediately and completely when the Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. the aspect ratio of the yield surface = 1.383 ν* 0.

for the shearing tests shown in Figs. Consequently. They observed that during destructuring the mean effective stress was actually reduced by a small amount in the strain-controlled test.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 soil is loaded to a virgin yield stress state. That is to say. Because of the highly sensitive nature of the soil structure. The proposed model is suitable to describe the destructuring of soil resulting from a variation of stress. However. 16 and 17 and 18. but not the instability of soil structure. It may also be observed that there is no great amount of volumetric deformation during the whole softening process.e. and found almost all Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. some softening continues and the reduction of soil strength from the peak strength to the critical state strength is achieved mainly during this period of deformation. catastrophic collapse of structure the moment the soil reaches a virgin yield stress state. or shrinkage of the yield surface. The authors have studied the destructuring of over fifty different naturally and artificially structured soils from over a dozen of countries. destructuring occurs as the material softens. In the predictions.. the deformation of the soil at the beginning of the softening is dominated by destructuring and the destructuring is completed within a small decrease of stress. the data indicate that the capacity of the structured soil to sustain additional voids ratio is not diminished in step with the shear strength of the soil. this particular structure of the calcarenite cannot sustain the initial yield stress without destructuring when the soil is loaded to that stress state. Why the capacity to sustain additional voids ratio associated with soil structure does not diminish in step with the reduction in soil strength appears to need further investigation. The model predicts consistently that the additional voids ratio sustained by soil structure is reduced to zero in accordance with the destructuring. R814 36 . A conclusion may be drawn about the qualitative difference between the experimental data and the predictions of destructuring during softening. After the structure of the soil is removed. i. it is predicted that there is basically a flat deviatoric stress and strain curve after the occurrence of softening.

the final strength of the soil reached under monotonic shearing. R814 37 .e. ∆ei. λ*. The initial value of the additional voids ratio. i. κ*.. some discrepancy in the stress and strain behaviour is expected due to material variance. The measured and simulated behaviour of the soil in isotropic compression is shown in Fig. From these observations it is deduced that the mechanism of destructuring proposed in the model is valid for most soils found in situ. 2000. the soil parameters e*IC. The value of Μ* is the only parameter determined from the data from the shearing tests.4 Behaviour of Corinth marl Results of the experimental work performed by Anagnostopoulos et al (1991) on a natural Corinth marl have been compared with the model simulations.e. Liu et al. b and p′y. i. and their values are listed in Table 7. The value of Poisson’s ratio was assumed as 0. and a set of five shearing tests on the intact and partially destructured soil. For most natural soils.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 the soil structures are relatively stable and are capable of sustaining the initial yield stress under isotropic and one-dimensional compression (Liu and Carter 1999. and some small discrepancies on the isotropic compression line are observed between the two test samples. 27. The isotropic test which gave the better simulation of the shearing behaviour of the Corinth marl was selected for identifying the model parameters.102. was found to be 0.i have been identified. The critical state strength Μ* was determined based on the second set of tests. 2000). not artificially manufactured samples.e.. 6. The value of parameter ω was estimated based on equation (34). The behaviour of the intact and partially destructured soil during conventional drained triaxial compression Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Two sets of tests were reported: a set of three isotropic compression tests on both natural and reconstituted Corinth marl.25.. which were assumed to be identical. From the first set of tests. i. Two isotropic compression tests on reconstituted Corinth marl are reported.

p′ = 903 kPa and e = 0. the initial stress state of the soil was within the initial structural yield surface. Table 7 Model parameters for natural Corinth marl Parameter Μ* λ* κ* 0.9 3. R814 38 . 6. the initial stress state of the soil exceeds the initial structural yield surface and the soil sample has experienced partial destructuring. p′ = 1. They are: p′ = 98 kPa and e = 0.6 kPa and e = 0.800 kPa For all five compression tests. The water content for the natural shale was between 11. the confining pressures were kept constant at 98.559. For the fifth test. specimens were obtained by core sampling.5 Behaviour of La Biche clayshale Results of the experimental work performed by Wong (1980) on a natural clayshale have been compared with the model simulations. 1.800 kPa. p′ = 294 kPa and e = 0.i (kPa) Value 1.04 0.008 e*IC ν* b ω p′y. 27. For the first four tests. with p′ = 34. as shown in Fig.38 0.555 and p′ = 4.543. defined by p′y.1%.25 0.000 kPa respectively. The initial state of the soil was obtained from the isotropic test reported by Anagnostopoulos et al (1991). The initial states of the specimens for the four tests were calculated based on the proposed model.4% with an average water content of 12.5% and 12.4 4. 903. The clayshale The soil is a highly over- consolidated.568. and therefore the soil samples for these tests are assumed to be intact. The values of model Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Three conventional drained triaxial tests on the natural clayshale were simulated in order to demonstrate the capability of the proposed model. It is seen that the proposed model gives a reasonable representation of the behaviour of the highly structured.775 0. Both the simulations and the experimental data are shown in Fig. compacted shale.577.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 tests was simulated. stiff Corinth marl. and the axial loading was increased until the specimens failed. 28.500 and 4.500 kPa and e = 0.i = 3.000 kPa and e = 0. 294.585. based on the values of model parameters listed in Table 7.

e = 0. A comparison between the simulations and the experimental data is shown in Fig. The initial water content for the clayshale at p′ = 50 kPa was assumed to be 12. The initial states for the soil in the other two tests were calculated to be p′ = 250 kPa. The values of λ*.25 b 0. e = 0. that the shear behaviour of the clayshale before the peak strength is reached is essentially independent of the initial confining pressure.i and E* were obtained from the experimental data. the confining pressures were kept constant at 50. R814 39 .45 λ* 0. 29(a).i (kPa) 3. It can be observed from Fig. the average water content of the soil at natural state.076. 250 and 500 kPa respectively. the Young modulus for the soil was found as E* = 73.668 ν* 0. Table 8 Model parameters for a natural clayshale Parameter Value Μ* 1.327. The following values were used here: κ* = 0.800 kPa The values of parameters Μ* and p′y.317.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 parameters employed for the simulation are listed in Table 8. b and ω were determined by best fitting. the behaviour of the soil before the peak strength can be interpreted as elastic and the elastic shear modulus is constant.06 E* (kPa) 73. For all the tests. and so the initial sate is given by p′ = 50 kPa and e = 0. and κ* = 0.02 for the test with σ′3 = 500 kPa. Consequently.000 kPa. e*IC. and p′ = 500 kPa. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No.322. Thus the initial voids ratio sustained by the soil structure can be calculated as ∆ei = 0. As explained previously. Based on the elastic shear modulus of the clayshale and the value of ν*. 29.005 for the test with σ′3 = 50 kPa.000 e*IC 0.012 for the test with σ′3 = 250 kPa.25.2 4 ω p′y. κ* = 0. The value of Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0. adopting a constant value of E* overall implies a value of κ* that varies between tests.1%.

1999. 1993. parameters introduced in the Modified Cam Clay model. Bishop et al. Overall. was proposed. p′y. three new parameters have been introduced. It has been demonstrated that the proposed model describes successfully many important features of the behaviour of structured soils and has improved significantly the performance of the Modified Cam Clay model by quantifying the important influence of soil structure.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 It is seen from Fig. initial voids ratio and soil structure. a parameter describing the effect of soil structure on the plastic flow rule. 29 that the proposed model has the capability of modelling the behaviour of this structured clayshale.i. Lo. the proposed model has been used to predict both the compression and shearing behaviour of six structured soils. the fact that the new model is able to predict simultaneous material softening and Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. 2000). Georgiannou et al.800 kPa. 7. the size of the initial structural yield surface. 1965. The third parameter can be determined from the volumetric strain and deviatoric strain curve obtained from a shearing test. both naturally and artificially formed. the volumetric deformation remains compressive even though the shear strength of the soil softens from a peak of 2. referred to as the Besides the original five Structured Cam Clay model. Carter et al. The computations cover a wide range of stress. In particular. Robinet et al. R814 40 .600 kPa to 1. This type of behaviour has been widely observed in structured clays and clayshales (e. Conclusion The Modified Cam Clay model has been generalised so that the isotropic variation of the mechanical properties resulting from the presence of soil structure can be described. Values of the first two parameters can be determined from an isotropic compression test or an oedometer test. and ω. 1972.. A new hierarchal model. They are: b. the destructuring index.g. For the clayshale in the test with σ′3 = 500 kPa.

were not studied in this paper. (1985). Evangelista and Picarelli (eds). 9. “Geological and geotechnical features of the Calcarenite di Marsala”. Aversa S. and therefore only the behaviour of soil under fully drained conditions has been considered. In addition. Arces M..99-112. (1998). M. (1980). Kalteziotis N. pp. but will be the topics of future research. Balasubramaniam A. “Yielding of weathered Bankok clay”. “Geotechnical properties of the Corinth Canal marls”. Géotechnique. and Kavvadas M. 20(2). 35(1). Anisotropic features of soil behaviour. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. obviously the new model is suitable only for those soils for which the behaviour of the reconstituted materials can be described adequately by Modified Cam Clay.1-26. Tsiambaos G. Soils and Foundations. “A state parameter for sands”. (1991). The authors also plan a future investigation of the performance of the model for undrained conditions and a systematic study on the identification of model parameters from tests commonly carried out by engineers in geotechnical practice. References Anagnostopoulos A. and Cicero G. Vol. a Large Grant from the Australian Research Council in partial support of this work is also gratefully acknowledged.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 compressive volumetric strain is considered to be a distinct advantage of the new model over Modified Cam Clay. L. pp. Been K. K. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. Nocilla N. G. and Jefferies M. Vol.. either due to the reconstituted parent soil or due to the presence of soil structure. S. Acknowledgements Some of the work described here forms part of the research program of the Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems. 9(1). and Hwang Z..1-15.Soft Rocks. pp. Because the Modified Cam Clay model is the basis of the new model. This paper has concentrated on introducing the new model and its basic features.. established and supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research Centres Program.. G. pp. 8. R814 41 .15-25. The Geotechnics of Hard Soils . Vol.

and Gunn M. 1. 2nd Int. Burland J. (1987). 40(3). Géotechnique. Burland J.329-378. Airey D.501-507.1-13.491-514. Géotechnique. J. “Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and weak rocks”. and Carter J.523-544. Vol. Burland J. Géotechnique. Jacky J.. 1. Geotechnical Engineering. Géotechnique. (2000). “Critical state models in computational geomechanics”. “An experimental and theoretical study of the behaviour of a calcarenite in triaxial compression”. and Vaughan P. 1. The Geotechnics of Hard Soils . and Li C. Géotechnique. and Fahey M. Vol. “The effect of bond degradation in cemented clayey soils”. and Lewin P. N.401-431. and Amorosi A. and Xu K. 24. Liu M. 50(4).347-354. Vol. “Modelling the destructuring of soils during virgin compression”. Proc. Britto A. pp. pp. (1990). Vol.263-273. B. and Coop M. Géotechnique. Arizona. Gens A. 2. 111(7). Lagioia R. Department of Civil Engineering 42 Research Report No. Graham J. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks. Int. Géotechnique. I. (1999). Lambe T. Géotechnique. Georgiannou V. pp.633-648. Tucson. and Potts D.. ASCE.178-197.513521. Vol. “A review of laboratory testing of calcareous soils’. pp. “On the mechanics of structured sands”. 43(3).43-67. M. Rampello S. P. (1993). ASCE. and Calabresi G. pp. Hight D. Vol. W. “A constitutive model for structured soils”. Vol. Leroueil S. pp. pp. 45(4). 47(3). 49(6). Vol. P. (1985).. 46(3). Carter J. Georgiannou V. (1995). Vol. pp. “Undisturbed samples of London clay from the Ashford Common shaft: strength-effective stress relationship”. (1993). Burghignoli A. “A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays”. of the Society of Hungarian Engineers and Architects. “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest”. M. S. pp. Vol. J. pp.. (1997). “Virgin compression of structured soils”. Liu M. Desai C. (1964). and Carter J. Carter J. C. Engineering Computation. pp. “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes”. (1996). pp. 5. D. Contractor & Kemeny. Budapest. Vol. pp. 1. P. Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics.741-760. Vol. P. 49(1). B. D. Cuccovillo T. Liu M. (1990). pp. edts Desai. Vol. “The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks”. D. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd. R.. Vol. Engineering for Calcareous Sediments. W. (1987). “The behaviour of two hard clays in direct shear”. R. Vol.355-358. N... R814 . pp. 50(3). “On the compressibility and shear strength of natural soils”. “An anisotropic critical state clay plasticity model”. Evangelista and Picarelli (eds). Kundu. and Carter J. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils – Soft Rocks. Vol.. B. “Comparison of natural and remoulded plastic clay”. (1993).. Géotechnique. “Method of estimating settlement”. Anagnostopoulos et al (ed). Vol.Soft Rocks. pp. Dafalias Y.. Géotechnique. W. pp. Kavvadas M. L. J. pp. (1999). Vol. and Nova R. “A conceptual framework for modelling the mechanical behaviour of structured soils”. Vol. (2000). pp. W.351-415. “The influence of structure on the pre-failure behaviour of a natural clay”.A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Bishop A. Critical State Soil Mechanics via Finite Elements. (1988). (1965). and Nova R. Geotechnical Engineering.865-881. Harpalani. F. P. pp. J. 90.723-735. On Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials.467-488. pp. J. pp. Gens A.43-57. M. (1998). “Analysis of the compression of structured soils using the disturbed state concept”.479-483. (1944). Cotecchia F. Al-Shafei (ed). Liu M. J. Milizaano S. Anagnostopoulos et al (ed). Vol. (2001). Géotechnique. (2000). Conf. and Chandler R. Ishihara K. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. D. and Soccodato F. 40(3).. J.. 15(1).485-494. (2000). Webb D.465-472.

K. “Geotechnical materials and the critical state”. Walker L. P. London. J. (1969). J. Rao G. Vol. Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rouainia M. “Choice of models for geotechnical predictions”. pp. (1968). Canadian Geotechnical. P. (1993). MacGraw-Hill.206-221. “Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model for overconsolidated clays”. Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics.431-434. “CASM: a unified state parameter model for clay and sand”. 9(4). J. “A rotational hardening elasto-plastic model for clays”. K. (1977). J. D. pp. B. “The prediction of consolidation rates in a cemented clay”. University of Sydney. pp. Vol. M. and Nagaraj T. Géotechnique. W. Wheeler S. Lo K.Novello E.153-164. Cambridge University Press. Olson R. Proc. Int. (1999). Novello E. Heyman and Leckie (ed). Géotechnique. 50(2). Vol. 43(2).289-314. Potts D. pp... Vol. “A structured Cam Clay Model”. “Investigation of fabric and compressibility of a sensitive clay”.. (1985).621-653. Yu H. (1998). Géotechnique. Muir-Wood D. and Johnston I. Roscoe K.. Vol. Int. “Geotechnical materials and the critical state”. C. Critical State Soil Mechanics. S. Schofield A.. K. and Burland J. 22(8). “Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays”. 45(2). (1990). 35. M. (1984).. “A general modelling of expansive and non-expansive clays”. Géotechnique. and Carter J. 120(1). Mechanics of Engineering Materials. Int. R. 6(4). E. Vol. M. “The shear strength properties of calcium illite”. (1994). J. Whittle A. S. Wood D. Proc. (2002). Nambiar M. Asian Institute of Technology. “An approach to the problem of progressive failure”. Vol.23-43.145-171. 14th Int.. “The nature and engineering behaviour of fine-grained carbonate soil from off the west coast of India”.. N. 12(1). pp. “Swelling and softening behaviour of La Biche shale”. Thomas Telford. ASCE. Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. (1995). N. Canadian Geotechnical J. Pakzad M. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol.407-429. 1. (1980). Research Report. (1962). Jullien A. pp.223-235. and Plas F. pp. Robinet J.327-333. “A kinematic hardening model for natural clays with loss of structure”. and Zdravkovic L. Whittle A. Vol. Wong R. H. and Gulhati S. pp. P.535-609. 45(2). Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering: Theory. Engineering Plasticity. pp. (1968).1319-1335. (1972). Marine Geotechnology. 6(2). “On the generalised stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet clay’ ”. pp. and Raymond G. R814 43 . C. Vol. Symposium on Soft Clay.223-235. Vol. and Kavvadas M. (1997).633-654. and Wroth C. J. Géotechnique. pp. Vol. Numerical and Analytical Method in Geomechanics. V. Y. 199-224. pp. London. pp. Desai & Gallagher (ed).193-216. Numerical Analytical Method in Geomechanics. (1999).A Structured Cam Clay Model March 2002 Liu M. W.Yong R. Canadian Geotechnical J. pp. J. pp. and Muir Wood D. and Johnston I. (1995). pp. Vol. 23. (2000).

∆e i Structured soil: e = e * + ∆e ∆e e* Reconstituted soil: e * Voids ratio e e p' y.i p' Mean effective stress lnp' Fig. 1 Idealization of the isotropic compression behaviour of reconstituted and structured soils q M* p' s p' Fig. 2 The yield surface for structured soils .

e e *IC e *η Isotropic compression line Compression line with constant η p' = 1 kPa p' Fig. 3 Compression behaviour of reconstituted clay based on Critical State Soil Mechanics .

6 b =0.2.1 b =5 b =2 b =1 b=0. 4 Influence of parameter b on isotropic compression behaviour .5 10 100 1000 10000 Voids ratio e b =0 0.1 b =100 b =10 1.6 Mean effective stress p' Fig.25 ICL* 1.

3 CSL 1 100 1000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig.q 2.25 b =0.i Stress path of the tests 1. 5 Influence of destructuring index b on the shearing behaviour of soil in the e-p' space .5 b =1 b =2 b =5 b =10 b =100 CSL 3 Voids ratio e 1.2 b =0 b =0.6 1.9 p' p' y.

200 b =0 b =100 0.5 b =1 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 0.25 b =2 b =0.5 b =0.5 0 0.25 0.2 b =0 0 0 0 Deviatoric strain εd 0.25 b =0.25 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) b =2 b =0.5 b =1 b =2 b =5 b =10 100 Volumetric strain εv 0.25 Deviatoric strain εd 0.5 0.02 100 50 b =5 0 0 0.75 (a) Stress and strain relationship 150 200 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 100 b =0 b =0.01 b =10 b =100 Deviatoric strain εd 0 0 Deviatoric strain εd 1 2 3 (b) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship at different scales Fig.4 b =100 b =10 b =5 b =1 b =0. 6 Influence of destructuring index b on the shearing behaviour of soil .

i =150 kPa p' y.i =334 kPa Stress path of the tests 150 p' y.i =500 kPa p' y.i =1000 kPa CSL Deviatoric stress q (kPa) p' y.i =200 kPa p' y.i = 1000 kPa 500 kPa 334 kPa 450 200 kPa 150 kPa p' 300 p' y.i =1000 kPa Volumetric strain εv 0.25 0.25 0.i =334 kPa 0 0 0. 7 Influence of the size of the initial yield surface on simulated soil behaviour .600 q p' y.i =100 kPa 0 0 p' y.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Deviatoric and volumetric strains Fig.i =150 kPa p' y.5 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain 0.05 0.075 p' y.i =200 kPa Deviatoric strain εd 0.025 p' y.i =500 kPa p' y.i =100 kPa p' y.

6 0.4 0.5 ω∆ ω∆e i =0.8 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain 0.6 0.4 Volumetric strain εv 0.200 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 150 ω∆e i =0 ω∆ ω∆e i =0.2 0.2 Deviatoric strain εd 0.25 ω∆ ω∆e i =0.75 ω∆ ω∆e i =1 ω∆ 0.25 ω∆ ω∆e i =0.3 ω∆e i =0 ω∆ ω∆e i =0. 8 The Influence of parameter ω on soil behaviour simulated .1 0 0 0.5 ω∆ ω∆e i =0.75 ω∆ ω∆e i =1 ω∆ 100 50 0 0 0.4 0.8 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Deviatoric and volumetric strains Fig.2 0.

6 η=0.63 η=1 Prediction 7 9 10 1.1. 1977) 2 η=0 Voids ratio e 1.9 Voids ratio e 1.63 η=1 4 Experiment η=0 η=0.2 ICL* (estimated) 0. 10 Compression behaviour of Leda clay with different values of η (Test data after Walker and Raymond.7 10 100 1000 10000 Vertical effective stress σ' v (kPa) Fig.1 0. 9 Behaviour of Leda clay in an oedometer test (Test data after Yong ang Nagaraji.8 100 1000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig.5 1. 1969) .

0.6 0.4 η=0.75 η=0.75 η=0. 1980) .43. 11 Isotropic compression behaviour of weathered Bankok clay (Test data after Balasubramanian and Hwang.16 η=0.5 ICL* (estimated) Comparison of soil initial states 2 1.16 e Voids ratio e 3 lnp' 2.9 1.43 η=0.9 3.16 η=0.3.43 Voids ratio e 2.4 10 100 1000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig.9 2. 1980) 3.6 η=0.4 η=0.75 1.5 η=0 η=0.6 η=0.5 10 100 1000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig. 12 Compression behaviour of weathered Bankok clay (Test data after Balasubramanian and Hwang.

4

3

Voids ratio e

2

1

0 10 100 1000 10000

Vertical effective stress σ' v (kPa) Fig. 13 Oedometer tests on an artificially cemented clay (Test data after Burghignoli et al , 1998)

3.6

Voids ratio e

3.1

ICL* (estimated)

2.6

q

η=1 E

η=0.5 η=0 C

η=0 η=0.5 p' η=1

2.1

D A B

1.6 10

Stress paths

100 1000

Mean effective stress p' (kPa)

Fig. 14 Compression behaviour of an artificially cemented clay (Test data after Burghignoli et al , 1998)

1.15

Structured soil

Voids ratio e

0.95

Reconstituted soil

Exp. data Simulation

0.75 100

1000

10000

Mean effective stress p' Fig. 15 Isotropic compression test on a calcarenite (Test data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

1600 Exp. data

Deviatoric stress q (kPa)

1200

Prediction Simulation

800

400

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Deviatoric strain εd

(a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship

Exp. data

0.1

Prediction Simulation

Volumetric strain εv

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

-0.1

-0.2

Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig. 16 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 25 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova, 1995)

2000 Exp.4 0. data Prediction Simulation Volumetric strain εv 0.1 0.1 0.5 -0. data Prediction Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 1500 Simulation 1000 500 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.05 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig. 17 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 200 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.3 0.1 Deviatoric strain εd 0.15 Exp.2 0.05 0 0 0. 1995) .2 0.5 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.

5 0. data 400 Prediction Simulation 0 0 0.25 Deviatoric strain εd 0.75 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.1 Exp. data Prediction Simulation 0.Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 1600 1200 800 Exp.75 1 (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig. 18 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 400 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.15 Volumetric strain εv 0. 1995) .05 0 0 0.25 Deviatoric strain εd 0.5 0.

3 0.4 0.2 Exp.3 0.2 0.4 0. 1995) . data Volumetric strain εv 0.05 0 0 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0. 19 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 600 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.15 Prediction Simulation 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 1500 1000 500 Exp.1 0. data Prediction Simulation 0 0 0.

1 Deviatoric strain εd 0.4 0.2 0.15 0.5 (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.2 0.1 Exp.2 Volumetric strain εv 0. 20 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 900 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.1 Deviatroic strain εd 0.4 0.3 0. 1995) .3 0.05 Simulation 0 0 0.5 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0. data Prediction 0.3000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 2400 1800 1200 Exp. data Prediction Simulation 600 0 0 0.

5 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0. data Prediction Simulation 0. 21 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 1100 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.3 0.1 0. data Prediction Simulation 0 0 0.05 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.3200 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 2400 1600 800 Exp.15 Exp.2 0.4 0.25 Volumetric strain εv 0.3 0.2 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.1 0. 1995) .

4 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.1 0.4 0.4000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 3000 2000 Exp.1 Exp.5 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.3 0.05 Prediction Simulation 0 0 0. 1995) .15 0. data Prediction Simulation 1000 0 0 0.25 Volumetric strain εv 0. 22 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 1300 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova. data 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.

2 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.data 1500 Prediction Simulation 0 0 0.4 0.12 Exp.2 Deviatoric strain εd 0.3 0. 1995) .3 0.24 Volumetric strain εv 0.6000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 4500 3000 Exp.1 0.06 0 0 0. data Prediction Simulation 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0. 23 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 2000 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.18 0.

2 Volumetric strain εv 0.12000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 9000 6000 Exp.1 0.1 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.4 0.1 0.2 0. 24 Shearing behaviour of a calcarenite at σ' 3= 3500 kPa (Test data after Lagioia and Nova. data Prediction Simulation 3000 0 0 0.4 0.05 Exp.3 0. 1995) .3 0. data Prediction Simulation 0 0 0.15 0.2 0.5 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.

8 ICL 0.6 200 kPa 1100 kPa 2000 kPa 3500 kPa 0.1. 26 The initial yield points for a natural calcarenite (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.12 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig.2 Prediction σ' 3=2000kPa 1 Voids ratio e Prediction σ' 3=200 kPa σ' 3=11000kPa σ' 3=3500kPa 0. 1995) 2000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) Aspect ratio =1.45 1500 1000 Aspect ratio = 1. 25 Stress paths in the e -lnp' space for tests on a natural calcarenite (Test data after Lagioia and Nova.4 100 CSL assumed CSL predicted ICL* 1000 10000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig. 1995) .

5 Data (structured) Data (reconstituted) Data (reconstituted) Simulation elastic behaviour 0.6 Natural Corinth marl Voids ratio e 0. 27 Isotropic compression behaviour of Corinth marl (Test data after Anagnostopoulos et al .45 10 100 1000 10000 Mean effective stress p' (kPa) Fig.0.55 Reconstituted Corinth marl 0. 1991) .

28 Behaviour of natural Corinth marl (Test data after Anagnostopoulos et al .2 σ' 3=903 kPa σ' 3=98 kPa 0 0.10000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) σ' 3=4000 kPa 7500 5000 σ' 3=1500 kPa 2500 σ' 3=294 kPa 0.15 σ' 3=98 kPa 0.2 -0.085 σ' 3=4000 kPa σ' 3=1500 kPa σ' 3=903 kPa σ' 3=294 kPa Volumetric strain εv 0. 1991) .05 0.05 0.035 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.1 0.005 0 0.045 0.15 0.1 0 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.

05 σ' 3=500 kPa Volumetric strain εv 0 0 0.1 0.05 0. 29 Shearing behaviour of a clayshale (Test data after Wong.1 Deviatoric strain εd (b) Volumetric strain and deviatoric strain relationship Fig.2 -0.2 Deviatoric strain εd (a) Deviatoric stress and strain relationship 0.1 0.15 σ' 3=250 kPa 0. 1980) .05 0.3000 Deviatoric stress q (kPa) 2400 σ' 3=500 kPa 1800 σ' 3=250 kPa 1200 600 σ' 3=50 kPa 0 0 0.15 0.05 σ' 3=50 kPa -0.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Giz2013 en Akzente02 Soil Completeby Tri Yudho
- 6th Sem Questionby NiteshRai
- Circumferential Joint Analysis in Aircraft Structureby International Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- As 5101.5-2008 Methods for Preparation and Testing of Stabilized Materials Absorption Swell and Capillary Risby SAI Global - APAC

- Modified Cam Clay Model
- Cam Clay
- Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering-Vol2
- b15578-9
- Allowable Stress Range
- Tensile Test Australian Standard
- UnsatDyn_2010a_GeoFlorida
- 2D-1-Tutorial_02
- 2D 1 Tutorial
- Vogler Krenn w(h)Ydoc05
- Soil Mech Book
- Arnold Verruijt-Soil Mechanics
- Nexus
- flexiblityanalysys
- An Approach to Predict Soil Nutrients and Efficient Irrigation for Agriculture with Spatial Data Mining
- Ch_10_slides_m.pdf
- Defence_Y7103048
- Sustainability Indicators in Watershed Mngt
- soiltemp08spring_2
- Measurement of Soil Thermal Stability Thermal Resistivity and Underground Cable Ampacity
- Giz2013 en Akzente02 Soil Complete
- 6th Sem Question
- Circumferential Joint Analysis in Aircraft Structure
- As 5101.5-2008 Methods for Preparation and Testing of Stabilized Materials Absorption Swell and Capillary Ris
- As 1289.6.7.3-1999 Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes Soil Strength and Consolidation Tests
- geo Engineering
- Theories of Failure
- Viso Plastic
- Guidebook 10
- Soil & Site Improvement Guide
- cam-clay