Generalized Plastic Mechanics–Based Constitutive Model

for Estimation of Dynamic Stresses in Unsaturated

Subgrade Soils
Peiyuan Lin1; Liansheng Tang2; and Pengpeng Ni3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a generalized plastic mechanics–based constitutive model for the estimation of dynamic stresses in unsatu-
rated subgrade soils under repeated vehicle loading conditions. The stresses in subgrade soils are taken as the sum of two components: dy-
namic stress and total suction. The increment of dynamic stress consists of three subcomponents, including coaxial stress increment, stress
increment due to rotations of principal stresses under vehicle loading, and stress increment due to stress accumulation under repeated loading.
The total suction in unsaturated subgrade soils is considered to comprise two subcomponents: wet suction characterizing the capillary effect
between liquid and solid phases; and structure suction quantifying the adsorptive and bonding effects between soil particles. The proposed
dynamic model is then solved using the numerical nonlinear incremental calculation method. A case study is presented in the end to elaborate
on the application of the proposed model in practice. The calculated stresses in subgrade soils using both the proposed model and the con-
ventional equivalent static load model are compared against the measured values in the field. Through the case study, the advantages and the
practical value of the proposed model are demonstrated. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001704. © 2020 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Subgrade; Unsaturated soils; Constitutive model; Effective dynamic stress; Stress accumulation.

Introduction cumulative effect of dynamic stress. An increase in deviator stress

Design of pavement foundations is conventionally conducted by
assuming the subgrade soil as a uniform or a layered elastic half-
space, above which the dynamic load induced by moving vehicles
is simplified into an equivalent static load for stress analysis in the
soil medium following the effective stress principle based on satu-
rated soil mechanics (Eason 1965; Collins et al. 1993). However,
subgrade failures have been reported for roadways subjected to dy-
namic loads that were much less than the design values (Reddy and
Moorthy 2005). The current design approaches cannot provide sat-
isfactory results of stress estimation mainly due to three reasons.
First, the cumulative effect of dynamic stresses in subgrade soils
with increasing number of load cycles due to moving vehicles is
not taken into account. Under repeated loading conditions, the de-
viator stress in subgrade soils could increase significantly due to the
1
Associate Professor, Southern Marine Science and Engineering
Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Guangzhou 510275, China; Guangdong
Key Laboratory of Oceanic Civil Engineering, Guangzhou 510275, China;
Guangdong Research Center for Underground Space Exploitation Technol-
ogy, Guangzhou 510275, China; School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-sen
Univ., Guangzhou 510275, China. Email: linpy23@mail.sysu.edu.cn
2
Professor, School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen
Univ., Guangzhou 510275, China. Email: eestls@mail.sysu.edu.cn
3
Professor, Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Lab-
oratory (Zhuhai), Guangzhou 510275, China; Guangdong Key Laboratory
of Oceanic Civil Engineering, Guangzhou 510275, China; Guangdong Re-
search Center for Underground Space Exploitation Technology, Guang-
zhou 510275, China; School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-sen Univ.,
Guangzhou 510275, China (corresponding author). Email: nipengpeng@
mail.sysu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 19, 2019; approved on
December 17, 2019; published online on April 20, 2020. Discussion period
open until September 21, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo-
mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
can eventually result in an increase of permanent plastic deforma-
tions (Li and Selig 1996; Chai and Miura 2002; Liu et al. 2018).
The mechanism of stress accumulation can be explained that the
stresses in subgrade soils cannot be immediately released upon un-
loading due to the viscosity of soil; rather, they dissipate slowly.
Once the next cycle of loading is applied before the full dissipation
of stresses to zero, the newly induced additional stresses are added
with the residual stresses from previous loading cycles. If this
process is iterated, e.g., under cyclic traffic loading, the stresses
in subgrade soils accumulate. Due to the heterogeneity of subgrade
soils, both the stress accumulation and the dissipation rate differ
with directions. This could therefore result in an increase of devia-
tor stress in the soil, and thus an increase of permanent deforma-
tions. Note that the deviator stress is the main stress factor
influencing the cumulative plastic strain, as indicated by Seed
et al. (1955), Monismith et al. (1975), and Brown et al. (1977). Sec-
ond, the direction of principal stresses on a subgrade soil element
will rotate as a vehicle passes (Brown 1996; Powrie et al. 2007),
as illustrated in Fig. 1. The rotation effect of principal stresses is ne-
glected completely in the current simplified design approaches.
Third, the analysis of the effective stress state of subgrade soils
below pavements should incorporate theories for unsaturated
soils rather than saturated soils (Brown 1996), specifically for sub-
grade soils that are well within the vadose zone (Fredlund and
Rahardjo 1993).
In addition to empirical design methods [e.g., Christopher et al.
(2006), Tarefder et al. (2008)], numerical simulation is a common
alternative to tackle the dynamic response of subgrade soils. Hardy
and Cebon (1993) evaluated the performance of pavements sub-
jected to moving dynamic loads using the beam-on-spring analysis
model. The empirically derived soil reaction models have been
found to produce very conservative analysis outcomes for flexible
pipelines (Saiyar et al. 2016; Ni et al. 2018b) and piles (Mylonakis
2001). Due to the flexibility of pavements, simplifying subgrade

© ASCE 04020084-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 Location A Location B
Location A q Driving direction

Car
Location B D
pr irec Direction of major
in tio
cip n principal stress
al of
Embankment str m
es ajo
s r σ1B
σ1A
Soil element σ 3A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

σ 3B σ 3B
Subgrade soils

σ1A
(a) (b) σ A
3
σ1B

Fig. 1. Stress changes in subgrade soils due to a moving car: (a) schematics of car driving down the road; and (b) rotation of major principal stress for
a soil element.

soils as discrete springs could be questionable. Alternatively, the σy

interaction between subgrade soils and moving loads can be
analyzed using continuum-based techniques, such as the finite-layer
approach (Zafir et al. 1994; Kaynia et al. 2000; Lu et al. 2014), the
finite-element method (Powrie et al. 2007; Ravichandran and
Muraleetharan 2009; Yang et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2014; Feng
et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018), the 2.5-dimensional finite-/infinite-
element approach (Yang and Hung 2008), and the discrete element
modeling (Huang and Chrismer 2013). However, the choice of the
constitutive model for subgrade soils is critical to achieve reliable
evaluations compared to field measurements.
Researchers often conduct cyclic triaxial tests on clayey sub-
grade soils to simulate the dynamic stress–strain behavior under re-
peated stress variations due to moving traffic on the roadway
(Miller et al. 2000; Zhong et al. 2002; Kim and Kim 2007; Yıldırım
and Erş an 2007; Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 2008; Liu and Xiao
2010; Puppala et al. 2009). It should be noted that the current em-
pirical design methods or numerical simulation techniques all rely
heavily on the soil parameters measured from cyclic triaxial tests;
however, the rotation of principal stresses cannot be characterized
by conventional triaxial tests, and soil element testing in uniaxial
compression could result in underestimation of vertical strains
(Powrie et al. 2007).
Subgrade soils are partially saturated most of the time since they
could be above the groundwater table. The constitutive model for
unsaturated soils should be employed to analyze the behavior of
pavement foundations under moving traffic conditions. Fredlund
and Rahardjo (1993) presented the basic formulations for unsatu-
rated soil modeling, and Gens (2010) and Sheng (2011) reported
excellent reviews on the recent development of modeling unsatu-
rated soil behavior. There is no consensus on how to select consti-
tutive models in the analysis of unsaturated subgrade soils. The
yielding behavior of unsaturated soils can be characterized using
a bounding surface model, and the capillary bonding between
soil particles was explicitly incorporated (Russell and Khalili
2006; Zhou et al. 2015; Gallipoli and Bruno 2017). Sheng et al.
(2008) proposed a volumetric model to represent the yield surface
with independent stress variables, where the suction term was in-
cluded in the formulation based on the framework of elastoplastic-
ity. Mašín and Khalili (2008) suggested to formulate the effective
stress of unsaturated soils based on hypoplasticity, where the stiff-
ening effect of suction on the mechanical response was considered.
The principles of work and energy balance were employed to
Pore air pressure = ua
τ xy
Structure suction = S c
σx
Wet suction = S a τ yx
Fig. 2. Components of effective stress for unsaturated soils.
correlate the effective stress of unsaturated soils with the displace-
ment within the soil skeleton (Zhao et al. 2010). Rather than using
independent stress variables, researchers often derive constitutive
models following the generalized stress framework, where a unified
stress state could be proposed to simulate the behavior of unsatu-
rated soils for different saturation conditions (Nuth and Laloui
2008; Zhang et al. 2012a).
The term of matric suction is an important part that can in-
crease the strength of unsaturated soils (Fredlund and Rahardjo
1993). Gens (2010) related the matric suction to the potential or
interaction between liquid and solid due to capillary phenomena.
Tang (2000) initially conceived the idea of separating wet suction
(i.e., surface tension) from matric suction based on the micro-
scopic analysis of the interaction between unsaturated soil grains
and concluded that the surface tension contributes to the strength,
rather than the potential. Herein, wet suction is defined as the suc-
tion between soil particles due to wetting. In addition, structure
suction between soil particles can also contribute to the strength
of unsaturated soils. Structure suction is the suction between
soil particles due to such factors as cementation effect, clay bond-
ing effect, and magnetic attraction. Fig. 2 shows different compo-
nents of effective stress for unsaturated soils. The independent
stress variables of wet suction and structure suction have been for-
mulated following the effective stress framework (Tang and
Wang 2000; Tang 2001). It should be emphasized that the sum
of wet suction and structure suction used in Tang (2001) was
equivalent to the stress state variable of matric suction proposed

© ASCE 04020084-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 by Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993). The expressions of wet suction
and structure suction were measured as functions of water content
and dry density for unsaturated soils (Tang et al. 2003; Zhang
et al. 2012b; Zhang et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2014). Similarly,
Zhou et al. (2016) measured the correlations between capillary
water retention curves and shear strengths of unsaturated soils
and proposed to separate a capillary component and an adsorptive
component in the calculation of degree of saturation. Later, Zhou
et al. (2018) proposed a constitutive model for unsaturated soils
which consists of two variables, i.e., the capillary component
and the effective interparticle stress. While there have been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Principal stresses σ1 and σ2 and the corresponding directions N1

many meaningful attempts made for a description of suction in
and N2.
unsaturated soils, this study adopts the framework proposed by
Tang and Wang (2000) and Tang (2001) for further analyses.
In this paper, a generalized plastic mechanics–based constitutive N2, and the stress can be written in a matrix form (i.e., the stress
model is developed for evaluating the dynamic response of unsat- matrix is denoted as ∧) as follows:
urated subgrade soils, and the contributions of wet suction and


structure suction are considered separately. The rotation of princi- σ 0 N1
σ = (N1 N2 ) 1 = T1 ∧ T1T (1)
pal stress due to moving vehicles is explicitly considered in the der- 0 σ2 N2
ivation. The cumulative dynamic stresses in three orthogonal
directions within subgrade soils with the number of load cycles Assuming that the direction vector N1 intersects the x-axis by an
are calculated using an explicit scheme in numerical analysis for angle of θ, matrix T1 can be written


obtaining approximations to solve the systems of nonlinear equa- cos θ −sin θ
tions. A field case study is presented, in which the dynamic stresses T1 = (2)
sin θ cos θ
induced by moving vehicles on a roadway are measured using in-
house manufactured earth pressure transducers. Comparisons are For a coaxial model, matrix T1 and its transpose T1T in Eq. (1)
then made between measured and calculated stress changes. are invariant. Differentiating Eq. (1), the stress increment dσc can
be calculated by


Elastoplastic Dynamic Constitutive Model for dσ 1 0
dσ c = d(T1 ∧ T1T ) = T1 (d∧)T1T = T1 TT (3)
Unsaturated Subgrade Soils 0 dσ 2 1

Similarly, the stress increment dσr can be defined, but both ma-
Decomposition of Dynamic Stress Increments
trices T1 and T1T would be a function of rotation angle θ. Differen-
As shown in Fig. 1, when a car moves from Location A to Location tiating Eq. (1) gives
B, the direction of principal stress rotates, and the direction of major
principal stress always points to the center of the distributed dy- dσ r = d(T1 ∧ T1T ) = dT1 ∧ T1T + T1 ∧ dT1T (4)
namic load. The dynamic stress increments can be decomposed
From Eq. (2), the derivative of T1 is written
into two components: coaxial part and rotational part (Liu et al.


1998). Hence, the complex problem associated with the rotation −sin θ −cos θ
of dynamic stress increments is simplified as the combination of dT1 = dθ (5)
cos θ −sin θ
a coaxial model and a pure rotation problem for principal stress in-
variants. In a two-dimensional (2D) plane, as shown in Fig. 3, the The stress increment dσr in the major principal stress space can
two principal stresses σ1 and σ2 have direction vectors of N1 and be derived by

T1T dσ r T1 = T1T (dT1 ∧ T1T + T1 ∧ dT1T )T1 = (T1T dT1 ) ∧ (T1T T1 ) + (T1T T1 ) ∧ (dT1 T1T )






0 −1 σ1 0 σ1 0 0 −1 0 dθ(σ 1 − σ 2 ) (6)
= dθ I +I dθ =
1 0 0 σ2 0 σ2 1 0 dθ(σ 1 − σ 2 ) 0

Hence, the total stress increment dσ in the 2D space is the sum- is written
mation of dσc and dσr as follows: ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
σ1 0 0 N1
σ = (N1 N2 N3 )⎝ 0 σ2 0 ⎠⎝ N2 ⎠ = T ∧ T T (8)


 0 0 σ3 N3
k1 0 0 k2
dσ = dσ c + dσ r = T1 T1T + T1 T1T (7)
0 k3 k2 0 The stress increment dσ in the major principal stress space has
the following form:
⎛ ⎞
where k1 = dσ1; k3 = dσ2 ; and k2 = dθ (σ1–σ2). M1 A1 C1
Similarly, for three-dimensional (3D) stress increments σ1, σ2, T T dσT = ⎝ A1 M2 B1 ⎠ (9)
and σ3 with direction vectors of N1, N2, and N3, the stress matrix C1 B1 M3

© ASCE 04020084-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 in which, the coaxial stress increment dσc and the rotational stress Q4r = τ12 , Q5r = τ13 , Q6r = τ23 (18)
increment dσr are derived as follows:
Combining Eqs. (15) and (16), the generalized plastic potential
⎛ ⎞
M1 0 0 function considering the influence of rotation of principal stress is
dσ c = T ⎝ 0 M2 0 ⎠T T (10) then derived as follows:
0 0 M3 3 6
∂Qkc ∂Qkr
dεijp = dλkc + dλkr (19)
⎛ ⎞ ∂σ ij ∂σ ij
0 A1 0 k=1 k=1
⎜ ⎟
dσ r = dσ r1 + dσ r2 + dσ r3 = T ⎝ A1 0 0 ⎠T T
0 0 0 Plastic Deformations Induced by Rotational Stress
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Increments
0 0 0 0 0 C1
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ All plastic multipliers should be determined first to calculate the
+ T ⎝ 0 0 B1 ⎠T T + T ⎝ 0 0 0 ⎠T T (11)
plastic deformations within the soil induced by rotational stress in-
0 B1 0 C1 0 0 crements. For coaxial plastic strain increments, the plastic potential
functions Q1c = σ1, Q2c = σ2, and Q3c = σ3 should be substituted
The parameters in matrix form are defined by M1 = dσ1; M2 =
into Eq. (15), and the corresponding plastic multipliers are evalu-
dσ2; M3 = dσ3; A1 = dθ1 (σ1–σ2) = dτ12; B1 = dθ2 (σ2–σ3) = dτ23;
ated as follows:
and C1 = dθ3 (σ1–σ3) = dτ13.
The total stress increment in the 3D space, dσ, is then derived by dλkc = dεkp (k = 1, 2, 3) (20)
summing dσc and dσr
⎛ ⎞ Similarly, the plastic potential functions Q1r = σ1, Q2r = σ2,
dσ 1 dθ1 (σ 1 − σ 2 ) dθ3 (σ 1 − σ 3 ) Q3r = σ3, Q4r = τ12, Q5r = τ13, and Q6r = τ23 are substituted into
⎜ ⎟ Eq. (16) to derive the remaining six plastic multipliers for rotational
dσ = dσ c + dσ r = T ⎝ dθ1 (σ 1 − σ 2 ) dσ 2 dθ2 (σ 2 − σ 3 ) ⎠T T
plastic strain increments
dθ3 (σ 1 − σ 3 ) dθ2 (σ 2 − σ 3 ) dσ 3 ⎧ p p p
(12) ⎪
⎪ dλ1r = dε11r1 + dε11r2 + dε11r3
⎨ p p p
dλ2r = dε22r1 + dε22r2 + dε22r3
In the aforementioned expression, dθ1, dθ2, and dθ3 represent p p p (21)
⎪
⎪ dλ = dε33r1 + dε33r2 + dε33r3
the rotation increments induced by rotational stress increments ⎩ 3r p p p
dλ4r = dε12r1 , dλ5r = dε13r3 , dλ3r = dε23r2
dσr1, dσr2, and dσr3 with respect to the directions of minor,
major, and intermediate principal stress, respectively. Interested Zheng et al. (2002) derived the plastic strain increments induced
readers can find more details about the decomposition of stress in- by the corresponding stress increments of dσr1, dσr2 and dσr3 with
crements in 3D in Zheng (2000) and Zheng et al. (2002). respect to the directions of minor, major, and intermediate principal
stress as follows:
⎧ p p
Plastic Potential and Yield Surface ⎪
⎪ dε = Er1
1
|dθ1 |, dε22r1 = Er1 2
|dθ1 |
⎪ 11r1
⎪
⎪
⎪ dε p 3 p
= Er1 |dθ1 |, dε12r1 = Er1 |dθ1 |
4
Both the coaxial and rotational dynamic stress increments can ⎪
⎨ 133r1
cause plastic deformations within subgrade soils. Hence, the plastic Er1 = R1 σ 1 K f 1 , Er1
2
= σ 2 K f 1 , Er1
3
= 0.3σ 3 K f 1
⎪ 
strain increment dɛ p can be defined as ⎪
⎪ 1 )2 + (E 2 )2 + (E 3 )2 ]
⎪
⎪
4
Er1 = (9D2 + 2B2 )(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 − 2[(Er1
⎪
⎪ √
r1 r1
p
dε p = dεcp + dεrp = dεcp + dεr1 p
+ dεr2 p
+ dεr3 ⎩
(13) K f 1 = B 3|σ 1 − σ 2 |/(R1 σ 1 + σ 2 + 0.3σ 3 )
where dεcp = the plastic strain increment induced by the coaxial (22)
stress increment dσc; dεrp = the plastic strain increment induced ⎧ p p
by the rotational stress increment dσr; and dεr1 p p
, dεr2 p
, and dεr3 = ⎪
⎪ dε = Er2
1
|dθ2 |, dε22r2 = Er22
|dθ2 |
⎪ 11r2
⎪ p p
the plastic strain increments due to dσr1, dσr2, and dσr3. ⎪
⎪ dε = E 3
|dθ 2 |, dε = E r2 |dθ2 |
4
⎨ 133r2 r2 23r2
The elastoplastic strain increment (dɛ) is then written as the Er2 = 0.3σ 1 K f 2 , Er2
2
= R1 σ 2 K f 2 , Er2
3
= σ3 K f 2
summation of elastic (dɛe) and plastic strain increments (dɛp) 
⎪
⎪
⎪ 4 2 1 2 2 2
⎪ Er2 = (9D2 + 2B2 )(σ 2 − σ 3 ) − 2[(Er2 ) + (Er2 ) + (Er2 ) ]
3 2
⎪
⎪ √ 

p
dε = dεe + dε p = dεe + dεcp + dεr1 p
+ dεr2 p
+ dεr3 (14) ⎩
K f 2 = B 3|σ 2 − σ 3 |/(0.3σ 1 + R1 σ 2 + σ 3 )
Following the work of Yang and Li (2002) and Lai et al. (2010), (23)
the generalized plastic potential functions for the coaxial and rota-
⎧ p p
tional parts are expressed as follows: ⎪ dε11r3 = Er31
|dθ3 |, dε22r3 = Er3
2
|dθ3 |
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ dε p
= E 3
|dθ |, dε p
= E 4
|dθ3 |
3
∂Qkc ⎪
⎨ 1 33r3 r3 3 13r3 r3
p
dεijc = dλkc (15) Er3 = R1 σ 1 K f 3 , Er3 2
= 0.3σ 2 K f 3 , Er33
= σ3 K f 3
∂σ ij 
k=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪ 4 2 1 2 2 2
⎪ Er3 = (9D2 + 2B2 )(σ 1 − σ 3 ) − 2[(Er3 ) + (Er3 ) + (Er3 ) ]
3 2
6 ⎪
⎪ √ 

p ∂Qkr ⎩
dεijr = dλkr (16) K f 3 = B 3|σ 1 − σ 3 |/(R1 σ 1 + 0.3σ 2 + σ 3 )
k=1
∂σ ij
(24)
where dλ = plastic multiplier (in a total of nine multipliers); the
plastic potential functions Q in six directions should be nonassoci- Dynamic Constitutive Model
ated and are defined as follows:
The constitutive model can be developed by using an elastoplastic
Qkr = Qkc = σ k , k = 1, 2, 3 (17) flexibility matrix to characterize the stress–strain relationship,

© ASCE 04020084-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 containing three components: elastic flexibility matrix; coaxial matrix [Crp] by
plastic flexibility matrix; and rotational plastic flexibility matrix. ⎧ p ⎫ ⎡ ⎤
⎪ dε1 ⎪ 0 0 0 Er1 1
/|σ 1 − σ 2 | Er2
1
/|σ 2 − σ 3 | 1
Er3 /|σ 1 − σ 3 |
According to Hooke’s law, the elastic stress–strain relationship ⎪ p ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ /|σ − σ | /|σ 1 − σ 3 | ⎥
r2 /|σ 2 − σ 3 |
2 2 2
(Bufler 1971) can be defined by ⎪
⎪
dε2 ⎪⎪ ⎢
0 0 0 E r1 1 2 E Er3 ⎥
⎧ e ⎫ ⎨ dε p ⎪
⎪ ⎬ ⎢ ⎥
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎢ 0 0 0 Er1 /|σ 1 − σ 2 | Er2
3 3
/|σ 2 − σ 3 | 3
Er3 /|σ 1 − σ 3 | ⎥
⎪
⎪ dε1 ⎪ ⎪ 1 −μ −μ 0 0 0 ⎪ ⎪ dσ 1 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ dσ 1 ⎪
⎪
3
=⎢
⎢ 0 0 0 E4 /|σ − σ |
⎥
⎥
⎪ dεe2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ −μ 1 −μ 0 0 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ dσ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ dσ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
p
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ e ⎬ 1⎢
⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ 12 ⎪
⎪
dε ⎪ ⎢
⎪ ⎢
r1 1 2 0 0 ⎥
⎥
dε3 −μ −μ 1 0 0 0 ⎥⎨ dσ 3 ⎬ ⎨
dσ
⎬ ⎪
⎪
⎪ dε ⎪
p ⎪
⎪ ⎣0 0 0 0 Er2 /|σ 2 − σ 3 |
4
0 ⎦
= ⎢ ⎥ = 3 ⎪
⎩ 23 ⎪
p ⎭
⎢ ⎥ [C e ] (25)
⎪
⎪ dε12 ⎪
e
⎪ E ⎢ 0 0 0 A 0 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪ dε13 0 0 0 0 0 4
Er3 /|σ 1 − σ 3 |
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ dεe ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎣ 0 0 0 0 A 0 ⎦⎪ ⎪
⎪ dτ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ dτ ⎪ ⎪ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎩ 23 ⎭ ⎩ 23 ⎪ ⎭ ⎩ 23 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ dσ 1 ⎪ dσ 1 ⎪
dεe13 0 0 0 0 0 A dτ13 dτ13 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ dσ 2 ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
dσ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
where [Ce] = elastic flexibility matrix; and A = 2(1 + μ). ⎪
⎨ dσ ⎬ ⎪ ⎨ dσ ⎪
⎪ ⎬
The yield surface for the coaxial model is assumed to have the 3 3
× = [Crp ] (28)
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
following form: ⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ dτ23 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ dτ23 ⎪⎪
εip = fi (σ 1 , σ 2 , σ 3 ) (26) ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
dτ13 dτ13
Hence, the stress–strain relationship for coaxial strain incre-
ments can be written with the coaxial plastic flexibility matrix The elastoplastic flexibility matrix [Cep] is then calculated as
[Ccp] as follows: follows:
⎡ ⎤ [Cep ] = [Ce ] + [Ccp ] + [Crp ] (29)
∂f1 ∂f1 ∂f1
0 0 0
⎧ p ⎫ ⎢ ∂σ 1 ∂σ 2 ∂σ 3 ⎥⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ The direction vectors T1, T2, and T3 for major, intermediate, and
⎪ dε1 ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ dσ 1 ⎪ ⎪ dσ 1 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ dε p ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ∂f2 ∂f2 ∂f2 0 0 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ dσ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
dσ 2 ⎪
minor principal stresses are defined as follows:
⎪ 2 ⎪⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ p ⎬ ⎢ ∂σ 1 ∂σ 2 ∂σ 3 ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
dε3 ⎢ ⎥ dσ dσ T1 = [ L1 L2 L 3 ]T , T 2 = [ M1 M2 M3 ] T ,
p = ⎢ ∂f ∂f ∂f ⎥
3
= [C cp ] 3
(27)
⎪
⎪ dε12 ⎪
⎪ ⎢
3 3 3
0 0 0 ⎥⎪⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ dτ12 ⎪
⎪ T3 = [ N1 N 3 ]T
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ∂σ 1 ∂σ 2 ∂σ 3 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ N2 (30)
⎪ dε23 ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪⎪ dτ23 ⎪ ⎪ dτ23 ⎪
⎪
p
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ p ⎪ ⎭ ⎢ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎪
⎥ ⎩ ⎪
⎭ ⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
dε13 ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦ dτ13 dτ13 Hence, the elastoplastic flexibility matrix in a general stress
space (Zheng et al. 2002) can be written as follows:
0 0 0 0 0 0
[C ′ep ] = [TA ][Cep ][TA ]T (31)
Similarly, the stress–strain relationship for rotational strain
increments can be derived with the rotational plastic flexibility where

⎡ ⎤
L21 M12 N12 2L1 M1 2M1 N1 2L1 N1
⎢ L2 M22 N22 2L2 M2 2M2 N2 2L2 N2 ⎥
⎢ 22 ⎥
⎢ L M32 N32 2L3 M3 2M3 N3 2L3 N3 ⎥
[TA ] = ⎢ 3
⎢ L1 L2
⎥ (32)
⎢ M1 M2 N1 N2 L 1 M2 + L 2 M 1 M1 N 2 + M2 N 1 L1 N2 + L2 N1 ⎥
⎥
⎣ L2 L3 M2 M3 N2 N3 L 2 M3 + L 3 M 2 M2 N 3 + M3 N 2 L2 N3 + L3 N2 ⎦
L1 L3 M1 M3 N1 N3 L 1 M3 + L 3 M 1 M1 N 3 + M3 N 1 L1 N3 + L3 N1

′
Matrix inversion is then conducted on [Cep ] to get the elasto- The initial boundary condition at time t = 0 is written
′
plastic stiffness matrix [Dep ] in an arbitrary stress space considering
the influence of rotation of principal stress. p(x, y, z, t)|t=0 = 0 (34)

Initial and Boundary Conditions due to Moving Traffic
For subgrade soils subjected to moving vehicles, a schematic view
of a half-space is defined as depicted in Fig. 4. The dynamic load
induced by a moving car is simplified as a rectangular uniformly
loaded area. In the Cartesian coordinate system, the dynamic
load p (x, y, z, t) is defined by
p(x, y, z, t)

q, vt − c ≤ x ≤ vt + c, 0 ≤ y ≤ b, z = 0
= (33)
0 other
where x, y, and z represent three coordinates; parameters b and c are
defined in Fig. 4 to show the dimensions of the dynamic load; t =
time; and v = velocity of the moving car.
Calculation of Effective Stress within Unsaturated
Subgrade Soils
Effective Stress Formulation
The formulation of effective stress for unsaturated soils can be in-
corporated into the elastoplastic constitutive model to analyze the
behavior of subgrade soils under moving vehicles. Following the
study of Tang (2000), the terms of wet suction and structure suction
are used rather than the term of matric suction to characterize the
influence of the degree of saturation on the strength of unsaturated
soils. As shown in Fig. 2, the wet suction is induced by the contrac-
tile skin (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993) between liquid and solid
phases, and the structure suction can characterize the adsorptive
and bonding effects between solid particles. The generalized

© ASCE 04020084-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 x In general, the pore-air pressure ua can be evaluated by conven-
b tional instrumentation techniques, such as tensiometers and mois-
ture probes. Typically, the air phase in unsaturated soils is
c
Dynamic load continuous when the degree of saturation is less than 80%, and
the pore-air pressure ua could approximate to the atmospheric pres-
y sure u0 (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993; Ni et al. 2018a).
O
The water content is assumed to vary with depth only, irrespec-
tive of the spatial position in the horizontal plane (x and y). There-
Half-space subgrade soil
fore, measurements can be conducted in the field to determine the
variation of water content with depth, and a function can be fitted
between wet suction Sa and water content w (Zhang et al. 2012b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

z
for use in the analysis.

Fig. 4. Diagram of a half-space subgrade soil subjected to the dynamic Sa = aw2 + bw + c (37)
load induced by a moving car.
where a, b, and c are three fitting coefficients based on the results of
suction tests (Zhang et al. 2012b).
effective stress for unsaturated soils (Tang 2000, 2001) can then be The structure suction Sc is mainly induced by cementation
written bonds between solid phases, which can be evaluated by microstruc-
tural analysis of clayey subgrade soils (Tang 2000, 2001; Tang
σ ′ = (σ − ua ) + S = (σ − ua ) + (Sa + Sc ) (35)
et al. 2003).
where ua = pore-air pressure; and Sa and Sc = the wet suction and Once the generalized effective stress matrix {σ′ } is derived, the
the structure suction, respectively. shear strength τ can be estimated by
It should be emphasized that the generalized effective stress of
Tang (2000) has a similar formulation compared to the equation of τ = c′ + (σ − ua ) tan φ′ + (Sa + Sc ) tan φ′ (38)
Bishop’s effective stress. However, the effective stress parameter χ
in Bishop’s formula is controversial (Sheng 2011). The proposed where c′ and φ′ = effective cohesion and effective friction angle, re-
effective stress formula can distinguish the effects of capillary spectively. Different equations have been introduced in the litera-
and adsorptive components directly. The term of wet suction is ture for predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils
caused by the contractile skin at the liquid and solid interface, (Fredlund and Morgenstern 1977; Vanapalli et al. 1996; Öberg
which corresponds to a spherical stress, but cannot transfer shears. and Sällfors 1997; Xu and Cao 2015; Ahmadi Naghadeh and
The magnitude of wet suction primarily depends on the water sur- Toker 2019). Zhang et al. (2014) presented a detailed literature re-
face tension and its contact angle with soil particle. On the contrary, view on different constitutive models that can be used to character-
the structure suction is induced by cementation bonds between ize the stress–strain behavior for unsaturated soils. Again, it is
solid phases, which results in a spherical stress that can transfer emphasized that this study follows the framework of Tang (2000).
shears. The generalized effective stress is then written in matrix For saturated subgrade soils below the groundwater table, the
form as follows: generalized effective stress matrix becomes
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
{σ ′ }T = {σ}T − {ua }T + {Sa }T + {Sc }T σ x −uw τxy τxz σ x τxy τxz uw 0 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎢
σ x − ua + Sa + Sc τxy + Sc τxz + Sc {σ ′ }= ⎣ τyx σ y − uw τyz ⎥ ⎢
⎦ = ⎣ τyx σ y τyz ⎥ ⎢
⎦ − ⎣ 0 uw 0 ⎦
⎥
⎢ τyx + Sc σ y − ua + Sa + Sc τyz + Sc ⎥ τzx τzy σ z −uw τzx τzy σ z
=⎣ ⎦ 0 0 uw
τzx + Sc τzy + Sc σ z − ua + Sa + Sc (39)
(36)
   
where {σ}T = σ x σ y σ z τxy τyz τxz ; {ua }T = ua ua ua 0 0 0 ; Cumulative Effect of Dynamic Stress
   
{Sa }T = Sa Sa Sa 0 0 0 ; and {Sc }T = Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc . Based on the results of field tests, Lin (2012) indicated that as the
number of load cycles (N ) induced by moving vehicles increases,
Strength of Unsaturated Subgrade Soils the cumulative dynamic stress of subgrade soils increases as a lin-
ear function of N on a logarithmic scale
All matrices in Eq. (36) can be solved separately to construct the
generalized effective stress formula. The procedures for calculating [σ N ] = [m] ln N + [n] (40)
the shear strength of unsaturated subgrade soils are summarized as
follows: where [m] and [n] are the fitting parameters.
All dynamic stress components {σ}T under pavements can be The cumulative effect of dynamic stress (σNx, σNy, and σNz) is
calculated using numerical integration with the elastoplastic consti- then included in the formulation of generalized effective stress as
tutive model and boundary conditions. follows:

⎡ ⎤
σ x + σ Nx − ua + Sa + Sc τxy + Sc τxz + Sc
{σ ′ }N = ⎣ τyx + Sc σ y + σ Ny − ua + Sa + Sc τyz + Sc ⎦ (41)
τzx + Sc τzy + Sc σ z + σ Nz − ua + Sa + Sc

© ASCE 04020084-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 Table 1. Summary of soil properties at the site
Soil type Density (g/cm3) Water content (%)
Sandy clay 1.91 20.6
Silty clay 1.95 28.7
O y = 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 2.0 m
Inclinometer
Settlement plate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Roadway
z = 0.5 m
x z = 1.0 m
z = 1.5 m Sandstone stratum
z = 2.0 m
Earth pressure sensors
z = 3.5 m
z = 5.0 m
z culation method of Zhang et al. (2012b), the correlation between
Fig. 5. Instrumentation of subgrade soils under the roadway.
Due to the complexity of the problem, it is impossible to derive
a closed-form analytical solution. Therefore, the cumulative dy-
namic stresses in three orthogonal directions within subgrade
soils are determined through an explicit scheme in numerical anal-
ysis to solve the systems of nonlinear equations.
Comparison between Calculations and Field Tests
Field Testing Program
A field test was carried out by Lin (2012) on a roadway in Chen-
cun, China. Sandy clay was used as the backfill material for sub-
grade foundations with a thickness of 3 m from the ground
surface, below which a silty clay layer of 3.4 m in thickness
was overlain above the sandstone stratum of 15-m deep. It should
be emphasized that the upper structure of the subgrade has a great
impact on the distribution of stresses in subgrade soils. In this
study, no pavement was applied above the roadway to produce
moderate roughness, which could minimize the influence of pave-
ment roughness on the mobilization of dynamic stresses (Lin et al.
2019). The studied scenario differs from the normal practice of
roadway construction with an asphalt/concrete pavement. Cau-
tions should be taken during the interpretation of the measured re-
sults to draw design implications. The groundwater table was at a
depth of 3 m. Soil properties at the site were measured as summa-
rized in Table 1.
Subgrade soils were heavily instrumented by in-house–
manufactured earth pressure transducers, inclinometers, and settle-
ment plates as schematically shown in Fig. 5. The use of inclinom-
eters and settlement plates was to obtain the lateral and vertical
displacements in the soil. Under moving traffic, the subgrade soil
experiences cumulative dynamic stresses. An earth pressure mea-
suring system was manufactured to have a cubic shape with a
side length of 5 cm. Transducers in a circular shape with a diameter
of 3 cm were installed inside the cube in three orthogonal direc-
tions. At different depths, the accuracy of measurement was well
within 5%. Fig. 6 illustrates the photos of the earth pressure trans-
ducer, and interested readers can find more details in Lin (2012),
Tang et al. (2015), and Lin et al. (2019).
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084
Void ratio Plastic limit Liquid limit Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (°)
0.766 17.9 34.5 22.6 23.1
0.842 21.6 30.7 16.4 19.7
Four types of vehicles were selected to cover a wide range of
y load levels, and details are given in Table 2. Vehicles were con-
trolled to drive at speeds of 10, 20, and 30 km/h. In the field
tests, the maximum number of load cycles was chosen as 50. Stress
accumulation with load cycles could be significant on the stability
of subgrade soils. The load cycle limit of 50 was selected due to the
consideration of the distance to the site, the time, and the budge
constrains for the field testing program (Lin et al. 2019).
Model Parameters
The variations of water content (or degree of saturation) with depth
were measured in the field as presented in Fig. 7. Following the cal-
wet suction Sa and water content w was determined as
Sa = −0.057w2 + 3.078w + 15.449 (42)
Tang et al. (2003) suggested to use direct shear tests to evaluate
the influence of the degree of saturation on the magnitude of struc-
ture suction. For the test site, the correlation between structure suc-
tion and the degree of saturation is plotted in Fig. 8.
The cumulative effect of dynamic stress was analyzed by fitting
measured stress values with the number of load cycles on a loga-
rithmic scale. The results obtained for a fully loaded dump truck
are illustrated in Fig. 9 for three directions. For all measured values,
the coefficient of determination (i.e., R 2) was always greater than
0.7, as shown in Table 3. This demonstrates that the use of a simple
linear regression model on a logarithmic scale is appropriate to in-
terpret the cumulative effect of dynamic stress within subgrade
soils.
For a fully loaded dump truck, the uniformly distributed load
was defined as 44.5 kPa. The driving speed was considered as
20 km/h in the following calculation. The elastic modulus and Pois-
son’s ratio were estimated based on triaxial test results on remolded
soil specimens as 12.6 MPa and 0.3, respectively. The atmospheric
pressure was used to define the pore-air pressure as ua = 101 kPa.
A double-yield model of the generalized plastic mechanics–
based constitutive model is defined in the p–q space (i.e., p is the
volumetric stress and q is the deviator stress), containing a volumet-
ric yield surface and a shear yield surface. The shear yield surface
can also be divided into two components: the q-direction and the
θa-direction (Zheng et al. 2002). Two shear yield surfaces are sim-
ilar in shape, and the correlation can be expressed as follows:
d
γ θp = ( tan α)d
γ qp (43)
where α = angle between plastic stress and strain increments. The α
value varies from 10° to 14° when there is a lack of true triaxial test-
ing data (Zheng et al. 2002). In the analysis of field tests, α was
taken as 12°.
The shear yield surface in the q-direction is written
q (1 + K) − (1 + K) sin 3θa + α1 cos2 3θa
Fq = = q (44)
g(θa ) 2K
where parameters K and α1 (i.e., α1 varies from 0.4 to 0.5) are ob-
tained by curve fitting of triaxial testing data. In this investigation,
these two parameters were directly taken from Lin (2012), which
are K = 0.58 and α1 = 0.45.
04020084-7 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Earth pressure transducers for measuring dynamic stresses in three orthogonal directions: (a) view of the earth pressure sensors; and (b) view
of cables.

Table 2. Types of vehicles used in the field tests

Type of vehicle Weight (kN) Wheelbase (m) Track (m) Loading area (m2) Uniformly distributed load (kPa)
Car 39.5 2.5 1.5 3.75 10.6
Empty dump truck 170.0 4.5 2.5 11.25 15.1
Fully loaded dump truck 500.0 4.5 2.5 11.25 44.5
Excavator 135.0 2.2 2.3 4.2 32.4

100 100 Structure suction (kPa) 60

Degree of saturation (%)

50
80 80
Water content (%)

40
60 60
30
40 40 20

20 20 10

0
0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 1 2 3 4 5 Degree of saturation (%)
Depth from the ground surface (m)
Fig. 8. Variations of structure suction with a degree of saturation.
Fig. 7. Variations of water content and degree of saturation with depth
from the ground surface.

method was used to solve the problem of subgrade soils under re-
The volumetric yield surface is assumed as an ellipse (Zheng peated traffic loads. The technical details of the numerical nonlinear
et al. 2002) as follows: incremental method can be found in Yin (2007). In this study,
based on the measurements of water content in the field within
p2 q2 the first 5 m from the ground surface and the corresponding degree
+ =1 (45)
a22 b22 of saturation as shown in Fig. 7, the term of wet suction can be cal-
culated using Eq. (42). Fig. 8 shows the correlation between struc-
where a2 and b2 are two fitting parameters as a function of volumet-
ric plastic strain εvp . Based on the triaxial testing data of subgrade ture suction and degree of saturation from which the contribution of
soils (Lin 2012), a2 and b2 are defined as structure suction can be estimated. Using parameters reported in
Table 3, the matrix [σN] expressed in Eq. (40) can be computed.
a22 = 6.47 × 103 εvp + 2.30 (46) As such, all parameters in the generalized effective stress formula-
tion expressed in Eq. (41) can be determined.
b22 = 1.71 × 103 εvp − 0.18 (47) The comparison of measured and calculated dynamic stresses in
subgrade soils in the x-direction is presented in Fig. 10. Similarly,
the measured dynamic stresses in subgrade soils are compared
against calculations in the y and z-directions as illustrated in Figs.
Dynamic Stress Calculation
11 and 12, respectively. Moreover, the conventional static method
The constitutive model proposed in this analysis was implemented is used to compute the stresses in subgrade soils. The results are
in a computer program, and the numerical nonlinear incremental also plotted in Figs. 10–12 for comparison. Note that a factor of

© ASCE 04020084-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 2 x = 0.0 m
2.5 3
y = 0.5 m z = 0.5 m
x = 1.0 m y = 1.0 m z = 1.0 m

Cumulative stress (kPa)

Cumulative stress (kPa)

Cumulative stress (kPa)

x = 3.0 m y = 2.0 m 2.5 z = 2.0 m
x = 4.0 m 2 z = 5.0 m
1.5 x = 5.0 m
x = 6.0 m 2
1.5
1 1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5 0.5

0 0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
(a) Number of load cycles, N (b) Number of load cycles, N (c) Number of load cycles, N

Fig. 9. Relations between the cumulative dynamic stress in subgrade soils induced by a fully loaded dump truck and the number of load cycles: (a) in
the x-direction with y = 0.5 m, z = 1.0 m, and v = 20 km/h; (b) in the y-direction with x = 0.0 m, z = 1.0 m, and v = 20 km/h; and (c) in the z-direction
with x = 0.0 m, y = 0.5 m, and v = 20 km/h.

Table 3. Values of m and n adopted for the calculation of cumulative 10

Measured
dynamic stress
8 Calculated, effective stress, dynamic

Stress (kPa)
Direction m n Coefficient of determination, R 2 Calculated, total stress, dynamic
6 Calculated, effective stress, static
z = 0.5 m 0.4754 0.8424 0.9704 4
Calculated, total stress, static
z = 1.0 m 0.5226 0.3394 0.9953
z = 2.0 m 0.4148 –0.0645 0.9546 2
z = 5.0 m 0.0835 0.0130 0.9029 N=1
0
y = 0.5 m 0.6912 –0.2706 0.8971 (a) 0 1 2 3 4 5
y = 1.0 m 0.5037 –0.6046 0.9594
10
y = 2.0 m 0.1808 –0.2505 0.8007
x = 0.0 m 0.4762 –0.1864 0.9221 8
Stress (kPa)

x = 1.0 m 0.3754 –0.6284 0.9159 6

x = 2.0 m 0.3008 –0.4801 0.6901
x = 3.0 m 0.0841 –0.1044 0.9272 4
x = 4.0 m 0.0600 –0.0756 0.8897 2
x = 5.0 m 0.0471 –0.0226 0.9021 N = 50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

1.2 is applied to the traffic load on the road surface, i.e., 44.5 × 1.2 = (b) Length of the roadway, x (m)
53.4 kPa. For both the conventional static method and the proposed
generalized plastic mechanics–based constitutive model, two types Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and calculated dynamic stresses in
of calculations were conducted: (a) total stress analysis; and (b) ef- subgrade soils in the x-direction: (a) after 1 load cycle; and (b) after
50 load cycles.
fective stress analysis.
It can be seen that both calculations can capture the salient na-
ture of subgrade soils under moving vehicles well compared to field 20
Measured
measurements (i.e., the trends of all curves are similar). In general, Calculated, effective stress, dynamic
Stress (kPa)

all calculated stresses are greater than measured values, but calcu- 15 Calculated, total stress, dynamic
lations of effective stress analysis are always higher than those Calculated, effective stress, static
10 Calculated, total stress, static
obtained from total stress analysis. Stresses calculated using the tra-
ditional static method remain the same for both N = 1 and N = 50 5
loading cycles, as it cannot consider the cumulative effect of N=1
0
stresses with load cycles. Although the static method seems to be (a) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
conservative at the beginning, it could underestimate the stresses
20
in subgrade soils in the long term when the loading cycle N be-
comes larger. The advantage of the proposed approach over the
Stress (kPa)

15
conventional method is apparent. In the z-direction, the difference
between measurements and calculations using the proposed ap- 10

proach varies from 26.3% to 35.5% after 1 load cycle, which 5

changes to 20.0% and 44.2% for the lower and upper bounds, re- N = 50
spectively, after 50 load cycles. Similarly, in the x-direction, the 0
measured and calculated results differ by 21.1%–50.0% after 1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

load cycle and by 15.4%–21.4% after 50 load cycles. In the (b) Width of the roadway, y (m)
y-direction, the error level falls within 29.1%–36.4% after 1 load
cycle and 18.7%–26.7% after 50 load cycles. Design of pavement Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and calculated dynamic stresses in
subgrade soils in the y-direction: (a) after 1 load cycle; and (b) after
foundation with overestimated dynamic stress obtained by the pro-
50 load cycles.
posed method could result in conservative analysis.

© ASCE 04020084-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084

 60
Measured
Stress (kPa) 50 Calculated, effective stress, dynamic
40 Calculated, total stress, dynamic
Calculated, effective stress, static
30 Calculated, total stress, static
20
10
N=1
0
(a) 0 1 2 3 4 5
60
50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Stress (kPa)
40
30
20
10
N = 50
0 predicting shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils.”
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth from the ground surface, z (m)
(b)
Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and calculated dynamic stresses in
subgrade soils in the z-direction: (a) after 1 load cycle; and (b) after
50 load cycles.
The difference between calculations and measurements can be
attributed to two reasons: (a) some model parameters are obtained
through curve fitting of measurements, and some are determined
empirically, where error could be introduced inevitably; and (b)
the proposed approach considers the subgrade soil as a homoge-
neous half-space, and the layered nature of the soil cannot be
simulated.
Last, it is recalled that the empirical values for model parameters,
e.g., coefficients in Eqs. (42)–(47) and Table 3, are project-specific.
Cautions must be practiced when the same empirical values are used
for analyses of other projects for subgrade soils under traffic loads.
Otherwise, much higher errors could be resulted.
Conclusions
The analysis of dynamic stress in subgrade soils induced by re-
peated moving vehicles is normally conducted using empirical
solutions. Alternatively, numerical simulation can be performed
to approximate the behavior of subgrade soils. However, the cumu-
lative effect of dynamic stress in subgrade soils due to repeated
dynamic loads from surface traffic is often neglected in current
practice, as well as the rotation of principal stress with moving
vehicles. It is also imperative to analyze the behavior of subgrade
soils with a constitutive model in the framework of unsaturated
soil mechanics.
In this investigation, a generalized plastic mechanics–based
constitutive model for unsaturated subgrade soils was proposed,
which could consider the cumulative effect of dynamic stress and
the rotation of principal stress. The degree of saturation was sepa-
rated into a wet suction component to characterize the capillary ef-
fect between liquid and solid phases and a structure suction part to
model the adsorptive effect between solid particles. An explicit
scheme in numerical analysis was developed to solve the systems
of nonlinear equations for obtaining approximations. A field test
was conducted on a roadway, above which four types of vehicles
were used to simulate the influence of repeated traffic load. The ef-
fectiveness of the proposed generalized plastic mechanics–based
constitutive model for unsaturated subgrade soils under moving
traffic was demonstrated by comparing against experimental
© ASCE 04020084-10
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084
measurements of dynamic stresses. The proposed model could pro-
vide improved but conservative solutions of dynamic stresses in
subgrade soils compared to the conventional static method.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request, in-
cluding data for Figs. 7–12.
References
Ahmadi Naghadeh, R., and N. K. Toker. 2019. “Exponential equation for
Int. J. Geomech. 19 (7): 04019061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0001435.
Brown, S. 1996. “Soil mechanics in pavement engineering.” Géotechnique
46 (3): 383–426. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.383.
Brown, S. F., C. Bell, and B. Brodrick. 1977. Permanent deformation of
flexible pavements. Rep. No. DAERO-75-G-023. Nottingham,
England: Univ. of Nottingham.
Bufler, H. 1971. “Theory of elasticity of a multilayered medium.” J. Elast.
1 (2): 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00046464.
Chai, J.-C., and N. Miura. 2002. “Traffic-load-induced permanent
deformation of road on soft subsoil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
128 (11): 907–916. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)
128:11(907).
Christopher, B. R., C. W. Schwartz, and R. Boudreau. 2006. Geotechnical
aspects of pavements. Woodbury, MN: Ryan R. Berg & Associates.
Collins, I., A. Wang, and L. Saunders. 1993. “Shakedown in layered pave-
ments under moving surface loads.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 17 (3): 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610170303.
Eason, G. 1965. “The stresses produced in a semi-infinite solid by a moving
surface force.” Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2 (6): 581–609. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0020-7225(65)90038-8.
Feng, S.-J., X.-L. Zhang, Q.-T. Zheng, and L. Wang. 2017. “Simulation
and mitigation analysis of ground vibrations induced by high-speed
train with three dimensional FEM.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 94:
204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.022.
Fredlund, D. G., and N. R. Morgenstern. 1977. “Stress state variables for
unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 103 (5): 447–466.
Fredlund, D. G., and H. Rahardjo. 1993. Soil mechanics for unsaturated
soils. New York: Wiley.
Gallipoli, D., and A. Bruno. 2017. “A bounding surface compression model
with a unified virgin line for saturated and unsaturated soils.”
Géotechnique 67 (8): 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.145.
Gens, A. 2010. “Soil–environment interactions in geotechnical engineer-
ing.” Géotechnique 60 (1): 3–74. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.9.P.109.
Hardy, M., and D. Cebon. 1993. “Response of continuous pavements to
moving dynamic loads.” J. Eng. Mech. 119 (9): 1762–1780. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:9(1762).
Huang, H., and S. Chrismer. 2013. “Discrete element modeling of ballast
settlement under trains moving at ‘critical speeds’.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 38: 994–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09
.007.
Huang, H., Y. Gao, and S. Stoffels. 2014. “Fully coupled three-dimensional
train-track-soil model for high-speed rail.” Transp. Res. Rec: J. Transp.
Res. Board 2448 (1): 87–93. https://doi.org/10.3141/2448-11.
Kaynia, A. M., C. Madshus, and P. Zackrisson. 2000. “Ground vibration
from high-speed trains: Prediction and countermeasure.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (6): 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2000)126:6(531).
Kim, D., and J. R. Kim. 2007. “Resilient behavior of compacted subgrade
soils under the repeated triaxial test.” Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (7):
1470–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.006.
Lai, Y., Y. Yang, X. Chang, and S. Li. 2010. “Strength criterion and elasto-
plastic constitutive model of frozen silt in generalized plastic
Int. J. Geomech.
 mechanics.” Int. J. Plast. 26 (10): 1461–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijplas.2010.01.007.
Li, D., and E. T. Selig. 1996. “Cumulative plastic deformation for
fine-grained subgrade soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (12): 1006–1013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:12(1006).
Lin, P. 2012. “On the primarily experimental study and theoretical analysis
of the dynamic behaviors of unsaturated subgrade soils.” Master thesis,
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen Univ.
Lin, P., L. Tang, and P. Ni. 2019. “Field evaluation of subgrade soils under
dynamic loads using orthogonal earth pressure transducers.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 121: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03
.001.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Liu, J., and J. Xiao. 2010. “Experimental study on the stability of railroad
silt subgrade with increasing train speed.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
136 (6): 833–841. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000282.
Liu, K., Q. Su, P. Ni, C. Zhou, W. Zhao, and F. Yue. 2018. “Evaluation on
the dynamic performance of bridge approach backfilled with fibre rein-
forced lightweight concrete under high-speed train loading.” Comput.
Geotech. 104: 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.08.003.
Liu, Y., Y. Zheng, and Z. Cheng. 1998. “The general stress strain relation
of soils involving the rotation of principal stress axes.” Appl. Math.
Mech. 19 (5): 407–413.
Lu, Z., H. Yao, J. Liu, and Z. Hu. 2014. “Dynamic response of a
pavement-subgrade-soft ground system subjected to moving traffic
load.” J. Vibroeng. 16 (1): 195–209.
Mašín, D., and N. Khalili. 2008. “A hypoplastic model for mechanical re-
sponse of unsaturated soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
32 (15): 1903–1926. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.714.
Miller, G., S. Teh, D. Li, and M. Zaman. 2000. “Cyclic shear strength of
soft railroad subgrade.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (2): 139–
147. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:2(139).
Monismith, C. L., N. Ogawa, and C. R. Freeme. 1975. “Permanent defor-
mation characteristics of subgrade soils due to repeated loading.”
Transportation Research Records, No. 537. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Mylonakis, G. 2001. “Winkler modulus for axially loaded piles.”
Géotechnique 51 (5): 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.51
.5.455.
Ni, P., G. Mei, and Y. Zhao. 2018a. “Influence of raised groundwater level
on the stability of unsaturated soil slopes.” Int. J. Geomech. 18 (12):
04018168. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001316.
Ni, P., I. D. Moore, and W. A. Take. 2018b. “Distributed fibre optic sensing
of strains on buried full-scale PVC pipelines crossing a normal fault.”
Géotechnique 68 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.161.
Nuth, M., and L. Laloui. 2008. “Effective stress concept in unsaturated
soils: Clarification and validation of a unified framework.”
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32 (7): 771–801. https://doi
.org/10.1002/nag.645.
Öberg, A., and G. Sällfors. 1997. “Determination of shear strength param-
eters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve.”
Geotech. Test. J. 20 (1): 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11419J.
Powrie, W., L. A. Yang, and C. R. I. Clayton. 2007. “Stress changes in the
ground below ballasted railway track during train passage.” Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit. 221 (2): 247–262. https://doi
.org/10.1243/0954409JRRT95.
Puppala, A. J., S. Saride, and S. Chomtid. 2009. “Experimental and mod-
eling studies of permanent strains of subgrade soils.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (10): 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000163.
Ravichandran, N., and K. K. Muraleetharan. 2009. “Dynamics of unsaturated
soils using various finite element formulations.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 33 (5): 611–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.737.
Reddy, C. N. V. S., and N. V. R. Moorthy. 2005. “Significance of bearing
capacity of clayey subgrade in flexible pavement design.”
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 6 (3): 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10298430500137194.
Russell, A., and N. Khalili. 2006. “A unified bounding surface plasticity
model for unsaturated soils.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
30 (3): 181–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.475.
© ASCE 04020084-11
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084
Saiyar, M., P. Ni, W. A. Take, and I. D. Moore. 2016. “Response of pipe-
lines of differing flexural stiffness to normal faulting.” Géotechnique
66 (4): 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.175.
Seed, H. B., C. K. Chan, and C. L. Monismith. 1955. “Effects of repeated
loading on the strength and deformation of compacted clay.” Proc.
Highway Res. Rec. 34: 541–558.
Sheng, D. 2011. “Review of fundamental principles in modelling unsatu-
rated soil behaviour.” Comput. Geotech. 38 (6): 757–776. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.05.002.
Sheng, D., D. G. Fredlund, and A. Gens. 2008. “A new modelling approach
for unsaturated soils using independent stress variables.” Can. Geotech.
J. 45 (4): 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-112.
Tang, L.-S. 2000. “Structure suction and principle of general effective
stress in unsaturated soils.” Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni 39 (6):
95–100.
Tang, L.-S. 2001. “New suggestion on shear strength in unsaturated soil based
on suction between grains.” Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 23 (4): 412–417.
Tang, L. S., H. Chen, H. Sang, S. Zhang, and J. Zhang. 2015.
“Determination of traffic-load-influenced depths in clayey subsoil
based on the shakedown concept.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 77:
182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.05.009.
Tang, L. S., H. T. Sang, X. B. Deng, Z. G. Luo, and H. K. Chen. 2014.
“Experimental study on cementation strength of unsaturated granite re-
sidual soil.” In 4th Int. Conf. on Green Building, Materials and Civil
Engineering (GBMCE 2014), edited by J. C. M. Kao, W.-P. Sung,
and R. Chen. 789–794. London: Taylor & Francis.
Tang, L.-S., and S.-J. Wang. 2000. “Absorbed suction and principle of
effective stress in unsaturated soils.” Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 22 (1): 83–88.
Tang, L.-S., Y. Wang, P.-C. Zhang, and H.-R. Liao. 2003. “Experimental
study on suctions between grains in unsaturated cohesive soil.”
Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 25 (3): 304–307.
Tarefder, R. A., N. Saha, J. W. Hall, and P. T. Ng. 2008. “Evaluating weak
subgrade for pavement design and performance prediction: A case
study of US 550.” J. GeoEng. 3 (1): 13–24.
Vanapalli, S. K., D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton.
1996. “Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suc-
tion.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060.
Xenaki, V., and G. Athanasopoulos. 2008. “Dynamic properties and lique-
faction resistance of two soil materials in an earthfill dam—Laboratory
test results.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 28 (8): 605–620. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.001.
Xu, Y. F., and L. Cao. 2015. “Fractal representation of effective stress of
unsaturated soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 15 (6): 04014098. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000446. .
Yang, G.-H., and G.-X. Li. 2002. “Mathematical foundation of constitutive
models of geotechnical material and generalized potential theory.” Rock
Soil Mech. 23 (5): 531–535.
Yang, L. A., W. Powrie, and J. A. Priest. 2009. “Dynamic stress analysis of
a ballasted railway track bed during train passage.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (5): 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000032.
Yang, Y.-B., and H. Hung. 2008. “Soil vibrations caused by underground
moving trains.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (11): 1633–1644.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1633).
Yıldırım, H., and H. Erş an. 2007. “Settlements under consecutive series of
cyclic loading.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 27 (6): 577–585. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.10.007.
Yin, Y. 2007. Foundation of nonlinear finite element analysis.” Beijing:
Peking University Press.
Zafir, Z., R. Siddharthan, and P. E. Sebaaly. 1994. “Dynamic
pavement-strain histories from moving traffic load.” J. Transp. Eng.
120 (5): 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1994)
120:5(821).
Zhang, H. W., R. Santagiuliana, and B. A. Schrefler. 2012a. “Return mapping
algorithm for an enhanced generalized plasticity constitutive model of par-
tially saturated soils.” Comput. Geotech. 45: 53–61. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.003.
Zhang, L. L., D. G. Fredlund, M. D. Fredlund, and G. W. Wilson. 2014.
“Modeling the unsaturated soil zone in slope stability analysis.”
Can. Geotech. J. 51 (12): 1384–1398.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Zhang, P.-C., L.-S. Tang, Z.-W. Deng, and L.-Q. Jiang. 2012b.
“Quantitative relationship between wet suction and water content of un-
saturated soils.” Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 34 (8): 1453–1457.
Zhang, P.-C., L.-S. Tang, L.-Q. Jiang, and Z.-W. Deng. 2013. “Research of
quantitative relations of matric suction with water content and dry den-
sity.” Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 32 (S1): 2792–2797.
Zhao, C., Y. Liu, and F. Gao. 2010. “Work and energy equations and the
principle of generalized effective stress for unsaturated soils.”
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 34 (9): 920–936.
Zheng, Y. 2000. “Theory of generalized plastic mechanics.” Rock Soil
Mech. 21 (2): 188–192.
Zheng, Y., Z. Shen, and X. Gong. 2002. “The principles of geotechnical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Calicut" on 01/17/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhong, X. G., X. Zeng, and J. G. Rose. 2002. “Shear modulus and damping
ratio of rubber-modified asphalt mixes and unsaturated subgrade soils.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (6): 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2002)14:6(496).
Zhou, A., R. Huang, and D. Sheng. 2016. “Capillary water retention curve
and shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 53 (6): 974–
987. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0322.
Zhou, A., S. Wu, J. Li, and D. Sheng. 2018. “Including degree of capillary
saturation into constitutive modelling of unsaturated soils.” Comput.
Geotech. 95: 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.09.017.
Zhou, C., C. W. W. Ng, and R. Chen. 2015. “A bounding surface plasticity
model for unsaturated soil at small strains.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.

plastic mechanics: Generalized plastic mechanics.” Beijing: China Methods Geomech. 39 (11): 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag
Architecture and Building Press. .2355.

© ASCE 04020084-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 04020084