Formulation of Anisotropic Strength Criterion for Geotechnical Materials

Chen, Liping; Wang, Sui; Chen, Bin; Niu, Xiaokai; Ying, Guogang; Wu, Bo

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8825816

Advances in Civil Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 8825816 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8825816

Formulation of Anisotropic Strength Criterion for Geotechnical Materials

Liping Chen,^1,2Sui Wang,^1,2Bin Chen ,^1,2,3Xiaokai Niu,⁴Guogang Ying,⁵and Bo Wu^1,2,6

Academic Editor: Fan Gu

Received03 Mar 2020

Revised23 Jul 2020

Accepted03 Aug 2020

Published07 Sept 2020

Abstract

A new nonlinear unified strength (NUS) criterion is obtained based on the spatially mobilized plane (SMP) criterion and Mises criterion. New criterion is a series of smooth curves between SMP curved triangle and Mises circle in the π plane and thereby unifies the strength criteria. The new criterion can reflect the effect of the intermediate principal stress and consider the strength nonlinearity of a material. Based on the fabric tensor, the anisotropic parameter A is defined, and the anisotropic equation is proposed and introduced into the NUS criterion to form a nonlinear unified anisotropic strength criterion. The new criterion can be used to predict the strength variation of granular materials and cohesive materials under three-dimensional stress and can present the strength anisotropy of the geomaterials. The validity of the new criterion was checked using rock and soil materials. It is shown that the prediction results for the criterion agree well with the test data.

1. Introduction

The research of strength criterion theory [1–11] is an important topic in geotechnical engineering. There are usually three types of methods for establishing strength criteria, namely, theoretical methods, empirical methods, and combined theoretical-empirical methods. Theoretical methods are usually based on a hypothesis, and there is a model to interpret the failure mechanism of geomaterials. All the model parameters in the strength criteria established by this method have clear physical meanings. This type of strength criterion uses the law of friction to explain the failure of geomaterials, including the Mohr–Coulomb strength theory, the D-P criterion [11], the spatially mobilized plane (SMP) criterion [2], and the twin shear unified strength theory [9, 12, 13]. Strength criteria established by empirical methods are usually based on the fitting of test data and include the famous Willam–Warnke criterion [14] and the Hoek–Brown criterion [6, 15]. Compared to the criteria that are based on theoretical methods, the physical meanings of some of the parameters of the strength criteria established by empirical methods are often not very clear. Finally, combined theoretical-empirical methods are usually used to establish special strength criteria for specific material properties. This type of criterion applies the Mohr–Coulomb strength theory to jointed rock materials [16] by introducing additional parameters [17–19].

However, the above strength criteria are associated with a single shape in the π plane and are thus unable to reflect the factors of material strength that may vary with the change of internal factors. To address this problem, researchers [10, 11, 20–26] have proposed to unify the strength criteria. The common method is to introduce some parameters to change the size of the shape function. The above criteria are all isotropic strength criteria and cannot depict the strength anisotropy of geomaterials. However, numerous geomaterials exhibit transverse isotropy due to deposition; that is, the strength of the material is the same in the deposition surface but different in the depositional surfaces of different directions. The directional shear test of most soils shows that the change in the direction of the principal stress also leads to strength anisotropy, reflecting the initial anisotropy of the material. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a uniform strength criterion that considers the depositional characteristics or initial anisotropy of geomaterials.

The above previous studies show that the strength criterion is researched through a simple single form to a unified strength theory system with a relatively wide scope of application. Consequently, it is important to explore a widely applicable strength theory system. In the present paper, a new anisotropic nonlinear unified strength criterion is established based on Mises criterion and SMP criterion. The new criterion is approximated as a series of smooth curves between the SMP curved triangle and the von Mises circle in the π plane to unify the strength criteria. Based on the fabric tensor, a nonlinear anisotropic strength criterion is proposed. The correctness of the criterion is verified using sand, clay, and rock materials.

2. Form of the NUS Criterion

2.1. Linear Unified Strength (LUS) Criterion

SMP criterion (Matsuoka and Nakai [2]) has been widely used to check the strength of geomaterials because of its simple form and clear physical meaning. In the present study, the SMP criterion is modified to make it more widely applicable. The SMP criterion is shown in the following equation:where I₁, I₂, and I₃ are stress invariants:

C is a model parameter. Under conventional triaxial compression (σ₂ = σ₃), the sine of the friction angle φ₀ of a granular material is

Substituting equations (2) and (3) into equation (1) gives

Using the trigonometric identity, the expression of q is obtained aswherewhere is the mean stress and q is generalized shear stress. Thus, the shape function of the SMP criterion iswhere q₀ is the data for q when θ = 0. Therefore, the forms of p and q of the SMP criterion arewhere is obtained by equation (10) and M is the coefficient of friction:

The shape function of the SMP criterion cannot reflect the influence of internal factors on material; therefore, the application of the criterion is limited. In this report, the shape function is rewritten as the following expression:where M is obtained from equation (12), σ₀ which is the triaxial tensile strength of the material is given byand and q are the average stress and the generalized shear stress, as defined by equations (9) and (10), respectively.

Therefore,whereand α is the model parameter determined by the strength ratio under the triaxial compression and extension conditions. The value of α ranges from 0 to 1. One haswhere L₂ and L₃ are obtained from equations (6) and (7), respectively.

Figure 1 illustrates the influences of parameters φ₀ and α on linear criterion in the deviatoric plane. As Figure 1(b) shows, the shape of the criterion is shifted from the SMP curved triangle to the von Mises circle when α gradually increases from 0 to 1.

(a)

(b)

2.2. Nonlinear Isotropic Strength (NIS) Criterion

In the triaxial test of the rockfill material tests [27], the large confining pressure causes the granules to break [28–30], and the material exhibits remarkable strength nonlinearities. Therefore, to obtain the nonlinear of the rockfill material, the above new criterion equation (13) need be further modified as expressed in the following equation:

That is,where p_r is reference stress usually taken as = 101 kPa; M_f is usually obtained from the intercept of equation (18b) and the shape function; and n is a curvature parameter.

In the space of , is the intercept and n is the slope.

When n = 1,where n is the curvature parameter, and the shape function in the deviatoric plane is

2.3. Nonlinear Unified Strength (NUS) Criterion

Numerous geomaterials exhibit transverse isotropy due to deposition, as shown in Figure 2; that is, the strength of the materials is the same within the depositional surface but different in the depositional surfaces of different directions, reflecting the initial anisotropy of the material. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a strength criterion that considers the depositional characteristics or initial anisotropy of the geomaterial. The premise of establishing the anisotropic strength criterion is to quantify the degree and direction of the initial anisotropy of the geomaterial. The fabric tensor proposed by Brewer is a good choice. The anisotropic function in the present study refers to the form in [31–33]:where A is the anisotropic parameter and A₀ is the value that A takes from b = 0 and α = 0. η₁ and η₂ in the anisotropic function are selected to depict the anisotropy of the material. The anisotropic function and the nonlinear isotropic strength criterion are combined to obtain an anisotropic strength criterion, as shown in the following equation:

2.4. Effects of η₁ and η₂ on ANUS

The effect of isotropic parameters on the shape of the strength criterion in the deviatoric plane has been discussed above. This section focuses on the effect of anisotropic parameters on the shape of the strength criterion. According to the characteristics of the test data, the parameters η₁ and η₂ in the anisotropic function are selected to depict the anisotropy of the material. Different formulas can be selected for the anisotropic parameter A in equation (22) according to the true triaxial test or the hollow torsional shear test. In the present study, the anisotropic strength in the true triaxial test is mainly discussed.

In the true triaxial test, when the stress tensor and the fabric tensor are coaxial (β = 0), as shown in Figure 2, the shape of the strength criterion in the π plane varies with the parameters η₁ and η₂, as shown in Figures 3(a), 3(c), and 3(e). In this section, with η₂ fixed at −0.25, −0.333, and 0, the effect of varying η₁ on the strength curve in the π plane is discussed. As shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), with η₂ = −0.25, the strength values of the anisotropic criterion and the isotropic criterion at θ = 180° are equal with different η₁ values, and the criterion is symmetric about the σ_z axis. The criterion expands in the π plane when η₁ > 0 and shrinks in the π plane when η₁ < 0, and the degrees of expansion or shrinkage are related to the value of η₁. The anisotropic function variation in the π plane is consistent with that of the strength criterion, as shown in Figure 3(b). With η₂ = −0.333, as shown in Figure 3(c), the strength values of the anisotropic criterion and the isotropic criterion at θ = 120° and 240°, respectively, are equal with different η₁ values, and the criterion is symmetric about the σ_z axis. Relative to the isotropic criterion, the anisotropic criterion expands in regions I and II and shrinks in region III of the π plane when η₁ > 0, and it shrinks in regions I and II and expands in region III of the π plane when η₁ < 0, with the degrees of expansion or shrinkage being related to the value of η₁. The anisotropic function variation in the π plane is consistent with that of the strength criterion, as shown in Figure 3(d). When η₂ = 0, as shown in Figure 3(e), the criterion at different η₁ values is symmetric about the σ_z axis; when η₁ > 0, the anisotropic criterion expands in the π plane relative to the isotropic criterion; and when η₁ < 0, the anisotropic criterion shrinks in the π plane relative to the isotropic criterion. The degrees of expansion or shrinkage are related to the value of η₁. The anisotropic function variation in the π plane is consistent with that of the strength criterion, as shown in Figure 3(f).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

When the stress tensor and the fabric tensor are not coaxial (β ≠ 0), the changes in the shape of the strength criterion in the π plane at different included angles are shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(c). With fixed η₁ and η₂ values (η₁ = −0.08, η₂ = 0), the effect of the change in the included angle between the deposition surface and the vertical stress on the strength curve in the π plane is discussed. When β = 0, as shown in Figure 4, the strength curve is symmetric about the σ_z axis in the π plane. When the deposition surface is rotated in the plane, as shown in Figure 4(a), the strength curve is symmetric with respect to the σ_y axis in the π plane when β = 90°. The changes in the strength curve when β = 30° and 60° are shown in Figure 4(a). As the figure shows, when the deposition surface is rotated in the plane, the strength values of the anisotropic strength criterion are equal at θ = 60° and 240°. The included angle has a large effect on the position and size of the strength curve. The method proposed in the present study can predict the trend and position of the strength curve at different included angles. When the deposition surface is rotated in the plane, as shown in Figure 4(c), the strength curve is symmetric about the σ_x axis in the π plane when β = 90°. The changes in the strength curve when β = 30° and 60° are shown in Figure 4(c). As the figure indicates, when the deposition surface is rotated in the plane, the strength values of the anisotropic strength criterion are equal at θ = 120° and 300°. The variations of the anisotropic function in the π plane in both cases are shown in Figure 4(b) and 4(d), where a similar situation with the change in the strength criterion is observed.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3. Test Verification

3.1. Parameter Determination

To facilitate the application of the criteria, the model parameters should be determined as much as possible using conventional triaxial compression or extension tests. In this section, the proposed ANUS criterion is applied to various geomaterials. The geomaterial model parameters need to be determined only by conventional triaxial compression or extension tests. In this section, the strength parameters and anisotropy parameters in the anisotropic criterion are mainly determined. Callisto et al. [34] performed a large number of conventional triaxial tests and true triaxial tests on Pietrafitta clay to determine all the parameters in the anisotropic criterion. In the present study, the parameters are determined by conventional triaxial test data, and other test data are used for model verification. The specific determination steps are as follows:(1)Determination of M_f, n, and σ₀. The curve is drawn using the failure data of the conventional triaxial test, as shown in Figure 5(a). As shown in the figure, exhibits a linear relationship. Therefore, n = 1, the slope of the straight line is M(), and the intercept is C (), where c is the cohesion, and φ₀ is the friction angle. From the fitted linear relation in the figure, it can be seen that, for the Pietrafitta clay, M = 0.5472 and C = 105.59 kPa. Therefore, it can be determined that c = 49.98 kPa and φ₀ = 14.478°, and σ₀ = ccotφ₀ = 193.58 kPa can be obtained from the values of c and φ₀, taking ξ = 0.(2)Determination of η₁ and η₂, η₁, and η₂ can be determined by the q value of other stress paths with b ≠ 0. Usually, the strength of triaxial extension is taken as the reference value for calibration. In most triaxial tests, only one of the terms in equation (21) is needed to satisfy the prediction accuracy requirement. For this reason, only the η₁ term is taken in this test. In the triaxial extension test, when b = 1 and θ = 180°A–A₀ = 4. Using , q_e = 254.41 kPa (θ = 180° = 250 kPa) can be obtained using the same method. Therefore, (θ) = 0.8462, f(A) = exp(4η₁), and η₁ = 0.0417.

Using the above steps, all parameters of the anisotropic criterion for Pietrafitta clay are determined. The test parameter determination method is shown in Figure 5(a). The comparison of the prediction results by the isotropic criterion and the anisotropic criterion in Figure 5(b) shows that the anisotropic criterion proposed in the present study better predicts the test data.

(a)

(b)

3.2. Strength Nonlinearity

A series of large triaxial tests for rockfill materials were conducted to research strength nonlinearity of this material [27]. In the meridional plane (), the test results show the strength nonlinearities. Therefore, it is necessary to use nonlinear strength criteria to depict the strength development pattern. The two strength criteria are compared by using them to predict the test data, as shown in Figure 6. As the figure shows, the nonlinear strength criterion proposed this paper can depict the strength nonlinearity of this material.

(a)

(b)

3.3. Anisotropy

3.3.1. True Triaxial Test of Soil

In addition to the above true triaxial test of Pietrafitta clay, fine glass-bead sand is then used to verify the anisotropic criterion. Haruyama [35] conducted a large number of conventional triaxial tests and true triaxial tests to study the initial anisotropy of fine glass-bead sand. The effective stress of the test is p = 294 kPa. The conventional triaxial compression test and the triaxial tensile test are used to determine the parameters. The parameters determined by the test data are as follows: M = 1.142, σ₀ = 0, n = 1, η₁ = −0.038, and η₂ = 0. The prediction results and test data in the deviatoric plane and b-φ plane are shown in Figure 7. It can be seen from the figure that the anisotropic criterion of the present study can reasonably predict the strength of the fine glass sand in the π plane. However, the isotropic criterion fails to predict the strength of regions II and III in the deviatoric plane and overestimates the material strength. In addition, in the b-φ plane, the isotropic criterion can only predict one variation curve of the friction angle, whereas the anisotropic criterion results in a continuous prediction curve in each region, reflecting the anisotropy of the material. Therefore, the anisotropic criterion can reasonably predict the peak strength of the fine glass-bead sand compared to the isotropic criterion.

(a)

(b)

3.3.2. Torsional Shear Tests for Soils

The failure friction angle measured from torsional shear tests on Leighton Buzzard sand of different densities and on spherical glass beads conducted by Yang et al. [37] was analyzed using the proposed ANUS criterion. The effective stress of the test is = 200 kPa. The parameters determined by the test data are as follows: for glass ballotini, M = 1.43, σ₀ = 0, n = 1, η₁ = −0.368, and η₂ = 0.1187; for medium dense LB sand, M = 1.805, σ₀ = 0, n = 1, η₁ = −0.2463, and η₂ = 0.0593; for dense LB sand, M = 1.91, σ₀ = 0, n = 1, η₁ = −0.2668, and η₂ = 0.0655. The prediction results (ANUS criterion and ALD criterion [38]) and test data in the α-φ plane are shown in Figure 8. As shown in Figure 8, under torsional shear tests, the sand shows obvious anisotropy, the new anisotropic criterion can predict the failure friction angle well, and the prediction curve is smooth.

3.3.3. Rock Triaxial Test considering Deposition Surface

This test is mainly used to verify the peak strength of the rock considering the different angles between the rock deposition surface and the principal stress. The isotropic strength criterion and the anisotropic strength criterion were used for prediction, and a comparison of the prediction results with the test data shows the superiority of the anisotropic strength criterion. Here, based on the schist triaxial tests with different deposition surface angles in the literature, the parameters of the anisotropic strength criterion are M = 2.36, σ₀ = 8 Mpa, n = 0.74, η₁ = −2.47, and η₂ = −0.33. It can be seen from the test results that the two types of rock exhibit strong strength anisotropy in different deposition directions. In comparison, the use of the isotropic strength criterion to predict strength variations can lead to large errors, making it difficult to promote the isotropic criterion in engineering applications.

As shown in Figure 9, the anisotropic criterion can reasonably predict the strength failure line with different deposition surface angles in the plane. In contrast, the isotropic strength criterion can only predict the failure line when β = 0°, cannot reflect the strength anisotropy, and overestimates the strength values with different deposition surface angles, especially for β = 45°. Meanwhile, the anisotropic criterion can reasonably predict the trend of strength variation under different confining pressures at different deposition surfaces, as shown in Figure 9(a). It can be seen from Figure 9(b) that the strengths of rocks with different deposition surface angles differ considerably. The peak strength of the rock is the largest when β = 0° or 90° and the smallest when the deposition surface angle is approximately 45°. In contrast, the isotropic criterion is a straight line in the plane and, hence, cannot reflect the strength anisotropy caused by the direction of the deposition surface.

(a)

(b)

4. Conclusion

(1)In this paper, a new strength criterion is proposed on the basis of the SMP criterion. In the π plane, the new criterion is a series of smooth curves and can unify the strength criteria.(2)The new criterion can depict the 3D strength variation of the material and reflect the effect of the intermediate principal stress and the nonlinear characteristics of the material strength.(3)The unified anisotropic strength criterion based on the pattern of the fabric evolution of granular materials can reflect the strength anisotropy caused by the deposition characteristics of the material. This criterion can be applied to the true triaxial test to consider the direction angle of the deposition surface. The correctness of the criterion was verified using sand, clay, and rock materials.

Data Availability

The underlying data used in the presented study were obtained from the literature.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by Ningbo Natural Science Foundation Project (2019A610394) and the Initial Scientific Research Fund of Young Teachers in Ningbo University of Technology (2140011540012) and supported by the Systematic Project of Guangxi Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety (no. 2019ZDK005) and the Ningbo Public Welfare Science and Technology Planning Project (no. 2019C50012). These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged.

References

D. C. Drucker, W. Prager, and H. J. Greenberg, “Extended limit design theorems for continuous media,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 381–389, 1974.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Matsuoka and T. Nakai, “Stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soil under three different principal stresses,” Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 1974, no. 232, pp. 59–70, 1974.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Matsuoka, “On the significance of the “spatial mobilized plane”,” Soils and Foundations, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 91–100, 1976.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Lade and J. M. Duncan, “Elastoplastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol. 101, no. GT10, pp. 1037–1053, 1975.
View at: Google Scholar
P. V. Lade, “Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil with curved yield surfaces,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1019–1035, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Hoek and E. Brown, “Empirical strength criterion for rock masses,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol. 106, no. 9, pp. 1013–1035, 1980.
View at: Google Scholar
W. F. Chen, “Strength theory: applications. developments and prospects for 21st century,” Concrete Plasticiry: Past, Present and Future, Science Press, Beijing, New York, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
M. D. Liu and J. P. Carter, “General strength criterion for geomaterials,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 253–259, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-H. Yu, Y.-W. Zan, and J. Zhao, “A unified strength criterion for rock material,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 975–989, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yoshimine, D. Lu, A. Zhou, and B. Zou, “Generalized non-linear strength theory and transformed stress space,” Science in China Series E, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 691–709, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Xiao, H. Liu, and R. Y. Liang, “Modified Cam-Clay model incorporating unified nonlinear strength criterion,” Science China Technological Sciences, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 805–810, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yu, L. He, and L. Song, “Twin shear stress theory and its generalizeation,” Scientia Sinica Series A, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1174–1183, 1985.
View at: Google Scholar
M.-h. Yu, “Advances in strength theories for materials under complex stress state in the 20th Century,” Applied Mechanics Reviews, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 169–218, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Willam and E. P. Warnke, “Constitutive model for the triaxialbehavior of concrete,” in Proceedings of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Seminar on Concrete Structure Subjected to Triaxial Stresses, ISMES, vol. 19, pp. 1–30, Bergamo, Italy, May 1975.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Hoek and E. T. Brown, “Practical estimates of rock mass strength,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1165–1186, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mahendra and S. Bhawani, “Modified Mohr-Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial and polyaxial strength of jointed rocks,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 51, pp. 43–52, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. W. Gao, J. D. Zhao, and Y. P. Yao, “A generalized anisotropic failure criterion for geomaterials,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 47, no. 22–23, pp. 3166–3185, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Tong, P. Fu, S. Zhou, and Y. F. Dafalias, “Experimental investigation of shear strength of sands with inherent fabric anisotropy,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 257–275, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, Z. Song, B. Zhao, X. Liu, J. Liu, and J. Lai, “A study on the mechanical behavior and statistical damage constitutive model of sandstone,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 5179–5192, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Li, M. Aubertin, R. Simon, and B. Bussière, “Formulation and application of a general inelastic locus for geomaterials with variable porosity,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 601–623.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. BussièreSimon, “A new yield and failure criterion for geomaterials,” Géotechnique, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 125–132, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Mortara, “A hierarchical single yield surface for frictional materials,” Computers And Geotechnics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 960–967, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Su, Z.-L. Wang, and F. Xing, “A two-parameter expression for failure surfaces,” Computers And Geotechnics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 517–524, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Liu, Y. Gao, and H. Liu, “A nonlinear Drucker-Prager and Matsuoka-Nakai unified failure criterion for geomaterials with separated stress invariants,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics And Mining Sciences, vol. 50, pp. 1–10, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Lu, C. Ma, X. L. Du, L. Jin, and Q. M. Gong, “Development of a new nonlinear unified strength theory for geomaterials based on the characteristic stress concept,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 17, no. 2, Article ID 04016058, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Osswald and T. A. Osswald, “A strength tensor based failure criterion with stress interactions,” Polymer Composites, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2826–2834, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Liu, Y. F. Gao, and X. M. Huang, “Study on elasto-plastic constitutive model of rockfills with nonlinear strength characteristics,” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 294–298, 2005, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Varadarajan, K. G. Sharma, S. M. Abbas, and A. K. Dhawan, “Constitutive model for rockfill materials and determination of material constants,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 226–237, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Gupta, Constitutive Modeling of Rockfill Materials, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India, 2000.
X. R. Liu, Y. L.. , Tu, P. Wang, Z. L. Zhong, W. L. Tang, and L. B. Du, “Particle breakage of soil-rock aggregate based on large-scale direct shear tests,” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1425–1434, 2017, in Chinese.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. F. Dafalias, A. G. Papadimitriou, and X. S. Li, “Sand plasticity model accounting for inherent fabric anisotropy,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 130, no. 11, pp. 1319–1333, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Pietruszczak and Z. Mroz, “Formulation of anisotropic failure criteria incorporating a microstructure tensor,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 105–112, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Pietruszczak and Z. Mroz, “On failure criteria for anisotropic cohesive-frictional materials,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 509–524, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Callisto and S. Rampello, “Shear strength and small-strain stiffness of a natural clay under general stress conditions,” Géotechnique, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 547–560, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Haruyama, “Anisotropic deformation-strength characteristics of an assembly of spherical particles under three dimensional stresses,” Soils and Foundations, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 41–55, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wang, Z. Zhong, and X. Liu, “Development of an anisotropic nonlinear strength criterion for geomaterials based on SMP criterion,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 20, no. 3, Article ID 04019183, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L.-T. Yang, D. Wanatowski, X. Li, H.-S. Yu, and Y. Cai, “Laboratory and micromechanical investigation of soil anisotropy,” Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 411–416, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Cao, R. Wang, and J. M. Zhang, “Formulation of anisotropic strength criteria for cohesionless granular materials,” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, vol. 17, no. 7, Article ID 04016151, pp. 1–10, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Niandou, J. F. Shao, J. P. Henry, and D. Fourmaintraux, “Laboratory investigation of the mechanical behaviour of Tournemire shale,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3–16, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Wang, P. Fu, and Z. X. Tong, “Discussion of “description of inherent and induced anisotropy in granular media with particles of high sphericity”,” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, vol. 18, no. 1, Article ID 07017014, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Liping Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

357

Downloads

819

Citations

Advances in Civil Engineering

Formulation of Anisotropic Strength Criterion for Geotechnical Materials

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Form of the NUS Criterion

2.1. Linear Unified Strength (LUS) Criterion

2.2. Nonlinear Isotropic Strength (NIS) Criterion

2.3. Nonlinear Unified Strength (NUS) Criterion

2.4. Effects of η1 and η2 on ANUS

3. Test Verification

3.1. Parameter Determination

3.2. Strength Nonlinearity

3.3. Anisotropy

3.3.1. True Triaxial Test of Soil

3.3.2. Torsional Shear Tests for Soils

3.3.3. Rock Triaxial Test considering Deposition Surface

4. Conclusion

Data Availability

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright

2.4. Effects of η₁ and η₂ on ANUS