Failure Mechanisms, Prediction, and Risk Assessment of Natural and Engineering Disasters through Machine Learning and Numerical Simulation
View this Special IssueResearch Article  Open Access
Pengfei Zhang, Han Liu, Zhentu Feng, Chaofeng Jia, Rui Zhou, "A Constitutive Model of Sandy Gravel Soil under LargeSized Loading/Unloading Triaxial Tests", Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 4998351, 11 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4998351
A Constitutive Model of Sandy Gravel Soil under LargeSized Loading/Unloading Triaxial Tests
Abstract
Based on largescale triaxial tests of sandy gravel materials, the strength and deformation characteristics under loading/unloading conditions are analyzed. At the same time, the applicability of the hyperbolic constitutive model to sandy gravel is studied using experimental data. The results indicate that sandy gravel under low confining pressures (0.2 and 0.4 MPa) shows a weak softening trend; the higher the confining pressure, the more obvious the hardening tendency (0.6 and 0.8 MPa) and the greater the peak strength. During unloading tests, strain softening occurs, and the peak strength increases with increasing confining pressure. During loading tests, dilatancy appears when the confining pressure is low (0.2 MPa). With increasing confining pressure (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 MPa), the dilatancy trend gradually weakens, and the cumulative volume tric strain increases, which reflects the relevance of the stress paths. Through research, it is found that the hyperbolic constitutive model has good applicability to sandy gravel soils, and the corresponding model parameters are obtained.
1. Introduction
With the rapid development of rail transit, shield tunnel construction has encountered many severe challenges in sandy gravel strata in China. For example, the first phase of the Luoyang Urban Rail Transit Line 2 project under construction uses the shield method to cross the sandy gravel stratum, which is particularly important for the ground settlement, seepage damage, and the stability of the excavation surface [1–3]. In addition to a large number of field tests, the mechanical characteristics and description of the stressstrain relationship of coarsegrained soil are hot topics [4, 5], which can provide necessary conditions for numerical calculations in practical engineering.
The mechanical properties of soils are determined by many factors, including externally applied stress, soil type, microstructure damage [6], density, matrix suction caused by surface tension passing through the air in unsaturated environments [7], and temperature [8–10]. To date, many constitutive models of saturated/unsaturated soil have been proposed, but there are still many controversies regarding some basic problems [9, 11], such as the selection of state variables of stress and strain and the theoretical framework of hydraulic coupling processes [12, 13]. Alonso et al. [14] established a constitutive model of unsaturated soil materials by utilizing the doublestress variables of net stress and matrix suction. Many scholars [15, 16] have discussed the hydraulic coupling characteristics of saturated/unsaturated soil and even some basic thermohydromechanical coupling characteristics [17, 18]. These theoretical studies considered the influence of the volume water content on mechanical properties, such as irreversible compression during drying and changes in the water content during loading/unloading. Based on the principle of thermodynamics, some researchers [19–21] established the hydraulic coupling effects of threephase unsaturated soil by analyzing the thermodynamic potential of the solidliquidgas phase and dissipated energy. Recently, Bai et al. [22] proposed a thermohydromechanical constitutive model for geomaterials in view of the concept of particle rearrangement during the thermodynamic process of porous granular materials, which is contributed to understand the mechanical properties of the particle movement of sandy gravel soils from the microscopic point of view.
For subway tunnel projects in sandy gravel strata [23–25], when discussing settlement control and deformation characteristics, the constitutive relationship of sandy gravel is rarely mentioned, and the commonly used Mohr–Coulomb relationship is still utilized [26]. The actual sandy gravel is a kind of coarsegrained soil; however, it is not reasonable to use the Mohr–Coulomb relationship. Therefore, it is particularly important to study the deformation characteristics of shield tunneling in sandy gravel formations and to determine the appropriate constitutive model and parameters [27, 28]. It has important engineering significance in stratum settlement control and station foundation pit excavation [29].
In this paper, a largesized laboratory triaxial shear test is carried out on sandy gravel soil taken from the Luoyang subway site, and then triaxial shear tests on sandy gravel under different confining pressures are carried out to determine the appropriate sandy gravel constitutive model as well as the model parameters accordingly. This work can help with engineering design and practice. The established constitutive model can well reflect the loading process and unloading process of sandy gravel soil, which is also used for the numerical calculation during the unloading process in the shield tunnel excavation process.
2. Experiments of Large Sandy Gravel Soil under a Complex Stress Path
2.1. Test Schemes
This paper selects sandy gravel soil samples from the first phase of the project of Luoyang Urban Rail Transit Line 2 to conduct a largescale triaxial test. The purpose is to investigate two typical stress state change processes (namely, loading and unloading stress paths) and then determine the stressstrain relationship characteristics and volumetric strainaxial strain characteristics, as well as the seepage effect [30, 31] and damage mechanism of the soil layer [24, 32, 33].
Actually, the stress and deformation state changes of the surrounding stratum are very complicated during the shield tunnel excavation process [34, 35], even related to the effect of environmental temperature [36, 37] and the thermalmechanical behavior of tunnel lining segments [38, 39]. For simplicity, this test simulates two extreme stress path change processes, namely, active failure and passive failure of the excavation surface. The specific test scheme is shown in Table 1, including 2 groups of tests. Among them, the sample size is 30 cm in diameter and 70 cm in height, and the test confining pressure is determined by the actual stress state at the site to be 200, 400, 600, and 800 kPa. The loading/unloading tests were accomplished by the stresscontrolled method, and the shear rate was 0.2 kPa/s. This test primarily studies the strength and deformation characteristics of sandy gravel under triaxial compression and unloading conditions.

2.2. Preparation of Soil Samples
The soil layer in the project area is composed of silty clay, silt soil, a sand layer, and a gravel soil layer, which is a multilayer structure. According to the actual situation of the project, samples were taken at a depth of 10 m, and the dry density was controlled to be 2.27 g/cm^{3}.
Through particle analysis, the maximum particle size of sandy gravel tested was 80 mm, and its characteristic particle size is shown in Table 2. The inhomogeneity coefficient of the soil is greater than 10, and the curvature coefficient is between 1 and 5. It belongs to coarsegrained soil with good gradation.

The test equipment was an SJ70 largescale highpressure triaxial shear tester. The test specimen has a diameter of 300 mm and a height of 700 mm. According to the sampling and sieving situation, the gravels that exceed the particle size limit of 60 mm account for only approximately 5%, so a particle size of 40−60 mm was used instead. The sample was prepared by splitting the soil into 5 layers. The sample preparation method uses a vibrator to vibrate. The static pressure of the vibrator bottom plate is 14 kPa, and the vibration frequency is 40 Hz. The vibration time is determined according to the dry density of the sample.
According to the actual engineering conditions and the high water permeability of sandy gravel, this test adopts the consolidated drained shear (i.e., CD) test. The sample saturation method adopts the suction saturation method.
3. Test Results and Analysis
3.1. StressStrainStrength Characteristics
From the stressstrain relationship curves of sandy gravel in Figures 1 and 2, under the condition of the same shear rate, sandy gravel is loaded under low confining pressure (0.2 and 0.4 MPa), showing a weak softening trend. The higher the confining pressure, the more obvious the hardening tendency (0.6 and 0.8 MPa) and the greater the peak strength. For the unloading test, there is a more obvious softening phenomenon, and as the confining pressure increases, the peak value becomes more obvious. The deviator stressstrain curves of the two groups of sandy gravels show a strong nonlinear relationship when the stress and strain reach a certain value.
3.2. Volume Deformation Characteristics
Figures 3 and 4 give the relationship of sandy gravel when loading and unloading under different confining pressures. From Figure 3, under conditions of low confining pressure (0.2 MPa), sandy gravels exhibit shear shrinkage first and then dilatancy. As the confining pressure increases (0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 MPa), the dilatancy trend gradually weakens, and the cumulative body strain increases. Under unloading conditions (Figure 4), the main manifestation is dilatancy, and with increasing confining pressure, the dilatancy phenomenon becomes more obvious, which fully reflects the relevance of the stress path.
4. Constitutive Model of Sandy Gravel Considering the Loading/Unloading Process
Kondner [40] thought that the hyperbola can be used to fit the general triaxial test (σ_{1} − σ_{3})ε_{1} curve, namely,where a and b are test constants.
For the conventional triaxial shear test, ε_{a} = ε_{1}. Later, Duncan and Chang [41] proposed a widely used nonlinear elastic model, namely, the Duncan–Chang model, which was developed widely [42].
4.1. Conventional Triaxial Loading Test
Under conventional triaxial loading conditions, (1) can be written aswhere a is the intercept of the line and b is the slope of the line.
Obviously, there is an approximately linear relationship between ε_{1}/(σ_{1} − σ_{3}) and ε_{1}. In the conventional triaxial shear test, the tangent elastic modulus can be expressed as
When ε_{1} = 0 and E_{t} = E_{i}, the combination of (3) leads to
When ε_{1}⟶∞, from (1), we can get
In (4) and (5), a represents the reciprocal of the initial elastic modulus E_{i}, and b represents the reciprocal of the ultimate deviator stress (σ_{1} − σ_{3})_{ult} corresponding to the asymptote of the hyperbola.
In the conventional triaxial test, the shear strength (σ_{1} − σ_{3})_{f} is determined according to the stress value corresponding to the strain value ε_{1} = 15%; for the stressstrain curve with a peak value, it generally takes its strength, that is, (σ_{1} − σ_{3})_{f} = (σ_{1} − σ_{3})_{peak}.
In this way, the damage ratio R_{f} can be defined as
Considering (5), one has
Consider E_{t} as a function of stress, which can be obtained by transforming (2):
Substituting (8) into (3), we get
Substituting (4) and (7) into (9), we can get
According to the Mohr–Coulomb strength criterion, there is
The expression of the initial elastic modulus E_{i} with consolidation pressure σ_{3} can be described aswhere p_{a} is the atmospheric pressure (p_{a} = 101.4 kPa) and K and n are experimental parameters, representing the intercept and slope of the straight line between log (E_{i}/p_{a}) and log (σ_{3}/p_{a}).
Substituting (11) and (12) into (10), we can obtain
In (13), the tangent elastic modulus E_{t} contains five material parameters (K, n, c, , and R_{f}). There is a hyperbolic relationship between the axial strain ε_{1} and the confining strain −ε_{3} based on the conventional triaxial loading test data of the soil (Figure 5).
(a)
(b)
(c)
The hyperbolic equation shown in Figure 5(a) can be written as
The linear equation in Figure 5(b) can be written as
When ε_{3} = 0, −ε_{3}/ε_{1} = f = ν_{i} is initial Poisson’s ratio; when −ε_{3}⟶∞, D = 1/(ε_{1})_{ult}. The triaxial shear test shows that initial Poisson’s ratio is related to the confining pressure [9, 12]. As shown in Figure 5(c), it is assumed thatwhere G and F are test constants.
The difference of (14) induces
Substituting (8) and (16) into (17), we get
4.2. Conventional Triaxial Unloading Test
Assuming that the soil is an isotropic medium, according to the generalized Hooke’s law, the stressstrain relationship can be written aswhere Δσ_{a} = Δσ_{1} is the axial stress increment, Δσ_{r} = Δσ_{3} is the lateral stress increment, Δε_{a} = Δε_{1} is the axial strain increment, and Δε_{r} = Δε_{3} is the lateral strain increment.
When Δσ_{a} = 0 and Δσ_{r} ≠ 0, the tangent elastic modulus E_{t} can be written as
Referring to the derivation process of the triaxial loading test, under the condition of lateral unloading, the relationship curve of 2(σ_{rc} − σ_{r}) − (ε_{a} − 2ε_{r}) is still satisfied with a hyperbolic relationship, namely, (ε_{a} − 2ε_{r})/2(σ_{rc} − σ_{r}) − (ε_{a} − ε_{r}).
Use (12) to establish the relationship between the initial tangent elastic modulus E_{i} and the axial consolidation pressure σ_{ac}. Here, E_{i} is actually the slope of the curve between 2(σ_{rc} − σ_{r}) and (ε_{a} − 2ε_{r}) at the origin of the curve. Hence,
During lateral unloading, the failure deviator stress can be deduced:
Because σ_{a} = σ_{ac} is a constant during lateral unloading, it can be obtained from (20):
The tangential elastic modulus E_{t} of the triaxial unloading test still contains 5 material constants (i.e., K, n, c, , and R_{f}). Comparing the unloading and loading paths, it can be seen that the axial strain ε_{1} increases and ε_{3} decreases. That is, the two effects on the test results are the same. From this point of view, the calculation formula of Poisson’s ratio for loading and unloading tests is the same. Therefore, the final expression of tangent Poisson’s ratio in the unloading test is
5. Determination of Loading/Unloading Parameters
5.1. Parameters of the Triaxial Loading
According to the stressstrain relationship shown in Figure 2, three groups of confining pressures and corresponding failure stresses (σ_{1} − σ_{3})_{f} are obtained, as shown in Table 3. Thus, we can obtain the cohesive force c = 19.2 kPa and the friction angle φ = 40°. In the coordinates of ε_{1} and ε_{1}/(σ_{1} − σ_{3}), the relationship between the two is approximately linear (Figure 6). In Figure 6, a and b are the intercept and slope obtained by fitting a straight line. Combining equation (24), the E_{i} value can be obtained as shown in Table 4.


Figure 6 indicates that ε_{1} and ε_{1}/(σ_{1} − σ_{3}) of sandy gravel have a good linear relationship, which means a hyperbolic relationship between shear stress and strain. The determination parameter R^{2} values are all greater than 0.98, and the hyperbolic model has better applicability. Combining (7) can calculate the values of R_{f} to be 0.91, 0.93, and 0.92, and the average value is 0.92.
According to (12), the following expression can be obtained:
From the results in Table 4, three sets of E_{i} and σ_{3} values can be obtained. According to the fitting results, we can obtain the intercept K = 97 and the slope n = 0.538. According to the relationship between the axial strain of sandy gravel and the volume tric strain, the relationship of −ε_{3}/ε_{1} and −ε_{3} can be obtained as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 indicates that there is a good linear relationship between −ε_{3}/ε_{1} and −ε_{3}. By fitting the result to a straight line, the average value of the slope D is 0.07.
According to the three groups of values of and σ_{3} in Figure 7, the relationship between and log(σ_{3}/p_{a}) is shown in Figure 8. Due to , the parameters G = 0.49 and F = 0.186 can be obtained.
5.2. Parameters for Triaxial Unloading
A large number of experimental studies [13–15] show that the cohesion c and the friction angle φ in the unloading test are equal to those in the load test, that is, the cohesion c is 19.2 kPa and the friction angle φ is 40°. The damage ratio R_{f} of the unloading test is consistent with (26). In the coordinates (ε_{1} − 2ε_{3})/2(σ_{1} − σ_{3}) − (ε_{1} − 2ε_{3}) (Figure 9), the linear fitting results are poor. This is because high or low stress levels will cause the test point to deviate from the straight line.
The relevant values obtained according to this method are shown in Table 5, and the fitted straight line relationship is shown in Figure 10. Combining the stress paths of the unloading test, there arewhere a and b are the intercepts and slopes obtained by fitting in Figure 4.

Combining the results in Figure 4, the relevant parameters of the unloading test and E_{i} and R_{f} can be obtained (Table 6). Finally, the average value of R_{f} in the sandy gravel unloading test can be obtained from Table 6, namely, R_{f} = 0.43. Using (21), the following equation can be obtained:where K represents the intercept and n represents the slope.

According to Table 6, three groups of E_{i} and σ_{1} values can be obtained to fit a straight line, and the expression is
Comparing (28) and (29), we can obtain that intercept K = 43 and slope n = 0.759. Finally, the parameters G, F, and D related to tangent Poisson’s ratio are determined. Figure 5 shows the relationship between the axial strain and the body strain and the relationship between −ε_{3}/ε_{1} and −ε_{3} (Figure 11).
Figure 11 indicates that there is an obvious linear relationship between −ε_{3}/ε_{1} and −ε_{3}, indicating that the assumption that the axial strain ε_{1} and the lateral strain ε_{3} are hyperbolic in the unloading test is applicable. The average value of the slope D of the fitted straight line is −0.015. According to Figure 11, three groups of values of and σ_{3} can be obtained, and the corresponding relationship between and log(σ_{3}/p_{a}) can be drawn, as shown in Figure 12.
Due tothe equation of the fitted straight line in Figure 12 is
Comparing (30) and (31), the value of G is 0.47, and the value of F is −0.145.
5.3. The Tangent Elastic Modulus and Tangent Poisson’s Ratio
For triaxial loading, according to the relevant parameters determined above, the tangent elastic modulus E_{t} and tangent Poisson’s ratio of sandy gravel under triaxial loading can be obtained as
For triaxial unloading, E_{t} and during the unloading test are
6. Conclusions
Consolidation and drainage shear tests of sandy gravel under different confining pressures under loading/unloading conditions are carried out. The differences in the strength and deformation of sandy gravel are analyzed. In using the proposed model, the parameters are few and can be obtained from normal geotechnical tests, which has high application value in practical engineering. The main conclusions drawn are as follows:(1)The relationships between σ_{1} − σ_{3} and ε_{1} and and ε_{a} of sandy gravel soil under loading conditions are all nonlinear. The smaller the confining pressure, the weaker the stressstrain relationship. The stressstrain relationship exhibits a softening phenomenon, and the bulk strain undergoes dilatancy deformation. In contrast, it shows strain hardening and shear shrinkage deformation.(2)Under unloading conditions, the sandy gravel soil softens significantly with increasing confining pressure, and the peak strength increases. In the meantime, the tric strain response exhibits dilatancy characteristics. The strength and deformation characteristics of sandy gravel soil have a high dependence on the stress path.(3)The Duncan–Chang hyperbolic model has good applicability for simulating sandy gravel soils, and the model parameters are calculated according to the test results, which can provide help for engineering design and practice.
Abbreviations
ε_{1}, ε_{3}:  Principal strains 
ε_{r}:  Lateral strain 
:  Bulk strain 
σ_{1}, σ_{3}:  Principal stresses 
σ_{rc}:  Lateral consolidation pressure 
σ_{r}:  Lateral pressure 
E_{t}:  Tangent elastic modulus 
E_{i}:  Initial modulus of elasticity 
c:  Cohesion 
φ:  Internal friction angle 
p_{a}:  Atmospheric pressure 
K, n, G, F:  Material test constants 
ν_{i}:  Initial Poisson’s ratio. 
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Hebei Province Postdoctoral Research Project MeritBased Funding Program (B2020005008).
References
 X. Li, T. Li, and L. Peng, “Elastoplastic twosurface model for unsaturated cohesive soils under cyclic loading,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 20, no. 8, Article ID 04020122, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Zhu, G. Wang, F. Huang, Y. Li, W. Chen, and H. Hong, “Landslide susceptibility prediction using sparse feature extraction and machine learning models based on GIS and remote sensing,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 15, pp. 1–5, 2021. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, S. Jiang, L. Liu, X. Li, and H. Wu, “The transport of silica powders and lead ions under unsteady flow and variable injection concentrations,” Powder Technology, vol. 387, pp. 22–30, 2021. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Aslani, J. Nazariafshar, and N. Ganjian, “Experimental study on shear strength of cohesive soils reinforced with stone columns,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2165–2188, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. M. Deganutti, P. R. Tecca, and R. Genevois, “The measure of friction angles for different types of granular material,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 769–777, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, D. Rao, T. Chang, and Z. Guo, “A nonlinear attachmentdetachment model with adsorption hysteresis for suspensioncolloidal transport in porous media,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 578, Article ID 124080, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, T. Xu, Q. Nie, and P. Li, “Temperaturedriven migration of heavy metal Pb2+ along with moisture movement in unsaturated soils,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 153, Article ID 119573, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Sánchez, A. Gens, M. V. Villar, and S. Olivella, “Fully coupled thermohydromechanical doubleporosity formulation for unsaturated soils,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1–38, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Gholizadeh and M. Latifi, “A coupled hydromechanical constitutive model for unsaturated frictional and cohesive soil,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 98, pp. 69–81, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, D. Rao, T. Xu, and P. Chen, “SPHFDM boundary for the analysis of thermal process in homogeneous media with a discontinuous interface,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 117, pp. 517–526, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Yang and B. Bai, “Thermohydromechanical model for unsaturated clay soils based on granular solid hydrodynamics theory,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 19, no. 10, Article ID 04019115, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Huang, Z. Ye, S.H. Jiang, J. Huang, Z. Chang, and J. Chen, “Uncertainty study of landslide susceptibility prediction considering the different attribute interval numbers of environmental factors and different databased models,” Catena, vol. 202, Article ID 105250, 2021. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Huang, Z. Cao, S.H. Jiang, C. Zhou, J. Huang, and Z. Guo, “Landslide susceptibility prediction based on a semisupervised multiplelayer perceptron model,” Landslides, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 2919–2930, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. E. Alonso, A. Gens, and A. Josa, “A constitutive model for partially saturated soils,” Géotechnique, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 405–430, 1990. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, L. Guo, and S. Han, “Pore pressure and consolidation of saturated silty clay induced by progressively heating/cooling,” Mechanics of Materials, vol. 75, pp. 84–94, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. L. Houston, “It is time to use unsaturated soil mechanics in routine geotechnical engineering practice,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 145, no. 5, Article ID 02519001, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai and Z. Su, “Thermal responses of saturated silty clay during repeated heatingcooling processes,” Transport in Porous Media, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai and X. Shi, “Experimental study on the consolidation of saturated silty clay subjected to cyclic thermal loading,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 707–721, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. S. Wong and D. Mašín, “Coupled hydromechanical model for partially saturated soils predicting small strain stiffness,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 61, pp. 355–369, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, F. Long, D. Rao, and T. Xu, “The effect of temperature on the seepage transport of suspended particles in a porous medium,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 382–393, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Ghasemzadeh and S. A. Ghoreishian Amiri, “A hydromechanical elastoplastic model for unsaturated soils under isotropic loading conditions,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 51, pp. 91–100, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, G.C. Yang, T. Li, and G.S. Yang, “A thermodynamic constitutive model with temperature effect based on particle rearrangement for geomaterials,” Mechanics of Materials, vol. 139, Article ID 103180, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Hamrouni, D. Dias, and B. Sbartai, “Probability analysis of shallow circular tunnels in homogeneous soil using the surface response methodology optimized by a genetic algorithm,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 86, pp. 22–33, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Zizka, B. Schoesser, M. Thewes, and T. Schanz, “Slurry shield tunneling: new methodology for simplified prediction of increased pore pressures resulting from slurry infiltration at the tunnel face under cyclic excavation processes,” International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 113–130, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Flessati and C. Di Prisco, “Deep tunnel faces in cohesive soils under undrained conditions: application of a new design approach,” European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, vol. 32, Article ID 1785332, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
 H. R. Huang, J. G. Zhu, and Z. R. Fang, “Triaxial test study of deformation and strength behavior of sandgravel materials,” Water Resources and Power, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 87–89, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 M. C. Liu, X. M. Huang, and Y. F. Gao, “Research on strengthdeformation characteristics and nonlinear elastic model of rockfills,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 798–802, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Zhang and J. M. Zhang, “Study on behavior of coarsegrained soil and its modeling,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1587–1591, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 B. Indraratna, D. Ionescu, and H. D. Christie, “Shear behavior of railway ballast based on largescale triaxial tests,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 124, no. 5, pp. 439–449, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Zhang, B. Bai, S. Jiang, P. Wang, and H. Li, “Transport and deposition of suspended particles in saturated porous media: effect of hydrodynamic forces and pore structure,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 951–960, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, Q. Nie, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, and W. Hu, “Cotransport of heavy metals and SiO2 particles at different temperatures by seepage,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 597, Article ID 125771, 2021. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Rao and B. Bai, “Study of the factors influencing diffusive tortuosity based on porescale SPH simulation of granular soil,” Transport in Porous Media, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 333–353, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. Li, X. Fan, F. Huang et al., “Uncertainties analysis of collapse susceptibility prediction based on remote sensing and GIS: influences of different databased models and connections between collapses and environmental factors,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 24, p. 4134, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Mi and Y. Xiang, “Analysis of the limit support pressure of a shallow shield tunnel in sandy soil considering the influence of Seepage,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1023, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Zingg and G. Anagnostou, “Tunnel face stability and the effectiveness of advance drainage measures in water−bearing ground of non−uniform permeability,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 51, no. 1, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai, “Thermal response of saturated porous spherical body containing a cavity under several boundary conditions,” Journal of thermal Stresses, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1217–1232, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Bai and T. Li, “Irreversible consolidation problem of a saturated porothermoelastic spherical body with a spherical cavity,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1973–1982, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Qiu, C. Liu, X. Zhong, and Y. Zhu, “Experimental research on the impact of temperature on the adhesion characteristics of soil−structure interface,” Geofluids, vol. 2020, Article ID 6675576, 9 pages, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z.G. Yan, Y. Zhang, Y. Shen, H.H. Zhu, and Y. Lu, “A multilayer thermoelastic damage model for the bending deflection of the tunnel lining segment exposed to high temperatures,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 95, Article ID 103142, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. L. Kondner, “Hyperbolic stressstrain response: cohesive soils,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 115–143, 1963. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. M. Duncan and C.Y. Chang, “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 96, no. 5, pp. 1629–1653, 1970. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, “Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 667–692, 1972. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Pengfei Zhang 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.