A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparisons of constitutive models for anisotropic soils
Constitutive modeling is a method by which anisotropy, one of the important affecting factors on the behavior of natural soils, could be properly simulated. In this research, three anisotropic constitutive models with comparative theories and model parame ters (anisotropic modified Cam-Clay model, Banerjee model, and bounding surface model) were formulated in a frame of finite strain, to predict the cone penetration test results. The prediction by each constitutive model was investigated and compared with the experimental result. The influence of the model parameters was theoretically and practically identified. The model predictions generally showed good agreement with the experimental results in cone resistance profile (8≈10% difference for OCR=1 specimen and 10≈17% difference for OCR=10 specimen), which is due to the model capacity and finite strain formulation as well as the homogeneity of the artificially prepared soil specimen and axisymmetric condition (no full anisotropy); however, the effort to reduce the number of parameter, with keeping the capacity of the model, is needed in the practical purpose.
Comparisons of constitutive models for anisotropic soils
Constitutive modeling is a method by which anisotropy, one of the important affecting factors on the behavior of natural soils, could be properly simulated. In this research, three anisotropic constitutive models with comparative theories and model parame ters (anisotropic modified Cam-Clay model, Banerjee model, and bounding surface model) were formulated in a frame of finite strain, to predict the cone penetration test results. The prediction by each constitutive model was investigated and compared with the experimental result. The influence of the model parameters was theoretically and practically identified. The model predictions generally showed good agreement with the experimental results in cone resistance profile (8≈10% difference for OCR=1 specimen and 10≈17% difference for OCR=10 specimen), which is due to the model capacity and finite strain formulation as well as the homogeneity of the artificially prepared soil specimen and axisymmetric condition (no full anisotropy); however, the effort to reduce the number of parameter, with keeping the capacity of the model, is needed in the practical purpose.
Comparisons of constitutive models for anisotropic soils
KSCE J Civ Eng
Kim, Dae Kyu (author)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering ; 8 ; 403-409
2004-07-01
7 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
An anisotropic hardening constitutive model for dilatant soils
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2005
An anisotropic elastoplastic constitutive model for natural soils
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2001
Simplifications and Comparisons of Shape Memory Alloy Constitutive Models
| British Library Online Contents | 1996
Overview of Constitutive Models for Soils
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2005
Constitutive Modeling of Kinematic Hardening Behavior of Saturated Anisotropic Soils
| Online Contents | 2017