3.9 Article

Comparison between Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and Vipulanandan failure models to predict the maximum J_2 Invariant and behaviour of clay (CH)

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2021.1980620

Keywords

Liquid limit; stress invariants; failure models; statistical analyses

Funding

  1. Center for Innovative Grouting Materials (CIGMAT)
  2. Texas Hurricane Center for Innovative Technology (THC-IT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study quantified the relationship between factors like density, moisture content, shear strength, and failure stresses of soil, showing that the Vipulanandan failure model is more reliable in predicting results.
According to experimental data results, both inherent anisotropy and loading direction significantly impact geomaterial failures. Clay soils are commonly encountered in many types of on the ground or underground construction, so it is important to understand their behaviour under various stress conditions. Vipulanandan failure model was used to investigate the failure stresses for the soil as compared to the Mohr-Coulomb and other failure models. In this study, over 3000 data from the laboratory studies and literature for the field soils were analysed to quantify the relationship between the density, natural moisture content, shear strength, deviatoric shear stress at failure with the liquid limit (LL). The range of liquid limit (LL) for the soil investigated varied from 20% to 60%. Vipulanandan correlation model correlated some of the physical properties of the soils. The Vipulanandan failure model predicted the results more reliable than the other models based on the coefficient of determination and root mean square error. Vipulanandan failure model also predicted the maximum shear strength limit and maximum second deviatoric stress invariant for the soil, which can not be predicted using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available