4.6 Article

SANISAND: Simple anisotropic sand plasticity model

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/nag.651

关键词

anisotropy; sand; constitutive relations; plasticity; critical state

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SANISAND is the name used for a family of simple anisotropic sand constitutive models developed over the past few years within the framework of critical state soil mechanics and bounding surface plasticity. The existing SANISAND models use a narrow open cone-type yield surface with apex at the origin obeying rotational hardening, which implies that only changes of the stress ratio can cause plastic deformations, while constant stress-ratio loading induces only elastic response. In order to circumvent this limitation, the present member of the SANISAND family introduces a modified eight-curve equation as the analytical description of a narrow but closed cone-type yield surface that obeys rotational and isotropic hardening. This modification enables the prediction of plastic strains during any type of constant stress-ratio loading, a feature lacking from the previous SANISAND models, without losing their well-established predictive capability for all other loading conditions including the cyclic. In the process the plausible assumption is made that the plastic strain rate decomposes in two parts, one due to the change of stress ratio and a second due to loading under constant stress ratio, with isotropic hardening depending on the volumetric component of the latter part only. The model formulation is presented firstly in the triaxial stress space and subsequently its multiaxial generalization is developed following systematically the steps of the triaxial one. A detailed calibration procedure for the model constants is presented, while successful simulation of both drained and undrained behavior of sands under constant and variable stress-ratio loadings at various densities and confining pressures is obtained by the model. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据