Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 31–40 | Cite as

Numerical investigation of undrained cavity expansion in fine-grained soils

Research Paper

Abstract

Based on the spherical cavity expansion (SCE) problem, Cudmani and Osinov (Can Geotech J 38:622–638, 2001), Osinov and Cudmani (Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 25:473–495, 2001) developed a semi-empirical method of interpretation of CPT for coarse-grained soils (sand, gravel) using a hypoplastic constitutive model. Using a material-independent shape factor, the cone penetration resistance was related to the limit pressure required to expand a spherical cavity. The shape factor was observed to be a function of the soil state only, in particular the pressure-dependent relative density. This paper presents an analogous interpretation technique for CPT in fine-grained soils using the shape factor concept, Cavity Expansion approach, and a hypoplastic constitutive model. Relations for the shape factor and the limit pressure have been proposed based on the parameters affecting these quantities. A validation of the proposed interpretation technique with experimental results has also been performed.

Keywords

CPT Cavity expansion Shape factor Limit pressure Hypoplasticity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The present study is a part of the M.Tech thesis “Interpretation of CPT in fine-grained soils”. It was carried out at TU Dresden and financially supported by DAAD. The first author is grateful to his Indian supervisor, Dr G.V. Ramana, for his guidance and cooperation during the course of this project.

References

  1. 1.
    Butterfield R (1979) A natural compression law for soils. Géotechnique 29(4):469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collins IF, Yu HS (1996) Undrained cavity expansions in critical state soils. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 20:489–516MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cudmani R, Osinov VA (2001) The cavity expansion problem for the interpretation of cone penetration and pressuremeter tests. Can Geotech J 38:622–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herle I and Kolymbas D (2004) Hypoplasticity for soils with low friction angles. Comput Geotech 31:365–373. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang WX, Wu W, Sun DA, Sloan S (2006) A simple hypoplastic model for normally consolidated clay. Acta Geotech 1:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mašín D (2005) A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 29:311–336MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mašín D (2006) Hypoplastic models for fine-grained soils. Synopsis of PhD dissertation Charles University, PragueGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mašín D (2008) Mathematical formulation of a hypoplastic model for clays; initialisation of e using known value of OCR. Charles University, Prague, Czech ReplubicGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mašín D, Herle I (2007) Improvement of a hypoplastic model to predict clay behaviour under undrained conditions. Acta Geotech 2:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsuoka H, Nakai T (1974) Stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soil under three different principal stresses. Jpn Soc Civil Eng 232:59–70Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mayne PW (1991) Determination of OCR in clays by Piezocone tests using cavity expansion and critical state concepts. Soils Found Jpn Geotech Soc 31(2):65–76Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meier T (2009) Application of hypoplastic and viscohypoplastic constitutive models for geotechnical problems. PhD thesis, Institut für Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik der Universität Fridericiana in Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe. Heft 171Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niemunis A (2002) Extended hypoplastic models for soils. Habilitation thesis, Ruhr University, BochumGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niemunis A, Herle I (1997) Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range. Mech Cohes Frict Mater 2:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niemunis A, Grandas-Tavera CE, Prada-Sarmiento LF (2009) Anisotropic visco-hypoplasticity. Acta Geotech 4:293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nyirenda ZM (1989) The piezocone in lightly over consolidated clay. PhD thesis, St Catherine’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osinov VA, Cudmani R (2001) Theoretical investigation of the cavity expansion problem based on the hypoplasticity model. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 25:473–495MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell JJM, Lunne Tom (2005) Use of CPTU data in fine grained soils. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 27(3–4):29–66Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tochnog version 5.2. http://www.feat.nl
  20. 20.
    Weifner T, Kolymbas D (2007) A hypoplastic model for clay and sand. Acta Geotech 2:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu HS, Mitchell JK (1998) Analysis of cone resistance: review of methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(2):140–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Baugrund DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, TU-DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations