Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 487–503 | Cite as

Three-dimensional DEM modeling of the stress–strain behavior for the gap-graded soils subjected to internal erosion

  • Fengshou Zhang
  • Mengli Li
  • Ming PengEmail author
  • Chen Chen
  • Limin Zhang
Research Paper

Abstract

In this work, 3D discrete element method modeling of drained shearing tests with gap-graded soils after internal erosion is carried out based on published experimental results. The erosion in the model is achieved by randomly deleting fine particles, mimicking the salt dissolving process in the experiments. The present model successfully simulates the stress–strain behavior of the physical test by employing the roll resistance and lateral membrane. The case without erosion shows a strain-softening and dilative response, while strain-hardening and contractive response starts to occur as the degree of erosion increases. The dilative to contractive transition is mainly caused by the increase in void ratio due to the loss of fine particles. The change from dilative behavior to contractive behavior is more abrupt for the specimen with larger fine particle percentage because the soil skeleton is mainly controlled by the fine particles instead of by the coarse soil particles. The transition from “fines in sand” to “sand in fines” might be associated with the rapid increasing in the contacts associated with fine particles in the specimen as the percentage of fine content increases. The erosion scenario based on the hydraulic gradient is also modeled by deleting the fine particles based on the ranking of the contact force. Compared with the scenario based on random deletion, the remaining fine particles for the erosion scenario based on the ranking of contact force are more dispersedly distributed, which might benefit the small strain stiffness but result in a smaller strength. This work provides some insights for better understanding the mechanism behind the internal erosion and the associated stress–strain behavior of soil. The gradient of the critical state line increases with more loss of fine particles denoting that the fine particles are helpful for holding the structure of the soils from larger deformation.

Keywords

DEM Drained shearing strength Gap-graded soil Internal erosion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41772286, 41731283) and thank Itasca for providing the educational loan of PFC3D software. Useful discussions with Sacha Emma and Jason Furtney are also greatly appreciated.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdoulaye Hama N, Ouahbi T, Taibi S et al (2016) Analysis of mechanical behaviour and internal stability of granular materials using discrete element method. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 40:1712–1729.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ai J, Chen JF, Rotter JM, Ooi JY (2011) Assessment of rolling resistance models in discrete element simulations. Powder Technol 206:269–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2010.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belheine N, Plassiard JP, Donzé FV et al (2008) Numerical simulation of drained triaxial test using 3D discrete element modeling. Comput Geotech 36:320–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendahmane F, Marot D, Alexis A (2008) Experimental parametric study of suffusion and backward erosion. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 134:57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:1(57) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonelli S, Marot D (2011) Micromechanical modeling of internal erosion. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 15:1207–1224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2011.9714849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang CS, Meidani M (2013) Dominant grains network and behavior of sand–silt mixtures: stress–strain modeling. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37(15):2563–2589.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang DS, Zhang L (2011) A stress-controlled erosion apparatus for studying internal erosion in soils. Geotech Test J 34:579–589.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ103889 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang DS, Zhang LM (2013) Critical hydraulic gradients of internal erosion under complex stress states. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 139:1454–1467.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang DS, Zhang LM (2013) Extended internal stability criteria for soils under seepage. Soils Found 53:569–583.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2013.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang D, Zhang L, Cheuk J (2014) Mechanical consequences of internal soil erosion. HKIE Trans Hong Kong Inst Eng 21:198–208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2014.970746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen C, Zhang LM, Asce F (2016) Stress–strain behavior of granular soils subjected to internal erosion. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 142:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001561 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chu-Agor ML, Wilson GV, Fox GA (2008) Numerical modeling of bank instability by seepage erosion undercutting of layered streambanks. J Hydrol Eng 13:1133–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1133) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cividini A, Gioda G (2004) Finite-element approach to the erosion and transport of fine particles in granular soils. Int J Geomech 4:191–198.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2004)4:3(191) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crosta G, Di Prisco C (1999) On slope instability induced by seepage erosion. Can Geotech J 36:1056–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29:47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fam MA, Cascante G, Dusseault MB (2002) Large and small strain properties of sands subjected to local void increase. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 128:1018–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:12(1018) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000) The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents. Can Geotech J 37:1000–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galindo-Torres SA, Scheuermann A, Mühlhaus HB, Williams DJ (2015) A micro-mechanical approach for the study of contact erosion. Acta Geotech 10:357–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0282-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Golay F, Bonelli S (2011) Numerical modeling of suffusion as an interfacial erosion process. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 15:1225–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2011.9714850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hicher PY (2013) Modelling the impact of particle removal on granular material behaviour. Geotechnique 63:118–128.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang H (1999) Discrete element modeling of tool-rock interaction. University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Itasca Consulting Group I (2016) PFC3D 5.0 User Manual. MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iwashita K, Oda M (1998) Rolling resistance at contacts in simulation of shear band development by DEM. J Eng Mech 124:285–292.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:3(285) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ke L, Takahashi A (2014) Experimental investigations on suffusion characteristics and its mechanical consequences on saturated cohesionless soil. Soils Found 54:713–730.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ke L, Takahashi A (2015) Drained monotonic responses of suffusional cohesionless soils. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 141:4015033.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kenney TC, Lau D (1985) Internal stability of granular filters: reply. Can Geotech J 23:420–423.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t86-068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li M, Fannin RJ (2008) Comparison of two criteria for internal stability of granular soil. Can Geotech J 45:1303–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1139/T08-046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mansouri M, El Youssoufi MS, Nicot F (2017) Numerical simulation of the quicksand phenomenon by a 3D coupled Discrete Element - Lattice Boltzmann hydromechanical model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 41:338–358.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moffat R, Fannin RJ (2006) Observations on internal stability of cohesionless soils. Géotechnique 56:497–500.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.7.497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muir Wood D, Maeda K, Nukudani E (2010) Modelling mechanical consequences of erosion. Géotechnique 60:447–457.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2010.60.6.447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Potyondy DO, Cundall PA (2004) A bonded-particle model for rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:1329–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scholtès L, Hicher P-Y, Sibille L (2010) Multiscale approaches to describe mechanical responses induced by particle removal in granular materials. C R Mécanique 338:627–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2010.10.003 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sterpi D (2003) Effects of the erosion and transport of fine particles due to seepage flow. Int J Geomech 3:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2003)3:1(111) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang Y, Chan DH, Zhu DZ (2017) A coupled discrete element model for the simulation of soil and water flow through an orifice. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 41:1477–1493.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2677 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tao H, Tao J (2017) Quantitative analysis of piping erosion micro-mechanisms with coupled CFD and DEM method. Acta Geotech 12:573–592.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-016-0516-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    To P, Scheuermann A, Williams DJ (2017) Quick assessment on susceptibility to suffusion of continuously graded soils by curvature of particle size distribution. Acta Geotech.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-017-0611-8 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wan CF, Fell R (2004) Laboratory tests on the rate of piping erosion of soils in embankment dams. Geotech Test J 27:295–303.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11903 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wan CF, Fell R (2008) Assessing the potential of internal instability and suffusion in embankment dams and their foundations. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 134:401–407.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:3(401) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang M, Feng YT, Wang C (2016) Coupled bonded particle and lattice fluid-soild interaction. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 40:1383–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wensrich CM, Katterfeld A (2012) Rolling friction as a technique for modelling particle shape in DEM. Powder Technol 217:409–417.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2011.10.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu Y, Zhang LM (2009) Breaching parameters for earth and rockfill dams. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 135:1957–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yun TS, Santamarina JC (2005) Decementation, softening, and collapse: changes in small-strain shear stiffness in loading. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 131:350–358.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:3(350) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fengshou Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mengli Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ming Peng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Chen Chen
    • 3
  • Limin Zhang
    • 3
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water Bay, KowloonChina

Personalised recommendations