2003
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2003)129:11(993)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extended Hyperbolic Model for Sand-to-Concrete Interfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on these shear tests, researchers have informed attempts to establish theoretical and empirical shear strength criteria for the interface between geotechnical materials and structures (Gómez et al, 2003;Kosoglu et al, 2010;Kang and Liao, 2019;Kang et al, 2021). These include shear strength models for the interface between different rock types (Patton, 1966;Barton, 1973;Grasselli and Egger, 2003;Cottrell, 2009;Wu et al, 2018), rock and concrete (Andjelkovic et al, 2015;Krounis et al, 2016), soil and concrete (Gómez et al, 2003;Yazdani et al, 2019), and soil and geotextile (Esterhuizen et al, 2001;Iryo and Rowe, 2005;Tolooiyan et al, 2009;Portelinha and Zornberg, 2017). Due to the non-linear change in interfacial shear strength, new guidelines for shear model development consider the effect of the interface morphology on shear strength.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on these shear tests, researchers have informed attempts to establish theoretical and empirical shear strength criteria for the interface between geotechnical materials and structures (Gómez et al, 2003;Kosoglu et al, 2010;Kang and Liao, 2019;Kang et al, 2021). These include shear strength models for the interface between different rock types (Patton, 1966;Barton, 1973;Grasselli and Egger, 2003;Cottrell, 2009;Wu et al, 2018), rock and concrete (Andjelkovic et al, 2015;Krounis et al, 2016), soil and concrete (Gómez et al, 2003;Yazdani et al, 2019), and soil and geotextile (Esterhuizen et al, 2001;Iryo and Rowe, 2005;Tolooiyan et al, 2009;Portelinha and Zornberg, 2017). Due to the non-linear change in interfacial shear strength, new guidelines for shear model development consider the effect of the interface morphology on shear strength.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clough and Duncan [32] introduced a hyperbolic nonlinear elastic model to predict interfaces shear behavior. Gómez et al [33] improved the Clough and Duncan model for arbitrary stress path directions, while it does not incorporate a better formulation for the volumetric interface behavior. erefore, new models should be developed to model the important volumetric normal behavior of interfaces.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, the effects of surface roughness, relative density, dilatancy angle, degree of saturation, particle size, normal stress, loading rate, cyclic load on the shearing behaviors at soil-structure interface were investigated by many researchers [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Within the framework of continuum mechanics, different constitutive models were proposed to model the interface shear behavior, such as the nonlinear elasticity model, elasto-plasticity model, damage model and two-surface plasticity model [21][22][23][24][25][26]. In order to numerically simulate the interface behavior, the interface finite element was developed, which includes three ingredients: a contact constraint scheme, a contact discretization method and a constitutive model [27][28][29][30][31].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%