2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Loading path dependence and non-linear stiffness at small strain using rate-dependent multisurface hyperplasticity model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2). Note that this type has similar characteristics as the flow potential of Apriadi et al (2013). The consequences of such a choice are prediction of rate 161 dependent (creep) swelling under isotropic unloading for positive (compressive) mean stress 162 (but negative χp), and a critical state line in p-q space (M) corresponding only to the reference 163 rate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). Note that this type has similar characteristics as the flow potential of Apriadi et al (2013). The consequences of such a choice are prediction of rate 161 dependent (creep) swelling under isotropic unloading for positive (compressive) mean stress 162 (but negative χp), and a critical state line in p-q space (M) corresponding only to the reference 163 rate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basic properties of the soil samples are summarized in Table 2. Through conducting four types of soil mechanics experiments [16]-triaxial consolidation drainage tests, triaxial consolidation drainage and unloading tests, standard consolidation tests, and resonant column tests-the stiffness parameters E 50,re f , E ur,re f , and E oed,re f and two small strain parameters G 0 and γ 0.7 of the HSS model were determined. The HSS model parameters of typical soil layers in the Changzhou area obtained by experiment are shown in Table 3.…”
Section: Geotechnical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The introduction of a nonlinear isotropic hyperelastic formulations improves the predictive capability of the model within the yield surface as compared to the typical hypoelastic model adopted in the SANICLAY model, though we are aware that in that range the performance could be significantly improved by adopting a continuous hyperplastic approach (e.g. Einav & Puzrin, 2004a;Likitlersuang & Houlsby, 2006;Apriadi et al, 2013).…”
Section: Response Of the Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%