A dynamic hysteretic constitutive model for soil dynamics, Ramberg-Osgood model, is introduced and
improved in the paper. Since the model is inherently 1D and is assumed to apply to shear components only,
other components of the deviatoric stress and strain and their relations in 3D case could not be fully described.
Two parameters, the equivalent shear stress and the equivalent shear strain, are defined to reasonably establish
relations between each of stress and strain components respectively. The constitutive equations of the initial
Ramberg-Osgood model are extended to generalize the theory into multidimensional cases. Difficulties of the
definition of load reversal in 3D are also addressed and solved. The improved constitutive model for soil dynamics
is verified by comparisons with different soil dynamic testing data covering both sands and clays. Results show
that the dynamic nonlinear hysteretic behaviors of soils can be well predicted with the improved constitutive
model.
YU Hai-tao1,2,3* (禹海涛), WANG Jian-hua1 (王建华), YUAN Yong2,3 (袁 勇)
. An Improved Dynamic Hysteretic Model for Soils[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University(Science), 2013
, 18(6)
: 655
-659
.
DOI: 10.1007/s12204-013-1447-5
[1] Duncan J M, Chang C-Y. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils [J]. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1970, 96(SM5): 1629-1653.
[2] Puzrin A M, Shiran A. Effects of the constitutive relationship on seismic response of soils. Part I. Constitutive modeling of cyclic behavior of soils [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 19(5): 305-318.
[3] Assimaki D, Kausel E, Whittle A. Model for dynamic shear modulus and damping for granular soils [J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2000, 126(10): 859-869.
[4] Ni S-D, Siddharthan R V, Anderson J G. Characteristics of nonlinear response of deep saturated soil deposits [J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1997, 87(2): 342-355.
[5] Horpibulsuk S, Miura N. Modified hyperbolic stress strain response: Uncemented and cement stabilized clays [R]. Saga, Japan: Saga University Press, 2001.
[6] Segal F, Val D V. Energy evaluation for Ramberg-Osgood hysteretic model [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2006, 132(9): 907-913.
[7] Bagheripour M H, Asadi M, Ghasemi M. Analysis of nonlinear seismic ground response using adaptive nero fuzzy inference systems [J]. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2012, 2(4): 3839-3843.
[8] Beresnev I A, Wen K-L. Review: Nonlinear soil response — A reality? [J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1996, 86(6): 1964-1978.
[9] Joyner W B, Chen A T F. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes [J]. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(5): 1315-1336.
[10] Yu H T, Yuan Y, Bobet A. Multiscale method for long tunnels subjected to seismic loading [J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2013, 37(4): 374-398.
[11] Seed H B, Wong R T, Idriss I M, et al. Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils [J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1986, 112(11): 1016-1032.
[12] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response [J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(1): 89-107.
[13] Vucetic M. Soil properties and seismic response [C]//Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid, Spain: Springer, 1992: 1199-1204.
