scholarly journals Comparison of two anisotropic creep models at element level

Author(s):  
N Sivasithamparam ◽  
M Karstunen ◽  
R Brinkgreve ◽  
P Bonnier
Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (15) ◽  
pp. 4146
Author(s):  
Xunli Jiang ◽  
Zhiyi Huang ◽  
Xue Luo

Soft soils are usually treated to mitigate their engineering problems, such as excessive deformation, and stabilization is one of most popular treatments. Although there are many creep models to characterize the deformation behaviors of soil, there still exist demands for a balance between model accuracy and practical application. Therefore, this paper aims at developing a Mechanistic-Empirical creep model (MEC) for unsaturated soft and stabilized soils. The model considers the stress dependence and incorporates moisture sensitivity using matric suction and shear strength parameters. This formulation is intended to predict the soil creep deformation under arbitrary water content and arbitrary stress conditions. The results show that the MEC model is in good agreement with the experimental data with very high R-squared values. In addition, the model is compared with the other classical creep models for unsaturated soils. While the classical creep models require a different set of parameters when the water content is changed, the MEC model only needs one set of parameters for different stress levels and moisture conditions, which provides significant facilitation for implementation. Finally, a finite element simulation analysis of subgrade soil foundation is performed for different loading levels and moisture conditions. The MEC model is utilized to predict the creep behavior of subgrade soils. Under the same load and moisture level, the deformation of soft soil is largest, followed by lime soil and RHA–lime-stabilized soil, respectively.


1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Drion ◽  
Luc Berthelon ◽  
Olivier Chambon ◽  
Gert Eilenberger ◽  
Francoise R. Peden ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Karim Naji ◽  
Erin Santini-Bell ◽  
Kyle Kwiatkowski

The overall objective of this research is to support state departments of transportation with their decision-making processes and transitions to performance management and performance-based planning and programming mandated by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. Accomplishing this objective requires a systematic multiobjective optimization methodology. This research proposes such a methodology, referred to as an “element-based multiobjective optimization” (EB-MOO) methodology, which produces optimal or near-optimal sets of short- and long-term intervention strategies detailed at the bridge element level for planning and programming. The methodology currently focuses on the bridge asset class and consists of five modules: (1) data processing, (2) improvement, (3) element-level optimization (ELO), (4) bridge-level optimization (BLO), and (5) network-level optimization (NLO) modules. This paper details the ELO module, specifically: the basic framework of underlying processes and concepts, the alternative feasibility screening process, optimization problem types and mathematical formulations, and the heuristic algorithm used to solve the ELO problems. The paper also includes an illustrative example using a prototyping tool developed to implement EB-MOO methodology. The example presents several ELO problems under unconstrained scenarios. The implementation demonstrated the module’s capability in producing optimal or near-optimal ELO solutions, recommending element intervention actions, predicting performance, and determining funding requirements for the specified improvement type and program year. The broader EB-MOO methodology uses the ELO results as inputs for the BLO and NLO modules.


Author(s):  
L-Y Li ◽  
P Bettess ◽  
J W Bull ◽  
T Bond

This paper presents some new ideas for developing adaptive remeshing strategies. It is shown that correct mesh refinement formulations should be defined at an element level rather than a global level. To accomplish this, permissible element errors are required to be defined. This paper describes the methods to determine the permissible element errors. Two mesh refinement formulations are derived according to different accuracy definitions and are compared with the conventional mesh refinement formulation derived at the global level. Numerical examples are shown to explain the features of these mesh refinement formulations. Recommendations are made for use of these mesh refinement formulations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document