J. B. (1986).

GCorechnique
JARDINE,R. J., Porrs, D. M., FOURIE,A. B. & BURLAND, 36, No. 3, 377-396

Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain

characteristics in soil-structure interaction

R. J. JARDINE,* D. M. POTTS,* A. B. FOURIEt and J. B. BURLAND*

Recent field and laboratory studies have shown that, tions de contraintes au contact. La non-1inCaritC B
even at very small strains, many soils exhibit non-linear faibles contraintes influence aussi de faqon importante
stress-strain behaviour. Nevertheless, because of its I’interprCtation des essais de d&formation en place, par
convenience, linear elasticity will continue to play an exemple, plaques et pressiomitres, et les mesures in situ
important role in the analysis of such problems as en fonction de modules klastiques kquivalents. Tandis
settlement, deformation and soil-structure interaction. que 1’6lasticitt lintaire reste encore une methode cor-
In this Paper the measured non-liqear stress-strain recte pour exprimer des mesures de la rigidit du sol, on
properties of a low plasticity clay are used in the finite tire la conclusion que les calculs de I’interaction entre le
element analysis of footings, piles, excavations and sol et la construction et I’interpr&tation des mesures in
pressuremeter tests to assess the influence of small situ peuvent induire en erreur, & moins qu’on ne tienne
strain non-linearity in comparison with linear elastic compte de la nature non-IinCaire des ~01s.
behaviour. In all cases non-linear behaviour results in
the concentration of strain and deformation towards KEYWORDS: elasticity; excavation; field tests; piles;
the loading boundaries. This is shown to have impor- settlement; soil-structure interaction.
tant consequences for soil-structure interaction prob-
lems such as settlement profiles, pile group interaction
and contact stress distributions. Small strain non- INTRODUCTION
linearity also has a significant influence on the interpre- Analyses of soil-structure interaction frequently
tation in terms of equivalent elastic moduli of in situ involve the prediction of deformations and
deformation tests (e.g. plates and pressuremeters) and stresses, both in the surrounding soil mass and
of field measurements. It is concluded that, although over areas of contact with the loading bound-
linear elasticity remains a convenient tool for expressing
aries. In recent years it has become possible to
measurements of soil stiffness, unless the non-linear
compute solutions with increasingly complex
nature of soils is taken into account, soil-structure
interaction computations and the interpretation of field descriptions of the soil properties. However, the
measurements can be misleading. use of non-linear calculations in engineering prac-
tice is restricted by time and cost. Moreover high
Des essais in situ et des Ctudes en laboratoire de date quality stress-strain data are difficult to obtain.
rtcente ont dtmontrb que beaucoup de sols ont un com- There is therefore a need for sensitivity studies
portement contrainte_dCformation non-IinCaire, m&me using advanced soil models to investigate the sig-
g des dkformations extrtmement faibles. Cependant $ nificance of various features of soil behaviour
cause de sa commoditB l’&lasticit& lintaire continuera B
such as non-linearity at small strains and local
jouer un rble important dans I’analyse des problbmes
failure.
tels que le tassement, la dkformation et I’interaction
entre le sol et la construction. Dans cet article les prop- The most common types of analysis continue
riCtts contrainte42formation non-liniaires d’une argile to be based on the theories of linear elasticity.
de faible plasticit ont utilis&s dans I’analyse B &men& The underlying assumption is either that at
finis des semelles, des pieux, des excavations et des working loads the soil mass is behaving in a lin-
essais pressiomttriques afin d’kvaluer I’influence de la early elastic manner or that the stress changes in
non-IinCaritk $ faibles contraintes en comparaison avec the soil are close to those given by linear elasticity
le comportement Clastique IinCaire. Dans tous les cas le even though the soil itself may be non-linear. As
comportement non-lintaire produit une concentration
pointed out by Eisenstein & Medeiros (1983), the
de contraintes et de d&formations vers les limites de
work of Wroth (1971) and Burland (1975) has
chargement. On dkmontre que ceci a des cons&quences
importantes pour les problimes d’interaction entre le encouraged the former view for stiff clays and
sol et la construction, tels que les profils de tassement, weak rocks. The finding that the vertical stresses
I’interaction entre des groupes de pieux et les distribu- beneath flexible loaded areas are relatively insen-
sitive to the stress-strain law has greatly pro-
Discussion on this Paper closes on 1 January 1987. For
moted the second assumption (Morgenstern &
further details see inside back cover. Phukan, 1968). The accuracy of predictions has
* Imperial College of Science and Technology. thus been seen to hinge on the determination of
t University of Queensland; formerly Imperial College appropriate in situ elastic moduli (E,, E’, G, K
of Science and Technology. etc.) and their variations with depth. However, it
377
378 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

has proved to be difficult to measure these elastic struction of a strutted excavation. Comparisons
parameters. In particular the results of conven- with linear elastic behaviour are then made to
tional laboratory tests frequently give stiffnesses draw out the significance of the non-linear soil
which are far lower than those back analysed properties.
from field measurements. This discrepancy has To facilitate the interpretation of the results,
been explored for London Clay by St John (1975) only the simplest form of failure criterion is used.
and has resulted in a strong move towards in situ This allows the problems to be treated in terms of
testing (Marsland, 1971; Windle & Wroth, 1977). total stresses but in each study the initial ground
The combination of careful field measurements stresses were specified in relation to appropriate
and linear elastic theory for back analysis and K,, effective stress conditions.
prediction has been relatively successful, but The objectives of the present study are
several limitations have become apparent. For
(a) to identify several important features of
example, it is well known that in many problems
behaviour which stem from non-linear stress-
local enclaves of fully plastic behaviour can
strain characteristics
develop at working loads. Their existence leads to
(b) to discuss the problems of selecting appropri-
stresses and patterns of deformations which
ate values of apparent elastic moduli for
depart significantly from elastic behaviour. If the
simple elastic calculations
material is brittle such local failure zones may
(c) to draw attention to the difficulties of inter-
propagate rapidly leading to instability at rela-
preting in situ tests and field measurements
tively small displacements.
using linear elasticity, particularly when the
Field observations have identified other incon-
derived soil moduli are to be used in a differ-
sistencies. Burland & Hancock (1977) for
ent type of boundary value problem.
example, drew attention to the fact that the
profile of ground movements outside excavations Before presenting the results of the various
cannot be accounted for by linear elasticity. boundary value analyses, a brief resume is given
Simpson, O’Riordan & Croft (1979) showed that of the characteristics observed in the recent
the use of a bilinear stress-strain relationship laboratory experiments. Following from this, the
before failure with an initial very stiff portion details of the simple soil model developed for
accounted considerably for the observed behav- these studies are set out.
iour.
Almost concurrently new laboratory tech-
niques began to be developed for the accurate UNDRAINED STRESS-STRAIN CHARAC-
measurement of strains locally on soil samples TERISTICS OBSERVED IN SPECIALLY
(Daramola, 1978; Costa-Filho, 1980; Burland & INSTRUMENTED LABORATORY TESTS
Symes, 1982). The results obtained with these Recent research by Daramola (1978), Costa-
techniques throw into doubt the validity of the Filho (1980) and Jardine et al. (1984) has shown
assumption of linear elastic behaviour under that conventional methods of determining axial
working conditions. The tests show that the strains in triaxial experiments can lead to impor-
initial stress-strain behaviour of many soils is tant errors. Even with the most careful sample
much stiffer than indicated by conventional preparation and calibration for the compliance of
strain measurements, and that the undrained equipment, bedding effects at the specimen ends
stress-strain characteristics of a wide range of and rotation of the sample under load can cause
soil types are markedly non-linear (Jardine, the externally measured strains to exceed those
Symes & Burland, 1984). Careful analysis of spe- measured locally on the sample. In the early
cially instrumented field tests confirms that these stages of a test the external strains can be ten
characteristics are also representative of in situ times larger than those measured on the sample.
behaviour (Jardine, Fourie, Maswoswe & By means of displacement transducers mounted
Burland, 1985). on the soil specimens, Costa-Filho & Vaughan
The purpose of this Paper is to examine the (1980) found that the true secant stiffness of
significance of the laboratory-observed stress- samples of London Clay, at around 0.1% strain,
strain characteristics in a range of practical prob- agreed well with average stiffness values obtained
lems. A typical low plasticity clay is considered from the back analysis of field measurements (St
which exhibits both realistic non-linear behaviour John, 1975). It therefore appears that the pre-
before failure and plastic flow when its failure viously reported differences between laboratory
criterion is satisfied. Finite element analyses are and field stiffnesses of London Clay result more
presented which allow a detailed study of the from inadequacies in conventional laboratory
undrained response of this one soil when loaded strain measuring techniques than from sampling
by footings, piles, cavity expansion and the con- disturbance or time-dependent threshold effects.
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 379

1 2 3 4
Awal siran E’ %

(a)

Ax1.3 stram E: %

03
Fig. 1. Measured undrained stress-strain behaviour of a reconstituted K, consolidated low plasti-
city clay at various overconsolidation ratios as indicated: (a) strain on an arithmetic scale; (b) strain
on a logarithmic scale

Using new local strain measuring techniques, ticity clay which were consolidated from a slurry
Jardine (1985) carried out a comprehensive range to various overconsolidation ratios. Fig. I(b)
of triaxial tests on a wide spectrum of soils. shows the same data with strain plotted on a
Experiments on intact and reconstituted low and logarithmic scale to show the detail of the initial
medium plasticity clays, sand and intact chalk all stages of loading. In Fig. 2 the results of tests RI
exhibited high initial stiffness and non-linear and R2 have been plotted as E,jC, against
stress-strain behaviour, both these factors log(strain) where E, is the secant undrained
depending on soil type, method of formation and Young’s modulus. The results of tests on two
stress history. To illustrate these features lightly overconsolidated intact samples of the
Fig. l(a) shows the undrained stress-strain same soil (I1 and 12) are also shown and give
behaviour of reconstituted samples of a low plas- similar results. Sample I1 was tested unconsoli-
380 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

Axial strain E. %

Fig. 2. Stiffness-&rain curves for a low plasticity clay: Rl and R2 resonstituted, sheared from K,
conditions; I1 and 12 lightly overconsolidated intact clay from 672 m below the sea bed; I1 sheared
from unconsolidated conditions, 12 reconsolidated to K. = @52 before undrained shearing

dated and sample 12 was anisotropically recon- as shown in Fig. 3. When considering more
solidated to its estimated in situ stress state. general effective stress models, equations of the
Further details of these tests are given by Jardine same form may be used to describe the variations
et al. (1984). in shear and bulk modulus with their respective
EMPIRICAL UNDRAINED STRESS-STRAIN strain invariants. The empirical constants A, B,
RELATIONSHIP C, c( and y can be quickly determined from test
To use the measured stress-strain relationships data as described in Appendix 1. Equation (1)
in the analysis of boundary value problems it is only holds for a specified range of strain values.
necessary to find a simple mathematical expres- For strains below a lower limit E,,,~”and above an
sion that fits the data reasonably well. In this upper limit E,,,, fixed tangent stiffnesses are
section such an empirical expression is described. assumed. Over this ‘elastic’ range a Poisson’s
No doubt other expressions could be found ratio of 0.49 is specified and, if yield is to be
which fit the data equally well. modelled, a suitable criterion and flow rule must
The data presented in Fig. 2 suggest that the be included. Care is required to ensure compat-
general form of the relationship between the ibility between E,,, and the onset of plastic yield.
secant Young’s modulus E, and the logarithm of In Fig. 4 equation (1) is fitted to a selection of
axial strain before failure can be conveniently the stiffness test data given by the low plasticity
represented by a periodic logarithmic function clay. The values of the associated empirical con-
stants are given in Table 1. It can be seen that the
-=‘4+Bcos{ol[log,,(~)~}
E
CU
(1) formulation
before yield.
is appropriate for soil behaviour

Table I. Non-linear soil parameters from three tests

Test A B c: % a B e,(min): % EJmax): %

RI 850 1000 OGO8 2.023 0.5943 0@05 0.20
R2 3100 3200 0.0007 1,349 0.6385 0,003 0.20
12 1420 1380 0.009 2.098 0.5050 0.0045 1.5
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 381

,Observed, or protected. maximum

/
/-
/
/
E,/C, = A + E cos [a (log,, dC)yI

Y
u=

E = c-

r-
10~3

I
Fig. 3. Curve fitting to stiffnessstrain
Projected minimum’

data

The majority of numerical procedures make eralized by substituting the deviatoric strain
use of the tangent modulus E,, rather than the invariant
secant modulus. Differentiating and rearranging
equation (1) gives E = ; 1’2[(~1 - Q)’ + (et - E#
0
E,, Buyl’- ’
c = A + B cos (d’) - x sin (czP) (2) + (E2- &3)2]1’2 (3)
”
for 3’12&, and this allows equation (2) to be incor-
where I = log,, (E,/C). Equation (2) can be gen- porated into non-linear elastic finite element

- Test data
Equatfon (1) (Rl, R2)
; Equation (1) (12)

Fig. 4. Curve fitting for tests Rl, R2 and I2

382 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

-0C” = 110 kN/m’

Experiment R2
- - o - - Finite element slmulatfon

0.
103 10~2 10-i 100
eA %

Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental and fitted curves for test R2

computer programs. For the present analyses the layer. The footing is loaded undrained to a mean
empirical formulation has been combined with a bearing pressure of 3C, where C, is the
perfectly plastic (non-hardening) Tresca failure undrained strength of the clay. Hence the load
criterion and plastic potential. The undrained factor on undrained bearing failure is approx-
stress-strain relationship chosen for this study is imately 0.5. Throughout the clay layer it is
referred to as LPC2 and corresponds to the assumed that the soil has the same initial stress
relationship obtained for test R2 given in Fig. 1 history and stress-strain properties as given by
(see Table 1 for the appropriate empirical the low plasticity clay in test R2 (see Fig. 5).
constants). For this illustrative problem it is assumed that
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the source the changes in the total stresses crv and CT~ beneath
data from test R2 and the finite element simula- the centre of the footing can be obtained by
tion using material LPC2. The agreement is excel- means of linear elasticity. At any depth Z/D the
lent over almost four logarithmic cycles of strain. value of (a, - a,)/2 can be calculated and the cor-
Test R2 was chosen for the studies described in responding value of vertical strain obtained from
this Paper, as its yielding behaviour most closely Fig. 5. Fig. 6(b) shows the distribution of vertical
approximated to the simple Tresca criterion. strain beneath the centre of the footing obtained
Model LPC2 represents a stiff low plasticity using this procedure. In Fig. 6(c) the variation in
clay with an overconsolidation ratio of 2. For the normalized settlement 6/S, is plotted against
range of data presented by Jardine et ul. (1984) depth and compared with the distribution for a
the model shows a higher normalized stiffness homogeneous linear elastic material. Fig. 6(d)
than average but is not particularly non-linear. shows the variation in secant modulus E,/C, with
depth corresponding to the strain distribution
SIMPLE PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATIVE given in Fig. 6(b).
PROBLEM The following important practical conclusions
In this section a simple problem is analysed to can be drawn from this simple illustration.
illustrate some of the practical conclusions that (a) From Fig. 6(b) it can be seen that the axial
arise from the effects of non-linear stress-strain strains beneath the centre are always less than
behaviour. An approximate method is employed O-l%. Therefore, even though the load factor
for this preliminary study but in the remainder of is as high as 0.5, the ground response is domi-
the Paper a finite element analysis is used. The nated by its small strain properties. Thus
problem considered is that of a rigid circular load laboratory testing to evaluate the stiffness
which might, for example, represent a foundation properties of the ground will require precise
for which the underlying settlements are required measurement of strains to at least an accuracy
or an instrumented loading test from which of 0.01%.
deformation properties are to be deduced. (b) From Fig. 6(c) it is evident that the settle-
Figure 6(a) shows a rigid smooth circular ment for LPC2 reduces much more rapidly
footing of diameter D resting on a layer of with depth than for a homogeneous linear
uniform clay of thickness 5D underlain by a rigid elastic material.
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 383

Y E”: % Apparent E,IC,

CD_*
0 0.1 5000

T-r :2-0

E,/C,
(apparent
= 1000 + 1250UD

Of Stiffness
linear
with
varlallon
depth)

(4 id)
Fig. 6. Approximate calculations of strain, settlement and apparent stiffness beneath the centre of
a rigid footing: (a) circular footing on a uniform layer of clay; (b) vertical strains deduced under the
centre line for an elastic stress distribution; (c) variations in settlement with depth for LPC2 and a
homogeneous linear elastic soil; (d) variation in apparent linear modulus with depth for LPC2 using
elastic stresses and strains from (b)

(c) The results given in Fig. 6(d) show that, had The remainder of this Paper is devoted to
field measurements of settlement at various exploring some of the practical implications of
depths been made down to Z/D = 3.5, a small strain non-linearity (and failure) and the
linear elastic interpretation would have limitations of linear elastic predictions when such
pointed to a linearly increasing stiffness with non-linearity is present.
depth. This conclusion has been reached from
many back-analysed field measurements. An ANALYSIS OF SOME BOUNDARY VALUE
erroneous conclusion that a given soil profile PROBLEMS
has increasing stiffness with depth, rather As mentioned previously, the purpose of this
than non-linear small strain stiffness proper- study is to analyse a range of undrained bound-
ties, can have significant and unfortunate ary value problems using non-linear elasto-plastic
practical consequences. Of course in many stress-strain characteristics in such a way as to
practical situations both effects will be identify any major differences between the results
present. obtained and those predicted from linear elastic

,Applled vertical displacements

1 st element yields

100 m-

0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

Normalired settlement of footing 8/D %

Fig. 7. Pressuresettlement curve for a rigid footing resting on soil type LPC2
384 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

theory. The boundary value problems considered 6/6,

fall in four groups which will be discussed separa- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o
A
tely
(a) footings
(6) cavity expansion problems
(c) axially loaded piles
(d) strutted excavations.
The analyses were carried out by means of the
finite element method using eight-noded iso-
parametric elements and reduced integration.

Circular rigidfooting
The problem considered is that of a vertically
loaded rigid smooth circular footing of diameter
D resting on the surface of a uniform layer of
clay. The depth assumed for the clay layer was
5D, as this case approaches the asymptote for
infinite depth with a linear elastic material
(Poulos & Davis, 1974).
Two soil types were considered in the study
SOL
Fig. 8. Profiles of normalized settlement with depth for
(a) the undrained non-linear soil model LPC2 a rigid footing (see Fig. 7)
described previously, with K,, = 0.72 and
Figure 9 shows the predicted ground surface
C, = 220 kPa (Fig. 5)
profiles at load factors of 0.3 and 0.52 (i.e. before
(6) undrained linear elastic soil with E, = 1056
and after first yield) for the LPC2 model com-
MN/m2 (i.e. the initial value for LPC2) and
pared with linear elasticity. It can be seen that the
Poisson’s ratio 0.49.
influence of the stiffness variation before yield,
The finite element mesh used for the analysis is compared with linear elasticity, is to concentrate,
shown by the inset in Fig. 7 and loading was the settlements strongly around the loaded area.
carried out by applying increments of uniform The onset of local yield further accentuates this
vertical displacements to the footing surface. For behaviour. It is important to note that a linear
the elastic case very close agreement was obtained elastic material with stiffness increasing with
with the exact solution given by Poulos & Davis depth (a Gibson soil) also exhibits a concentra-
(1974). tion of settlement towards the loaded area
The load-settlement relationship predicted (Gibson, 1967; Burland, Sills & Gibson, 1973).
with LPC2 is plotted in Fig. 7. The analysis was These steep local gradients of displacement have
continued until a settlement ratio 6/D of 0.02 had important implications for soil-structure inter-
been reached, by which point the mean bearing action.
pressure was within 2% of the solution qua z (3 Figure 10 presents contours of deviatoric
+ n)C, given by Vesic (1975) and others. strain at a load factor of 0.52. The small region of
The analysis gives first yield under the centre local failure is shown shaded. It can be seen that
line at a load factor L, = 0.58 and plastic flow at a normal working load most of the soil is expe-
first develops at the edge of the footing at a lower riencing smaller shear strains than those devel-
factor of 0.38. The latter ratio is dependent on the oped in a triaxial test at 0.1% axial strain.
finite element mesh geometry, and if an infinitely In Fig. 11 the elastic stress changes beneath the
fine mesh were to be used for the analysis yield centre of the loaded area are compared with the
would occur under the perimeter at even the LPC2 model for load factors of 0.3 and 0.52. It
lightest loads. The approximation allows the can be seen that the influence of the non-linearity
effects of non-linearity and local failure to be of the stress-strain characteristics is to increase
separately assessed. the vertical and horizontal stresses. The effects are
Figure 8 gives plots of normalized settlement most pronounced for the radial stresses at a
against depth and these show settlement reducing depth beneath the footing and are less marked for
far more rapidly with depth than elastic theory the vertical stresses. It is of considerable interest
predicts. These features develop long before first to note that the changes in deviator stress are
yield occurs and the profile at L, = 0.52 shows much less sensitive to non-linearity. Thus the
that the trend is accelerated by the onset of local approximation employed earlier in the simple
failure. illustrative problem would not have given rise to
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 385

“‘0
1 ,o 2-O 3.0 4.0 50 6.0

L, = O-52 __ ______-_--------- -
>__-- _______-----
--
_-----

Fig. 9. Profiles of surface settlement adjacent to a rigid footing (see Fig_ 7)

\ stresses more uniformly by shedding load

e
\
0
\
towards the centre and to decrease the stress con-
C contour1 E: % centrations considerably at the edges (where the
+%EiT stresses are infinite in the linear elastic cases).
; I ;:y The assumption
stress distribution,
that, for a known surface
soil stresses can be calculated
D 0.05
E 0.1
from linear elasticity is central to routine founda-
F 0.35 tion engineering. To investigate this aspect calcu-
G 1 0.5 lations were carried out for a circular flexible load
with Z/D = 5.0. The plots of centre line stresses
for load factors of 0.3 and 0.5 are compared with
elastic profiles in Fig. 13. In this case the vertical
I I \ stresses are insensitive to the constitutive law, but
Fig. 10. Contours of deviatoric strain beneath a rigid elasticity underestimates the radial stresses and
footing when L, = 05 (see Fig. 7) overpredicts the deviator stress profile. This result
provides further evidence of the validity of
large errors in the calculation of undrained centre employing Boussinesq theory for the vertical
line settlement. stresses in settlement calculations.
Figure 12 shows the vertical base contact stress In summary, with footings, the non-linear
distributions. It can be seen that the influence of stress-strain characteristics have a dominant
non-linearity and local yield is to distribute the influence on the form and scale of the displace-

(4 (b) (0
Fig. 11. Distributions of stress increment beneath the centre of a rigid footing (see Fig. 7):
(a) radial stress changes; (b) vertical stress changes; (c) deviator stress changes
386 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

features with the horizontal loading of piles. The

---'Elastic' problem geometry was idealized by considering a
----_L, = 03
disc-like assembly of finite elements, with the
-L, 0.52
=
mesh extending to 100 times the internal diameter
D’ *-
9 average footing stress
2 of the cavity. Plane strain in the vertical direction
4
was imposed, and increments of radial displace-
PA
:
ment were applied at the inner radius of the
2z cavity. (Solutions to this problem can be derived
iO8-
without resort to finite element methods although
iz
v) -__-_--- it is frequently just as convenient to make use of
m
_e -_----
them.) The analyses were again performed using
k LPC2 and a linear elastic soil with E, = 1056
5 04 MN/m’ and v, = 0.49. The analysis was contin-
ued until the cavity had been expanded to 1.5
times its initial diameter, when LPC2 gave a total
pressure of 10,9C,.
I
I Figure 14(a) shows the predicted relationships
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O-8 10 between P/P,,, and A V/( V, + A V) where P is the
Fiad~al distance from centre of footing r/r0
increase in cavity pressure from the initial radial
Fig. 12. Vertical contact stresses beneath a rigid footing stress, V, is the initial volume of the cavity and V
(see Fig. 7) is the change in the volume of the cavity. The
ratio P/P,,, is a load factor L, and it can be seen
ment distributions and a less marked, but none that yield occurs at a relatively early stage.
the less significant, influence on the stress dis- The curve predicted using LPC2 may be
tribution. It is of interest to note that a Gibson treated as being equivalent to field data obtained
soil (linearly elastic with stiffness increasing hn- from an ideal undrained pressuremeter test, and it
early with depth) gives rise to very similar effects, is of interest to plot the curve of normalized
i.e. a concentration of vertical displacements Young’s modulus EJC, against P/P_, and P/C,,
beneath and around the loaded area, a reduction as shown in Fig. 14(b). In most pressuremeter
in variations in base contact stresses beneath testing a single shear stiffness G = EJ3 is evalu-
rigid footings and relatively small deviations of ated from an unload-reload loop, the magnitude
vertical stresses from homogeneous elasticity of which can vary between 0.X” and 3.5C,,
beneath uniformly loaded areas. depending on the judgement of the operator. A
linear shear modulus is then determined from a
Expansion of long cylindrical cavity mean line drawn through the loop. It is clear
Cylindrical cavity expansion analysis is of con- from Fig. 14(b) that the deduced modulus is likely
siderable practical interest, as it is used to inter- to be highly sensitive to the size of the imposed
pret pressuremeter data, and has some common pressure cycle for soils such as LPC2.

0 02 04 06 02 04 06 08 10

(a) ib) (Cl

Fig. 13. Distributions of stress increment beneath the centre of a flexible circular footing with the
geometry shown in Fig. 7: (a) radial stress changes; (b) vertical stress changes; (c) deviator stress
changes
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 387

4 a 12 16 20
AVl(V, + AV). %

(a)

P/C”
2 4 6 8 10
I I ’ I
I
(
I
I
I
\
I 1 Range for magnitude

o-2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o

Load factor P/P,,,
ib)

Fig. 14. (a) Pressure-volume change curves for cylindrical cavity expansion and (h) the
variation in apparent secant modulus with load factor for cylindrical cavity expansion in
soil type LPC2
388 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

erkal displacements applied to top 01 pile

de7 A+7
+ 50 m +
Fig. 15. Finite element mesh for a pile 30 m long

The analysis of a full pressuremeter test was the maximum value given by LPC2 (as
not attempted because of the assumptions which described later, additional elastic runs were
would have to be made concerning the stress- carried out with a range of E, values to aid in
strain characteristics associated with loading the interpretation of equivalent soil stiffness
reversals. However, the curves obtained from high from load-settlement data)
quality tests in clays often show a non-linear (c) P3: as for Pl with the pile modulus increased
response similar to that given in Fig. 14(a) by a factor of 103.
(Windle & Wroth, 1977; Powell & Uglow, 1985).
The relationships between load and settlement
of the pile head are given in Fig. 16. In both of
Axial loading of pile 30 m long the elasto-plastic cases local plastic failure
The third class of problem to be investigated (indicated by arrows) was reached at settlements
was that of a compressible pile. A solid pile, of less than 2 mm and the stiffness of the pile can
0.75 m in diameter and 30 m long, was selected be seen to have an important influence on the
with a modulus of 30 x 10’ MN/m’. Such a behaviour. (The finite element mesh designed for
stiffness is appropriate to either a steel pipe pile this study was not chosen to give particularly thin
or a reinforced concrete pile, and was 28 times the elements close to the pile. With the shaft shear
maximum soil stiffness. The finite element mesh stresses being projected from points around r,J5
for the study is shown in Fig. 15, and no account from the interface, there was a tendency for the
was taken of any effects of installation on soil ultimate capacity to be overpredicted by as much
properties or initial conditions. Loading was as 7%. In analyses where the calculation of ulti-
simulated by applying increments of vertical dis- mate loads is of greater importance, the accuracy
placement to the top of the pile. Three cases were can be improved by using a finer mesh.)
considered Figure 17 shows the radial profiles of relative
surface settlement (6,/d,), where 6, is the settle-
(a) PI: the soil was everywhere represented by ment at radius r from the pile centre and 6, is the
the non-linear model LPC2 including the soil settlement of the pile. The profiles for Pl and P3
immediately adjacent to the pile shaft (i.e. correspond to a load factor of 0.5. It is apparent
Lx= 1) that linear elastic theory gives a poor estimate of
(b) P2: the soil was linear elastic with E, taken as the surface settlement profile around a typical pile
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 389

LPC2(cr=1)(P1)Ep=30X103MN/m2
- - - ~ Linear e&AC (I??) E, = 30 X 1 O3 MN/m*
-----xx LPC2(a = l)(P3)Ep = 30X106 MN/m’

(Arrows lndlcate points of first yield)

0 4 8 12 16 20
Settlement: mm

Fig. 16. Load-settlement curves for a pile 30 m long

installed in a soil with the stress-strain character- experiences only very small strains, with
istics of LPC2. However, it is of interest to note E<O.05%. Fig. 19 shows the mobilization of
that the elastic profile can be almost recovered if shaft resistance r/C, with depth for Pl and P3 at
the pile-soil stiffness ratio is increased by 103, i.e. L, = 0.5. It can be seen that progressive failure is
the pile becomes very stiff. taking place and that the extent of this is depen-
The location and extent of local failure at dent on both the relative compressibility of the
working load is shown in Fig. 18 in which con- pile and the pre-failure stress-strain character-
tours of a deviatoric strain E are plotted for case istics of the soil.
Pl with a load factor of 0.5. It can be seen that The same tendencies of load shedding and
yielding has occurred near the ground surface plastic flow near the pile head give rise to the
and that, except for a very narrow zone imme- pronounced concentrations of ground movements
diately adjacent to the pile, the bulk of the soil near to the pile. It is therefore clear that the

/i*
P
D

5 0.8

2 - LPC2, L, = O-5, E, = 30X lo3 MN/m’(Pl)

b o-- --O Linear elastic,LPCZ E = 30 X 1 O3 MN/m2 (P2)
z
1 .o x-x As Pl but with E, = 9 0 X lo6 MN/m2 (P3)

Fig. 17. Profiles of surface settlement adjacent to a pile 30 m long (see Fig. 16)
 390 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

Zone of plastic
behaviour close
to pile I

Fig. 18. Contours of deviatoric strain around a pile 30 m long when

L,O= 05 (see Fig. 16)

overall behaviour is sensitive to the combination
of large strain properties close to the pile and the
small strain characteristics of the surrounding
soil. These features are significant in design and
are likely to affect the capacities and working set-
tlements of both single piles and pile groups. It is
apparent that linear elastic theory will tend to
Normalized shear stress:
overpredict group settlement ratios and to exag-
gerate the non-uniformity of loads within rigidly
capped pile groups. In assessing the interaction of
pile groups it is thus necessary to consider the
initial response of the soil to shearing with the full
accuracy afforded by the new laboratory tech-
niques, and this is particularly so when consider-
ing the response of large offshore piled structures
TJC, (Jardine, 1985).

Strutted excavation
The prediction of structural forces and ground
movements around deep excavations has impor-
tant implications for construction in built-up
areas. These problems have prompted much
research, and some of the difficulties of assuming
linear elastic soil behaviour have first become
apparent from the monitoring of such structures.
It was therefore considered important to include
an analysis of a hypothetical strutted excavation
in the present series of studies.
The excavation considered was infinitely long,
40 m wide, 15.26 m deep and was supported by a
diaphragm wall 20 m deep, propped at the
surface by means of rigid struts before excavation.
The finite element mesh is shown in the inset to
Fig. 20 and excavation was simulated by sequen-
tially removing layers of elements from within the
excavation. The final depth of 15.26 m was
LPC2,Ei,=30X103MN/m”(P1)
chosen to give a factor of safety F, of 1.5 in terms
--x ~ LPC2 Ep= 30 X 1 O6 MN/m2 (P3) of undrained shear strength. The wall adhesion
Fig. 19. Variation in shear stress with depth down a pile factor was taken as 0.X,. The material compos-
30 m long for two pile stiffnesses when L, = 05 (see ing the diaphragm wall was specified as being
Fig. 16) linear elastic with E, = 28 x lo3 MN/m’ and
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 391

employlng-

Excavation depth 15-26 m

analws ’ i

7
6

0
3.0 2.0 1 ,o 1 ,o 0.6 0.2
Dlsplacemenl towards excavatfon: cm Normalzed horizontal displacement w/wloe

Fig. 20. Variation in maximum horizontal wall dis- Fig. 21. Horizontal deflected profiles of a diaphragm
placement with depth of excavation for a propped dia- wall for a depth of excavation of 1526 m (see Fig. 20)
phragm retaining wall
is very sensitive to the soil model. The incorpo-
v, = 0.15. Two cases were considered with the ration of non-linearity and plasticity into the
soil modelled as model gives rise to a pronounced settlement
(a) LPC2
trough close to the excavation which cannot be
(b) linearly elastic with E, = 1056 MN/m’ and matched using linear elasticity. As mentioned in
v, = 0.49. the introduction, this phenomenon was noted in
the field by Burland & Hancock (1977) and was
For both cases the initial stresses were assumed later reproduced analytically by Simpson et al.
to increase linearly with depth Z such that crV= (1979) using a bilinear elastic perfectly plastic soil
202 kN/m’ and un = 0,7a,. The undrained shear model.
strength was taken everywhere as 110 kN/m’. The non-linear and elastic solutions also give
Figure 20 shows the relationship between rise to different stress distributions over the
maximum inward displacement of the wall, wmaxr retaining wall, and hence different bending
and the depth of excavation. Local failure is initi- moments and prop forces. Thus, for a depth of
ated before the load factor L, = l/F, reaches 0.2. excavation of 15.26 m the LPC2 model predicts a
The load-displacement curve computed with the prop force of 387 kN/m while linear elasticity
LPC2 model is clearly non-linear with wall gives 316 kN/m.
deflexions accelerating as excavation takes place. Contours of deviatoric strain are given in
Fig. 21 shows the normalized horizontal deflected Fig. 23 with the excavation at 15.26 m. A zone of
profiles of the wall, w/wtoer at the final depth of contained plastic behaviour is found with the
excavation found with the two soil models. It can non-linear soil, and the contours show that the
be seen that the shapes of the wall profiles do not deviatoric strains in the surrounding ground fall
differ appreciably. between 0.3% and 0.05%.
Figure 22 shows the profiles of surface settle- These findings have been further reinforced by
ment with distance from the wall, expressed as a recent field and analytical studies of the strutted
proportion of w,,,. Unlike the displacement excavations for the Bell Common cut and cover
profile for the wall, the surface settlement profile tunnel (Fourie, 1984; Tedd, Chard, Charles &
392 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

Linear elastic
analysis

Fig. 22. Vertical displacement profiles adjacent to a strutted excavation (see

Fig. 20)

Symons, 1984; Hubbard, Potts, Miller & calculated by relating a characteristic displace-
Burland, 1984). Fourie carried out finite element ment to a known loading condition, such as
analyses of the excavations using an elasto-plastic centre line settlement to mean bearing pressure.
effective stress model for London Clay, in which The same method has been applied to the load-
the pre-yield behaviour was described in a similar displacement data calculated using model LPCZ.
way to the LPC2 model. The stiffness parameters Thus the computed loaddisplacement curves are
were derived from the instrumented laboratory treated as if they were experimental data gathered
tests described by Jardine et al. (1985) and it is in the field. The variations in apparent modulus
encouraging that excellent agreement was found with load factor L,, produced by the different
between the measured and predicted behaviour. boundary value problems, can then be compared.
Figure 24 shows the variation in E,*/C, and L,
INTERPRETATION OF LOAD-DISPLACEMENT
for the rigid footing on a deep clay layer. It can
BEHAVIOUR USING LINEAR ELASTICITY
be seen that even for load factors as low as one-
The finite element studies presented here third the value of E,* reduces from its initial
provide insight into the effects of non-linear soil value by about 40%. The broken line in Fig. 24
properties in soillstructure interaction. In this represents the variation in secant E,* with L, for
section the results of the various studies are used a triaxial test with the soil model LPC2 (i.e. test
to investigate the choice of equivalent elastic R2 in Figs l(b) and 5). In this case L, =
design parameters and to draw attention to the (q - qO)/(qr- qo) where q is the deviator stress
difficulties of linear elastic interpretations of in and q. and qf are the initial and failure values
situ tests and full-scale field monitoring. respectively. It can be seen that the two curves
It is common to interpret field load- are almost identical up to a load factor of about
displacement behaviour in terms of linear elas- 0.5, i.e. for most practical ranges of working load.
ticity. An apparent Young’s modulus EUA, is However, as L, increases above 0.5 and the zones
of local failure spread, the apparent moduli
RIgId derived from the displacements of the footing fall
below the values from the triaxial test.
Similar relationships between E,* and L, have
been derived for the other boundary value prob-
lems and are plotted in Fig. 25, together with the
result from the triaxial compression test. This
latter curve may be conveniently used as a basis
for comparison. The relationship for the 30 m
long pile needs special mention since it is compli-
cated by the effect of pile compressibility. The
relationship between E,* and 1oad:settlement
Fig. 23. Contours of deviatoric strain around a strutted ratio was obtained by carrying out eight linear
excavation for a factor of safety on strength F. = 1.5 elastic analyses in which E,* was varied but the
(see Fig. 20) pile stiffness was fixed. Hence, for any given point
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 393

on curve Pl in Fig. 16, it was possible to obtain

the apparent modulus E,* and thereby to derive
the relationship between E,*/C, and L, given in
Fig. 25.
- Rigld fooilng Z/D = 5.0
-- - - Tnaxml test R2
For all the cases referred to in Fig. 25, with the
exception of the strutted excavation, the apparent
modulus E,* relates to the deflexion of the point
of application of the load (or stress), and the load
factor is clearly defined. For the strutted excava-
tion the value of E,* relates to the maximum
horizontal deflexion of the wall and the load
factor is the inverse of the factor of safety on
undrained strength.
Bearing in mind that Fig. 25 relates to a spe-
cific non-linear soil model applied to particular
boundary value problems the following observa-
tions can be made.

(a) In each case the apparent modulus reduces

continuously as the load factor increases, and
in no case can the continuum behaviour be
properly described as linear elastic at working
0 02 04 O-6 08 10 loads.
Load factor L, (b) For any given load factor there is a consider-
Fig. 24. Variations in apparent secant modulus with able range of values of E,*/C,. For example,
load factor for a rigid footing and an undrained triaxial at L, = 0.5 the rigid pile gives the stiffest
test for soil type LPC2 response (E,*/C, = 3600) and the cavity
5OOOr

RIgId 30 m long, 0.75 dia. ptle

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1 .o

LOad factor L/L,,,, PIP,,, and 1 IF s

Fig. 25. Summary diagram showing variations in apparent modulus

with load factor (l/F, for the excavation)
394 JARDINE, POTTS, FOURIE AND BURLAND

expansion curve gives the softest response
(E,*/C, = 300) and these two curves fall to
either side of the triaxial characteristic.
(Intuitively, similar results might be expected
for the horizontal loading of the pile.) Thus
field moduli deduced from experiments in the
same soil, but with different types of bound-
ary conditions, can be radically different even
for an isotropic material such as LPC2.
(c) First plastic yield occurred over a wide range
of load factors. Hence the values of E,*/C, at
the onset of yield vary from 3700 for the strut-
ted excavation (L, = 0.14) to 800 for the tri-
axial test (L, = 1.0). If an infinitely fine mesh
had been employed for the footing analysis,
first yield would have occurred with L, = 0.0
when E,*/C, = 4800.
The two extreme cases in Fig. 25 are of interest
(i.e. the expanding cavity and the rigid pile) since
both form the basis of in situ tests. It is clear that
great care is needed in evaluating the stiffness of
the ground from such data. The value of these
tests would be increased if the full characteristic
of apparent modulus with load factor were
reported, rather than a single arbitrary stiffness
value. It may be feasible to use such a character-
istic to estimate the non-linear stress-strain char-
acteristics of individual soil elements.
It is of considerable practical interest to note
the reasonably good agreement between the
results derived from the settlement of footings
and the triaxial element test. Good agreement is
also found between the 30 m pile and the triaxial
test when a realistic pile stiffness is assumed.
However, a rigid pile gives a far stiffer character-
istic than the triaxial curve and explains why the
modulus back calculated from pile tests is often
so much higher than that obtained by other
methods.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The series of analyses are intended to give a
preliminary appraisal of the effects of the non-
linear soil behaviour observed in recent labor-
atory tests. To restrict the number of variables,
only the undrained behaviour of a homogeneous
layer of an isotropic material under monotonic
loading is considered.
The simple empirical stress-strain expression
used for the calculations provides a good fit to
the undrained behaviour of a lightly over-
consolidated low plasticity clay in triaxial com-
pression. Non-homogeneity can be considered
without undue difftculty, but if drained conditions
(or cycles of loading) were to be considered
more complex model is required. The material
considered, LPC2, is probably stiffer than most
soils but is not unusually non-linear. Recognizing
the limitations of the study, the following prelimi-
nary conclusions can be made.
There can be considerable dihiculties in apply-
ing linear elastic theory to the prediction of
ground movements and soil stresses induced by
different types of structure. In all the practical
cases studied, the modelling of realistic small
strain non-linearity and the consideration of local
failure have important implications in considering
soil-structure interactions at working loads.
In footings and excavations the small strain
characteristics appear to have the greatest influ-
ence on the deflexion profiles around the loaded
boundary. With piled foundations the onset of
local failure appears to be at least as significant,
and the combination of these two kinds of non-
linearity appears to control pile group interaction
and progressive failure.
For all the cases studied, the large mass of the
soil influenced by the boundary loading was
strained to less than 0.1% deviator strain and
frequently to less than 0.05%. If representative
soil parameters are to be determined experimen-
tally, highly accurate measurements are required.
Thus the precision offered by the new laboratory
techniques is of considerable practical value.
In problems such as footings it may be reason-
able to combine stresses predicted from linear
elastic theory and measured non-linear stress-
strain characteristics to carry out approximate
evaluations of centre line settlements. In other
cases, such as the estimation of group displace-
ments for large piles, or the calculation of wall
bending moments in deep excavations, linear
elastic theory is less satisfactory.
The studies show that the back analysis of full-
scale performance or in situ tests is likely to lead
to a wide range of possible values for deformation
moduli, even for a uniform isotropic material.
Recent research has confirmed the expected
sensitivity of stiffness to boundary conditions and
the loading level in field and laboratory tests on
London Clay (Jardine et al., 198.5). The initial
stiffnesses observed in triaxial tests can exceed
overall values deduced from either high quality in
situ tests or the back analysis of full-scale per-
formance.
Although linear elasticity remains a convenient
tool for expressing measurements of soil stiffness,
its limitations must be recognized. In particular
the importance of load factor and the tendency
towards concentrations of strain close to loading
boundaries must be taken into account. If the
non-linear nature of soils is not acknowledged,
a comparisons of field and laboratory measure-
ments can be confusing.
The use of instrumentation systems in field
monitoring which allow the direct determination
 NON-LINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS 395

of strains (and their comparison with stresses) is measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial appar-
likely to be of great value in understanding soil atus. Gtotechnique 34, No. 3, 323-340.
behaviour and assessing the applications of the Marsland, A. (1971). Laboratory and insitu measure-
laboratory techniques. ments of the deformation moduli of London clay.
Proc. Symp. Interaction of Structure and Foundation,
Although the apparent agreement between
July. Midland Soil Mechanics and Foundation
laboratory non-linear characteristics and mea-
Engineering Society. (Also Building Research
sured field behaviour is most encouraging, further Station Current Paper CP 24/73.)
studies are required to investigate the effects of Morgenstern, N. R. & Phukan, A. L. T. (1968). Stresses
different stress paths, drainage conditions and and displacements in a homogeneous non-linear
strain rates. foundation. Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Mech., Madrid,
Finally the pre-yield non-linear formulation pp. 3 13-320.
described in this Paper can be used more gener- Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1974). Elastic solutions fin
ally and has been included in analyses where soil and rock mechanics. New York: Wiley.
more sophisticated, effective stress, elasto-plastic Powell, J. J. M. & Uglow, I. M. (1985). A comparison of
Menard, self-boring and push-in pressuremeter tests
models have been required; see Fourie (1984) and
in a stiff clay till. Adv. Underwat. Technol. Offshore
Jardine (1985).
Engng 3,201-219.
REFERENCES Simpson, B., O’Riordan, N. J. & Croft, D. D. (1979). A
Burland, J. B. (1975). Some examples of the influence of computer model for the analysis of ground move-
field measurements on foundation design and con- ments in London Clay. Geotechnique 29, No. 2, 149-
struction. Proc. 6th Regional Conf for Africa Soil 175.
Mech. Fdn Engng, Durban 2. St John, H. D. (1975). Field and theoretical studies of the
Burland, J. B. & Hancock, R. J. R. (1977). Underground behaviour of ground around deep excavations in
car park at the House of Commons: geotechnical London clay. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
aspects. Struct. Engr 55, 877100. Tedd, P., Chard, B. M., Charles, J. A. & Symons, I. F.
Burland, J. B., Sills, G. C. & Gibson, R. E. (1973). A (1984). Behaviour of a propped embedded retaining
field and theoretical study of the influence of non- wall in stiff clay at Bell Common Tunnel. Gtotech-
homogeneity on settlement. Proc. 8th Inc. Con/ Soil nique 34, No. 4, 513-532.
Mech. Fdn Engng, Moscow 1.3, 31-46. Vesic, A. S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow founda-
Burland, J. B. & Symes, M. (1982). A simple axial dis- tions (eds H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang),
placement gauge for use in the triaxial apparatus. Chap. 3, Foundation Engineering Handbook. New
Geotechnique 32, No. 1,62X5. York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Costa-Filho, L. M. (1980). A laboratory investigation of Windle, D. 8~ Wroth, C. P. (1977). lnsitu measurements
the small strain behaviour of London clay. PhD of the properties of stiff clays. Proc. 9th Inc. Conf
thesis, University of London. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, Tokyo 1, 347-352.
Costa-Filho, L. M. & Vaughan P. R. (1980). Discussion Wroth, C. P. (1971). Some aspects of the elastic behav-
on A computer model for the analysis of ground iour of overconsolidated clay. Proc. Roscoe Memo-
movements in London clay. Geotechnique 30, No. 3, rial Symp., pp. 347-361. London: Foulis.
336339.
Daramola, 0. (1978). The influence of stress history on APPENDIX 1
the deformation of sand. PhD thesis, University of Calculation of non-linear parameters from test
London, data. Referring to Fig. 3, first locate the observed, or
Eisenstein, Z. & Medeiros, L. V. (1983). A deep projected, maximum stiffness point. Now maxima for
retaining structure in till and sand: part II, per- equation (1) occur when
formance and analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 20, No. 1,
131-141.
Fourie, A. B. (1984). The behaviour of retaining walls in
cos {fIog,,(;)J} ?=
0

sttrclays. PhD thesis, University of London. i.e. when

Gibson, R. E. (1967). Some results concerning displace-
ments and stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic flog,, @)y=2nn
half-space. Geotechnique 17, No. 1, 58-67.
Hubbard, H. W., Potts, D. M., Miller, D. & Burland, J. assuming n = 0 for the observed maximum gives
B. (1984). Design of the retaining walls for the M25 log,, (EJC) = 0 and C = A.
cut and cover tunnel at Bell Common. Geotechnique Next the crossing point where the angular part of
34, No. 4, 495-512. equation (1) must equal n/2 is located, so that
Jardine, R. J. (1985). Investigations ofpile-soil behaviour
with special reference to the foundations of offshore (5)
structures. PhD thesis, University of London.
Jardine, R. J., Fourie, A., Maswoswe, J. & Burland, J. B. then the minimum point where the angular part must
(1985). Field and laboratory measurements of soil equal rr is located, so that
stiffness. Proc. 11th Inc. Conf Soil Mech. Fdn Engng,
San Francisco 2,51 I-514.
Jardine, R. J., Symes, M. J. & Burland, J. B. (1984). The
396 JARDINE, POTTS, AND BURLAND

The two parameters A B can taken

directlv the stiffness corresnondine.
I I
to
strainsc, D E.
Equation (1) should then be evaluated for a number
of points to find the degree of departure from the test
data near the upper and lower limits of strain. The
(7 limits should be selected to prevent negative tangent
stiffnesses from being predicted, and the lower limit
should not usually be less than O+JOl %I.
From the result of equation (7) a can be obtained The maximum, minimum and crossing points can be
from equation (5) and reselected if the degree of fit is unsatisfactory.
If it is required to evaluate the expressions for A
-c C, problems will arise when raising the logarithmic
42 terms to a fractional power. In this case pre- and post-
a = Clog,, wc)Iy multiplication by - 1 will be required.