Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Experimental and Discrete Element Modeling Studies of The Trapdoor Problem Influence of The Macro-Mechanical Frictional Parameters
Experimental and Discrete Element Modeling Studies of The Trapdoor Problem Influence of The Macro-Mechanical Frictional Parameters
DOI 10.1007/s11440-011-0152-5
RESEARCH PAPER
Received: 30 May 2011 / Accepted: 22 November 2011 / Published online: 3 January 2012
Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract Granular soils have the inherent ability to followed by a critical phase for which the load transfer
develop load transfers in their mass. Mechanisms of load amplitude increased and stabilized. Analytical solutions
transfers are used as a basic principle of many civil and and experimental values of load transfers were compared.
geotechnical engineering applications. However, their Considerable differences between the stress ratio needed to
complexity makes it difficult to formulate relevant design fit the experimental data and the stress ratio proposed in the
methods for such works. The trapdoor problem is one of analytical models were noted. Based on the conclusions of
the ways to reproduce load transfers by the arching effect the experimental study, the discrete element method was
in a granular layer in non-complex conditions. In addition, used to model the same trapdoor problem. A wide range of
many analytical solutions for the prediction of load transfer granular materials was modeled and tested in the trapdoor
mechanisms are based on the trapdoor problem. However, problem. The three phases in the response of the layer were
some of the parameters required are still being widely also observed in the numerical modeling. In addition, it
discussed, in particular the ratio of horizontal stress to was shown that the shear strength of the material is the key
vertical stress. For this paper, an experimental device for parameter of load transfers: peak shear resistance for the
trapdoor tests in plane strain conditions was created and small displacements of the trapdoor and critical shear
several geomaterials were tested. Three phases in the strength for the larger displacements. A micro-mechanical
response of the materials were consistently observed. Each analysis showed that the effective stress ratio in the sheared
of these phases corresponded to a specific displacement of zone does not vary as much with shear strength. Stress
the trapdoor. A first phase of high load transfer was ratios here were again greater than those proposed in the
observed followed by a transition phase which was analytical solutions. Nevertheless, the relevance of the
solution of Terzaghi was confirmed as soon as the stress
ratio was correctly chosen.
B. Chevalier (&) G. Combe P. Villard
UJF-Grenoble 1, Grenoble-INP, CNRS UMR 5521, Keywords Discrete element method Friction angle
3SR Lab, B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 09, France Granular materials Load transfer Trapdoor problem
e-mail: bastien.chevalier@polytech.univ-bpclermont.fr
G. Combe
e-mail: gael.combe@ujf-grenoble.fr
1 Introduction
P. Villard
e-mail: pascal.villard@ujf-grenoble.fr
Numerous civil and geotechnical engineering applications
Present Address: involve the use of granular layers that play a specific role in
B. Chevalier the distribution of the forces caused by the weight of the
Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, superstructure and any overloads applied. For example, in
Institut Pascal, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
the technique of reinforcement of soft soil by rigid inclu-
B. Chevalier sions, a granular layer located over the piles is used to
CNRS, UMR 6602, Institut Pascal, 63171 Aubiere, France increase the load supported by the piles and consequently
123
16 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
to decrease the load acting on the supporting soil and discussed by many authors in the past decades [25, 26, 44,
subsequently surface settlement [12]. In the case of 45].
embankments reinforced with basal geosynthetic sheeting Terzaghi [40] extended this analytical solution to the
on soft soils [28], the granular material used for the trapdoor problem by studying the equilibrium of forces on
embankment construction creates an arching effect over a horizontal layer of soil located above the trapdoor. Thus,
sinkhole cavities, thereby reducing the load applied to the the boundaries represented by the walls in the silo problem
reinforcement and thus limiting surface settlement [43]. are replaced by two vertical planes (D and D0 in Fig. 1)
Several codes of practice operate on the observations made starting at each edge of the trapdoor.
on the trapdoor problem to estimate the loads acting on The difficulty in this analytical solution lies in the
buried structures and resulting from a vertical displacement determination of the following two values / and K:
of a granular mass moving between fixed parts of material.
• in the special case of the trapdoor problem, the angle of
This is the case for flexible ditch conduits [1], for geo-
friction / should be obtained in plane strain conditions
synthetic sheets used as reinforcements in subsidence areas
and, depending on the amplitude of the trapdoor
[7, 19] or for tunnel-boring machines.
displacement, for lesser or greater strains,
In order to improve the behavior of these structures, a
• the stress ratio K is itself linked to /.
tri-dimensional numerical model based on the discrete
element method (DEM) was developed. To test the ability For K, there are several propositions based on different
of the numerical model to describe the load transfer assumptions concerning the behavior of the granular
mechanisms, numerical and experimental studies in plane material at the boundaries between the soil located just
strain conditions of the trapdoor problem were carried out. above the trapdoor and the remainder of the material.
The trapdoor problem [40, 41] consists in moving ver- Marston and Anderson [29] used an analytical solution
tically a trapdoor located at the basis of a granular layer similar to Eq. 1 for predicting the pressure acting on con-
(Fig. 1). During the tests, the pressure acting on the trap- crete pipes taking into account a stress ratio K equal to the
door decreases due to load transfers occurring in the active earth pressure coefficient [33].
granular material. Load transfers are the consequences of 1 sin /
intergranular rearrangements and modifications of the ori- K ¼ Ka ¼ ð2Þ
1 þ sin /
entations of contact forces according to the pattern of an
arch above the trapdoor. This problem is similar to the The definition of the stress ratio K = rx/rz equal to the
study of the pressures in silos, described analytically by active earth pressure coefficient Ka implies that rx and rz
Janssen [25], where the pressure p acting at the bottom of a correspond to the principal stresses. Handy [23] pointed out
silo of width 2B filled with a granular material of density c, that this assumption is not compatible with the existence of
is given by vertical tangential stresses and he proposed another stress
Bc ratio resulting from the equilibrium of a catenary shaped
p¼ 1 eðKh=BÞ tan / ð1Þ stratum. This new assumption implies that the principal
K tan /
stress directions differ from the vertical and horizontal
where K represents the ratio of horizontal stress to vertical directions. The new stress ratio Kw [30] is defined by
stress on or near the walls of the silo, / the friction angle
between the granular material and the walls and h the p / p /
K ¼ Kw ¼ 1:06 cos2 þ þ Ka sin2 þ ð3Þ
height of the granular material in the silo. For the specific 4 2 4 2
case of pressure in silos, the coefficient K has been Other solutions exist for the stress ratio, notably based
on the theory of shear banding. For example, Vardoulakis
[42] considered the two vertical planes (D and D0 on
Δ Δ Fig. 1) as a zone of localization of the shear strains: two
different stress ratios were proposed, each associated with
fixed fixed a value of the friction angle / of the material within the
volume volume
shear band. Corresponding to the Coulomb solution, the
first of these is
p / ¼ /c ð4Þ
where /c is the critical friction angle of the granular
material. The second value of the estimated friction angle
2B
within the shear band is given by Roscoe [34] and is
Fig. 1 Description of the trapdoor problem defined by
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 17
123
18 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
2.1.2 Characterization of the granular materials Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of sand and gravel
granular materials
Dry sand and gravel were tested in a loose initial state. The Sf Gc
grading and the snapshots of the particles of the two
granular materials are given respectively in Figs. 3 and 4. Minimal diameter dmin [mm] 0.01 5.0
The sand is referred to as Sf and the gravel Gc. Mean diameter d50 [mm] 0.5 8.0
The physical properties of the materials tested are Maximal diameter dmax [mm] 6.3 12.5
given in Table 1. dX is the size of the particles in such a Uniformity coefficient Cu [-] 4.09 1.61
way that X percent (in volume) of the grains are smaller Density cs [kN/m3] 26.1 26.5
than dX. Consequently, the ratio Cu ¼ d60 =d10 given in Apparent density ci [kN/m3] 17.0 15.2
Table 1 quantifies the relative width of the particle size Peak friction angle /p [] 49 54
distribution. A value of Cu close to 1 corresponds to a Critical friction angle /c [] 39 40
narrow particle size distribution (gravel); inversely, a
greater value corresponds to a wide ranged particle size
distribution (sand). samples, the materials Sf were tested in a 70 mm diameter
The frictional parameters of the different materials were test cell, whereas Gc were tested in a 150-mm-diameter test
deduced from axisymetric triaxial tests with a constant cell.
confining stress rr and a constant strain rate e_ 1 ’ 5 The samples for the triaxial tests were prepared by
103 s1 in the compression direction. In order to test the pouring the granular material into a cylindrical box with no
samples in similar stress states to those observed in the test drop height. This classical laboratory procedure enables
box, very low confining stresses were used: 5, 10 and 15 samples to be obtained with very low solid fraction.
kPa. These confining pressures were obtained with a vac- In addition, a correction was applied to the radial con-
uum pump by applying an equivalent negative pressure fining stress given by the stiffness of the latex membrane
(related to atmospheric pressure). To keep a satisfactory surrounding the samples [27]. The effect of the self-weight
ratio between the grain size and the diameter of the tested of the samples was also considered. However, since the
self-weight influences the axial stress, its effect on the final
100 value of the measured friction angle was negligible.
From these triaxial tests, two angles of friction can be
Gc
percentage finer by weight [%]
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 19
p [kPa]
finally every 1.0 mm increment for d C 25 mm. Due to this
pc
test procedure, the problem was considered to correspond
to quasi-static conditions. 1.25
The portion of granular material located under the bot-
pmin
tom of the test box and above the trapdoor (Fig. 5) did not
a b c
participate in the load transfer but contributed to the
increase of p when the trapdoor moved downwards. It is 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
then advisable to use the variable q corresponding to the δ [mm]
mean pressure acting at the initial position of the trapdoor
(at the bottom of the test box). Assuming that the load Fig. 6 Description of the three successive phases of the trapdoor
transfer between the granular material and the walls around problem (case Gc, h = 0.20 m): (a) maximal load transfer, (b) tran-
sitional phase, (c) critical phase
the trapdoor tends to zero, the value of q can be written
q ¼ p ci d ð10Þ
assuming that the density of the granular material under the downwards from its initial position 0.3 B d B 4.5 mm,
bottom of the test box is equal to the initial apparent depending on the granular material tested,
density. (ii) phase (b): a transitional phase during which the
pressure p increased with d (the increase rate of
2.2 Results p with d was constant for all tests for a given
material),
The load responses obtained with each granular material (iii) phase (c): a critical phase during which two vertical
and for each layer h thick broke down into three charac- shear bands were observed starting at each edge
teristic phases that corresponded to precise conditions with of the trapdoor. During this phase, the pressure
regard to kinematics and to load transfer amplitudes. A p increased continuously with d but at a reduced rate.
typical response is given in Fig. 6 and showing p versus d The first observation of the vertical shear band gave
for a 0.20-m-thick layer of Gc. The granular layer response the critical pressure notes pc.
for this test consisted in
(i) phase (a): a phase of maximal load transfer during Figure 7 shows load transfer p obtained with various
which the pressure reached a minimum value pmin. layer thicknesses for materials Sf and Gc.
This phase occurred as soon as the trapdoor was moved
2.2.1 Phase (a): Maximum transfer phase
123
20 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
7.50 10.00
h = 0.05 m h = 0.30 m 8.75
† h = 0.10 m h = 0.40 m † 7.50 h = 0.05 m h = 0.20 m
6.25 h = 0.15 m h = 0.50 m h = 0.10 m h = 0.30 m
6.25
h = 0.20 m 5.00 h = 0.15 m h = 0.60 m
5.00 3.75
Sf
Gc
3.75
p [kPa]
2.50
p [kPa]
2.50
1.25
1.25
pmin pmin
0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) δ [mm]
(b) δ [mm]
Fig. 7 p versus d for Sf and Gc and for various layer thicknesses h; the square symbols correspond to the first observation of vertical shear
banding (the symbol dagger underlines a change in the scale of the y axis). a Sand. b Gravel
5.0 0.1
Sf 0.09
4.0 Gc 0.08
0.07
0.06
[m]
3.0
δ [mm]
0.05
qmin
γi
0.04
2.0 Sf
0.03
0.02 Gc
1.0
0.01
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 h [m]
h [m]
Fig. 9 qmin =ci versus h for Sf and Gc. The line corresponds to the
Fig. 8 Trapdoor displacement d necessary to reach maximal load values predicted by the Eq. 1 using the angle of friction /p of each
transfer, corresponding to minimal pressure granular material and the following stress ratio: K = 1.17 for Sf and
K = 1.46 for Gravel
Figure 9 shows the relation between the weighted min-
imal pressure qmin/ci and the thickness of the layer for Sf are needed. The friction angle /p is strongly correlated
and Gc. Without any load transfer, a granular layer of with the initial state of the granular layer and is obtained
thickness h and volumetric weight ci would apply a pres- for a level of minor strain. Due to the small displacement
sure equal to qmin = hci on the trapdoor which corresponds level involved in phase (a), the peak friction angle /p was
to the solid line of slope 1:1 in Fig. 9. The experimental chosen. The dashed lines in Fig. 9 shows that Eq. 1,
results showed that qmin/ci reached a threshold as the obtained by adjusting K, is an acceptably close fit to the
thickness of the layer exceeded a specific value h , which experimental values.
depended on the material: 1:17 0:06; for Sf
K¼ : ð11Þ
• for Sf: qmin/ci ^ 0.08 for h [ h ¼ 0:10m, 1:46 0:03; for Gc
• for Gc: qmin/ci ^ 0.05 for h [ h ¼ 0:15m. Briefly presented in Sect. 1, most of the analytical
solutions involving a coefficient K related to the value of
The relation of minimal pressure with h was computed the friction angle / of the granular material. Due to the
using Eq. 1 in which a coefficient K and a friction angle / assumed kinematics along the vertical planes, K is often
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 21
δ -range [mm]
The transition phase between the maximal load transfer
phase and the critical phase corresponded to the increase of 50
p and q with d. During this phase, the soil above the
trapdoor progressively expanded as the trapdoor moved
Sf
downwards. The weight of granular material supported by 25
the trapdoor increased. An expansive zone delimited by Gc
two inclined planes starting at each edge of the trapdoor
was observed in Figs. 10 and 11. At the end of the tran- 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
sitional phase, these planes were vertical. Two parameters h [m]
characterized phase (b): the interval of displacement
‘‘d-range’’ necessary to make the transition and the gradi- Fig. 12 d-range during which the transitional phase occurs versus the
layer thickness h for Sf and Gc
ent k ¼ dq=dd.
In Fig. 12, it can be observed that the interval d-range of
phase (b) increased with the thickness h of the layer and
3.75
was greater for Gc than for Sf. The values of the pressure q Sf
versus d corresponding to phase (b) are shown in Fig. 13
for materials Sf and Gc. For a given material, the gradient of k = 135.5kN.m− 3
q with d during the transitional phase was independent of h 2.50
if h h . For each material, once h is greater than h , a
q [kPa]
Gc
k = 18.3kN.m− 3
0.00
20 40
δ [mm]
h
Fig. 13 Corrected pressure q versus d for phase (b) for Sf and Gc and
for h h
135:5 2:6 kN m3 ; for Sf
k¼ : ð12Þ
18:3 0:5 kN m3 ; for Gc
123
22 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
[kPa]
2.5
layer.
An estimation of the intensity of load transfers during
phase (b) was made: the volumes of expansion zones were 1.25
deduced from image analysis. The pressure qw induced by
this volume on the trapdoor was calculated as if no load beginning of critical phase
transfer existed between the expansion zone and the 0
0 20 40 60
remaining material. To do so, the surface s of the vertical δ [mm]
cross section of the expansion zone was deduced from
image analysis. The resulting weight of the expansion zone Fig. 15 Comparison of q and qw versus d for Gc and h = 0.20 m
was then calculated based on a material density equal to ci.
The resulting expression of qw is:
s
qw ¼ c i d ð13Þ kw =k ¼ 1:10 0:45 for Sf
2B : ð14Þ
kw =k ¼ 3:05 0:45 for Gc
where 2B is the trapdoor width, ci the initial apparent
A ratio kw =k 1 means that no load transfer exist
density and s the area of the expansion zone in a vertical
between the expansion zone and the remaining material,
cross section of the test box (Fig. 14). Figures 15 and 16
whereas a ratio kw =k 1 means that load transfers exist.
show the comparison of data ðd; qw Þ and ðd; qÞ.
Basically, kw =k\1 is not physically correct. Assumptions
A new gradient kw was calculated from the data ðd; qw Þ,
made for the computation might explain the inconsistency
this gradient corresponded to a response without load
of some results: the failure zone observed through the front
transfer. For Gc, the analysis of two trapdoor tests gave a
plexiglass wall was assumed to be representative of the
mean value kw(Gc) = 56.7 kN m-3. For Sf, the analysis of
whole layer. For Sf, the ratio kw =k was centered on a value
four tests gave a mean value kw(Sf) = 147 ± 60 kN m-3.
of 1.10, which corresponds to a quasi no load transfer
The comparison of the increase rates k and kw confirmed
mechanism from the expansion zone to the remaining
the difference in behavior of the two materials tested for
material. For Gc, the ratio was about 2.6: the gravel was
the transitional phase:
thus much more able to mobilize friction at the interfaces
than the sand.
During the critical phase, the whole column of soil over the
trapdoor was involved in the sliding movement, contrary to
previous phases. Phase (c) corresponded to the classical
description of the trapdoor problem with a considerable
γi displacement: two vertical planes, starting at each edge of
s
the trapdoor, marked the boundaries between a volume of
granular material sliding between two fixed parts (Figs. 17
and 18). The pressure pc on the trapdoor for the critical
phase was measured at the beginning of the phase, i.e. as
δ
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 23
5 5
Sf Sf
3.75 3.75
[kPa]
[kPa]
2.5 2.5
effective height
h [m] h
volume
correction
3.75
2.5
qc [kPa]
1.25
Sf
Gc
Fig. 18 Snapshot of the granular layer during critical phase (case of
Sf, h = 0.20 m et d = 40 mm) 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
h [m]
which qc reached a maximum. For Gc, qc reached a
threshold. Fig. 20 Critical pressure qc versus h0 for Sf and Gc
Once again, phase (c) was associated with considerable
deformations. It seemed fairly intuitive to accept that the values of critical friction angles for both materials
shear strength of the material to be considered corre- – /c = 39 for Sf and /c = 40 for Gc—the critical pres-
sponded to the critical friction /c. Despite very close sures qc were approximately twice as great for Sf as for Gc.
123
24 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
The results obtained for phase (c) were compared with the by the different analytical solutions were compared with
predictions of the analytical solution of Eq. 1. Since the the coefficient fKgfit able to fit the experimental data with
analytical solution does not consider the vertical dis- respect to Eq. 15. For the gravel Gc, the shape of the
placement of the trapdoor d, the value of the prediction was experimental curve giving qc versus h0 reproduced the
assumed to be equal to the equivalent pressure at the level Eq. 15 with K = 1.19 ± 0.04 well (Fig. 21).
of the bottom of the test box. For the sand Sf, the experimental curve giving qc versus
Bc 0
h0 broke down into two parts separated by a break of slope
qc ð h0 Þ ¼ 1 eðKh =BÞ tan /c ð15Þ for h0 ¼ 0:27m. This shape could not be efficiently repro-
K tan /c
duced by Eq. 15 (Fig. 22). A minimal value of K could be
where 2B = 0.20 m is the width of the trapdoor, /c the obtained by fitting the first part of the curve. The values of
critical friction angle along the vertical failure planes, h0 is the coefficient K given by the analytical model and by the
the effective height of the layer and K a coefficient cor- approximation to the experimental data are given in
responding to the ratio between the horizontal and the Table 2.
vertical stresses. The volumetric weight c used here was the For Gc, the value of fKgfit ¼ 1:19 required to fit the
initial volumetric weight of the granular layer ci. experimental data was greater than any proposition of the
The analytical solutions were compared with the analytical models. Moreover, this result showed that hori-
experimental results for phase (c). The coefficients K given zontal stress should be greater than vertical stress: the soil
was under extension conditions.
2 For Sf, the fitting of the experimental data with the
Eq. 15 for h0 0:30 gave a coefficient fKgfit ¼ 0:30, which
Gc was not very far from the coefficient proposed by Marston
1.5
and Anderson. However, the break of slope obtained could
not be analytically obtained. The decrease in critical
qc [kPa]
1.5
Table 2 Coefficient K predicted by some analytical models based on
1 Eq. 15
fitting curve
0.5 Sf Gc
experimental results
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 25
123
26 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
laws. The normal component of the contact force applied rolling, and the range of shear strength attainable with such
by particle j on particle i can be written as follows assemblies is much greater than that for spherical particles
fnj!i ¼ Kn hij ð18Þ [11, 36, 38, 39]. Friction angles as high as those found with
the geomaterials used in the experimental study were thus
where Kn represents the normal contact stiffness and hij the modeled.
overlap of the two particles i and j with hij [ 0 for the The grading of the modeled particle assemblies
overlapped particles. No traction was considered here (Fig. 24) was characterized by a ratio of the maximal
between particles. The tangential component of the contact diameter to the minimal diameter
force f j!i
t is linked to the relative tangential incremental dmax
displacement dut of particles i and j with a stiffness Kt [17] ¼ 2:66 ð21Þ
dmin
by the following expression Within this range of diameter, particle sizes were ran-
d
f j!i
t
domly chosen in such a way that the coefficient of uni-
¼ Kt ð19Þ formity of the assemblies was equal to Cu = 1.52. In the
ddut
experimental study, the gravel Gc presented a uniformity
and is bound by a Coulomb friction criterion coefficient of, Cu = 1.61 (Table 1).
kf j!i j!i
t k lfn ð20Þ
3.1.3 Numerical parameters and mechanical properties
with l the contact friction coefficient between particles
i and j. The aim of the numerical study was to investigate the
The code used was SDEC software [20] developed in influence of the macro-mechanical parameters of a granular
the 3S-R laboratory, which is based on 3D molecular material on its response to the trapdoor problem. Load
dynamics. transfers in granular materials are closely linked to shear
strength and particularly to friction angles in both peak and
3.1.2 Granular model critical states. Consequently, several granular assemblies
with various macro-mechanical parameters were modeled.
Two kinds of particles were used (Fig. 23): The macro-mechanical parameters of an assembly of
• spherical particles, particles depend on:
• complex particles, referred to as clusters. • physical parameters such as porosity, grading [10],
particle shapes [11, 36, 38, 39],
A cluster is a perfectly rigid assembly of two over- • mechanical parameters of contact laws such as stiff-
lapped, identical spheres of diameter d. Two different nesses and friction coefficient in the case presented in
values of the distance between the centers of spheres of the this paper [2, 6, 14, 35],
cluster were modeled: 0.20d and 0.95d. Finally, three
particle shapes were then modeled: spheres (S), clusters
100
with a distance between the centers of spheres of, 0.20d
(C20) and clusters with a distance between the centers of
spheres of, 0.95d (C95).
percentage finer in volume [%]
80
The concavity of cluster particles implies that two of the
latter may be in contact through more than one contact
point. In addition, simple spheres can roll without slipping 60
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
d− dmin
(a) (b) (c) dmax − dmin
Fig. 23 Particle types: a spherical, b cluster 0.20d, c cluster 0.95d Fig. 24 Grading of numerical particle assemblies
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 27
• the way used to prepare granular assemblies [4, 5, 9, porosity was then minimal, g = gmin. With this generation
16] method, the assembly could be generated with any desired
value of porosity within the range ½gmin ; gmax
. The poros-
The mechanical characterization of each type of
ities of the different assemblies are summarized in Table 3.
assembly was carried out by modeling triaxial tests on
Assemblies of different particle shapes and porosities
samples of 8000 particles with a constant confining stress
were set up in order to obtain an extensive range of mac-
r3 = 5 kPa.
roscopic peak and critical friction angles: /p 2 ½24:5 ; 49
123
28 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
2.00 2.50
S1
2.00
1.50 S2 C120
[-]
[-] 1.50
S3 C220
σ1 + 2σ3
σ1 + 2σ3
σ 1 − σ3
σ1 − σ 3
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00 0.00
0.15 0.20
0.15
0.10
εv [-]
εv [-]
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) (b)
ε1 [-] ε1 [-]
2.50
2.00 C195
C295
[-]
1.50
σ1 + 2σ3
σ1 − σ3
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.20
0.15
εv [-]
0.10
0.05
0.00
Fig. 25 Responses of the samples to the triaxial test. a Spheres. b Clusters 0.20d. c Clusters 0.95d
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 29
0.1 0:2001 were obtained. These values are very close to those
expected in isotropic conditions.
0.8
numerical material tested. The experimental results
0.6 obtained for sand and gravel layers 0.20 m thick are also
0.4
shown in this figure. The lower /p was, the greater was the
pressure on the trapdoor, i.e., the lower the load transfer
0.2 was.
0
In addition, the three materials S3, C120 and C120 with
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 values for the peak friction angle /p between 35 and 37
cos θ gave very similar minimal pressures qmin. The key
parameter for the amplitude of load transfer during phase
Fig. 28 Distribution of the orientation of contacts Pðcos hÞ with a
vertical direction in the central part of the sample C20
1 in the initial
(a) was in this case /p, and no effect from the particle
state shape was observed on the load transfer and kinematics.
123
30 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
3.75 3.75
p [kPa]
1.25 S1 1.25
S2 C 120
S3 C 220
0.00 0.00
2.50 2.50
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
1.25 S1 1.25
S2 C 120
S3 C 220
0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) (b)
δ [mm] δ [mm]
3.75
2.50
p [kPa]
1.25
C295
C195
0.00
2.50
q [kPa]
1.25
C 295
C 195
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
(c) δ [mm]
Fig. 29 Pressures (p and q) versus trapdoor displacement d; the symbol square corresponds to the beginning of the critical phase (h = 0.20 m).
a Spheres, b clusters 0.20d, c clusters 0.95d
The only influence of shape acts indirectly through the 3.3.3 Phase (c)
peak friction angle.
Finally, pressure q reached a threshold (Fig. 30—part c).
3.3.2 Phase (b) The boundaries of the slipping part of the granular material
above the trapdoor consisted of two vertical planes starting
After it reached its minimal value qmin, pressure q at each edge of the trapdoor (Fig. 31d). This mechanism
increased rapidly and regularly with d between 3 mm and was very close to the one observed experimentally and also
40 mm (Fig. 30—part b). At the end of phase (b), the corresponded to the classical description of the phenome-
pressure on the trapdoor reached a value of, qc. In terms of non used in analytical models.
kinematics, this phase corresponded to the expansion Phase (c) was associated with greater displacement
toward the surface of the previously formed wedge-shaped values of the trapdoor, corresponding to substantial strains
zone, as shown in Fig. 31b, c. in the sample. In this case, a correlation between the
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 31
3.75
1 oui ouj
eij ¼ þ ; with i ¼ x; y; z and
C195 2 oj oi
j ¼ x; y; z;
2.50 ð25Þ
q [kPa]
123
32 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
z [m]
z [m]
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
−0.05 −0.05
−0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 −0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
(a) x [m] (b) x [m]
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
z [m]
z [m]
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
−0.05 −0.05
−0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 −0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
(c) x [m] (d) x [m]
Fig. 31 Particle displacement fields in a vertical section of the layer for the numerical assembly C95 1 , for different values of trapdoor
displacement d in the ðx; zÞ plan (for d = 1 mm, vector length is equal to 2.5 times particle displacement, 1 time for others) (h = 0.20m).
a d = 1 mm, b d = 10 mm, c d = 37 mm, d d = 62 mm
stood on each side of the fixed part of the bottom of the test second invariant of strain tensor I2e and the principal stress
box. The arch followed the path formed by the directions of directions in the plane ðO; x; zÞ for the materials S1, C95 1
major principal stresses from one side of the trapdoor to the and C202 in phase (a).
other. The path corresponded to strong shear strain zones. In Fig. 35, the arch pattern was still observable. How-
No significant differences could be found in the shape or ever, for a lower value of /p, the arch was higher and its
width of the arches for these 3 materials. Therefore, for a branches wider. In addition, the directions of principal
given peak friction angle, no effect of particle shape was stresses under the arch were not sorted. Contrary to this, for
observed on the arch pattern. a higher value of /p, the arch was thinner and affected only
Three other materials were then chosen, again with the lower part of the granular layer: shear strain was more
different particle shapes and peak friction angles /p. localized. In this case, the principal stress directions were
Figure 35 shows respectively the distributions of the properly sorted. Thus, the effect of the peak friction angle
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 33
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.1
0.12
[m]
[m]
0.08
qmin
qc
γi
γi
0.11
0.06 S
C20 0.1
0.04
C95 S
0.02 Sf 0.09 C20
Gc C95
0 0.08
20 30 40 50 20 25 30 35
(a) φp [ ] (b) φc [ ]
Fig. 32 Influence of the peak friction angle on ratio q/ci for all the samples for phases (a) and (c) (h = 0.20 m). a Phases (a) and b phase (c)
3.4.2.2 Case of phase (c) As defined previously, the 3.5 Correspondences with the analytical solution
critical phase corresponds to the vertical sliding of the part
of the granular layer located above the trapdoor. Phase (c) In the experimental study, average stress on the trapdoor
is associated with extensive displacements and strains in was predicted using the analytical solution of Eq. 1. It was
the granular layers. The friction mobilized in the granular shown that the required values of stress ratio K to be
layer is associated with the critical friction angle /c. For considered in order that a fairly good prediction of the
the materials presented here, /c depended on particle shape average stress on the trapdoor was obtained were very far
only. Consequently, the possible effects of particle shapes from the values recommended by some authors [40], such
and /c could not be separated, as for phase (a). The as the active earth pressure coefficient Ka.
123
34 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
Fig. 34 Arch pattern for the maximal load transfer phase, for materials S3 with /p = 37.1 (a), C20 95
1 with /p = 37.2 (b) and C1 with
/p = 35.2 (c). a Second invariant of the strain tensor. b Principal stress directions
Fig. 35 Arch pattern for the maximal load transfer phase, for materials S1 with /p = 24.5 (a), C95 20
1 with /p = 35.2 (b) and C2 with
/p = 49.0 (c). a Second invariant of strain tensor. b Principal stress directions
In the numerical analyses, profiles of stress ratio K could pressure ratio proposed by Jaky [24]. The values of
be calculated with a micromechanical analysis. The ratio K obtained close to the top surface of the layer were much
K of the horizontal stress to the vertical stress was calcu- higher, consistent with the observations of Emam et al.
lated in the parallelepiped volumes described in Section [21].
3.4.1. The profiles of K were also calculated above each edge
The consistency of the stress ratios K was checked for of the trapdoor. These parts of the granular layer corre-
two positions of the trapdoor. Profiles of K at the right and sponded to the shear bands which developed as the trap-
left ends of the test box were calculated. Figure 37 shows door moved downwards, as shown in Fig. 36. Figure 38
the profiles of K for material C120 obtained for trapdoor shows the profile of K along this direction for phase (a) and
displacements of d = 10 mm and d = 59 mm on the left- (c). Despite observation of some dispersion, the values of
hand and right-hand ends of the test box. The profiles of K obtained were relatively stationary as the depth changed
K obtained were stationary as the trapdoor was moved; and greater than 1.00 on average. In addition, the values of
they were found to be consistent with the at rest earth K increased as the trapdoor displacement increased.
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 35
Fig. 36 Distributions of the second invariant of strain tensor I2e 15% in the ðO; x; zÞ plane for critical phase (d = 59mm)
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
z [m]
z [m]
0.10 0.10
1 − sin φ p 1 − sin φ p
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
(a) K [-] (b) K [-]
Fig. 37 Profile of average stress ratio K at left and right ends of the test box, versus the z-position (case of C120; the vertical dashed line
represents the at rest earth pressure ratio [24]). a d = 10 mm. b d = 59 mm
For each profile, an average value K~ of K ðzi Þ was cal- the stress ratio K~ and peak friction angles for the position
culated weighted by the corresponding mean stress r ~ðzi Þ at of the trapdoor corresponding to phase (a). For d = 59 mm
the considered depth zi and phase ðcÞ; K~ increased slightly as /c increased.
P
K ðzi Þ~
rðzi Þ A prediction of the average stress on trapdoor q was
K ¼ zP
~ i
ð29Þ computed with the values of K~ using Eq. 1. Peak friction
~ ðzi Þ
zi r
angle /p was used for the prediction of the stress for phase
The dispersion within the profile of K ðzi Þ was estimated (a) and the critical friction angle /c for phase (c). The
with the standard deviation weighted by the mean stress at prediction results are shown in Fig. 40 and compared with
the considered point. the values obtained with numerical modeling and also with
Figure 39 shows the values of K~ obtained for all the experimental testing. The prediction of the mean stress on
materials, versus the friction angle of the material: /p for the trapdoor was very good. The relation between friction
d = 10 mm and /c for d = 59 mm. The values of K~ ranged angle / and q obtained with numerical modeling was
between 1.1 and 1.3. No relation could be found between correctly reproduced.
123
36 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
z [m]
z [m]
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(a) K [-] (b) K [-]
Fig. 38 Profile of stress ratio K at the edges of the trapdoor versus the z-position (case of C120). a d = 10 mm. b d = 59 mm
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
K̃ [-]
K̃ [-]
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
20 30 40 50 20 25 30 35
(a) φ p [deg] (b) φc [deg]
Fig. 39 Weighted mean stress ratio K~ at the edges of the trapdoor versus the friction angle; error bars represent the weighted standard deviation
on the profile. a d = 10 mm. b d = 59 mm
The analytical solution proposed by Terzaghi [40] gives three successive phases, as described in the experimental
satisfying results for both phases of the trapdoor as long as study. A series of granular materials was modeled with
the value of stress ratio K is appropriately chosen. The similar particle size distribution. The friction angles of the
active earth pressure coefficient could definitely not be materials were found to be the key parameters in the
used to predict the load transfers. The range of materials response of the granular layers. The first phase of maximal
tested showed that the value of stress ratio K was not so load transfer was clearly associated with the peak friction
dependent on the value of the friction angle and varied angle, while the critical phase was associated with the
between 1.1 and 1.3. critical friction angle. The shape of particles influenced the
values of the friction angle but for a given friction angle
3.5.1 Conclusion and different particle shapes, no differences were observed
on the kinematics or on the amplitude of load transfers.
The trapdoor test was accurately reproduced with the Regarding the analytical solution of Terzaghi, the numer-
DEM. The response of the granular layers was divided into ical modeling showed that the stress ratios K were very
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 37
123
38 Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39
solution, the amplitude of trapdoor displacement must be 2009. American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York,
considered within the friction angle of the material: peak pp 649–652. doi:10.1063/1.3180010
12. Chevalier B, Villard P, Combe G (2011) Investigation of load
friction angle for minor displacements and critical friction transfer mechanisms in geotechnical earth structures with thin fill
angle for greater displacements. For parameter K, values platforms reinforced by rigid inclusions. Int J Geomech 11(3):12.
between 1.0 and 1.3 were obtained in this particular study, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000083
but these values corresponded to specific particular particle 13. Combe G (2002) Mécanique des matériaux granulaires et origines
microscopiques de la déformation. études et Recherches du
size distributions. However, it was confirmed by both Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées
experimental and numerical studies that K cannot be 14. Combe G, Roux JN (2000) Strain versus stress in a model granular
deduced from earth pressure theory. material: a devil’s staircase. Phys Rev Lett 85:3628–3631
Moreover, the numerical study focused on a single value 15. Combe G, Roux JN (2003) Discrete numerical simulation, quasi-
static deformation and the origin of strain in granular materials.
of the thickness of the granular layer, for which the whole In: Di Benedetto et al. (eds) 3ème Symp. Int. sur le Comporte-
thickness was mobilized by the procedure: this may not be ment des sols et des roches tendres, Lyon, pp 1071–1078
necessarily true for thicker layers. Consequently, further 16. Combe G, Roux JN (2011) Discrete-element modeling of gran-
study should focus on the effect of particle size distribution ular materials. Chap 6: construction of granular assemblies under
static loading. ISTE Ldt and Wiley, London, pp 153–179
and on the thickness of the granular layer. 17. Cundall P, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29:47–65
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the 18. Cundall PA, Dresher A, Strack ODL (1982) Numerical experi-
technicians of the Civil Engineering department of the IUT1/UJF- ments on granular assemblies: measurements and observations.
Grenoble with special thanks to H. Orand who designed and build the In: IUTAM conference on deformation and failure of granular
Trap door experimental apparatus. The authors also would like materials. Delft
to express their gratitude toward C. Thornton at University of 19. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik (1997) Empfehlungen für
Birmingham for their helpful discussions. Bewehrungen aus GEOkunststoffen: Bewehrte Erdkörper auf
punkt- oder linienförmigen Traggliedern
20. Donzé FV, Magnier SA (1995) Formulation of a three dimen-
sional numerical model of brittle behavior. Geophys J Int
References 122:790–802
21. Emam S, Roux J-N, Canou J, Corfdir A, Dupla J-C (2005)
1. AASHTO (2007) AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, Granular packings assembled by rain deposition: an experimental
S.I. units, 4th edn. American Association of State Highway and and numerical study. In: Garcı́a Rojo R, Herrmann H, McNamara
Transportation Officials S (eds) Powders and grains 2005, vol 1. Balkema, Leiden,
2. Agnolin I, Roux JN (2007) Internal states of model isotropic Netherlands, pp 49–52
granular packings. III. Elastic properties. Phys Rev E 76(6): 22. Emeriault F, Cambou B, Mahboudi A (1996) Homogenization for
061304 granular materials: non reversible behaviour. Mech Cohes Frict
3. Allen M, Tildesley D (1994) Computer simulation of liquids. Mater 1:199–218
Oxford University Press, Oxford 23. Handy RL (1985) The arch in soil arching. J Geotech Eng
4. Atman APF, Brunet P, Geng J, Reydellet G, Combe G, Claudin P, 111(3):302–318
Behringer RP, Clément E (2005) Sensitivity of the stress response 24. Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J Soc Hung
function to packing preparation. J Phys Condens Matter Arch Eng 78(22):355–358
17(24):S2391 25. Janssen HA (1895) Versuche über Getreidedruck in Silozellen.
5. Atman APF, Claudin P, Combe G (2009) Departure from elas- Zeitung des Vereins deutscher Ingenieure 39:1045
ticity in granular layers: investigation of a crossover overload 26. Kolb E, Mazozi T, Clément E, Duran J (1999) Force fluctuations
force. Comput Phys Commun 180:612–615 ina vertically pushed granular column. Eur Phys J B 8:483–491
6. Bathurst J, Rothenburg L (1988) Micromechanical aspects of 27. Lancelot L, Shahrour I, Al Mahmoud M (2006) Failure and
isotropic granular assemblies with linear contact interactions. dilatancy properties of sand at relatively low stresses. J Eng Mech
J Appl Mech 55(1):17–23 132(12):1396–1399
7. Briançon L, Villard P (2008) Design of geosynthetic-reinforced 28. Le Hello B, Villard P (2009) Embankments reinforced by piles
platforms spanning localized sinkholes. Geotext Geomembr and geosynthetics numerical and experimental studies dealing
26(5):416–428 with the transfer of load on the soil embankment. Eng Geol
8. Calvetti F, Combe G, Lanier J (1997) Experimental microme- 106:78–91
chanical analysis of a 2D granular material: relation between 29. Marston A, Anderson AO (1913) The theory of load on pipes
structure evolution and loading path. Mech Cohes Frict Mater ditches and test of cement and clay drain tile and sewer pipes,
2:121–163 Rapport technique 31. Iowa State College, Iowa
9. Chareyre B, Villard P (2005) Dynamic spar elements and DEM in 30. McKelvey JA III (1994) The anatomy of soil arching. Geotext
2-dimensions for the modelling of soil-inclusion problems. J Eng Geomembr 13:317–329
Mech ASCE 131(7):689–698 31. Moreau JJ, Jean M (1992) Unilaterality and granular friction in
10. Chevalier B, Combe G, Villard P (2007) Study of the mechanical the dynamics of rigid body collections. In: Curnier A (ed) Pro-
behavior of heterogeneous granular materials by means of distinct ceedings of the contact mechanics international symposium.
element method. Bull des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées Presses Polytechniques Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne,
268(269):105–128 pp 31–48
11. Chevalier B, Combe G, Villard P (2009) Experimental and 32. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Heil LK (2001) Overburden
numerical study of the response of granular layer in the trap-door modeling above a compacting reservoir using a trap door appa-
problem. In: Nakagawa M, Luding S (eds) Powders and grains ratus. Phys Chem Earth A 26(1–2):69–74
123
Acta Geotechnica (2012) 7:15–39 39
33. Rankine WJM (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Philos Trans 40. Terzaghi K (1936) Stress distribution in dry and saturated sand
R Soc Lond 147:9–27 above a yielding trap-door. In: Proceedings of international
34. Roscoe HK (1970) The influence of strain in geomechanics. conference of soil mechanics, vol. 1. Harvard University, Cam-
Géotechnique 20:129–170 bridge, pp 307–311
35. Roux JN, Chevoir F (2005) Simulation numérique discrète et 41. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, London
comportement mécanique des matériaux granulaires. Bull des 42. Vardoulakis I, Graf B, Gudehus G (1981) Trap-door problem
Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées 254:109–138 with dry sand: a statical approach based upon model test kine-
36. Salot C, Gotteland P, Villard P (2009) Influence of relative matics. Int J Num Anal Methods Geomech 5:57–78
density on granular materials behavior: DEM simulations of tri- 43. Villard P, Chevalier B, Le Hello B, Combe G (2009) Coupling
axial tests. Gran Matter 11(4):221–236 between finite and discrete element methods for the modelling of
37. Schäfer S, Dippel S, Wolf D (1996) Forces schemes in simula- earth structures reinforced by geosynthetic. Comput Geotech
tions of granular materials. Journal de physique I 6(1):5–20 36(5):709–717. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.11.005
38. Szarf K, Combe G, Villard P (2009) Influence of the grains shape 44. Walker DM (1966) An approximate theory for pressures and
on the mechanical behavior of granular materials. In: Nakagawa arching in hoppers. Chem Eng Sci 21:975–997
M, Luding S (eds) Powders and grains 2009. American Institute 45. Walters JK (1973) A theoretical analysis of stresses in silos with
of Physics, Melville, New York, pp 357–360 vertical walls. Chem Eng Sci 28:13–21
39. Szarf K, Combe G, Villard P (2011) Polygons vs. clumps of 46. Weber J (1966) Recherches concernant les contraintes intergra-
discs: a numerical study of the influence of grain shape on the nulaires dans les milieux pulvérulents. Bull de Liaison des Ponts
mechanical behaviour of granular materials. Powder Technol et Chaussées 20
208(2):279–288
123