Acta Geotechnica

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01096-3 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Solution for spherical cavity expansion in state-dependent soils

Maosong Huang1,2 • Senjie Tong1,2 • Zhenhao Shi1,2

Received: 10 July 2019 / Accepted: 15 October 2020

Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
This work presents a spherical cavity expansion solution aimed at linking soil constitutive behavior with quantities that
bear direct engineering meanings for practicing engineers (e.g., foundation bearing capacity). For this purpose, we derive
the solution based on the state-dependent, critical state constitutive model proposed by Li and Dafalias (Geotechnique
50(4): 449–460, 2000), whose ability to realistically represent the actual mechanical behavior of sand has been extensively
verified in the literature. To ensure the reliability of the solution, we verify it against an independent finite element analysis
of spherical cavity expansion in solid governed by the same constitutive model. In this validation, we also highlight the
dependence of cavity expansion response on the current state of granular materials relative to critical state. The application
of the proposed solution in solving engineering problems is demonstrated in predicting the resistance of cone penetration
and the ground movements associated with static pipe bursting in sand. We show that, based on the soil parameters
determined from laboratory triaxial tests, the proposed solution can reasonably represent the dependence of cone pene-
tration resistance on the density and pressure level of sand, as revealed from centrifuge testing. By comparing with finite
element analysis, we demonstrate that the proposed solution can provide useful estimations for soil displacements caused
by pipe bursting operation. These archetypal examples suggest that the proposed cavity expansion solution can form a
theoretical basis for linking fundamental soil properties with quantities that have direct implications for geotechnical
engineering practice.

Keywords Constitutive model  Cone penetration  Spherical cavity expansion  Sand  State-dependence 
Static pipe bursting

1 Introduction
Cavity expansion solution has been widely employed in
geotechnical engineering, as it represents an efficient and
rigorous approach to relate soil constitutive behavior with
quantities that can be directly applied for engineering
practice (e.g., the bearing capacity of deep foundations
[27, 53]). Other application examples include the inter-
pretation of in situ tests for soil characterizations
[13, 19, 32, 39] and the stability and deformation analysis
& Zhenhao Shi
1018tjzhenhao@tongji.edu.cn
1 spherical cavity expansion solutions in clayey soils
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
2
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground
Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
for tunnel excavation and wellbore [8, 26, 37]. The accu-
racy of cavity expansion solutions, to a great extent,
depends on how reasonably the employed constitutive
models can represent the actual soil behavior. Many
pioneering cavity expansion solutions approximate soils as
elasto-perfectly-plastic materials (e.g., [48, 56]). While
appropriate for the first-order approximation, they do not
incorporate all essential features of soil behavior, for
instance, critical state. More recent research efforts
accordingly have been focused on incorporating more
realistic soil models into cavity expansion solutions. Cam-
clay family models [36, 42] achieve considerable success
in representing the behavior of fine-grained soils. There-
fore, they have been employed to derive the cylindrical and
[4, 12, 25, 43, 44]. For coarse-grained soils, Cam-clay type
models are often not sufficient, as such granular materials
exhibit a strong dependence on its current density and
pressure [29, 49, 54]. To capture such feature, different

123

state parameters (or indexes) were proposed to distinguish
sand’s state of being looser and denser than critical state
[2, 3, 20]. Since then, numerous state-dependent constitu-
tive models have been constructed for sand (e.g.,
[14, 17, 46, 47]). Parallelly, there are attempts to incor-
porate the state-dependence of coarse-grained soils into
cavity expansion solutions. Pioneering works (e.g.,
[11, 40, 57]) directly reformulate existing cavity expansion
solutions based on Mohr–Coulomb model by making
friction angle and dilation angle functions of state param-
eters. More recent works [13, 28, 31, 45] derive cavity
expansion solutions based on general state-dependent
constitutive models that have been verified against exper-
imental tests and thus can be regarded as more trustful
representations of real soil behavior. In addition to state-
dependence, more sophisticated mechanical characteristics
of granular materials, like those associated with particle
breakage and partial saturation, have also been incorpo-
rated into cavity expansion solutions [21, 38, 50].
The goal of this work is to present a spherical cavity
expansion solution that can bridge the gap between soil
constitutive behavior and the quantities that bear direct
implications for practicing engineers. For this purpose, we
highlight the importance that the underlying constitutive
model, based on which cavity expansion solution is
derived, has to prove to be successful in replicating soil
behavior. Here we select the state-dependent, critical state
model proposed by Li and Dafalias [24]. The latter is
simple yet encapsulates all essential features of the
mechanical response of granular materials. More impor-
tantly, it has been extensively examined against the results
of laboratory tests on sands as well as in solving boundary
value problems (e.g., [1, 51, 55]). Different than many
existing works, here we perform an independent validation
of the proposed solution, where the latter is compared
against finite element analysis of the spherical cavity
expansion process in the solid characterized by the same
constitutive model described above. This verification
serves our general goal by ensuring the reliability of the
presented solution when applied in geotechnical engineer-
ing practice. The last part of this work is focused on the
application of the proposed spherical cavity expansion
solution in solving actual engineering problems. In par-
ticular, we discuss the utilization of the solution in pre-
dicting the cone penetration resistance and ground
movements associated with static pipe bursting in sand. By
employing these two examples, we intend to demonstrate
that the proposed solution can serve as an efficient and
simple tool to link the constitutive behavior of coarse-
grained soils with the quantities with practicing signifi-
cance in both stability- and deformation-oriented problems.
123
Acta Geotechnica
2 Spherical cavity expansion solution
for state-dependent soils
In this section, we will first describe the state-dependent,
critical-state constitutive model and then present the
spherical cavity expansion solution based on it. The stress
conditions of soils surrounding an expanding cavity pertain
to triaxial compression due to spherical symmetry. Nev-
ertheless, the formulation of the constitutive model in
three-dimensional stress space is described herein, as this
completed description is used in the simulation of bound-
ary-value problems introduced later. Due to space limita-
tions, we present only the essential components of the
constitutive model, and for discussions in greater detail, we
refer the readers to existing literature [9, 24].
2.1 State-dependent soil model
The constitutive model employs the following yield
surface:
F ¼ q  MgðhÞ p ¼ 0 ð1Þ
where p and q are the effective mean normal stress and
deviatoric stress, respectively. The latter can be related to
the effective stress tensor of soils by p ¼ rii =3,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

q ¼ 3sij sij 2, where sij ¼ rij  dij p and dij is the Kro-
necker delta. M is a hardening variable and g(h) denotes an
interpolation function used to describe the variation of
yield surface with Lode angle h. The specific form of g(h)
can be found in [33]. The plastic flow rule (i.e., the dila-
tancy) is given by
 
depv d0 q
D¼ p¼ Md  ð2Þ
des Mc pgðhÞ
where Mc and Md ¼ Mc emw denote the stress ratio that
corresponds to critical state under triaxial compression and
the phase transition between plastic contraction and dila-
tion, respectively, and d0 and m are material constants. The
variable w is the state parameter proposed by Been and
Jefferies [2], which quantifies the current state of sand
relative to critical state
h i
w ¼ e  ec ¼ e  eC  kc ðp=pa Þn ð3Þ
In Eq. (3), the parameters eC, kc, and n controls the
location and inclination of the critical state line in e - ln
p space, and pa is atmospheric pressure. The plastic mod-
ulus is obtained by enforcing the consistency condition of
the yield surface and utilizing the hardening law of M:
Acta Geotechnica

oF oM Gðh1  h2 eÞ   σr
Kp ¼  p ¼ Mp  M ð4Þ r
oM oes M
with Mp ¼ Mc enw denoting the peak stress ratio, and n, h1,
and h2 are model parameters. The model is completed by θ
an isotropic hypoelastic model with its shear and bulk rp
moduli given by [35] β
ð2:97  eÞ2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2ð1 þ vÞ a0
G ¼ G0 ppa ; K¼G ð5Þ rp0 σr
1þe 3ð1  2vÞ σr σβ a
where m is the Poisson’s ratio. σr
pe
Based on the constitutive laws described above, the
incremental relations between stress and strain invariants σθ
Elastoplastic
can be expressed as
( ) region

dp ep dem
¼ ½D 
dq des
2 3 σβ=σr=σθ=p0
K2D 3KGD At infinity σr
6 K þ
6 Kp þ KMD þ 3G Kp þ KMD þ 3G 7 7
¼6 7
4 3KGM 9G 2 5 Fig. 1 Stress states for soils surrounding a hollow sphere
3G 
Kp þ KMD þ 3G Kp þ KMD þ 3G

dem
drr þ 2drh
des dp ¼ ; dq ¼ drr  drh ð7Þ
3
ð6Þ 2
dev ¼ der þ 2deh ; deq ¼ ðder  deh Þ ð8Þ
where the volumetric and deviatoric strains are defined as 3
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
ev ¼ eii and es ¼ 2eij eij 3, respectively, where eij are By substituting Eqs. (7) to (8) into Eq. (6), the following
strain components and eij ¼ eij  ev =3. incremental relations are constructed:
8 9 2 3 8 de 9
< drr >
> = b11 b12 b13 < r>
> =
2.2 Spherical cavity expansion solution drh ¼ 4 b21 b22 b23 5  deh ð9Þ
>
: >
; >
: >
;
drb b 31 b 32 b 33 deb
The spherical cavity expansion problem considered here
involves expanding a hollow sphere with a finite initial where bij is the component of the matrix Dep.
radius in an infinite, homogenous, and weightless medium. Following Chen and Abousleiman [7], we use loga-
Due to the relatively high permeability of coarse-grained rithmic strain to handle potential large deformations in the
soils, only drained conditions are considered. Because the expansion process:
elastic range for sand in stress space is normally small and dr r
plasticity can be mobilized at the very early phase of loading, er ¼  ln ; eh ¼  ln ð10Þ
dr0 r0
we focus on the cavity expansion that involves elastoplastic
deformations. For solving the problem of expanding a purely where r0 and r denote the initial and current positions of the
elastic medium, we refer the readers to Yu [56]. soil particle under observation, respectively. By combining
Figure 1 sketches the stress states of soils surrounding the incremental relation of Eq. (9) and the strain definition
the spherical cavity. Due to the symmetry of the expansion of Eq. (10) into the static equilibrium condition
process, the bases of the selected spherical coordinate are orr 2ðrr  rh Þ
also the principal directions of the stress and strain tensors þ ¼0 ð11Þ
or r
of soils. Moreover, the components of stress/strain tensors
along h and b axes are the same during the expansion and introducing an auxiliary variable f, we obtain a set of
process (i.e., triaxial conditions). Accordingly, the stress first-order ordinary differential equations (ODE) (For
and strain invariants for soils surrounding a spherical detailed derivations, the readers are referred to Chen and
cavity can be expressed as Abousleiman [7]):

123
 Acta Geotechnica

drr 2ðrr  rh Þ adopted model parameters are summarized in Table 1.

¼ ð12aÞ These parameters are calibrated against experimental tests
df D
on Toyoura sand [24].
drh b12 b21  b11 b22 2b21 ðrr  rh Þ
¼  ð12bÞ Figures 3 and 4 compare the cavity expansion responses
df b11 ð1  fÞ b11 D obtained from the proposed solution and the corresponding
drb drh FEA. A good agreement is seen, hence suggesting the
¼ ð12cÞ
df df validity of the analytical solution. The small discrepancies
between the two approaches may be attributed to the dif-
dv 2vðrr  rh Þ vðb12  2b11 Þ
¼  ð12dÞ ferent accuracy employed in the Runge–Kutta ODE solver
df b11 D b11 ð1  fÞ
and the implicit finite element iterations.
where v is the specific volume, D and f are, respectively,
defined by
v0 4 Influences of soil stress level, density,
D¼1f ð13aÞ and state-dependence on cavity
vð1  fÞ2
expansion response
ur r  r 0
f¼ ¼ ð13bÞ
r r The results depicted in Figs. 3 and 4 are analyzed here to
v0 is the initial specific volume. This set of ODEs is illustrate how the stress levels, density, and state-depen-
completed by specifying initial and boundary conditions dence of sand might affect the responses of spherical cavity
(e.g., the pressures or displacements at the cavity wall and expansion. In this section, we also show how the friction
far-field stress conditions). To solve these ODEs, we use an angle of sand surrounding the cavity sphere is mobilized by
explicit Runge–Kutta fourth- and fifth-order solvers [15] the expansion process, the spatial variations of soil hard-
for its accuracy and efficiency. The solutions for Eq. (12) ening and dilatancy states, and more importantly how these
are given in terms of the auxiliary variable f, and the mechanical characteristics alter for cases of expanding
transformation of the independent variable to the radial sands that are initially looser and denser than critical state.
distance from the center of the cavity sphere r can be
performed by 4.1 Influences of soil stress level
0 1
Zn 2 Figure 3 presents the cavity expansion responses in soils
r B vð1  fÞ C
¼ exp@ A ð14Þ with different initial confining stress but the same state
a vð1  fÞ3  v0
nðdÞ parameter. In particular, the evolution of the normalized
cavity pressure and the void ratio of the soils at the cavity
where a is the radius of the cavity. wall are given in Fig. 3a, b, while the stress–void ratio
paths and stress paths for soil elements at the cavity wall
are shown in Fig. 3c, d. In these figures, the variables a and
3 Solution verification a0 denote current and initial radius of the spherical cavity.
During the expansion, the pressure acting on the cavity
To verify the proposed solution, we perform a finite ele- wall monotonically increases to a stable value (denoted as
ment analysis (FEA) of the spherical cavity expansion in the ultimate pressure plim) following a nonlinear shape
solid characterized by the constitutive model described in from the very beginning. It seems that such shape is
Sect. 2.1. As shown in Fig. 2, the axisymmetry of the insensitive to the confining stresses (i.e., see Fig. 3a).
problem is exploited (i.e., only a slice of the soil mass is Figure 3a also shows that the normalized expansion pres-
modeled and the left boundary of the model represents the sure at the steady state decreases as the initial confining
axis of symmetry) and a mesh consisting of 2160 8-node stresses increase. This response can be explained from the
reduced-integration elements (CAX8R) is employed in characteristics of soil volume change, depicted in Fig. 3b.
Abaqus/Standard. The expansion process is simulated by As the confining stress becomes greater, the dilation of
gradually increasing the inner radius of the cavity while soils is suppressed (i.e., the amount of void ratio increase is
enforcing a constant hydrostatic pressure p0 along the cir- smaller) and consequently the pressure required to over-
cumferential surface at the radial distance of 100 a0 (i.e., come the increase of soil volume is smaller. It should be
the far-field stresses), where a0 is the initial radius of the emphasized that the overall stable process of the cavity
hollow sphere. The reacted pressure at the cavity wall is expansion (i.e., the expansion pressure monotonically
computed and defined as the expansion pressure pe (see increases) is nevertheless accompanied by the softening of
Fig. 2). The sand is assumed to be weightless, and the stress ratio of soils (see the inset of Fig. 3d). This behavior

123
Acta Geotechnica

Axisymetric Axisymetric

Zoom in
a0
pe

p0

100a0
Fig. 2 Mesh and boundary conditions in finite element analysis

Table 1 Model parameters for Toyoura sand [24] initial density) but a constant initial confining stress. It is
seen that the normalized ultimate expansion pressure
Elastic Critical state Dilatancy Hardening
parameters parameters parameters parameters increases as soil changes from being initial looser (i.e.,
w [ 0) to denser (i.e., w \ 0) than critical state. This gain
G0 = 125 Mc = 1.25 d0 = 0.88 h1 = 3.15 on resistance results from the intensified soil dilation (see
v = 0.25 eu = 0.934 m = 3.5 h2 = 3.05 Fig. 5b, c), as discussed above.
kc = 0.019 n = 1.1 Figures 5 and 6 present the distributions of the stress
n = 0.7 ratio, the hardening index Mp - M and the dilatancy
c = 0.75 D along the radial direction of the hollow sphere after the
expansion process reaches a steady state. The stress ratio is
can be attributed to an ever-increasing mean effective equivalent to the mobilized friction angle of sand. By
stress and consequently enhancing shear strength despite referring to Eq. (4), the positive and negative values of the
the reduction on the stress ratio. Note that this type of stress index Mp - M denote strain-hardening and strain-soften-
path is different from that observed from drained triaxial ing, respectively. The states of plastic contraction and
shearing tests, where the reduction of stress ratio always dilation are distinguished by the dilatancy D attaining
coincides with the deterioration of shear strength. Similar positive and negative values, respectively, as defined by
characteristics on stress path as those shown in Fig. 3d Eq. (2).
actually can be observed when enforcing undrained con- It is seen from Fig. 5 that regardless of sand being ini-
ditions on plastically dilative soils [10, 24]. tially loose or dense, the materials adjacent to the cavity
wall first attain critical state, as suggested by the coinci-
4.2 Influences of soil density dence between the current stress ratio and that at critical
state and zero dilatancy. With the increase in the radial
Figure 4 displays the same types of information as Fig. 3 distance from the cavity wall, the mobilized friction angle
but is obtained under varying state parameter (i.e., varying of soils monotonically decreases for initially loose sand

123
 Acta Geotechnica

36 0.92
Analytical solution Analytical solution
FEM solution FEM solution
27 0.88
p0=50kPa
p0=50kPa
pe-p0 /p0

18 p0=100kPa 0.84
p0=100kPa

e
p0=200kPa
9 0.80 p0=200kPa

0 0.76
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a/a0 a/a0
(a) normalized expansion pressure-displacement curves (b) variations of soil void ratio at the
cavity wall

0.92 3000
Analytical solution p0=200kPa
FEM solution 2400
0.88 p0=100kPa CSL
p0=50kPa
p0= 50kPa
1800
p0=100kPa
q:kPa

0.84
e

1200
p0=200kPa
0.80 CSL
600

0.76 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 0 600 1200 1800 2400
p:kPa p:kPa
(c) stress-void ratio paths for soils at the cavity wall (d) stress paths for soils at the cavity wall
(inset showing the strain-softening of stress ratio)

Fig. 3 Comparison of the cavity expansion response computed by the semi-analytical solution and FEA for w0 = - 0.1. Note that the variables
a and a0 respectively denote the current and initial radius of the spherical cavity. a Normalized expansion pressure–displacement curves,
b variations of soil void ratio at the cavity wall, c stress-void ratio paths for soils at the cavity wall, d stress paths for soils at the cavity wall (inset
showing the strain-softening of stress ratio)

while first increases and then decreases for initially dense
sand (compare Fig. 5a, b). Because the deformations and
strains that correspond to the soil elements further away
from the cavity wall decrease, the curves depicted in
Fig. 5, if seen from the right to the left side, reflect the
variation of the stress ratio with strains. The mobilized
shear strength (i.e., reflected by the stress ratio) of loose
sand monotonically increases with shear deformations,
because the contractive volume change and consequent
strain-hardening govern the entire deformation process
(i.e., see the positive values of the index Mp - M and the
dilatancy D in Figs. 5a and 6). Dense sand, on the other
hand, reaches a peak stress ratio when material transits
from strain-hardening to strain-softening, as the volumetric
response changes from contraction to dilation.
Note that as discussed above, the existence of strain-
softening region within soils surrounding the spherical
cavity is not in contradiction with the ever-increasing
expansion pressure, as the mean effective stress keeps
growing. However, it is important to realize that such
globally stable response can be established only under
certain modes of deformation or stress paths (e.g., the one
associated with the expansion process as depicted in
Fig. 3). In other words, under other types of kinematic
constrains, this reduction on stress ratio might lead to
stability problems characterized by the deterioration of the
ability of soils to sustain external loads. Lastly, it should be
emphasized that the spatial variations depicted in Figs. 5
and 6 are functions of radial distance normalized by the
current radius of the hollow sphere (i.e., the variable a),

123
Acta Geotechnica

40 1.00
Analytical solution Analytical solution
FEM solution 0.95 FEM solution
30
ψ0=-0.15
ψ0=0.05
pe-p0 /p0

0.90
20 ψ0=-0.05

e
ψ0=-0.05 0.85
ψ0=-0.15
10 ψ0=0.05 0.80

0 0.75
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a/a0 a/a0
(a) normalized expansion pressure-displacement curves (b) variations of soil void ratio at the
cavity wall

1.00 2500
Analytical solution
FEM solution ψ0=-0.15
0.95
ψ0=0.05 2000
ψ0=-0.05 CSL
0.90 1500 ψ0= 0.05
ψ0=-0.05
q:kPa
e

0.85
ψ0=-0.15 1000

0.80 500

0.75 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
p:kPa p:kPa
(c) stress-void ratio paths for soils at the cavity wall (d) stress paths for soils at the cavity wall

Fig. 4 Comparison of the cavity expansion responses computed by the semi-analytical solution and FEA for p0 = 100 kPa. Note that the
variables a and a0 respectively denote the current and initial radius of the spherical cavity. a Normalized expansion pressure–displacement
curves, b variations of soil void ratio at the cavity wall, c stress-void ratio paths for soils at the cavity wall, d stress paths for soils at the cavity
wall

thus indicating these distributions will propagate in a self-
similar mode as the expansion proceeds.
4.3 Roles of state-dependence
A fundamental mechanical characteristic of granular
materials is that their response to shear (i.e., strength and
dilatancy) depends on the current state in relative to critical
state. Earlier solutions for cavity expansion in sand that
neglect such state-dependence normally treat sands with
various packing density as different materials and distin-
guishes the mechanical behavior of loose and dense sands
by employing different sets of model parameters (e.g.,
friction angle and dilation angle) (e.g., [5, 41, 56]). To
illustrate the significance of incorporating the state-de-
pendence of coarse-grained soils, with reference to the
conventional modeling strategy mentioned above, we
compute the response of spherical cavity expansion by
eliminating the evolution of the state parameter (i.e.,w is
constant during the expansion), while assigning positive
and negative state parameter for loose and dense sands,
respectively. By doing so, the strength and dilatancy of
sand are solely determined in accordance with whether its
initial conditions are looser or denser than critical state but
is not contingent on its current state. It is seen from Fig. 7
that such simplification, for dense and loose sands, can
result in overestimation and underestimation of the cavity
expansion pressure at large strains, respectively. These
responses are primarily due to unlimited contractive (loose
sand) and dilative (dense sand) volume changes associated
with a constant dilation angle [14], which are preferred and
disfavored by the expansion deformation process,
respectively.

123
 Acta Geotechnica

1.6 1.6 80
State-dependent
a/a0=4
Mcs line State-independent
1.2 1.2 60
η Mp-M

(pe-p0)/p0
40 Ψ0=-0.15

M p- Μ
0.8 0.8
Hardening
η

region
20
0.4 0.4
Ψ0=0.05

0
a 0.0 1 2 3 4
1 10 100 d/d0
r/a
(a) initially loose sand ( ψ 0 = 0.05 , p0 = 50kPa ) Fig. 7 Influence of state-dependence on the cavity expansion
response. Note that the variables d and d0 respectively denote the
current and initial radius of the spherical cavity

2.0 2.0
5 Application of proposed cavity expansion
a/a0=4
1.6 solution in solving geotechnical
1.6
engineering problems
1.2
1.2 Mcs line Here we select two engineering problems to demonstrate
Mp-Μ

Softening Hardening 0.8

how the proposed cavity expansion solution can be utilized
η

0.8 region region

0.4 to link the constitutive behavior of soils to the quantities
with practical significance. The first example deals with the
0.4 0.0
M p- Μ η cone penetration resistance in granular materials. This
a -0.4
stability-oriented problem is closely related to the inter-
1 10 100 pretation of cone penetration test (CPT) for soil charac-
r/a terization and the bearing capacity of piled foundation
(b) initially dense sand (ψ 0 = −0.25 , p0 = 50kPa ) [19, 39, 56, 57]. The second example is deformation-ori-
ented, where the spherical cavity expansion solution is used
Fig. 5 Distribution of the stress ratio and the index Mp - M along the to estimate the ground movements associated with the
radial direction of the hollow sphere. Note that the variable a denotes operation of static pipe bursting.
the current radius of the spherical cavity. a Initially loose sand
(w0 = 0.05, p0 = 50 kPa), b initially dense sand (w0 = - 0.25,
p0 = 50 kPa) 5.1 Cone penetration resistance in sand

The parametric analyses described in the previous section

shows that the expansion pressure at the limit state is

1.5 120
a/a0=4 ψ0=0.05 ψ0=-0.25
1.0
90 ψ0=-0.15
0.5 ψ0=-0.25 ψ0=-0.05
ψ0= 0.05
plim/pa

60
D

0.0
Contraction

-0.5 30
Dilatancy

a
1 1 10 100 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
r/a 0.65
(p0/pa)
Fig. 6 Distribution of the dilatancy D alone radial direction of the
hollow sphere (p0 = 50 kPa). Note that the variable a denotes the Fig. 8 Variations of the ultimate expansion pressure with soil initial
current radius of the spherical cavity mean stress

123
Acta Geotechnica

closely related to the initial stress and density of soils, as
also supported by existing works [11, 41, 45]. Here we use
the results generated by the proposed cavity expansion
solution to derive a correlation for the ultimate cavity
expansion pressure. Figure 8 shows that the dimensionless
(i.e., normalized by the atmospheric pressure) limit
expansion pressure and initial soil mean stress approxi-
mately follow a power-law relation:
 b
plim p0
¼ gðw0 Þ ð15Þ
pa pa
with the power-law constant b taking 0.65 for Toyoura
sand. The coefficient g in Eq. (15) is a function of the
initial state parameter, which can be best fitted by an
exponential function (see Fig. 9):
gðw0 Þ ¼ k expðcw0 Þ ð16Þ
The parameters k = 14.46 and c = 4.66 are calibrated
for Toyoura sand as shown in Fig. 9. Note that the expo-
nential term represents a decay effect when the state
parameter increases (i.e., the state changes from being
denser to looser than critical state and consequently the soil
dilation is suppressed, and so does the limiting expansion
pressure).
To compute cone tip resistance from plim, the relation-
ship proposed by Cudmani and Osinov [13] (see references
[13, 18, 52, 58] for more discussions) is employed:
 2 !
5:8 ID
qc ¼ kq plim ¼ 1:5 þ  2 plim ð17Þ
ðID Þ þ0:11
where kq is a shape factor introduced by Cudmani and
Osinov [13] and can be related to the pressure-dependent
relative density ID ¼ ðec  eÞ=ðec  ed Þ, here ec and ed are
the critical state void ratio and the void ratio of maximal
densification, respectively, that correspond to the initial
stresses prior to cone penetration. The former can be
60
g(ψ0)=14.46*exp(-4.66ψ0)
45 R2=0.998
g(ψ0)
obtained from the critical state line in e - ln p space (i.e.,
Eq. 3), while the latter is equal to ðed0  ec Þ=ec0 . Here ec0
and ed0 are the critical state void ratio and the void ratio of
maximal densification at zero confining stress. Again ec0 is
obtained from the critical state line, and ed0 takes con-
ventionally used minimal void ratio emin [13].
Fioravante and Giretti [16] perform a series of
geotechnical centrifuge cone penetration tests in Toyoura
sand. Gravity accelerations of 30 g and 80 g are employed
and result in initial effective mean normal stresses of sand
p0 ranging from 30 to 200 kPa. Three different initial void
ratios are considered in the tests (i.e., e0 = 0.65, 0.72, and
0.78). Figure 10 compares the cone tip resistance measured
in the tests and those computed by using Eq. (17) (note that
the results are presented as a function of the initial effective
mean normal stress and void ratio of sand). In the cavity
expansion solution, the initial stresses and those maintained
constant at far-fields adopt the same initial effective mean
normal stresses as the model tests, while the same initial
void ratios as described above are used. The soil parame-
ters (i.e., b, k, and c) calibrated for Toyoura sand are used.
The comparison depicted in Fig. 10 shows that the
proposed spherical cavity expansion solution, in combi-
nation with the relationship of Eq. (17), can reasonably
represent the dependence of cone tip resistance on the
initial density and confining stresses of sand. It should be
emphasized that the model computations shown in Fig. 10
are based on parameters calibrated from laboratory triaxial
tests. In other words, these parameters are determined by
fitting the constitutive behavior of soils, and the agreement
depicted in Fig. 10 thus suggests that the proposed solution
is capable of linking the fundamental mechanical response
of soil to the quantities that have direct implications for
engineering practice (here the cone tip resistance).
qc (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Present study
Centrifuge results
50 (Fioravante and
Giretti, 2016)
100

p0 (kPa)

30
150

15 200

250 e0=0.78 e0=0.72

0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 e0=0.65
ψ0 300

Fig. 9 Relations between the coefficient g and the initial state Fig. 10 Computed cone tip resistance and those measured in
parameter w0 centrifuge tests

123

5.2 Ground movement associated with static
pipe bursting in sand
Static pipe bursting is a construction method often used to
replace structurally deteriorated or hydraulically under-
sized pipe in urban or environmentally sensitive areas. As
sketched in Fig. 11, this installation technique involves
breaking the existing pipe by pulling a conical expander
(i.e., bursting head), while simultaneously installing the
new pipe that is attached to the end of the bursting head.
This trenchless technique offers advantages over conven-
tional open-cut approach in terms of avoiding traffic
interventions and potential disruptions of social and eco-
nomic activities, but subsurface ground movements created
by expanding soils can pose great risks to adjacent
underground utilities [23, 30]. Here we will show how the
proposed spherical cavity expansion solution might be
utilized to estimate such ground movements. Because
utility pipes are normally shallowly buried where granular
soils are commonly encountered, we will also highlight the
significance of incorporating the state-dependence of
coarse-grained soils with respect to predicting soil
displacements.
To simplify the problem, we restrict our attention to the
ground movements associated only with the advancement
of the expander (i.e., see Fig. 12a), while sources such as
the frictional interaction between pipe and surrounding
soils are not considered. As shown in Fig. 12, the soil
movements generated during replacing an existing pipe
with d0 diameter by a bursting head with d diameter is
approximated by those associated with expanding a
spherical cavity with the initial diameter of d0 to final
diameter of d (see Fig. 12b). The displacements of given
soil particles (e.g., the point A in Fig. 12b) are computed
from the proposed spherical cavity expansion solution by
soil movements
h
broken pipe
d
replaced pipe bursting head
Fig. 11 Sketch illustrating the static pipe bursting and associated ground movements. Note that the symbol ‘‘h’’ denotes the burial depth of pipe
while ‘‘d’’ is its diameter
123
Acta Geotechnica
measuring their spatial distance from the center of the
cavity sphere (i.e., R in Fig. 12b).
To assess its applicability, the cavity-expansion-based
method is first validated against high-fidelity finite element
analysis (FEA) of pipe bursting. The constitutive model
described in Sect. 2.1 is used in both methods. As an
infinitely large medium is assumed in cavity expansion
solution, the burial depth of pipe will be the key factor that
affects the approximation quality of the simplified method.
Accordingly, during the assessment mentioned above,
particular attention is given to the range of pipe burial
depths to which the simplified method is applicable.
Figure 13 depicts the mesh used in the FEA. Due to the
geometric symmetry, only half of the problem domain is
discretized by 8-node linear elements (C3D8R), while the
bursting head is modeled as a cylindrical rigid body with
30°apex angle conical tip and a diameter d = 100 mm.
With the advancement of the expander, the pipe ahead can
be fractured and granular soils consequently slip into and
fill the gap between the bursting head and the existing pipe
[23, 30]. Accordingly, in the numerical model, we do not
explicitly consider the existing pipe in the FEA model and
assume that the bursting head is entirely covered by soils.
Figure 13 shows the initial position of the expander, and
we select the reference section A–A as the location where
the expander and the existing pipe initially intersect (i.e.,
the existing pipe has a diameter d0 = 67 mm), while the
bursting process is modeled by thrusting horizontally the
rigid body until the entire conical tip passes the section A–
A. During the penetration process, the normal displace-
ments of materials at the four side boundaries except the
plane of symmetry are restrained, the bottom boundary is
entirely fixed, while the top boundary is a free surface. A
rigid surface is attached to the plane of symmetry to pre-
vent material particles from penetrating the plane
ground surface
pull rod
cracks
existing pipe
Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 12 Sketch illustrating the equivalence between soil movements induced by static pipe bursting and those due to spherical expansion:
a replacing an existing pipe with a diameter of d0 by a bursting head with a diameter of d; b equivalent spherical cavity expansion process with
the cavity with an initial diameter of d0 is expanded to d. Note that s denotes the incremental advancement of bursting head associated with
expanding the existing pipe to the give size of d

Section A-A Plane of symmetry

6d

h=6d

Rigid expander
The trajectory of the expander

d=100mm
d0=67mm

Fig. 13 FEA mesh for static pipe bursting

yet allowing their detachment from the mirror symmetry
surface. The soil parameters listed in Table 1 are used in
the simulation, while groundwater is assumed to be lower
than the modeled domain.
In FEA, the trajectory of the expander is straight along
the horizontal direction, as depicted in Fig. 13 i.e., the axis
of the expander coincides with that of the existing pipe. In
practice, the moving path of the bursting head can be more
complex, depending on factors including soil type, cover
depth, and bursting device [6]. The trajectory adopted here
corresponds to the bursting pipe embedded in relatively
loose sand. Employing such a simple trajectory provides a
clean baseline to compare the cavity-expansion-based
simplified method and high-fidelity simulation. Conse-
quently, any difference between the results of the two
methods may be used to evaluate the applicability and
limitations of the simplified analysis. Lastly, it should be
noted that the non-uniform expansion of surrounding soils

123
 Acta Geotechnica

due to the deviation of the trajectory of the expander from
the axis of the pipe being renewed can be considered by
factoring the soil expansion computed by cavity expansion
solution. For instance, a factor of 2 can be used to estimate
the movements of the soils above the pipe when the
expander runs along the pipe invert [6]. Detailed discus-
sions on how such factor might be determined in accor-
dance with soil conditions, cover depth, and expander types
can be found in Chapman et al. [6].
Figure 14 compares the results computed by the two
methods. In particular, subfigure (a) and (b) shows the
variation of subsurface upheaval with the vertical distance
from bursting head, while subfigures (c) and (d) depict the
upheaval troughs at different depths. To initiate the sim-
plified method, the diameter d0 and d depicted in the FEM
model (i.e., see Fig. 13) are served as the initial diameter of
the spherical cavity and the diameter after expansion,
respectively. The initial stress and that fixed at far-field
both take the initial effective mean normal stress of the
soils at the axis of the expander in the FEA model. As
shown in Fig. 14a, b, the comparison between the FEM
model and the cavity expansion-based method suggests
that there exists a critical embedment ratio, beyond which
the simple method can reasonably represent the soil
movements caused by bursting existing pipe. Nevertheless,
the critical embedment ratio is not constant but depends on
the state of sands and varies with material density and
confining stresses. For sand with greater dilation (e.g., due
to more densely compacted state), the critical embedment
ratio tends to be greater. Therefore, it should be empha-
sized that while cavity expansion theory offers a simple
and efficient tool to assess pipe bursting-induced ground
movements, it should be used cautiously and regarded as

0.020 0.020
Simplified method Simplified method
0.016 FEM solution, h/d=6 0.016 FEM solution, h/d=6
FEM solution, h/d=5 FEM solution, h/d=4
0.012 FEM solution, h/d=3 0.012 FEM solution, h/d=3
FEM solution, h/d=2 FEM solution, h/d=2
w (m)
w (m)

0.008 d/d0=1.5 0.008 d/d0=1.5

0.004 e0=0.85 0.004 e0=0.65

0.000 0.000

-0.004 -0.004
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
r (m) r (m)
(a) Distribution of subsurface upheavals above the expander along the intersection (b) Distribution of subsurface upheavals above the expander along the intersection
between the plane of symmetry and the section A-A in Figure 13. The variable r between the plane of symmetry and the section A-A in Figure 13. The initial void ratio
denotes the distance from the axis of the expander. The initial void ratio of sand is of sand is 0.65.
0.85.

0.004 0.004
Simplified method, z=0 Simplified method, z=0
Simplified method, z=0.23 Simplified method, z=0.23
0.003 Simplified method, z=0.51 0.003 Simplified method, z=0.51
FEM solution, z=0 FEM solution, z=0
FEM solution, z=0.23 FEM solution, z=0.23
w (m)

w (m)

0.002 FEM solution, z=0.51 0.002 FEM solution, z=0.51

h/d=6 h/d=6
d/d0=1.5 d/d0=1.5
0.001 0.001
e0=0.85 e0=0.65

0.000 0.000
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
x (m) x (m)
(c) Upheaval troughs along the section A-A at various depths for pipe embedment (d) Upheaval troughs along the section A-A at various depths for pipe embedment
ratio of 6. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.85.
ratio of 6. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.65.

Fig. 14 Ground movements computed by FEA (labeled as FEM solution) and spherical cavity expansion solution (labeled as simplified method).
Note that the diameter of the existing pipe and that of the expander are 67 mm and 100 mm, respectively. a Distribution of subsurface upheavals
above the expander along the intersection between the plane of symmetry and the section A–A in Fig. 13. The variable r denotes the distance
from the axis of the expander. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.85. b Distribution of subsurface upheavals above the expander along the
intersection between the plane of symmetry and the section A–A in Fig. 13. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.65. c Upheaval troughs along the
section A–A at various depths for pipe embedment ratio of 6. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.85. d Upheaval troughs along the section A–A at
various depths for pipe embedment ratio of 6. The initial void ratio of sand is 0.65

123
Acta Geotechnica
1.0
Normalized surface upheaval
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-900
(a)Transverse surface upheaval trough. Note that the measured and computed
maximum upheaval are 27.2 and 25.12, respectively
1.0
Normalized surface upheaval
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 500
(b) Longitudinal surface upheaval ahead of expander. Note that the measured and
computed maximum upheaval are 23.9 and 23.36, respectively
Fig. 15 Comparison between the computed ground movements due to
pipe bursting and those measured in a laboratory model test [22].
a Transverse surface upheaval trough. Note that the measured and
computed maximum upheaval are 27.2 and 25.12, respectively.
b Longitudinal surface upheaval ahead of expander. Note that the
measured and computed maximum upheaval are 23.9 and 23.36,
respectively
‘‘first-order approximation’’ of the complex pipe bursting
operation in the field.
Figure 14c, d shows the computed upheaval troughs that
correspond to the ratios h/d = 6, i.e., amid of the typical
range mentioned above. Again, we see a good match
between the ground movements computed by the high-fi-
delity simulation and the simplified method, while the
latter tends to overestimate the soil displacements at deeper
locations. Figure 14a–d also shows how soil density might
affect the ground movements related to pipe bursting. It
seems that, in more densely compacted soil, soil dis-
placements decay less rapidly with distance, and the
upheaval troughs are wider. Both consequences may be
attributed to the enhanced dilation of soils.
To further evaluate the simplified method, we employ it
to analyze pipe-bursting-induced ground movements mea-
sured in a laboratory model test [22]. The latter pipe
Numerical/Measured bursting tests are under singe gravity condition (i.e., 1-g).
e0=0.6 Pull 5
The existing clay pipe has an outer diameter of 184 mm
Pull 4
Pull 3 and a thickness of 19 mm, while the outer diameter of the
Pull 2 expander is 202 mm, to which a high-density polyethylene
pipe with an outside diameter of 165 mm is attached. The
buried depth of the pipe to be replaced is 685 mm which
corresponds to an embedment ratio of 3.4. The model soil
used is synthetic olivine with a mean grain size of 0.5 mm
and prepared to achieve an averaged dry density of 1.49 g/
cm3, which is close to the maximum density of the mate-
-600 -300 0 300 600 900
rial. The bursting process proceeds in stages by pulling the
Distance to bursting head axis (mm)
bursting head with a hydraulic ram and each advancement
stage corresponds to a distance of 250 mm.
To be consistent with the experimental setups described
above, the initial size of the spherical cavity in the sim-
e0=0.6 Numerical/Measured plified method equals to the outer diameter of the existing
Pull 2 pipe, then gradually expands to the outer diameter of the
Pull 3
Pull 4
expander. The mechanical properties of sand reported by
Pull 5 Lapos et al. [22] are not sufficient for constraining the
Pull 6 parameters associated with the state-dependent constitutive
Pull 7
model described in Sect. 2.1. As a workaround, we perform
the computations by using the parameters calibrated for
Toyoura sand (i.e., see Table 1) and focus on whether the
model can represent the general trends revealed from the
1000 1500 2000 experiments more than a quantitative assessment. To
Distance ahead of expander (mm) approximate the very dense state of sand in the model tests,
an initial void ratio of 0.6 is used in the cavity expansion
solution (note that the minimum void ratio of Toyouras and
is 0.597 and the adopted value approaches a relative den-
sity of Dr = 100%). Moreover, according to Chapman [6],
an intermediate pattern of 80% upward and 20% downward
displacement (i.e., the computed soil expansion is factored
by 1.6) is adopted in this case.
Figure 15 presents the comparison between measured
and computed ground surface upheavals. The pull numbers
in the figure indicate the sequential advancements of the
expander; hence, the measured ground movements are
accumulative. Such buildup in soil displacements is
approximated in the simplified model by superposing the
soil displacements caused by multiple cavity expansion
processes, where the expansion amount is fixed (i.e.,
determined by the size of the existing pipe and the used
bursting head, d0/d), while the radial distance between the
observation point and the cavity center (i.e., R depicted in
Fig. 12b) varies. The latter reflects the change in the cur-
rent position of the expander relative to the location where
soil displacements are measured. Because each cavity
expansion instance corresponds to expanding the existing
pipe to the same size as the expander, the total number of
simulated cavity expansion equals to the total advance-
ments of bursting head divided by the incremental head
advancement associated with expanding pipe to the given
size (i.e., the distance s depicted in Fig. 12a).
123

As shows in Fig. 15, the measured and computed
results of deformation are normalized by their corre-
sponding maximums (note that the measured and com-
puted maximums used to normalize the data in Fig. 15a
are 27.2 mm and 25.12 mm, respectively, while the
measured and computed peaks used for Fig. 15b are
23.9 mm and 23.36 mm, respectively). This comparison
suggests that the simplified method can reasonably cap-
ture the gradual development of transverse upheaval
trough as the expander approaches the cross section under
observation (see Fig. 15a) as well as the steady-state
longitudinal upheaval profile ahead of the expander (i.e.,
the upheaval profiles that correspond to different pulls
tend to fall within a narrow band in Fig. 15b). Lastly, it
should be emphasized that the case study described above
certainly shows that more a quantitative assessment of the
simplified method against experimental evidence is
required, but also highlights the importance of assessing
the simplified method against FEM simulations. The
latter reduces the uncertainties associated with material
constants and hence allowing a direct one-to-one
verification.
6 Conclusions
This work presents a spherical cavity expansion solution
aimed at linking the constitutive behavior of soils and the
quantities with direct implications for engineering practice.
The critical state-based, state-dependent constitutive model
proposed by Li and Dafalias [24] is employed, which
unifies the modeling of loose and dense sands by incor-
porating the Been and Jefferies’s state parameter [2]. By
combining this constitutive law with logarithmic strain
measurements, the stress equilibrium equations for the
spherical cavity expansion are reduced to a set of first-order
differential equations. The latter is subsequently solved by
numerical method. An independent finite element analysis
of spherical cavity expansion process in solid governed by
Li and Dafalias’s model [24] is performed to validate the
proposed solution. The latter is subsequently employed to
analyze the role of the stress level and density of soils in
affecting the cavity expansion responses, during which the
significance of accounting for the state-dependence of
granular materials is highlighted. The application of the
proposed solution in solving actual geotechnical engi-
neering problems is illustrated in two examples: predicting
the tip resistance of cone penetrometer in sand and esti-
mating the ground movements associated with static pipe
bursting in coarse-grained soils. The following main con-
clusions can be drawn from this work:
123
Acta Geotechnica
(1) The normalized ultimate cavity expansion pressure
decreases with the suppression of soil dilation
resulted from either the increase of confining stress
or the decrease of soil density.
(2) When ignoring the state-dependence, the ultimate
cavity expansion pressure can be underestimated and
overestimated for sand that is initially looser and
denser than critical state, respectively.
(3) Spherical cavity expansion remains stable with a
monotonically increasing expansion pressure, despite
that the soils adjacent to the cavity wall exhibit the
softening of stress ratio. These responses are
attributed to a rising mean effective stress and
consequently enhancing shear strength.
(4) Based on soil parameters calibrated from laboratory
triaxial tests, the proposed solution can reasonably
represent the variation of cone penetration resistance
with the stress level and density of sand, thus
suggesting the capability of the solution to connect
the constitutive behavior of soils with quantities that
have direct implications for engineering practice.
(5) The proposed solution can reasonably represent pipe
bursting-induced ground movements when the
embedment ratio of the pipe is greater than a critical
value. The latter depends on the state of sand and
tends to become greater for sand with higher dilation.
The conclusions about static pipe bursting, in particular
the critical embedment ratio, obviously pertain to the
material studied in this work. However, Toyoura sand is
often considered representative of coarse-grained soils. It is
therefore likely that similar trends also exist for other types
of sand, while its confirmation requires further studies.
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11972260).
References
1. Basu P, Loukidis D, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2011) Analysis of shaft
resistance of jacked piles in sands. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 35(15):1605–1635
2. Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) A state parameter for sands.
Geotechnique 35(2):99–112
3. Bolton MD (1986) Strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique
36(1):65–78
4. Cao LF, Teh CI, Chang MF (2001) Undrained cavity expansion
in modified Cam clay. Geotechnique 51(4):323–334
5. Carter JP, Booker JR, Yeung SK (1986) Cavity expansion in
cohesive frictional soils. Geotechnique 36(3):349–358
6. Chapman DC, Falk C, Rogers CDF, Stein D (1996) Experimental
and analytical modelling of pipebursting ground displacements.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 11:53–68
7. Chen SL, Abousleiman YN (2013) Exact drained solution for
cylindrical cavity expansion in modified Cam Clay soil.
Geotechnique 63(6):510
Acta Geotechnica
8. Chen SL, Abousleiman YN (2017) Wellbore stability analysis
using strain hardening and/or softening plasticity models. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 93:260–268
9. Chen ZQ, Huang MS (2019) Non-coaxial behavior modeling of
sands subjected to principal stress rotation. Acta Geotech
15:655–669
10. Chu J, Wanatowski D (2009) Effect of loading mode on strain
softening and instability behavior of sand in plane-strain tests.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(1):108–120
11. Collins IF, Pender MJ, Yan W (1992) Cavity expansion in sands
under drained loading conditions. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 16(1):3–23
12. Collins IF, Yu HS (1996) Undrained cavity expansions in critical
state soils. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 20(7):489–516
13. Cudmani R, Osinov VA (2001) The cavity expansion problem for
the interpretation of cone penetration and pressuremeter tests.
Can Geotech J 38(3):622–638
14. Dafalias YF, Manzari MT (2004) Simple plasticity sand model
accounting for fabric change effects. J Eng Mech 130(6):622–634
15. Dormand JR, Prince PJ (1980) A family of embedded Runge–
Kutta formulae. J Comput Appl Math 6(1):19–26
16. Fioravante V, Giretti D (2016) Unidirectional cyclic resistance of
Ticino and Toyoura sands from centrifuge cone penetration tests.
Acta Geotech 11(4):953–968
17. Gajo A, Wood M (1999) Severn-trent sand: a kinematic-hard-
ening constitutive model: the q-p formulation. Geotechnique
49(5):595–614
18. Ghafghazi M, Shuttle D (2008) Interpretation of sand state from
cone penetration resistance. Geotechnique 58(58):623–634
19. Houlsby GT, Withers NJ (1988) Analysis of the cone pres-
suremeter test in clay. Geotechnique 38(4):575–587
20. Ishihara K, Tatsuoka F, Yasuda S (1975) Undrained deformation
and liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses. Soils Found
15(1):29–44
21. Jiang MJ, Sun YG (2012) Cavity expansion analyses of crushable
granular materials with state-dependent dilatancy. Int J Numer
Anal Methods Geomech 36(6):723–742
22. Lapos B, Brachman RWI, Moore ID (2004) Laboratory mea-
surements of pulling force and ground movement during a pipe
bursting test. NASTT, NO-Dig-2004. 22–24
23. Lapos BM, Brachman RWI, Moore ID (2007) Response to
overburden pressure of an HDPE pipe pulled in place by pipe
bursting. Can Geotech J 44(8):957–965
24. Li XS, Dafalias YF (2000) Dilatancy for cohesionless soils.
Geotechnique 50(4):449–460
25. Li L, Li J, Sun D (2016) Anisotropicallyelasto-plastic solution to
undrained cylindrical cavity expansion in K0-consolidated clay.
Comput Geotech 73:83–90
26. Marshall AM (2012) Tunnel-pile interaction analysis using cavity
expansion methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
138(10):1237–1246
27. McMahon BT, Haigh SK, Bolton MD (2013) Cavity expansion
model for the bearing capacity and settlement of circular shallow
foundations on clay. Geotechnique 63(9):746
28. Mo PQ, Yu HS (2017) Drained cavity expansion analysis with a
unified state parameter model for clay and sand. Can Geotech J
55(7):1029–1040
29. Murthy TG, Loukidis D, Carraro JAH, Prezzi M, Salgado R
(2007) Undrained monotonic response of clean and silty sands.
Geotechnique 57(3):273–288
30. Ngan KH, Rostami A, Yi Y, Bayat A (2016) Predicting soil
expansion force during static pipe bursting using cavity expan-
sion solutions. Int J Geomech 16(3):04015075
31. Osinov VA, Cudmani R (2001) Theoretical investigation of the
cavity expansion problem based on a hypoplasticity model. Int J
Numeri Anal Methods Geomech 25(5):473–495
32. Palmer AC (1972) Undrained plane-strain expansion of a cylin-
drical cavity in clay: a simple interpretation of the pressuremeter
test. Geotechnique 22(3):451–457
33. Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD (2002) Plasticity model for
sand under small and large cyclic strains: a multiaxial formula-
tion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(3):191–204
34. Randolph MF, Carter JP, Wroth CP (1979) Driven piles in clay-
the effects of installation and subsequent consolidation.
Geotechnique 29(4):361–393
35. Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD (1970) Vibrations of soils and
foundations. In: International series in theoretical and applied
mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
36. Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stress–strain
behaviour of wet clay. In: Heyman J, Leckie FA (eds) Engi-
neering plasticity. Cambridge University Press, London,
pp 535–609
37. Rott J, Mašı́n D, Boháč J, Krupička M, Mohyla T (2015) Eval-
uation of K0 in stiff clay by back-analysis of convergence mea-
surements from unsupported cylindrical cavity. Acta Geotech
10(6):719–733
38. Russell AR, Khalili N (2002) Drained cavity expansion in sands
exhibiting particle crushing. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
26(4):323–340
39. Salgado R, Mitchell JK, Jamiolkowski M (1997) Cavity expan-
sion and penetration resistance in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 123(4):344–354
40. Salgado R, Randolph MF (2001) Analysis of cavity expansion in
sand. Int J Geomech 1(2):175–192
41. Salgado R, Prezzi M (2007) Computation of cavity expansion
pressure and penetration resistance in sands. Int J Geomech
7(4):251–265
42. Schofield A, Wroth P (1968) Critical state soil mechanics, 2nd
edn. McGraw-Hill, London
43. Silvestri V, Abou-Samra G (2012) Analytical solution for
undrained plane strain expansion of a cylindrical cavity in
modified cam clay. Geomech Eng 4(1):19–37
44. Sivasithamparam N, Castro J (2018) Undrained expansion of a
cylindrical cavity in clays with fabric anisotropy: theoretical
solution. Acta Geotech 13(3):729–746
45. Su D, Yang ZX (2019) Drained analyses of cylindrical cavity
expansion in sand incorporating a bounding-surface model with
state-dependent dilatancy. Appl Math Model 68:1–20
46. Taiebat M, Dafalias YF (2008) SANISAND: simple anisotropic
sand plasticity model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
32(8):915–948
47. Tsegaye AB, Benz T (2014) Plastic flow and state-dilatancy for
geomaterials. Acta Geotech 9(2):329–342
48. Vesic AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J Soil
Mech Found Div 98:265–290
49. Wichtmann T, Triantafyllidis T (2016) An experimental database
for the development, calibration and verification of constitutive
models for sand with focus to cyclic loading: part I-tests with
monotonic loading and stress cycles. Acta Geotech
11(4):739–761
50. Yang H, Russell AR (2015) Cavity expansion in unsaturated soils
exhibiting hydraulic hysteresis considering three drainage con-
ditions. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 39(18):1975–2016
51. Yang J, Li XS (2004) State-dependent strength of sands from the
perspective of unified modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130(2):186–198
52. Yang HW, Russell RA (2016) Cone penetration tests in unsatu-
rated silty sands. Can Geotech J 53:431–444
53. Yasufuku N, Hyde AFL (1995) Pile end-bearing capacity in
crushable sands. Geotechnique 45(4):663–676
123

54. Yoshimine M, Ishihara K, Vargas W (1998) Effects of principal
stress direction and intermediate principal stress on undrained
shear behavior of sand. Soils Found 38(3):179–188
55. Youwai S, Bergado DT (2004) Numerical analysis of reinforced
wall using rubber tire chips-sand mixtures as backfill material.
Comput Geotech 31(2):103–114
56. Yu HS, Houlsby GT (1991) Finite cavity expansion in dilatant
soils: loading analysis. Geotechnique 41(2):173–183
123
Acta Geotechnica
57. Yu HS (2000) Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics.
Springer, New York
58. Yu HS (2006) The first James K. Mitchell lecture in situ soil
testing: from mechanics to interpretation. Geomech Geoeng
1(3):165–195
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.