Rock and Soil Mechanics ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 2797-2807.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2023.1648

• Geotechnical Engineering • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Uncertainty quantification in the parameters of soil constitutive models

XUE Yang1, 2, MIAO Fa-sheng3, WU Yi-ping3, WEN Tao1, 2, WANG Yan-kun1, 2   

  1. 1. School of Geosciences, Yangtze University, Wuhan, Hubei 430100, China; 2. Jiacha County Branch of Hubei Yangtze University Technology Development Co., Ltd, Shannan, Xizang 856499, China; 3. Engineering Faculty, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
  • Received:2023-11-02 Accepted:2024-01-21 Online:2024-09-06 Published:2024-09-03
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42307242), the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (2023AFB322), the School Level Training Program of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Undergraduates (Yz2023029) and the Science and Technology Program of Xizang Autonomous Region (XZ202301YD0034C, XZ202202YD0007C).

Abstract: The assessment of model parameters is crucial in developing constitutive models. However, the results of parameter assessment for these models are inevitably subject to errors. Hence, a Bayesian framework utilizing structural reliability, subset simulation, and adaptive conditional sampling methods is employed to assess the uncertainty of constitutive model parameters through test data inversion. Using the joint shear constitutive model for shear stress-shear strain characterization of rock-soil mass and the hypoplastic clay constitutive model for nonlinear soil stress-strain increment description as case studies, this study investigates the uncertainties in model parameters, shear stress-strain curves, and pore ratio-pressure curves. Furthermore, it analyzes the sensitivities of model parameters to test outcomes. The research demonstrates that this approach evaluates parameter uncertainty driven by test data. The joint shear constitutive model parameters are primarily influenced by  in stress-strain curve representation, while most parameters of the hypoplastic model have a notable impact. These results enhance comprehension and enhance the predictive reliability of these two constitutive models.

Key words: shear stress constitutive model, hypoplastic model, Bayesian framework, uncertainty quantification

CLC Number: 

  • TU43
[1] XIAO Yong-jie, CHEN Fu-quan, DONG Yi-zhi . Penetration speed of sleeve for cast-in-place pile installed in sand by high frequency vibratory hammers using Gudehus-Bauer hypoplastic model [J]. , 2018, 39(8): 3011-3019.
[2] YANG Li-ping. Analysis of progressive failure of a loess landslide [J]. , 2018, 39(7): 2591-2598.
[3] CHEN Long,CHU Xi-Hua,XU Yuan-Jie. Modelling behavior of dense sand subjected to cyclic loading based on CLoE hypoplastic model [J]. , 2015, 36(6): 1598-1605.
[4] HUANG Wen-xiong,YANG Hong-mei,LI Chi-qing. Back analysis of initial state of sand from pressuremeter test [J]. , 2012, 33(4): 979-985.
[5] CHU Xi-hua, XU Yuan-jie, ZHANG Ming-long, YU Cun. Numerical implementations and discussion on hypoplastic model for granular materials based on ABAQUS [J]. , 2009, 30(S1): 215-219.
[6] SHAO Long-tan , XIONG Bao-lin , WANG Hong-bo . Amelioration of parameter determination in Wu-Bauer hypoplastic model and its validation [J]. , 2008, 29(3): 707-710.
[7] XIONG Bao-lin, SHAO Long-tan. Research of Gudehus-Bauer hypoplastic constitutive model [J]. , 2006, 27(S1): 175-178.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!