Loading…

Simulation of cone penetrometer tests in sand using three advanced constitutive models: A comparative study

The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) is one of the preferred tools to carry out sub-soil investigations. Numerical simulations of CPTs are employed as complements to laboratory experiments and improve understanding of soil behavior. Various numerical methods and soil models have been developed to simula...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Computers and geotechnics 2024-12, Vol.176, p.106683, Article 106683
Main Authors: Fetrati, Majid, Galavi, Vahid, Goodarzi, Majid, Mörz, Tobias, Kreiter, Stefan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) is one of the preferred tools to carry out sub-soil investigations. Numerical simulations of CPTs are employed as complements to laboratory experiments and improve understanding of soil behavior. Various numerical methods and soil models have been developed to simulate CPTs in controlled environments such as calibration chambers. In this study, a comparative analysis of three advanced soil models—DeltaSand, hypoplasticity with intergranular strain, and Hardening Soil with small strain stiffness— is performed in CPT simulation. The Material Point Method is employed to allow for the large deformations occurring during CPT. In this study, after calibration of the material models using experimental lab tests, the results of CPT simulations are compared with experimental data in terms of cone resistance and soil deformations near the cone penetrometer tip. The effect of material parameters in soil model which represent the behaviour of soils at small strains is evaluated on the CPT results. The performance of all soil models in predicting the stress evolution under the cone and at different distances from it is also evaluated. The findings clarify the strengths and weaknesses of these soil models and their accuracy, which allow a better understanding of their capabilities and limitations.
ISSN:0266-352X
DOI:10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106683