English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The soil parameters identification procedure is usually a trade-off between sophisticated soil model behaviour and the large number of parameters to identify. Such procedure that can accomplish both of these objectives is highly desirable, but also difficult. This paper presents a methodology for identifying soil parameters that takes into account different constitutive equations. For identifying the generalized Prager model parameters, associated to the Drucker and Prager failure criterion, using an in-situ pressuremeter curve, we have proposed a procedure that is based on an approach of inverse analysis. This approach involves the minimizing the function representing the area between the experimental curve and the simulated curve, obtained by fit in the model along the in-situ loading path. A comparative study between two optimization processes is proposed. The first is based on the technique of the simplex by Nelder and Mead, while the second is based on the decomposition of the pressuremeter curve in three distinct areas. After a brief description of an existing computer program called  Press-Sim , which has been written in Fortran for analyzing a cavity expansion using the finite element method, a short explanation is given about the two optimization procedures considered in this article. Then, for a chosen site where soil strength parameters are measured, the comparative study has been performed for both methods at four different depths. For the determination of the angle of friction, the two procedures yield very close values and are in a good agreement with that given by the triaxial test, while for the cohesion, they both diverge from each other on both sides of the value measured by the trial test.

An optimization procedure for the soil behavior identification using pressuremeter results