Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Modeling shear behavior and strain localization in cemented sands

by two-dimensional distinct element method analyses
M.J. Jiang a,⇑, H.B. Yan a, H.H. Zhu a, S. Utili b,1
a
Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Dept. of Engineering Science, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a numerical investigation of shear behavior and strain localization in cemented sands
Received 25 November 2009 using the distinct element method (DEM), employing two different failure criteria for grain bonding. The
Received in revised form 7 September 2010 first criterion is characterized by a Mohr–Coulomb failure line with two distinctive contributions, cohe-
Accepted 8 September 2010
sive and frictional, which sum to give the total bond resistance; the second features a constant, pressure-
Available online 12 October 2010
independent strength at low compressive forces and purely frictional resistance at high forces, which is
the standard bond model implemented in the Particle Flow Code (PFC2D). Dilatancy, material friction
Keywords:
angle and cohesion, strain and stress fields, the distribution of bond breakages, the void ratio and the
Cemented sand
Bond breakage
averaged pure rotation rate (APR) were examined to elucidate the relations between micromechanical
Strain localization variables and macromechanical responses in DEM specimens subjected to biaxial compression tests.
Numerical analyses A good agreement was found between the predictions of the numerical analyses and the available
Distinct element method experimental results in terms of macromechanical responses. In addition, with the onset of shear band-
ing, inhomogeneous fields of void ratio, bond breakage and APR emerged in the numerical specimens.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to bridge the gap between macro- and micromechanics for these
types of soils.
Most natural soils are characterized by a bonded structure aris- In the past decades, a number of theoretical, experimental and
ing from various processes, for example, the solution and deposi- numerical works have been carried out on strain localization, par-
tion of silica at particle contacts [1]. Soils are also sometimes ticularly in granulates [22–26]. Regarding experimental works, the
artificially cemented by chemical agents in ground-treatment pro- 1c2e apparatus developed in Grenoble in the 1990s was the first
cesses. Experimental results in the literature have shown that ce- intended to relate micromechanics to macromechanics by running
mented soils have peculiar behaviors different from uncemented biaxial tests on Schneebeli wooden rods [27,28]. However, only a
ones, such as stiffening at low pressure followed by yielding in a few reports can be found on strain-localization analysis in clays
manner similar to overconsolidated soils [2,3], enhanced strength due to the theoretical, numerical and technical difficulties related
[4–8], a relatively brittle stress–strain response and a more dilative to this research field [29–33]. For example, it is very difficult to
volumetric response [6,9–11]. These findings have encouraged gather sufficient microscopic data from specimens in the labora-
extensive research into constitutive models of cemented soils. tory even with advanced technologies such as X-ray techniques
Several continuum constitutive models have been suggested to [34–36], stereophotogrammetric techniques [37], or particle-im-
describe some important features of structured soils by previous age velocimetry [38]. Such an unsatisfactory situation extends to
researchers [12–21]. Although the models differ in mathematical the analysis of strain localization in cemented sands, which consti-
details, they are all based on the principle that the size of the tuted another strong motivation for this study.
state-boundary surface increases with interparticle bonding (for It is authors’ opinion that the distinct element method (DEM)
instance, see [20]). However, concerning cemented soils, only the presents an effective method to investigate the global mechanical
macroscopic response can be observed in the laboratory, while behavior, strain localization, and associated micromechanisms
the mechanisms taking place at the micromechanical level remain occurring in cemented sands. The DEM was first proposed by
mostly unknown. One of the motivations for the present study was Cundall and Strack [39], in which a detailed description of the
method can be found. The main objective of this study was to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 21 65980238. provide insight into the shear behavior and strain localization tak-
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.J. Jiang). ing place in cemented sands by DEM analyses. For this purpose, a
1
Formerly at Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK. series of biaxial compression tests was run on assemblies of 2D

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.09.001
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 15

bonded disks. Two different bond models were employed, which mance in compression and tension, but with different shear
will be introduced in the following section. All the simulations strengths. Fig. 2b shows that the shear strength in the Jiang model
were run using PFC2D [40]. is pressure dependent and increases linearly with the normal force
according to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The bond strength can be
thought of as the sum of frictional and cohesive contributions. The
2. DEM numerical modeling shear strength of the standard bond model in the PFC2D code (PFC
model) is instead pressure independent at low stresses, while it in-
Two bond models were used in this study. The first, hereafter re- creases linearly with the normal pressure at high stresses. There-
ferred to as Jiang’s model, was initially proposed by Jiang et al. fore, this bond strength can be assumed to be provided by a
[41,42] to investigate the yielding of microstructured sands, purely cohesive contribution when the normal contact force acting
whereas the second model is a standard model offered by PFC2D, on the bond is low (Fn < Rt/tan /l), and a purely frictional one when
the so-called ‘‘contact-bond” model (see [40]). The common physi- the force is high (Fn > Rt/tan /l). With the current experimental
cal features of both models are illustrated in Fig. 1. Both bond mod- apparatus, an accurate determination of the failure envelope for
els are made by a combination of a spring, a dashpot and a divider in cementitious bonds is a difficult task. Moreover, there exists no
the normal direction, whereas a spring, a dashpot and a slider are consensus among researchers on what bond model best represents
present in the tangential direction. However, in all the simulations reality. Therefore, both models were used in this work. In summary,
performed in this study, damping was set to either zero or to a very the failure envelope according to the Jiang model is:
small value; this was verified not to influence the results obtained.
Hence, no dashpot was actually present in the bonds employed in F n;f ¼ Rn F s;f ¼ Rt þ F n tan /l ð1Þ
the performed simulations. The global behavior of a geomaterial de-
pends on the type of breakage it undergoes, which can be either and for the PFC model is:
fragile or ductile (see [43,44]). It is generally accepted that the (
breakage process is mainly fragile in cemented sands. This is also Rt if F n 6 Rt = tan /l
F n;f ¼ Rn F s;f ¼ ð2Þ
underpinned by tests recently performed on glued steel rods, as re- F n tan /l if F n > Rt = tan /l
ported in [45]. Therefore, the bonds used in the presented simula-
tions break in a purely fragile fashion, as illustrated in Fig. 2. It may be argued that the sharp transition between tensile and
Here, the main mechanical features of the employed bond models shear resistance employed in both bond models is not realistic be-
are shown in terms of the normal and tangential relative displace- cause there is a kink point along the strength envelope (point B in
ments versus the respective contact forces, Fn and Fs. Fig. 2a2 and b2 Fig. 2c), whereas it would be reasonable to expect a smooth
show the relationships between force and displacement achieved transition, for instance, given by a curve starting from point A and
by experimental tests carried out on pairs of Schneebeli steel rods tangentially reaching the inclined straight line Fs = Fntan /l (see
glued together. These experimental tests were meant to mimic Fig 2c). However, the shape of such a curve is uncertain and the
the mechanics of two-dimensional bonded disks. According to the adoption of a nonlinear failure envelope rather than a linear one
results of these experiments, the relationship between force and is likely to have a small influence on the global behavior of the gran-
displacement is linear until the bond breaks. For uncemented gran- ular material. Therefore, it can be concluded that the adoption of a
ular geomaterials, several researchers have proposed nonlinear nonlinear failure envelope for bonds is not justified given the cur-
relationships to take into account the dependency of the material rent state of knowledge of bonded granulates. For the same reason,
stiffness on the magnitude of normal forces exchanged at the con- Rn was taken as equal to Rt. Concerning the contact-stiffness param-
tacts. However, in the case of bonded materials, the force–displace- eters, the values used in all the performed simulations were inde-
ment relationship can be satisfactorily approximated by a simpler pendent of the amount of cement. Although the small strain-
linear one, which requires the calibration of fewer parameters, as elastic stiffness of cemented soils depends on the cement content
the bonding material is responsible for most of the compliancy (see [47]), the values of the contact stiffnesses, Kn and Ks, employed
(i.e., compressive stresses remain sufficiently low to avoid signifi- in the simulations were constant, as the soil elastic response at
cant compression of the grains), as also indicated by the available small strains was not the focus of this study. The same choice of
experimental evidence [45,46]. Therefore, the parameters deter- constant contact stiffnesses was utilized by Wang and Leung (see
mining bond behavior (see Fig. 2) are Rn, the normal bond strength, [54]).
Rt, the tangential bond strength, Kn, the normal contact stiffness, Ks, The particle-size distribution shown in Fig. 3, featuring ten dif-
the tangential contact stiffness, and /l, the interparticle friction an- ferent particle radii, was used to generate the DEM specimens. The
gle. Fig. 2a shows that the two models display the same perfor- numerical specimens were 800 mm wide and 1680 mm high. The
planar void ratio at the beginning of the biaxial tests was 0.27,
which is representative of a loose sample. The total number of sand
particles employed in each numerical specimen was around
24,000. In some preliminary simulations, fewer particles (6000)
were used, with the macromechanical response showing no signif-
icant differences. However, if accurate information on shear-band
width and strain and rotation fields within the shear bands is
sought, such a small number of particles would be insufficient.
With the adoption of 24,000 particles per specimen, the resulting
ratios of shear-band width to average particle diameter were
approximately 14 at an axial strain of 6% and approximately 17
at an axial strain of 13%, which are large enough to obtain reliable
information on the shear bands. This can be regarded as a
outstanding feature of the simulations performed here, as in previ-
ous DEM studies on other geomaterials the number of particles ly-
ing within the shear band appeared to be too small to draw reliable
Fig. 1. Physical analogue of the employed bond models. conclusions about the kinematic mechanisms taking place,
16 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

(a1) 10 (a2) 3
Jiang model (R=1500N)
8 PFC model (R=1500N) 2
Jiang model (R=5000N) Compression
6
Normal force (kN)

Normal force (kN)

PFC model (R=5000N) Jiang et al, 2007
1
4

2 0

0 Delenne et al, 2004

-1
-2
-2 Tension
-4

-6 -3
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Normal displacement (mm) Normal displacement (mm)

(b1) 10 (b2) 3.0

Normal force: 4kN

Normal force: 0 kN 2.5
Jiang et al, 2007
5 Normal force: 2kN

Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

2.0 Normal force: 0kN

Delenne et al, 2004

0 1.5

1.0 Normal force: 0kN

Jiang model (R=1500N)
-5
PFC model (R=1500N)
Jiang model (R=5000N) 0.5
PFC model (R=5000N)
-10 0.0
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Shear displacement (mm) Shear displacement (mm)

(c) 2.0
1 Fn=-0.5
Jiang model
2 Fs= 0.5
PFC model
Shear strength (kN)

1.5
3 Fs= Fntanφμ

1 Fn=-0.5
1.0
2 Fs= Fntanφμ+0.5 2
3
ϕu =° 26.6
2
0.5 B
1
Residual strength
1 of both models
0.0 A
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Normal force (kN)

Fig. 2. Mechanical responses of the contact-bond models used in the DEM analyses. (The data in (a2) and (b2) come from [45,56]). (a1) Model prediction in normal direction.
(a2) Experimental data in normal direction. (b1) Model prediction in tangential direction. (b2) Experimental data in tangential direction. (c) Relationships between shear
strength and normal force. (The solid line represents peak strength while dashed line residual strength).

rotation rates, bond-breakage rates and strain field inside and out- by rigid walls having the same normal and tangential contact stiff-
side the shear bands. nesses as the sand particles. The coefficient of friction between
To simulate the soft rubber membrane used to confine soil sam- walls and particles was set to zero to reproduce ideal experimental
ples in geotechnical tests, flexible side boundaries consisting of conditions.
bonded particles were employed, as originally proposed in [48]. The multilayer undercompaction method proposed by Jiang
The stress-controlled flexible boundary implemented in the code et al. [52] was used to generate the packing of particles so as to ob-
is the same as that used by Wang and Leung [49], to which the read- tain loose and homogeneous specimens. Details on the generation
er is referred to for details of the boundary implementation in DEM procedure can be found in [52]. Five horizontal layers were used
code. As already shown in [50,51,58], the use of flexible membrane during specimen generation, with each layer containing 4800 par-
boundaries allows the model to capture the deformation character- ticles randomly distributed in a rectangular area 800 mm wide and
istics of developing shear bands with a good degree of accuracy. The 437 mm high. Particles were compacted to the target planar void
input parameters for sand grains and membrane particles are sum- ratio, ep = 0.27, by moving the top rigid wall downward at a con-
marized in Table 1. The top and bottom boundaries were simulated stant speed of 5.0 m/s with the lateral and bottom walls fixed.
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 17

100

80
Percentage of finer (%)

60

40

20

0
5 6 7 8 9 10
Grain diameter (mm)
Fig. 4. DEM specimen after generation.
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution used in the DEM analyses.

Table 1 the specimen can be considered uniform on average until the

Sample size and material parameters used in the DEM simulations. occurrence of localization. Note that, although the numbers of con-
Samples tacts was the same when bonds were assigned to particles, the
Width of sample (mm) 800 number of bonds at the beginning of the biaxial test differed
Height of sample (mm) 1680 depending on the bond model employed. This is due to the differ-
Initial void ratio 0.27 ence in implementation of the force-relative-displacement rela-
Sand particles tionship in the normal direction between the Jiang and PFC
Total number in sample 24,000 models. In the Jiang bond model (see [41,42]), particles always
Density (kg/m3) 2600
overlap at the bonded contacts. In the PFC bond model (see [40]),
Diameter (mm) Gradation in
Fig. 3 bonds can exist with particles separated by a certain distance pro-
Normal contact stiffness for test (N/m) 7.5  107 portional to the exchanged tension force Fn. When the contact nor-
Tangential contact stiffness for test (N/m) 5.0  107 mal force is zero, the overlap is nil. However, such a difference does
Interparticle coefficient of friction for test 0.5
not affect the main conclusions in this study.
Coefficient of friction between wall and particle 0.0
Normal contact stiffness for specimen generation (N/m) 7.5  109 A series of biaxial compression tests was performed with differ-
Tangential contact stiffness for specimen generation (N/m) 5.0  109 ent bond strengths, i.e., 0 N, 1.5 kN, and 5 kN, and under different
Interparticle coefficient of friction for specimen generation 1.0 confining pressures, i.e., 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 400 kPa, and
Normal contact stiffness between sand and membrane 3.75  106 800 kPa. To describe the macroscopic mechanical responses of
particles (N/m)
the specimens, two-dimensional stress invariants were employed:
Local damping coefficient 0.5
Viscous damping coefficient the mean effective stress, s = (ry + rx)/2, and the deviatoric stress,
In normal and tangential directions 0.0 t = (ry  rx)/2.
Membrane particles
Diameter (mm) 2.0
Density (kg/m3) 1000 3. Mechanical behavior of bonded DEM specimens
Normal bond strength in normal direction (N) 1.0  10100
Bond strength in tangential direction (N) 1.0  10100
3.1. Stress–strain and volumetric responses
Normal contact stiffness (N/m) 3.75  106
Tangential contact stiffness (N/m) 2.5  106
Figs. 5 and 6 present the numerical results obtained from biax-
ial compression tests on the Jiang and PFC models under confining
pressures of 50 kPa, 200 kPa and 800 kPa. For reference, the re-
In order to generate a sufficiently loose sample, a coefficient of sponses of uncemented specimens having the same initial void
interparticle friction, tan /l = 1.0, was used during the generation ratio are also plotted in the figures. Figs. 5 and 6 show that with
process. The numerical specimen obtained is shown in Fig. 4. both the Jiang and PFC bond models specimens were characterized
After specimen generation, the coefficient of interparticle fric- by strain softening and shear dilatancy, unlike the uncemented
tion was set to tan /l = 0.5. The specimens were then consolidated case. Moreover, peak deviatoric stress and dilatancy increased with
in 1D under a small vertical pressure of 12.5 kPa with the side bond strength. These trends are in agreement with the available
walls kept fixed. In this stage, contacts between particles were experimental data, shown in Fig. 7, reported by [49]. From these
found to be distributed uniformly within the specimens. Then data emerges evidence that grain cementation significantly alters
bonds were formed at all particle contacts. The specimens were the stress–strain response of loose sands, which here changed from
subsequently subjected to an isotropic constant confining pressure. strain hardening to strain softening with an increasing degree of
Finally, the specimens were vertically compressed, with the top cementation. Analogously, the volumetric response switched from
wall moving downward and the bottom wall moving upward, both contractive to dilative. At a micromechanical level, this type of re-
at a constant speed, while the lateral pressure acting on the parti- sponse is due to the formation of particle arches within the shear
cle membranes was kept unchanged. The strain rate adopted in all band. This in turn occurs because of the breakage of some bonds,
the simulations was 6.0% axial strain per minute. This low strain causing the formation of clusters of bonded particles which are free
rate ensured that quasistatic conditions were always present dur- to rotate, thus contributing to volumetric dilation. A detailed
ing testing. Moreover, this low rate also ensured that the pressures description of the kinematics of cluster formation in loose bonded
measured at the top and bottom walls remained similar through- granulates and the consequent dilative behavior can be found in
out the test. These conditions imply that the stress field within Wang and Leung [54].
18 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

(a) 350 (b) 500

Jiang sample (R=5000N) Jiang sample (R=5000N)
300 Jiang sample (R=1500N) Jiang sample (R=1500N)
400

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

PFC sample (R=5000N)
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

PFC sample (R=5000N)

250 PFC sample (R=1500N) PFC sample (R=1500N)
Uncemented sample Uncemented sample
300
200

150 200

100
100
50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

(c) 1000

800
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

600

400 Jiang sample (R=5000N)

Jiang sample (R=1500N)
PFC sample (R=5000N)
200 PFC sample (R=1500N)
Uncemented sample

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)

Fig. 5. Stress–strain responses of cemented sands for various bond strengths under different confining pressures from DEM simulations: (a) r3 = 50 kPa; (b) r3 = 200 kPa;
r3 = 800 kPa.

Comparing the stress–strain response obtained from the Jiang Finally, it can be noted that in case of the PFC model the result-
model with that from the PFC model, it was observed that, at ing stress–strain curve became progressively closer to the curve of
low confining stresses, the specimen in the PFC bond model exhib- the unbonded specimen with increasing confinement; these ulti-
ited a higher peak stress and a more pronounced strain softening mately coincide in the case of R = 1.5 kN and r3 = 800 kPa (see
than the specimen in Jiang’s model. For instance, the response ob- Fig. 5c). To explain the observed trend, it is necessary to consider
tained at R = 5 kN and r3 = 50 kPa was characterized by a peak that, according to the PFC model, the peak and the residual bond
deviatoric stress of 325 kPa in the Jiang model and 175 kPa in the strengths coincide for high normal contact forces whereas they
PFC model. However, at high confinement, the specimen in the are distinctively different when the normal forces are low. This
Jiang model exhibited the higher peak deviatoric stress and more means that a higher confining stress leads to a higher number of
pronounced strain softening. This can be explained by considering bonds in the residual state and thus a smaller difference between
the strength envelopes of the two bonds, which are shown in Fig. 2. bonded and unbonded specimens. Therefore, the fact that the
The tensile strength of the two bonds is identical but the shear bonded and unbonded curves coincide means that the majority
strength is different. Therefore, although bonds may fail in either of the PFC bonds reached their residual states.
tension or shear, the different macromechanical behavior obtained
was mainly due to the different bond breakage under shear. In the 3.2. Failure envelopes
tension zone (e.g., Point B in Fig. 2c), the shear strength of the spec-
imen in the Jiang model was lower than that in the PFC model, Fig. 8 shows the envelopes of the peak and residual strengths
whereas for bonds in compression it was the opposite. This ex- obtained by the numerical simulations in the Jiang and PFC bond
plains why the peak deviatoric stress obtained from the PFC model models and in the uncemented case. It can be seen here that both
with R = 5 kN was higher than that in the Jiang model at r3 = the peak and residual strengths of the cemented specimens are lar-
50 kPa but was the same at r3 = 200 kPa and lower at ger than the strengths exhibited by the uncemented ones. This is
r3 = 800 kPa. These results, especially those obtained from the due to bonding effects. The apparent cohesion increases with bond
Jiang model, show a good agreement with the available experi- strength in both bond models. However, the obtained friction an-
mental data from a qualitative viewpoint (see Fig. 7). In particular, gles varied in different ways. The peak friction angle, /peak, ob-
examining the experimental curves corresponding to various ce- tained from the Jiang specimens increased with bond strength;
ment contents, the marked increase of peak deviatoric stress and conversely, /peak obtained from the PFC specimens decreased with
softening taking place when the cement content changed from bond strength. This difference can be linked to the different peak-
2% to 3% was captured well by the Jiang model. In addition, Fig. 6 strength envelopes present in the two adopted bond models. The
shows that specimens with Jiang-model bonds demonstrated more obtained residual friction angle, /res, increased slightly with bond
dilation than those with PFC-model bonds. strength in both bond models, the increase being higher in the case
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 19

(a) -8 (b) -2.5

Jiang sample (R=5000N)
Jiang sample (R=5000N) -2.0 Jiang sample (R=1500N)
Jiang sample (R=1500N)
-6 PFC sample (R=5000N)
PFC sample (R=5000N)
Volumetric strain (%)
-1.5 PFC sample (R=1500N)

Volumetric strain (%)

PFC sample (R=1500N)
Uncemented sample
Uncemented sample -1.0
-4
-0.5
-2 0.0

0.5
0
1.0

2 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

(c) 0.0
Jiang sample (R=5000N)
0.2 Jiang sample (R=1500N)
PFC sample (R=5000N)
Volumetric strain (%)

PFC sample (R=1500N)

0.4
Uncemented sample

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%)

Fig. 6. Volumetric vs. axial strain of cemented sands for various bond strengths under different confining pressures from DEM simulations: (a) r3 = 50 kPa; (b) r3 = 200 kPa;
r3 = 800 kPa.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Experimental data obtained from laboratory tests on sands with various degrees of cementation at 50 kPa confining pressure (after Wang and Leung [49]): (a) stress–
strain relationship, and (b) void ratio-strain relationship.

of the Jiang bond model. Fig. 9 shows the peak and residual 4. Strain localization in bonded DEM specimens
strength envelopes observed experimentally by Wang and Leung
[49] for cemented sands; here, apparent cohesion, peak and resid- In this section, both the Jiang and PFC bond models were inves-
ual friction angles all increased with cement content. Comparing tigated with regard to strain localization. For brevity’s sake, in the
our numerical results with these experimental data, the Jiang mod- following, the results from only two specimens were selected to
el proved to be better than the PFC model in capturing the material present and discuss: one each with bonds in the Jiang model and
behavior. The degree of agreement with the experimental data is PFC models, both specimens being confined at a pressure of
quite remarkable considering that the bond models employed in r3 = 100 kPa and with a bond strength of R = 5 kN. However, the
these analyses were fairly simple, as they assumed linear strength choice of restricting the description of the results obtained to just
envelopes and did not account for any exchange of moments. these two samples was justified by the fact that the behaviors
20 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

(a) 600 (b) 600

Jiang sample (R=5000N) Jiang sample (R=5000N)
500 Jiang sample (R=1500N) 500 Jiang sample (R=1500N)

Shear strength (kPa)

Shear strength (kPa)

PFC sample (R=5000N) PFC sample (R=5000N)

PFC sample (R=1500N) 400 PFC sample (R=1500N)
400
Uncemented sample Uncemented sample

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Mean normal stress (kPa) Mean normal stress (kPa)

Fig. 8. Achieved strength envelopes for various bond strengths: (a) peak strength envelopes, and (b) residual strength envelopes.

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Strength envelopes of cemented sand observed experimentally at different cement contents (after Wang and Leung [49]): (a) peak strength envelopes, and (b) residual
strength envelopes.

observed in tests run for different bond strengths and confining fields in the two numerical specimens was similar in the remaining
pressures were similar (data not shown). stages, with shear bands developing from the top-left to the bot-
In Fig. 10, the obtained stress–strain and volumetric responses tom-right corner of the specimens and showing a similar inclina-
for the aforementioned specimens are shown. The test can be di- tion of about 52° to the horizontal.
vided into five stages, with starting and ending points as indicated
by points O, A–E. Point O indicates the initial state before any ver- 4.2. Contact-force chains and stress fields
tical load is applied. Point A can be defined as a ‘‘yielding point”, as
this is where some bonds begin to break. This point also marks the In Fig. 12, the formation of contact force chains can be observed
transition between dilative and contractive behaviors. Point B in the two bonded specimens at different stages. The thickness of
marks the peak of the deviatoric stress and point C the occurrence the lines in the figure is proportional to the magnitude of the con-
of maximum dilatancy. At point D, the volumetric strain becomes tact forces. A webbed pattern of force chains, with thick chains dis-
nearly constant. Finally, point E signals the end of the test. These tributed mainly in the vertical direction, can be observed until the
stages will be used in the next subsections to describe the features peak of the deviatoric stress is reached. This is in agreement with
of the observed strain localization in the two specimens. previously published works. Then, some thicker, columnar chains
progressively developed with increasing axial strain, as illustrated
4.1. Deformed specimens in Fig. 12c–e and h–j. Moreover, it was found that these columnar
force chains, which were initially oriented along the vertical direc-
The deformation patterns of the two numerical specimens ob- tion, gradually rotated away from the shear band inclination but
served at different axial strains are shown in Fig. 11. Square grids not so much as to become perpendicular to it.
of particles with different colors were employed to illustrate the One way of describing the state of stress within the speci-
characteristics of the strain field in the specimens [53]. Fig. 11a mens at the onset of shear banding is to calculate the average
and f shows that the strain field at the yielding (point A in Fig. 9) stresses. This can be done by considering a suitable number of
was homogeneous in both specimens. Fig. 11b and g shows that particles within a representative area and calculating the equiv-
the development of a shear band when the peak of the deviatoric alent stress tensor from contact orientations and forces [39]. In
stress is reached, i.e., point B in Fig. 10, was more pronounced in this study, a simplified method included in the PFC2D code
the specimen in the Jiang model than in the specimen in the PFC (see [40]) was used to obtain a stress tensor by averaging stres-
model. Fig. 11c–e and h–j shows that the evolution of the strain ses over a circular area inside the specimen. Preliminary analyses
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 21

(a) 400 (b) 400

B Volumetric strain: B Volumetric strain:
350 350
P: 0.38% Q: -0.74% P: 0.38% Q: -0.74%
A A
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

300 B
300
V o lu m e tric s tra in :
Stress-strain curve
250 C P : 0 .1 9 % Q : -1 .4 % 250
A C Volumetric response
200 S tre s s -s tra in c u rv e 200
D D Bonding breakage
150 150
E
100 V o lu m e tric re s p o n s e 100 E
Q Q
50 50
O O
0 0
B o n d in g b re a k a g e P
P

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Fig. 10. Mechanical responses for the cemented samples used to describe strain localization (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa): (a) Jiang sample, and (b) PFC sample.

(a) 1.2% (b) 2% (c) 6% (d) 8% (e) 12%

(f) 1.2% (g) 1.7% (h) 6% (i) 8% (j) 12%

Fig. 11. The deformed DEM specimens controlled by two bond models at different axial strain that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa, Jiang sample:
(a–e), PFC sample: (f–j)).

showed that the accuracy of the obtained stresses depended on fields remained homogeneous until the onset of shear banding,
the ratio between the radius of the chosen circular area and with the direction of the major principal stress almost vertical
the radii of the soil particles. If the radius of the circle was suf- everywhere until the peak of the deviatoric stress was reached
ficiently large, e.g., 10–12 times the average particle radius, the (point B in Fig. 10). Once the deviatoric stress exceeded the peak,
calculated stress values were practically unaffected by the size the direction of the major principal stress inside the shear band
of the radius of the circle. In Fig. 13, vectors of the principal started to rotate gradually away from the shear-band direction.
stresses obtained in this way are shown at various stages of In contrast, outside the shear band the principal stresses
loading for both numerical specimens. Note here that the stress remained unchanged.
22 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

(a) 1.2% (b) 2% (c) 6% (d) 8% (e) 12%

(f) 1.2% (g) 1.7% (h) 6% (i) 8% (j) 12%

Fig. 12. Contact force chains obtained in two different bonded samples at different axial strains that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa, Jiang sample:
(a–e), PFC sample: (f–j)).

4.3. Bond-breakage fields (see CDE in the figure). Conversely, the specimen in the PFC model
showed a lower peak value but a higher rate in the remaining part
It is generally accepted, although not yet confirmed either of the test, with a non-negligible number of bonds still breaking at
experimentally or numerically, that the formation of shear bands constant volumetric strain at the end of the test. Considering the
in cemented sands is associated with bond breakage. To investigate results shown for both specimens, it was concluded that bond
this aspect, the relationship between bond-breakage rate and axial breakage started at the material yielding point and reached its
strain obtained for the two analyzed numerical specimens is maximum value during strain softening.
shown in Fig. 14. The bond-breakage rate g was defined as: Fig. 15 illustrates the distribution of bond breakages observed in
the two bonded specimens at different values of axial strain. Bond
ðN1  N2 Þ=N
g¼ ð3Þ breakage was concentrated within a narrow region, tending to
e2  e1 coincide with the shear bands forming in the two specimens. In
where N is the total number of bonds at the beginning of the com- the specimen in the Jiang model, only one shear band developed
pression test and N1 and N2 represent the number of intact bonds at continuously during the test. Conversely, several shear bands
strains e1 and e2, respectively. Note that N amounted to 25,365 for formed along different conjugate lines in the specimen in the PFC
the specimen in the Jiang model and 33,543 for the specimen in model, with an inclination of about 52° to the horizontal. Among
the PFC model. This is due to the fact that bonds were assigned to the several shear bands taking place, only one became significantly
particle contacts in different ways, as described in Section 2. thick, with all the other bands remaining relatively thin. Measuring
As shown in Fig. 14, most bonds remained intact until the two the bond breakages occurring in five circular regions, it was ob-
specimens reached point A, previously defined as the ‘‘yielding served that only a few bonds broke outside the shear bands, as
point”, where the volumetric response changed from contractive can also be seen in the images of Fig. 15. This indicates a strong link
to dilative. Then, bond breakages occurred differently in the two between bond breakage and the formation of either permanent or
specimens. In the case of the Jiang model, the peak value of transient shear bands.
the bond-breakage rate was quite large and occurred soon after To assess the cumulative effect of bond breakage over time, the
the peak of the deviatoric stress was reached. After this peak, the evolution of the number of bonds within each circular region is
bond-breakage rate was significantly reduced; from this much shown in Fig. 16 for both bond models. In the case of circles lying
lower rate, it then decreased gradually until the end of the test entirely outside a shear band, the number of bonds remained prac-
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 23

Fig. 13. Stress fields in the two bonded samples measured numerically at different axial strains that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa, Jiang sample:
(a–e), PFC sample: (f–j).

(a) 400 8 (b) 300 B

3
Volumetric strain:
350 B Volumetric strain: 7 250
C P: 0.19% Q: -1.4%
P: 0.38% Q: -0.74% A

Bonding breakage rate

Bonding breakage rate
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

300 A 6
200 2
Stress-strain curve Stress-strain curve
250 C 5 D
Volumetric response 150
200 4
D Bonding breakage E
150 3 100 Volumetric response 1
E Q
100 2
Q 50
50 1
O
O 0 0
0 0 Bonding breakage
P P

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Fig. 14. Bonds breakage rate against axial strain observed in the DEM cemented samples (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa): (a) Jiang sample, and (b) PFC sample.

tically unchanged, as expected. On the contrary, in the case of cir- the case of the PFC bond model the percentage of intact bonds
cles lying inside a shear band, it is worth noting that the evolution was only 63%.
of the bond breakages was different for the two specimens (see These results are different from those shown in [49], where a
curve 5 in Fig. 16a and b). In fact, in the case of the Jiang bond mod- significant number of bond breakages occurred outside the shear
el, a roughly linear decrease of intact bonds over time was ob- bands as well (see Fig. 17). Such a difference may be attributed
served, whereas in the case of the PFC bond model the decrease to the features of the bond model employed by Wang and Leung,
was parabolic, with more bonds breaking at small strains than at which make use of several small particles one order of magnitude
large strains. Moreover, the final number of broken and intact smaller than the sand grains to reproduce the bonding cement. At
bonds at the end of the test (ea = 12%) also differed: in the case of present, it would be premature to conclude which bond model is
the Jiang bond model, 79% of bonds were still intact, whereas in more realistic, as simplifying assumptions were introduced in both
24 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

Fig. 15. Distributions of bond breakage in the two bonded samples at different axial strains that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa). Jiang sample:
(a–e); PFC sample: (f–j).

(a) (b)
Number of bonds

Number of bonds

Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Fig. 16. Number of bonds within and outside shear bands (cycles 1–5 in Fig. 14) in the two bonded samples at different axial strains (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa). Jiang sample (a);
PFC sample (b).

[49] and the present models. In [49], the PFC parallel bond model of the cementing material was used to make an investigation of the
was employed at the contacts between the small particles repre- influence of bond strength and microscopic failure criteria on both
senting the bonding cement and the large particles representing macroscopic mechanical response and the onset of shear banding
the sand grains. In the present study, a simpler numerical modeling more feasible.
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 25

4.4. Void-ratio distribution point, the void ratio became increasingly larger (i.e., dilation) with-
in the shear bands as the axial strain increased. In contrast, the
In Fig. 18, maps of the distribution of void ratios in the two void ratio outside the shear bands changed only slightly during
cemented specimens obtained at different axial strains, corres- the test. This indicates that the volumetric dilation of the whole
ponding to points A–E in Fig. 10, are shown. The results obtained specimen was almost entirely due to the dilation occurring within
from both specimens show that the void ratio remained homoge- the shear bands. This observation is in good agreement with the
neous until the peak of the deviatoric stress was reached. After this available experimental evidence on structured soils [30].

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Numerical results obtained from biaxial test on cemented sand with different bond model (after [49]): (a) bonding network and location of shear band, and (b)
distribution of bond breakage.

Fig. 18. Distributions of void ratio in the two bonded samples at different axial strains that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa, Jiang sample: (a–e), PFC
sample: (f–j)).
26 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

In addition, Fig. 18 shows that the void ratio within the shear band and therefore concluded that ‘‘in two-dimensional materials, the
at large axial strain was larger in case of the Jiang bond model than (the use of the) volumetric strain calculated from the void ratio
in the case of the PFC bond model. This is also in agreement with is inappropriate to detect shear bands.” However, they acknowl-
the results presented in Section 3.1, namely, that the specimen in edged that ‘‘this observation is in disagreement with the radio-
the Jiang bond model demonstrated a larger overall dilation than graphic measurements of shear bands on real sands”, referring to
the specimen in the PFC bond model (see Fig. 6). those reported in [56,57]. In our other simulations (data not
It is interesting to compare the maps of void-ratio distribution shown), we found that strain localization did not occur in the case
in Fig. 18 with the results reported in [55] relative to biaxial tests of an uncemented specimen with the same initial void ratio as the
run on uncemented sand specimens using flexible boundaries. In cemented specimens studied in this work. On the contrary, shear
[55], Bardet and Proubet found that the determining the distribu- banding did occur in the case of a dense packing of uncemented
tion of the void ratio was not helpful in identifying shear bands particles, as reported in [58]. Therefore, we concluded that the

Fig. 19. Distributions of APR in the two bonded samples at different axial strains that correspond to points A–E in Fig. 9 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa, Jiang sample: (a–e), PFC
sample: (f–j)).

(a) 0.1 (b) 0.2

0.1
Averaged pure rotation rate

Averaged pure rotation rate

0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1

-0.2 -0.2

1 -0.3 1
-0.3
2 2
3 -0.4
3
-0.4 A B C D 4 4
-0.5
5 A B C D 5
-0.5 -0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

Fig. 20. Relationships between APR and axial strain observed in the two cemented samples at measurement circles 1–5 shown in Fig. 14 (R = 5 kN, r3 = 100 kPa): (a) Jiang
sample, and (b) PFC sample.
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 27

presence of bonds substantially changes the characteristics of shear band developed in the specimens. Fig. 21 displays the evolu-
strain localization because persistent shear bands were detected tion of both average void ratio and APR for each band at the differ-
in the void-ratio distribution maps at axial strains as low as 1.8% ent stages of the test. In Fig. 21a, the adopted local coordinate
in the Jiang specimen and 2.8% in the PFC2D specimen. system and measurement bands are shown. It can be observed that
at yielding (point A) both the average void ratios and APRs in each
4.5. Distributions of averaged pure rotation rate (APR) measurement band were very similar, with the APR values being
almost zero. After point B was reached, the average void ratio
The first author [59] has recently proven that the energy dissi- and APR inside the persistent shear band drifted away from the
pation between sand particles is related to their relative sliding values measured outside the shear band. A comparison between
displacement and can be further expressed in terms of their sliding Fig. 21b and c shows that: (1) the thickness of the shear band in
rotation rate. The sliding rotation rate consists of two parts: one re- the Jiang specimen was larger than in the PFC specimen; and (2)
lated to particle translation and the other to particle rotation and the thickness of the shear band depended on which variable was
radius. The second part, hereafter termed the pure rotation rate, used to identify it. For instance, if the void ratio was used, this
h_ p (see [59]), can be expressed by:
1
h_ p ¼ ðr 1 h_ 1 þ r 2 h_ 2 Þ ð4Þ (a)
r
where r1 and r2 are the radii and h_ 1 and h_ 2 are the rotation rates of
the two particles in contact; here, r is the equivalent radius of the
two particles in contact, defined as:
2r 1 r 2
r¼ ð5Þ
r1 þ r2
Therefore, the averaged pure rotation rate x (APR) can be ex-
pressed by [59–61]:
N  
1X N
1 X 1 _k k _k k
x¼ h_ p ¼ h r þ h r ð6Þ
N k¼1 N k¼1 r k 1 1 2 2

where N is the total number of contacts and rk is the equivalent ra-

dius for the two particles at the kth contact, which can be calculated
from Eq. (5). APR is thus a local variable linking the macro- and
micromechanics of sand motion which does not exist in classical (b) 0.3 0.35
Averaged pure rotation rate (APR)

continuum mechanics; it was first introduced in [59–61].

In Fig. 19 are shown maps of the APR distributions in the two 0.2 0.30
cemented specimens obtained at different axial strains, corre-
0.25
sponding to points A–E in Fig. 10. Measurement circles with a ra- 0.1
Shear band

Void ratio
dius equal to 10–12 times the average particle radius were 0.20
chosen to carry out APR measures. From Fig. 19 it is evident that 0.0
the APR was almost zero in the whole specimen until the peak of APR Void ratio 0.15
the deviatoric stress was reached (point B in Fig. 10); after point -0.1 A A
B, it grew continuously within the shear bands. However, the B B 0.10
APR was nearly zero and changed only slightly outside the shear C C
-0.2 0.05
D D
bands during the test. These observations are consistent with the
E E
maps of void ratios shown in Fig. 18. In general, at large strains -0.3 0.00
the PFC specimen manifested a larger APR within the shear bands 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
than did the Jiang specimen. Distance from origin (m)
Fig. 20 displays the APR values measured at different strain lev-
els from five measurement circles (see Fig. 15). Here, the APR in all (c) 0.3 0.35
Averaged pure rotation rate (APR)

the circles was almost zero until yielding (point A) and increased
0.2 0.30
later. The APR in circle 5 was the largest for both specimens. These
observations are consistent with the results shown in Figs. 15 and 0.25
19. The APRs calculated for circles 1–4 in the case of the PFC spec- 0.1
Shear band
Void ratio

imen became relatively small after the specimen had experienced 0.20
maximum dilatancy (point C in Fig. 10), while the APRs calculated 0.0
for circles 3 and 4 in the case of the Jiang specimen assumed signif- APR Void ratio 0.15
icantly larger values than their initial ones after the peak of the -0.1 A A
B B 0.10
deviatoric stress (point B in Fig. 10) was reached. This is because
C C
circles 3–4 are quite close to the shear band in the Jiang specimen -0.2
D D 0.05
and the enhanced APR zone was wider in the Jiang specimen than E E
in the PFC specimen. -0.3 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

4.6. Thickness of shear bands Distance from origin (m)

Fig. 21. Averaged APR and void ratio obtained from different bands for two bond
To investigate the thickness of the shear bands, the specimens models (R = 5000 N, r3 = 100 kPa): (a) definition of local coordinates and measure-
were divided into 25 measurement bands, all parallel to the main ment bands, (b) Jiang sample, and (c) PFC sample.
28 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29

resulted in the thickness of the detected shear band being larger References
than the thickness measured employing the APR.
[1] Mitchell JK, Solymar ZV. Time-dependent strength gain in freshly deposited or
densified sand. J Geotech Div, ASCE 1984;110:1559–76.
5. Conclusions [2] Leroueil S, Vaughan PR. The general and congruent effects of structure in
natural soils and weak rocks. Geotechnique 1990;40(3):467–88.
[3] Airey DW. Triaxial testing of naturally cemented carbonate soil. J Geotech Eng,
This study presented an insight into the mechanical behavior ASCE 1993;119:1379–98.
and strain localization of cemented sands by means of DEM analy- [4] Dupas J, Pecker A. Static and dynamic properties of sand-cement. J Geotech
ses. Two types of specimens characterized by two different bond Eng, ASCE 1979;105:419–36.
[5] Acar Y B, El-Tahir AE. Low strain dynamic properties of artificially cemented
models were investigated by performing numerical compressive
sand. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1986;112:1001–15.
biaxial tests. One bond model was originally proposed by Jiang [6] Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC, Rad NS. Cemented sands under static loading. J
et al. [41,42] (Jiang’s model), while the other is the standard con- Geotech Eng, ASCE 1981;107:799–817.
[7] Clough GW, Iwabuchi J, Rad NS, Kuppusamy T. Influence of cementation on
tact-bond model available in PFC2D (PFC model). The multilayer
liquefaction of sands. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1989;115:1102–17.
undercompaction technique was employed to generate loose [8] Huang JT, Airey DW. Properties of artificially cemented carbonate sand. J
bonded specimens. Stress–strain relationships, overall material Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(6):492–9.
strength, stress fields, bond-breakage fields, and APR fields, as well [9] Lade PV, Overton DD. Cementation effects in frictional materials. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE 1989;115:1373–87.
as microscopic responses were analyzed. The main conclusions of [10] Abdulla AA, Kiousis PD. Behavior of cemented sands – I. Testing. Int J Numer
the study are summarized as follows: Anal Methods Geomech 1997;21(8):533–47.
[11] Schnaid F, Prietto PDM, Consoli NC. Characterization of cemented sand in
triaxial compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(10):857–68.
(1) In both the Jiang and PFC bond models, numerical specimens [12] Kavvadas J, Amorosi A. A constitutive model for structured soils. Geotechnique
exhibited strain softening and shear dilatancy. The opposite 2000;50(3):263–73.
behavior was exhibited by an unbonded specimen with the [13] Rouainia M, Muir Wood D. A kinematic hardening constitutive model for
natural clays with loss of structure. Geotechnique 2000;50(2):152–64.
same initial void ratio. The peak of the deviatoric stress [14] Vatsala A, Nova R, Murthy BRS. Elastoplastic model for cemented soils. J
and the angle of dilatancy increased with increasing bond Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2001;127(8):679–87.
strength. In the case of the PFC bond, a larger strain soften- [15] Rocchi G, Fontana M, Prat MD. Modelling of natural soft clay
destruction processes using viscoplasticity theory. Geotechnique
ing and a higher deviatoric stress peak were observed at low
2003;53(8):729–45.
confinement. The opposite was observed at high confine- [16] Baudet B, Stallebrass S. A constitutive model for structured soils. Geotechnique
ment. In addition, the obtained global friction angle in the 2004;54(4):269–78.
[17] Shen ZJ. A masonry constitutive model for structured clays. Rock Soil Mech
case of the PFC bond model decreased with increasing bond
2000;21(1):1–4 [in Chinese].
strength. The opposite was true in the case of the Jiang bond [18] Jiang MJ, Shen ZJ. A structural suction model for structured clays. In:
model. In general, the obtained numerical results were in Proceedings of 2nd international conference on soft soil engineering, 1996.
good agreement with the experimental data reported in Nanjing (China); 1996. p. 221–40.
[19] Nova R, Castellanza R, Tamagnini C. A constitutive model for bonded
[49] relative to Portland-cemented sands, especially in case geomaterials subject to mechanical and/or chemical degradation. Int J
of the Jiang bond model. Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2003;27:705–32.
(2) Although the mechanical responses of the two investigated [20] Cotecchia F, Chandler J. A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of
clays. Géotechnique 2000;50(4):431–47.
bonded granulates were different, the main features of the [21] Lagioia R, Nova R. An experimental and theoretical study of the behaviour of a
observed strain-localization processes were the same. Both calcarenite in triaxial compression. Géotechnique 1995;45(4):633–48.
granulates developed shear bands with an inclination of [22] Labuz J, Drescher A. Bifurcations and instabilities in
geomechanics. Swets: Zeitlinger; 2003.
approximately 52° to the horizontal during biaxial compres- [23] Rudnicki JW, Rice JR. Conditions for localization of deformation in pressure-
sion. Bond breakage, void ratio and averaged pure rotation sensitive dilatant materials. J Mech Phys Solids 1975; 23: 371-394.
rate exhibited higher values inside the developed shear [24] Vardoulakis I. Shear band inclination and shear modulus of sand in biaxial
tests. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1980;4:103–19.
bands than outside. Finally, it was shown that during biaxial
[25] Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I. Shear band formation in sand according to non-
compression contact-force directions and principal stresses coaxial plasticity model. Géotechnique 1995;45:649–61.
rotate within the shear bands. [26] Vardoulakis I, Sulem J. Bifurcation analysis in geomechanics. London: Blackie;
1995.
(3) There were also some differences observed between the two
[27] Lanier J, Jean M. Pow Technol 2000;109:206–21.
bonded granulates concerning the mechanisms taking place [28] Calvetti F, Combe G, Lanier J. Experimental micromechanical analysis of a 2D
during shear banding. The maximum rate of bond breakage granular material: relation between structure evolution and loading path.
and the void ratio inside the shear bands were larger for the Mech Cohes Frict Mater 1997;2:121–63.
[29] Hicher PY, Wahyudi H, Tessied D. Micro-structural analysis of strain
Jiang bond model than for the PFC bond model; the opposite localization in clay. Comput Geotech 1994;16:205–22.
is true for the APR. The thickness exhibited by the main [30] Jiang MJ, Shen ZJ. Microscopic analysis of shear band in structured clay. China J
shear band in the case of the Jiang bond model was wider Geotech Eng 1998;20(2):102–8.
[31] Jiang MJ, Hongo T, Fukuda M. Pre-failure behaviour of deep-situated Osaka
than the one developed by specimens with the PFC bond clay. China Ocean Eng 1998;12(4):453–65.
model. Such differences are likely due to the different failure [32] Jiang MJ, Peng LC, Zhu HH, Lin YX, Huang LJ. Macro- and micro properties
criteria adopted in the two bond models. of two natural marine clays in China. China Ocean Eng 2009;23(2):
329–44.
[33] Yatomi C, Yashima A, Iizuka A, Sano I. General theory of shear bands formation
by a noncoaxial Cam-clay model. Soils Found 1989;29(3):41–53.
Acknowledgments [34] Otani J, Mukunoki T, Obara Y. In: Characterization of failure and density
distribution in soils using X-ray CT scanner, China–Japan joint symposium on
resent development of theory & practice in geotechnology. Shanghai; 1997. p.
This research was financially supported by the National Science 45–50.
Foundation, China, with Grant No. 10972158, China National Funds [35] Nemat-Nasser S, Okada N. Radiographic and microscopic observation of shear
bands in granular materials. Geotechnique 2001;51(9):753–65.
for Distinguished Young Scientists with Grant No. 521025932, the [36] Viggiani G, Lenoir N, Besuelle P, Di Michiel M, Desrues J, Kretzschmer M. X-ray
Fund for Chinese Researchers Returning from Overseas, Ministry of microtomography for studying localized deformation in fine-grained
Education, China, Grant No. 2007-1108, and a Travel Grant from geomaterials under triaxial compression. Comptes Rendues Mécanique
2004;332:816–26.
the Royal Society, Grant No. 2008/R2 for the fourth author. The
[37] Harris WW, Viggiani G, Mooney MA, Finno RJ. Use of stereophotogrammetry to
support of the Itasca Consulting Group is also gratefully analyze the development of shear bands in sand. Geotech Test J (ASTM)
acknowledged. 1995;18(4):405–20.
 M.J. Jiang et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 14–29 29

[38] White DJ, Take WA, Bolton MD. Soil deformation measurement using particle [50] Corriveau D, Savage SB, Oger L. Internal friction angles: characterisation using
image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Geotechnique biaxial test simulations. In IUTAM symposium; 1997.
2003;53(7):619–31. [51] Iwashita K, Oda M. Rolling resistance at contacts in simulation of shear band
[39] Cundall PA, Strack ODL. Discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. development by DEM. J Eng Mech 1998;124(3):285–92.
Géotechnique 1979;29:47–65. [52] Jiang MJ, Konrad JM, Leroueil S. An efficient technique for generating
[40] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. Particle flow code in 2 dimensions, version 3.1. homogeneous specimens for DEM studies. Comput Geotechnol
Minnesota, USA; 2004 2003;30(7):579–97.
[41] Jiang MJ, Lerouil S, Konrad JM. Yielding of microstructured geomaterial by [53] Jiang MJ, Yu HS, Harris D. Discrete element modelling of deep penetration in
DEM analysis. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2005;131(11):1209–13. granular soils. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2006;30(4):335–61.
[42] Jiang MJ, Yu HS, Leroueil S. A simple and efficient approach to capturing [54] Wang YH, Leung SC. A particulate scale investigation of cemented sand
bonding effect in naturally-microstructured sands by discrete element behaviour. Can Geotech J 2008;45:29–44.
method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2007;69:1158–93. [55] Bardet JP, Proubet J. A numerical investigation of the structure of persistent
[43] Utili S, Nova R. DEM analysis of bonded granular geomaterials. Int J Numer shear bands in granular media. Géotechnique 1991;41:599–613.
Anal Methods Geomech 2008;32(17):1997–2031. [56] Desrues J. Localisation de la déformation plastique dans le materiaux
[44] Utili S, Crosta GB. Modelling the evolution of cliffs subject to weathering: II. granulaires. Thèse de doctorat, Grenoble University; 1984. p. 185.
Discrete elements approach. J Geophys Res – Earth Surface; accepted for [57] Vardoulakis I, Graf B. Calibration of constitutive models for granular materials
publication. using data from biaxial experiments. Géotechnique 1985;35:299–317.
[45] Delenne JY, El Youssoufi MS, Cherblanc F, Beneet JC. Mechanical behaviour and [58] Jiang MJ, Zhu HH, Li XM. Strain localisation analyses of idealised sands in
failure of cohesive granular materials. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech biaxial tests by distinct element method. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil
2004;28:1577–94. Engineering in China 2010;4(2):208–22.
[46] Jiang MJ, Yan HB. Micro-contact laws of bonded granular materials for DEM [59] Jiang MJ, Yu HS, Harris D. Kinematic variables bridging discrete and continuum
numerical analyses. EPMESC XI (APCOM07), Kyoto, Japan; 2007. granular mechanics. Mech Res Commun 2006;33:651–66.
[47] Yun TS, Santamarina JC. Decementation, softening and collapse: changes in [60] Jiang MJ, Harris D, Yu HS. Kinematic models for non-coaxial granular
small-strain shear stiffness in K0 loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE materials: Part II: evaluation. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
2005;131(3):350–8. 2005;29(7):663–89.
[48] Kuhn MR. A flexible boundary for three-dimensional DEM particle assemblies. [61] Jiang MJ, Harris D, Yu HS. Kinematic models for non-coaxial granular
Eng Comput 1995;12:175–83. materials: part I: theories. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
[49] Wang YH, Leung SC. Characterization of cemented sand by experimental and 2005;29(7):643–61.
numerical investigations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2008;134(7):
992–1004.