550600650700750800850Elevation (m)Settlement (mm)In-situ
EB
Modified PZ− 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000Figure 13: Comparison betweenin situmonitoring settlement and
FEM results.
Table 2: Material parameters of the modified PZ-III model.Material Rockfill I Rockfill II Mixed gravel clay
퐾 0 500 1000 300
퐺 0 1500 3000 900
푚 0.50 0.50 0.50
푛 0.50 0.50 0.50
훼푓 0.45 0.45 0.45
훼푔 0.45 0.45 0.45
푀푓푐 1.05 0.90 0.60
푀푔푐 1.60 1.35 1.10
훽 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
훽 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Γ 0.34 0.31 0.34
휆 0.10 0.09 0.03
푚푝 0.35 0.40 0.0
퐻 0 800 1200 900
훾 55 5
훾푢 55 5
퐻푢0/MPa 9 9 10earth dam. Figures 13 and 14 show thein situmonitoring data
and FEM results of settlement in the maximum cross-section.
Thein situdata were obtained from electromagnetism type
settlement gauges which were embedded during construction
in the dam (as shown inFigure 3(a)). Through the compar-
isons ofin situmonitoring and numerical results, we can see
that the modified PZ-III model gave a better prediction than
the EB model. However, as deformation induced by wetting
0500100015002000250030003500Settlement (mm)TimeElevation 655 m2010/^1/^12010/^6/^102010/^11/^172011/^4/262011/^10/^32012/3 /112012/8 /18(a)0500100015002000250030003500Settlement (mm)TimeElevation 7 01 m2010/9/12011/2/282011/^8/272012/2/232012/8 /21(b)Settlement (mm)
05001000150020002500TimeElevation 7 51 m2011/^10/^12011/^12/202012/3 /92012/5 /282012/8 /16In-situ
EB
Modified PZ
(c)Figure 14: Comparison betweenin situmonitoring settlement and
FEM results.of rockfill materials was not considered, the FEM result of
settlement was below than thein situmonitoring data.
As an elastoplastic model, the PZ-III model is capable
of representing the mechanical behavior of soils better than
nonlinear elastic model such as Duncan and Chang’s EB
model. And the above finite element analyses also proved it.6. Conclusions
This paper presents a modified PZ-III model based on the
generalized theory and original Pastor-Zienkiewicz-Chan