Fig 1.
Production process of samples with different moisture contents.
Fig 2.
One-dimensional compression curves of loess: (a) undisturbed loess; (b) disturbed loess.
Fig 3.
Sketch map of compression curves for structural soil.
Fig 4.
Deviatoric stress-strain curve of undisturbed loess: (a) σ3 = 50kPa; (b) σ3 = 100kPa; (c) σ3 = 150kPa; (d) σ3 = 200kPa.
Fig 5.
Deviatoric stress-strain curve of disturbed loess: (a) σ3 = 50kPa; (b) σ3 = 100kPa; (c) σ3 = 150kPa; (d) σ3 = 200kPa.
Fig 6.
Damage characteristics of loess samples: (a) Softening damage; (b) Stabilizing damage; (c) Hardening damage.
Fig 7.
Evolution law of structural parameters for stress ratio: (a) σ3 = 50kPa; (b) σ3 = 100kPa; (c) σ3 = 150kPa; (d) σ3 = 200kPa.
Table 1.
The testing conditions and fitting parameters A and B.
Fig 8.
Model fitting curves of structural parameter variation patterns: (a) σ3 = 50kPa; (b) σ3 = 100kPa; (c) σ3 = 150kPa; (d) σ3 = 200kPa.
Fig 9.
Yield surface of structural soil.
Table 2.
Relationship between model calculation parameters and structural parameters.
Fig 10.
Relationship between and
.
Fig 11.
Relationship between and
.
Fig 12.
Relationship between and
.
Fig 13.
Critical state lines of loess with different moisture contents: (a) w = 14%; (b) w = 17%; (c) w = 20%; (d) w = 23%; (e) w = 26%; (f) w = 35.2%.
Table 3.
Calculation results of model parameters.
Fig 14.
Flowchart of an improved Euler integration algorithm with error control.
Fig 15.
Comparison of predicted and test values of the loess constitutive model: (a) w = 14%; (b) w = 20%; (c) w = 26%.
Table 4.
Model parameters adopted from literature specimens.
Fig 16.
Comparison of calculated and experimental values for literature specimens: (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3.