论文部分内容阅读
本刊所载的论文“硬化规律对土的弹塑性应力-应变模型影响的研究”(载本刊第2卷,第1期),论述了塑性理论对土的适用性,利用流动规则通过试验在p-q平面上假定ε_r~p轴及r~p轴分别与p轴及q轴重合确定塑性应变增量方向后,连接它们划出一组流线,和这组流线相垂直的一组线就是塑性势线。并提出如果屈服条件与塑性势相适应,计算工作将大为简化。这将是一个很有意义的研究课题。本刊所载的另一篇论文“土的弹塑性应力应变关系的合理形式”(载本刊第2卷第2期)认为塑性势是一个可有可无的概念,指出塑性应变的方向与加荷路径无关的假设已被证明不符合实际情况,并引用了巴拉萨布拉曼兰(Balasubramanian)和Seiki Ohmaki的资料来论证。这两种观点那一种比较正确,或适用于什么类型的土,这是需要用试验来检验的。
The paper “The Study of the Effects of Hardening Laws on Elastoplastic Stress-Strain Models of Soils” (Volume 2, No. 1 in this volume) discusses the applicability of plasticity theory to soils. After assuming that the ε_r~p-axis and r~p-axis coincide with the p-axis and q-axis, respectively, in the pq plane to determine the plastic strain increment direction, connect them to draw a set of streamlines, a set of lines perpendicular to the set of streamlines. Is the plastic potential line. And it is proposed that the calculation work will be greatly simplified if the yield conditions are adapted to the plastic potential. This will be a very significant research topic. Another paper published in the journal “A Reasonable Form of Elasto-Plastic Stress-Strain Relationship for Soils” (Volume 2, No. 2 in this volume) considers the plastic potential as an optional concept, pointing out the direction of plastic strain. The assumption that the loading path is irrelevant has been proved to be inconsistent with the actual situation, and has been cited by Balasubramanian and Seiki Ohmaki. Which of the two views is correct, or what kind of soil is suitable for use, and this needs to be tested with tests.