###### Critical state constitutive models and shear loading of overconsolidated clays with deviatoric hardening

{{\dot{\zeta }}}{{\dot{\gamma }}}\underline{\underline{1}}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\underline{\underline{n}}]$$ The evolution of the plastic strains is fully determined with a function ψ ( η , α ) $\psi \left( \eta ,\alpha \right)$ , where η = q p $\eta =\frac{\mathbf{q}}{p}$ such as; ζ ˙ γ ˙ = ψ ( η , α ) $\frac{{\dot{\zeta }}}{{\dot{\gamma }}}=\psi \left( \eta ,\alpha \right)$ . In some soil models, the arguments of ψ are ( p,α ) as are those of ϕ , which is no problem since ψ is needed only when q = ϕ ( p,α ). The function ϕ is such that the

###### Stability of Road Earth Structures in the Complex And Complicated Ground Conditions

debatable, in particularly in conditions of poor recognition of subsoil conditions. One of the arguments for introducing this approach was the ease of application for numerical calculations, particularly in the case of FEM, because of the lack of necessity to use various partial factors for maintaining and destabilising impacts, which occurs in the case of approach 1, combination 1, as well as in the case of approach 2. 3 Discussion on Stability Assessments of Slopes in Case of Communication Embankments (According To Eurocode 7) For the discussion concerning the

###### Experimental identification of modal parameters for the model of a building subjected to short-term kinematic excitation

similarities to the EMA, such approach may still constitute an alternative thereto. The basic argument supporting this thesis may be the fact that in the case of large objects (e.g., a tall building), it is impossible to excite vibrations through any kind of artificially induced impulses (e.g., with an impact hammer). On the other hand, short-time ground vibrations can be excited more easily, for example, by dropping a large mass tamper from a certain height in the vicinity of the tested object (cf. formation of gravel columns in the dynamic soil replacement method). In such

###### Global Stability For Double-Diffusive Convection In A Couple-Stress Fluid Saturating A Porous Medium

initial data. 4 Variational Problem We now return to equation (24) and use calculus of variation to find the maximum problem at the critical argument m =1. The associated Euler–Lagrange equations after taking transformations q ^ = λ 1 q and γ ^ = λ 2 γ $\mathbf{\hat{q}}=\sqrt{{{\lambda }_{1}}\mathbf{q}}\,\text{and}\,\,\hat{\gamma }=\sqrt{{{\lambda }_{2}}}\gamma $ (dropping caps) are (29) 2 ( F + D ˜ a ) ∇ 2 q − 2 q + R 1 / 2 ( 1 + λ 1 ) 1 λ 1 1 / 2 θ k ^ − S 1 / 2 ( λ 2 + λ 1 L e ) 1 λ 1 1 / 2 λ 1 / 2 2 γ k ^ = 2 ∇ p , $$2\left( F