# Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Short Course on Computational Geotechnics + Dynamics Boulder, Colorado January 5-8, 2004
Stein Sture Professor of Civil Engineering University of Colorado at Boulder

Contents
Introduction Stiffness Modulus Triaxial Data Plasticity HS-Cap-Model Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands Summary
Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Introduction Hardening Soils Most soils behave in a nonlinear behavior soon after application of shear stress. Elastic-plastic hardening is a common technique. Usage of the Soft Soil model with creep Creep is usually of greater significance in soft soils. Rf ! qf qa E ur ! 3E 50  Hyperbolic stress strain response curve of Hardening Soil model Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  . also used in PLAXIS.

1939) We use the two elastic parameters Rur and Eur ¨ c cot N  W '3 ¸ ref E ur © ref ¹ ªc cot N  p º 1 Gur ! E ur 2(1  R ) m p ref ! 100kPa   Initial (primary) loading ¨ W '3  c cot N ¸ ref E 50 ! E 50 © ref ¹ ªp  c cot N º m m ¨ W '3 sinN  c cosN ¸ ref ! E 50 © ref ¹ ªp sinN  c cosN º Definition of E50 in a standard drained triaxial experiment  Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .Stiffness Modulus Elastic unloading and reloading (Ohde.

Stiffness Modulus Oedometer tests Definition of the normalized oedometric stiffness Values for m from oedometer test versus initial porosity n0 Normalized oedometer modulus E Computational Geotechnics  ref oed versus initial porosity n0 Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

1991) Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .Stiffness Modulus Normalized oedometric stiffness for various soil classed (von Soos.

Stiffness Modulus Values for m obtained from triaxial test versus initial porosity n0 ref Normalized triaxial modulus E 50 versus initial porosity n0  Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

Stiffness Modulus Summary of data for sand: Vermeer & Schanz (1997) W 'y p ref W 'x p ref ref E oed ! E oed ref E 50 ! E 50 Comparison of normalized stiffness moduli from oedometer and Triaxial test Engineering practice: mostly data on Eoed  ref ref E oed } E 50 Test data: Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  .

Triaxial Data on p K } p 2I1 2I1 ! qa q E 50 qa  q  Equi-g lines (Tatsuoka. 1972) for dense Toyoura Sand m ¨ W '3 sinN  c cosN ¸ ref E 50 ! E 50 © ref ¹ p sinN  c cosN º ª  qa ! qf f ! M( p  c cot N )R1 f  Yield and failure surfaces for the Hardening Soil model M! 6sinN 3  sinN Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  .

we use × a modified expression for q in terms of q and the mobilized angle of internal friction N m ' × q ! W1  (E 1)W '2 EW '3   E ! 3  sin N m where 3  sin N m Computational Geotechnics f ! q  M ( p  c cotN) × × × ! 6sinN m M 3  sinN m Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .Plasticity Yield and hardening functions 2q qa q K ! I  I  I } 2I ! 2I1  2I !  E 50 qa  q E ur qa 2q q f !  Kp ! 0 E 50 qa  q E ur p p 1 p 2 p 3 p 1 e 1 3D extension  In order to extent the model to general 3D states in terms of stress.

Plasticity Plastic potential and flow rule ' q ! W 1  (F  1)W '2  FW '3 with  F! 3  sin] m 3  sin] m g ! q  M  ( p  c cot ] m ) M ! 6sin] m 3  sin] m  «yp»  I1 ¼ 1 ¬ « 1  1 sin] » « 2  1 sin] » 2 2 2 y y y y y ¬ y ¬ ¬ ¼ xg xg ¼ ¼ I I p ! ¬ 2p ¼! 012  013 ! 012 ¬ 1  1 sin]¼ 013 ¬ 2 2 0 ¼ xW12 xW13 y ¬ p ¼ ¬ 1  1 sin]¼ ¬ ¼ 0  ­ 2 2 ½ ­ ½ I3 ¼ ¬ ½ ­ Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  .

Plasticity Flow rule I K with  [k a] 0 Eur = 3 E50 y p v y p ! sin] m   I ! sin] K y p v y p sin] m ! sin N m  sin N cv 1  sin N m sin N cv N cv ! N p ] p Primary soil parameters and standard PLAXIS settings  N¶ [o] 30-40 Vur = 0.5 Pref = 100 k a Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .2 ] [o] 0-10 Rf = 0.9  E50 [ pa] 40 m = 0.

Plasticity Hardening soil response in drained triaxial experiments Results of drained loading: stress-strain relation (W3 = 100 kPa) Results of drained loading: axial-volumetric strain relation (W3 = 100 kPa) Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

] ' ± ref E 50 ¯ ± ! 0.N ' .Plasticity Undrained hardening soil analysis Method A: switch to drained Input: ® c ' .2.5.E ! 3E .] ± ref E 50 ¯ ± ! 0.N u .E ! 3E . p ref ! 100kPa R °ur ur 50 Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  . p ref ! 100kPa R ur 50 °ur Method B: switch to undrained Input:  ® c u .m ! 0.2.m ! 0.5.

7 Eu and use graph by Duncan & Buchignani (1976) to estimate Eu Eu } 1. ¹ p sinN u  Cu cosN u º ª m ¨ W '3 sinN u  Cu cosN u ¸ ref ref E ur ! E ur © ref ¹ ! E ur ! const.4 E50  2c u Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection . ªp sinN u  Cu cosN u º Assume E50 = 0.Plasticity Interesting in case you have data on Cu and not no C¶ and J¶ m ¨ W '3 sinN u  Cu cosN u ¸ ref ref E 50 ! E 50 © ref ! E 50 ! const.

Plasticity Hardening soil response in undrained triaxial tests Results of undrained triaxial loading: stress-strain relations (W3 = 100 kPa) Results of undrained triaxial loading: p-q diagram (W3 = 100 kPa) Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

HS-Cap-Model Cap yield surface 2 × q 2 f c ! 2  p 2  pc M (Associated flow) Flow rule  gc ! f c y p v y y Hardening law For isotropic compression we assume p 1 y p  ! p I ! Kc Ks H Computational Geotechnics with Kc Ks H! Ks  Kc Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection  .

HS-Cap-Model For isotropic compression we have q = 0 and it follows from p ! p c y xg pc ! H I ! H 0 c ! 2H 0 c p  xpc y y y p v y y  For the determination of. we have another consistency condition: xf c T y xf c y W pc ! 0 fc! xpc xW y  Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

There are no direct input parameters.0) The two auxiliary material parameter M and Kc/Ks are determined iteratively from the simulation of an oedometer test. Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .HS-Cap-Model Additional parameters The extra input parameters are K0 (=1-sinJ) and Eoed/E50 (=1. The user should not be too concerned about these parameters.

HS-Cap-Model Graphical presentation of HS-Cap-Model I: Purely elastic response II: Purely frictional hardening with f III: Material failure according to Mohr-Coulomb IV: Mohr-Coulomb and cap fc V: Combined frictional hardening f and cap fc VI: Purely cap hardening with fc VII: Isotropic compression 1 2 Computational Geotechnics 3 Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in p-q space (left) and in the deviatoric plane (right) .

HS-Cap-Model W1 = W2 = W3 Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in principal stress space Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands Comparison of calculated () and measured triaxial tests on loose Hostun Sand Comparison of calculated () and measured oedometer tests on loose Hostun Sand Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .

Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands Comparison of calculated () and measured triaxial tests on dense Hostun Sand Comparison of calculated () and measured oedometer tests on dense Hostun Sand Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection .