You are on page 1of 23

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-4401.htm

EC
30,1

74
Received 9 September 2011
Revised 6 February 2012
9 February 2012
Accepted 15 February 2012

Implementation of an
elasto-plastic constitutive model
for cement stabilized clay in a
non-linear finite element analysis
N.N.S. Yapage and D.S. Liyanapathirana
School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Several constitutive models are available in the literature to describe the mechanical
behaviour of cement stabilized soils. However, difficulties in implementing such models within
commercial finite element programs have hindered their application to solve related boundary value
problems. Therefore, the aim of this study is to implement a constitutive model, which has the
capability to simulate cement stabilized soil behaviour, into the finite element program ABAQUS
through the user material subroutine UMAT.
Design/methodology/approach – After a detailed review of existing constitutive models for
cement stabilized soils, a model based on the elasto-plastic theory and the extended critical state
concept with an associated flow rule is selected for the finite element implementation. A semi-implicit
integration method (cutting plane algorithm) with a continuum elasto-plastic modulus and path
dependent stress prediction strategy has been used in the implementation. The performance of the new
finite element formulation of the constitutive model is verified by simulating triaxial test data using
the finite element program with the new implementation and predictions from constitutive equations
as well as experimental data.
Findings – The paper provides the implementation procedure of the constitutive model into
ABAQUS but this method is useful for the implementation of any other constitutive model into
ABAQUS or any other finite element program. Simulated results for the volumetric deformation of
cement stabilized soils show that the cement stabilized soils do not obey the associated flow rule at
high confining pressures. The parametric study shows that the influence of cementation increases the
brittle nature and the bearing capacity of treated clay. In addition the results show that proposed finite
element implementation has the ability to illustrate key features of the cement stabilized clay.
Originality/value – This paper presents an implementation of an elasto-plastic constitutive model,
based on the extended critical state concept, for cement stabilized soils into a finite element
programme, which has been identified as an important and challenging topic in computational
geomechanics. This implementation is useful in solving boundary value problems in geomechanics
involving cement stabilized soils, incorporating key characteristics of these soils.
Keywords Cement stabilized soils, Constitutive modelling, Finite element method,
Cutting plane algorithm, Triaxial tests, Modelling, Soils
Paper type Research paper

Engineering Computations:
International Journal for
Computer-Aided Engineering and
Software
Vol. 30 No. 1, 2013
pp. 74-96
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0264-4401
DOI 10.1108/02644401311286017

1. Introduction
Soft ground improvement using cement stabilization has been widely used in coastal
and low lying regions since 1970s. Although there is a wide range of ground
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support for this research provided by the
Australian Research Council and Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd under the Linkage project
LP0990581.

improvement methods available, cement stabilization has become an attractive
solution for soft ground related problems due to advantages such as:
.
cost-effectiveness;
.
better stiffness, strength and deformation properties of the treated ground than
the surrounding soil; and
.
suitability for fast-track construction.
When soils are mixed with cement, soil behaviour is totally different to natural or
reconstituted states as soil and cement form a new material. Then these soils are called
artificially structured soils. Therefore, classical constitutive models such as Modified
Cam Clay are inadequate to predict the behaviour of this new material. Hence new
constitutive models are required to model the induced soil-cement structure.
Constitutive models describe the mechanical behaviour of engineering materials
in the form of a relationship between stresses and strains. Constitutive models are
essential for all numerical calculations of routine boundary value problems in
geotechnical engineering. Basically constitutive models consist of a number of
mathematical equations and controlling parameters depending on the complexity of
the model and the ability of the model in describing the different facets of the soil
behaviour. Majority of the models are developed considering the behaviour of naturally
structured soils (Baudet and Stallebrass, 2004; Kavvadas and Amorosi, 2000; Rouainia
and Muir Wood, 2000; Taiebat et al., 2009; Wheeler et al., 2003). In artificially cemented
soils, size of the yield surface is predominantly related to the bond strength between
soil particles in addition to the void ratio. Hence cement stabilized soils possess a
tensile strength. Recently few constitutive models have been developed especially for
artificially cemented soils (Lee et al., 2004; Horpibulsuk et al., 2010; Kasama et al., 2000;
Suebsuk et al., 2010; Vatsala et al., 2001) within the framework of Modified Cam Clay
model. Accuracy and efficiency of these models are mostly verified simulating the
behaviour of a single gauss integration point of a soil element within the context of the
finite element method. Their implementation into finite element programs and then
application to boundary value problems are rather limited.
Numerical modelling using the finite element method has been carried out by many
researchers to study the behaviour of cement stabilized soft ground in the form of
deep cement mixed (DCM) columns in different geotechnical applications such as
embankments for railways and roads (Filz, 2007; Han and Gabr, 2002; Huang et al.,
2006), bearing capacity and settlement of treated soil (Dong et al., 2004) and seismic
mitigation applications (Namikawa et al., 2007). To model the cement stabilized soil,
Mohr-Coulomb model (Filz, 2007; Huang et al., 2006; Dong et al., 2004) and
Drucker-Prager model (Han and Gabr, 2002) have been used. However, neither
Mohr-Coulomb model nor Drucker-Prager model has the ability to describe the key
characteristics such as the strain softening behaviour of cement stabilized soil and may
lead to unsafe and uneconomical designs. The main reason for using these simple
models to simulate the cement stabilized soil behaviour is the lack of availability of
advanced soil models suitable for the simulation of cement treated soil in many
commercially available finite element programs.
When implementing new constitutive models into finite element programs,
algorithms are used to numerically integrate the rate constitutive equations and
then update the stress state. Existing approaches can be mainly classified as explicit

An elasto-plastic
constitutive
model
75

2. This model has assumed that the failure state line of cemented clay is parallel to that of the reconstituted clay and the intercept of the failure state line exhibits the tensile strength due to the effects of cementation similar to Horpibulsuk et al.. To overcome these complexities of the implicit schemes. When stress state changes from elastic to plastic. With the increase in plastic deviatoric strain. Constitutive model for cement stabilized soil The constitutive model selected for the finite element implementation is the model developed by Lee et al. there is a possibility for divergence. However. which has the capability to simulate cement stabilized soil behaviour. (2004). 2001). the major drawbacks of the implicit scheme when used for advanced constitutive models are: . The aim of the present study is to implement the constitutive model developed by Lee et al. into the finite element program ABAQUS through the user material subroutine UMAT (ABAQUS Inc. there is no added bond strength component in the model. Accuracy of these schemes can be improved by introducing error control and sub-stepping in the finite element formulation (Sloan. where p 0 is the mean effective stress and q is the deviatoric stress. (2004) for artificially cemented clays. 2010). the difficulty of deriving the consistent tangent modulus. The implemented material subroutine is verified by simulating the behaviour of cement stabilized soft clay presented by Lee et al.EC 30. 2001). and . the finite element formulation of the implicit scheme is complicated. Conversely.1 76 integration methods and implicit integration methods. intersection of the stress state with the yield surface should be computed. soil will reach the critical state due to breakage of cementation bonds between soil particles. (2010). When there is no added cement. (2010). The derivation of the consistent tangent modulus involves solution of a system of equations but the advantage is the resulting stresses will automatically satisfy the yield criterion to a specified tolerance (Sloan et al. However. which bypasses the calculation of consistent tangent modulus. This concept has widely been employed by . and hence the model behaviour is similar to the MCC model. Although the implementation presented in this paper is focused on ABAQUS. Also the paper presents finite element simulations carried out for drained triaxial tests for cement stabilized Ariake clay presented by Suebsuk et al. the steps involved in the integration process are applicable to any other finite element program. (2004) based on the constitutive equations and drained triaxial test data. cement stabilized clay has an elliptical yield surface in the p 0 2 q stress space similar to that of the reconstituted clay. 1987. Therefore. (2010) and Suebsuk et al. The model is formulated within the framework of the critical state theory. Oritz and Popov (1985) and Simo and Taylor (1986) have introduced a semi-implicit return mapping approach called the cutting plane algorithm (CPA). A semi-implicit algorithm based on CPA with a continuum tangent modulus has been used. General steps used for integrating the stress-strain relationship with an isotropic hardening law have been discussed. the calculated stresses may not satisfy the yield criterion automatically. Explicit schemes are simple and the implementation is straightforward.. The concept behind this model is that the strength of bonds between soil particles increases by adding cement.

as shown below:    0 0 G ¼ F ¼ q 2 þ M 2cs p 0 þ pt p 0 þ pc ð1Þ 0 An elasto-plastic constitutive model 77 0 parameter. pt.o is the initial value of the cementation parameter..o £ e 2kp 1q ð2Þ where 1qp is the cumulative plastic deviatoric strain. F. It is assumed that the plastic potential. respectively: n   X 1pq ¼ 1q 2 d1eq ð3Þ i¼1 i Figure 1. kp is the bonding control parameter. pt is the cementation 0 takes into account the effect of bonding between soil particles. 0 Mcs is the critical stress ratio. The model follows associated flow rule obeying normality condition. Equations (3)-(5) give the total plastic deviatoric strain.many researchers (Horpibulsuk et al. total deviatoric strain and incremental elastic deviatoric strain components. Considering cementation effect. This stress state is equivalent to the reconstituted state of the soil. Muir Wood. modified effective stress concept is employed to get the yield function by rearranging the yield function of the MCC model. Suebsuk et al. pt controls the size of the 0 yield surface in conjunction with the plastic deviatoric strain. G. when plastic deviatoric strain increases. pt decreases and it becomes zero after complete elimination of bonds due to shearing. 2010. Liu et al. 2010.. which where pc is the size of the initial yield surface. 0 According to equation (2). 2000. Kasama et al. Incremental plastic deviatoric strain is calculated by subtracting the total elastic deviatoric strain component from the total deviatoric strain component. 1990) and graphically shown in Figure 1. pt is given by the following equation: 0 p 0 pt ¼ pt. Cumulative plastic deviatoric strain component is calculated by getting the summation of all incremental plastic deviatoric strain terms at each step. Graphical representation of the constitutive model . 2006.. and the yield loci. change with the plastic strain..

where dry cement is in situ mixed with soil. Therefore. Therefore. 3. yield surface shifts to the origin of the p 0 2 q stress space. yield surface crosses the q axis and has a negative value for p 0 in the p 0 2 q stress space. Stress integration algorithm The updating scheme for the path dependent materials like elasto-plastic materials requires a numerical algorithm to integrate the plastic rate constitutive equations. It is important to mention that the accuracy of the overall non-linear finite element scheme depends on the accuracy of the numerical algorithm adopted to formulate the state update procedures and this is currently an active research area (Clausen et al. eo . ð pÞðt. Wang and Atluri. the flow rule can be defined as:  0 0 2 d1pv ›F=›P t M cs 2p 0 2 pc þ pt ð6Þ ¼ ¼ 2q ›F=›q d1pq This model uses an isotropic hardening rule to describe the enlargement and shifting of the yield loci and it mainly depends on the plastic volumetric strain increment as shown below: 0 dpc ¼ ð1 þ eÞ 0 · p · d1pv ðl 2 kÞ c ð7Þ This model is developed assuming that the cement stabilized soils behave in a drained manner. Since the model uses associated plasticity. (2004). respectively. 1zz and 1uu are. 1985. At the same time the model has been developed assuming that the cement stabilized soils behave in an isotropic manner. This model is simple and   it requires only eight model parameters 0 0 M CS .. v. Haung and Airey (1998) and Rotta et al. the vector of plastic strain increment d1 p is in the direction of the outward normal to the yield surface. when q is zero. The bonding effect of cement stabilized clay increases the size of the yield surface exhibiting tensile strength. Simo and Hughes.. e is the void ratio. 2006. Nazem et al. which can be derived using standard laboratory tests. k1 P. This assumption is reasonable for cement stabilized soils created by the dry mixing method.EC 30. l. 1998. (2003) showed that the variation in mechanical properties in cement stabilized soil is fundamentally isotropic. 1986. k is the swelling index of the soil. . dqi is the increment in deviatoric stress during the increment i. k.1 78 pffiffiffi  1=2 3 2 1q ¼ ð1rr 2 1zz Þ2 þ ð1zz 2 1uu Þ2 þ ð1uu 2 1rr Þ2 þ 12rz 2 3   2ð1 þ vÞk d1eq ¼ dqi i 9ð1 2 2vÞð1 þ eÞp 0 ð4Þ ð5Þ where v is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil. 2006. the radial. Simo and Taylor. p 0 is the mean effective stress. 1994). With the elimination of bonds. it is assumed that l changes with the p 0 and the corresponding void ratio.0Þ . 1rr. In the model proposed by Lee et al. e. The number of strain increments is denoted by i and varies from 1 to n. pc . vertical and tangential components of the total direct strains and 1rz is the total shear strain component for an axisymmetric situation.

The yield function. Nevertheless. loading and hardening together satisfy the condition that the material remains on the yield surface. When the material is plastic. 0. in this study. Since the aim is to implement this model into a finite element program. Therefore. This algorithm consists of two major steps.1 Derivation of the continuum elasto-plastic tangent modulus In this section the derivation of continuumum tangent modulus relating incremental strains and stresses is discussed. for the model is given by equation (1). this will make F . consistency and simplicity are the other factors which contribute to the superiority of integration schemes. the incremental change of the yield function can be written as:  ›F T ›F ›F dF ¼ {ds 0 } þ p d1vp þ p d1qp ¼ 0 ð8Þ 0 ›s ›1v › 1q where d1pv is the plastic volumetric strain increment. all derivatives. : dt 0 > rz An elasto-plastic constitutive model 79 . Stability. However. However. Next sections describe the development of the stress integration algorithm to update the new stress state using the strain increments computed within the main finite element program and transferred to the UMAT. They are the elastic predictor and plastic corrector steps. plastic definitions are accompanied with increasing hardening and the yield surface expands in such a way that the yield surface passes through the current stress state of the material. Huang and Griffiths (2009) showed that this can be overcome using a path dependent strategy and with that strategy. This implementation is explained for an axisymmetric condition. the CPA with the continuum elasto-plastic modulus in conjunction with a path dependent strategy is implemented. Therefore. especially with advanced elasto-plastic constitutive models. If the hardening parameter remains unchanged. CPA can be made more stable and efficient. d1pq is the plastic deviatoric strain increment and {ds 0 } is the corresponding stress increment.When the stress integration method is robust. 3. {ds 0 } is given by: 8 09 d sr > > > > > > > 0 > > = < d sz > ð9Þ {ds 0 } ¼ 0 > d su > > > > > > > > . Hence dF ¼ 0 and using the chain rule of differentiation. then the performance of the finite element program significantly improves. accurate and fast. Further loading will cause plastic deformations and changes the stress state directing outwards the yield surface. F. Simo and Hughes (1998) showed that the CPA method limits its use in practical finite element implementations with Newton-Rhapson solution strategy due to lack of consistent linearization. the stress state should be on the yield surface and hence it should satisfy the condition. strains and stresses are given in the matrix form. F ¼ 0. it makes the implementation easier when dealing with complicated constitutive models. Therefore. Thus. The CPA used in this study is a special return mapping algorithm developed to bypass the calculation of second derivative of the plastic potential as it uses a continuum tangent modulus.

the 0 radial. (11) and (15):  ›F 0 e p e {ds } ¼ ½D ð{d1} 2 {d1 }Þ ¼ ½D  {d1} 2 l ð16Þ ›s 0 Using equations (8). which represents the magnitude of the plastic flow. For the case of a small strain increment.1 80 0 0 0 where dsr . (11). vertical and tangential components of the effective stress increment and d trz is the shear stress increment. the total strain increment {d1} consists of elastic. (15) and (16) following equation for l can be derived: l¼ {›F=›s 0 }T ½D e {d1}     {›F=›s 0 }T ½D e {›F=›s 0 } 2 ›F=›1pv ð›F=›p 0 Þ 2 ›F=›1pq ð›F=›qÞ ð17Þ . the plastic strains are given by:  ›F {d1 p } ¼ l ð10aÞ ›s 0  ›F ð10bÞ d1pv ¼ l ›p 0  ›F p d1q ¼ l ð10cÞ ›q l is the scalar multiplier. {d1 e} and plastic. (10). the following constitutive relationship can be derived using equations (10a)-(10c). d sz and dsu are. G ¼ F.EC 30. Consequently. Hence {d1 e} can be written as: {d1 e } ¼ {d1} 2 {d1 p } ð15Þ Therefore. Since the material model follows associated plasticity. The incremental plastic strains d1pv and d1pq are related to the plastic potential function. respectively. Constitutive behaviour can be written using the incremental stress {d s 0 } and the incremental elastic strain {d1 e } assuming only the component of the elastic strain can generate stresses through the elastic constitutive matrix as shown below: {d s 0 } ¼ ½D e {d1 e } ð11Þ where [D e] is the elastic constitutive matrix. G. {d1 p} strain increments. For an axisymmetric situation. [D e] is a 4 £ 4 matrix given by: ½De  ¼ EMBED equationð3Þ ð12Þ where K and m are material parameters defined as: ð1 þ eÞp 0 k 3ð1 2 2vÞ m¼ K 2ð1 þ vÞ K¼ ð13Þ ð14Þ where m is the elastic shear modulus.

: ›q ›trz where. for an axisymmetric problem. where [D ep] is the continuum elasto-plastic tangent stiffness matrix (continuum Jacobian).Finally the continuum tangent modulus relating incremental stresses and strains is given by: h  {ds 0 } ¼ ½D e  2 ½D e {›F=ð›s 0 Þ} 0 {›F=ð›s 0 Þ}½D e Þ=ð{›F=ð›s 0 Þ} 0 T½D e {›F=ð›s 0 Þ} i     2 ›F= ›1pv ›F=ð›p 0 Þ 2 ›F= ›1pq ›F=›q {d1} ð18Þ Equation (18) is the elasto-plastic constitutive equation in the form of {d s 0 } ¼ ½D ep {d1}. . When deriving the tangent stiffness matrix. p 0 and q are given by:  0 0 0 sr þ s z þ s u 0 p ¼ 3  1=2   0 2  0  1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 q ¼ pffiffiffi sr 2 sz þ sz 2 su þ su 2 sr þ6trz 2 ð20Þ ð21Þ Derivatives of the yield function with respect to p 0 and q are given below: h i ›F 0 0 2 0 ¼ M 2p þ p 2 p t c cs ›p 0 ð22Þ ›F ¼ 2q ›q ð23Þ Gradient of the stress invariants p 0 and q can be computed as follows: ›p 0 ›p 0 ›p 0 1 ¼ ¼ 0 ¼ ›sr0 ›su ›sz0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ð24Þ 0 0 0 ›q 2 s 2 sz 2 su ›q 2s 2 sr 2 sz ›q 2 sz 2 su 2 sr . the stress gradients of the yield function are calculated as follows: 9 8 ›F ›p 0 ›F ›q > > > > þ > > > > > ›p 0 ›sr0 ›q ›sr0 > > > > > > > > ›F ›p 0 ›F › q > > > > > > > > > 0 0 þ 0 >  > = < › p › s › q › s z z ›F ð19Þ ¼ 0 ›F ›p ›F ›q > > ›s 0 > > > > þ 0 0 > > > › p 0 › s u › q › su > > > > > > > > > > > > > ›F ›q > > > > > > . ¼ r ¼ u 0 ¼ ›sr0 2q ›sz0 2q 2q › su ð25Þ An elasto-plastic constitutive model 81 .

assuming total strain increment is completely elastic. ðsnþ1 Þ is the actual stress state. a trial stress state is calculated as shown below: n 0 o n 0o trial ›nþ1 ð31Þ ¼ sn þ ½D e {d1nþ1 } Then0 the yield condition is checked. Hence. cs ›pc ›1pv ðl 2 kÞ 0 ð28Þ 0 ›F ›F ›p t 0 p ¼ ›1q ›pt ›1pq 0 ð29Þ 0 ð›F=›pt Þ and ð›pt =›1pq Þ can be evaluated using:   ›p   ›F 0 2 0 0 p t 0 ¼ M cs p 2 pc .EC 30. At the beginning of each stress update step (n þ 1). ›F=›1pv and ›F=›1pq in the continuum tangent modulus can be evaluated using the chain rule as shown below: 0 ›F ›F ›pc 0 p ¼ ›1v ›pc ›1pv 0 ð27Þ 0 ð›F=›pc Þ and ð›pc =›1pv Þ can be evaluated using:   ›p ›F ð1 þ eÞ 0 0 2 0 c pc ¼ 2M p þ p ¼ 0 t . total plastic strain {1pn }.o exp 2kp 1q ›pt ›1q 0 ð30Þ 3.  ð26Þ A change in the yield surface updates d1pv and d1pq . e and preconsoildation pressure.1 82 Finally. {›F=›s 0 } can be evaluated as follows: 8 0 0 0 M 2cs > > > 2sr 2 sz 2 su þ 3 > > 2  >  > < 2s 0 2 s 0 2 s 0 þ M cs ›F u r z 3 ¼  > 0 0 0 ›s 0 M2 > > 2sz 2 su 2 sr þ 3cs > > > > : 6trz 9 0 0 2p 0 þ pt 2 pc > > > > > >  0  0 0 > 2p þ pt 2 pc =  0 0 0 > > 2p þ pt 2 pc > > > > > . Otherwise the stress state is outside the yield surface and hence the stress state is plastic. are given as input parameters. then the trial stress0 state is inside the yield surface and the material Fðsnþ1 trial behaviour is elastic.2 Cutting plane algorithm (CPA) In this algorithm. The Newton-Raphson method is used to iteratively return . If the yield function meets the condition trial Þ # 0. In the elastic predictor step. Then the plastic corrector step is employed. total effective stress {sn } and state variables (void ratio. the total strain increment 0 {d1nþ1 } as well as total strain {1n}. n. Therefore. p ¼ 2kp p t. p 0c ) saved at the end of previous stress update. the calculation of plastic strain increment and the occurrence of convergence at the time tnþ 1 are completed at the end of the step and therefore the integration scheme can be described as below.

the trial stress state to the updated yield surface by correcting the plastic strain increment using the plasticity parameter l The derivation of plasticity parameter is described in Section 3.2. the yield function at the iteration k þ 1 and k are related as shown below: . Hence. In the CPA algorithm. k {snþ1 }. the yield function is linearized around the current stress state.

 .

kþ1 .

corrector } is calculated as: The plastic corrector. and F kþ 1 ¼ 0. and calculate the trial stress: n o . the plasticity parameter can be written shown below: lðkÞ nþ1 ¼ n aðkÞ nþ1 oT F ðkÞ ð33Þ n o p 0 Þ 2 ð›FÞ=ð›1p Þ ð›FÞ=ð›qÞ ½D e  aðkÞ › FÞ=ð › 1 Þ ð › FÞ=ð › p 2 ð v q nþ1 The process with respect to 0 CPA is graphically shown in Figure 2. (17) and (32). the corrected stress state is calculated as: n 0 o n 0 o trial snþ1 ¼ snþ1 2 lnþ1 ½D e {anþ1 } ð34Þ ð35Þ The iteration loop can be summarised as shown below. Initialization and elastic predictor step: initialize the input parameters at the beginning of the iteration loop (k is the iteration number). {snþ1  n 0 o ›F corrector snþ1 ¼ lnþ1 ½D e {anþ1 }. {a} ¼ ›s 0 Therefore. k  ›F ›F snþ1 2 snþ1 þ p d1pv þ p d1pq F kþ1 ¼ F k þ aknþ1 ›1v ›1q An elasto-plastic constitutive model 83 ð32Þ By combining equations (10a)-(10c).

nþ1 ¼ 0 (a) Hardening (b) Softening Figure 2. Graphical interpretation of semi-implicit algorithm (CPA) . p k ¼ 0 : 1pð0Þ lð0Þ ð36aÞ nþ1 ¼ 1n .

total analysis time.1 ð36bÞ ð36cÞ Check the yield condition and convergence at kth iteration: 84 n o F ðkÞ ¼ F sðkÞ nþ1 ð37Þ If FðkÞ . Otherwise. UMAT The numerical procedure described in the previous section can be used to implement any constitutive model into a finite element program.. 2004) and incorporated into the finite element software. lðkÞ nþ1 given in equation (33). time increment and other predefined field . The total stress. stress updates and tangential modulus computation (material Jacobian matrix) are carried out within the UMAT subroutine. the numerical procedure has been used to implement a constitutive model for cement stabilized soils (Lee et al. (2) Computes the updated tangential stiffness modulus based on the constitutive model used for the material modelling. UMAT performs two main functions necessary for an analysis: (1) Computes incremental stresses based on the strain increments passed into UMAT from the main program. In this paper. proceed to the plastic corrector step. Plastic corrector step: compute the plastic corrector (plasticity parameter). ABAQUS/Standard through the user material subroutine (UMAT). for the global Newton-Raphson iteration employed by main program to solve non-linear problems. go to equation (37). This iteration loop continues until the convergence is achieved. Obtain the stress correction: n o ðkÞ {ds ðkÞ } ¼ 2lnþ1 ½D e  aðkÞ ð38Þ nþ1 Update the plastic and elastic strains as well as the stress state: n o n o n o pðkþ1Þ pðkÞ } ¼ 1pðkÞ ¼ 1pðkÞ 1nþ1 nþ1 þ {d1 nþ1 þ lnþ1 {anþ1 } n o n o n o eðkþ1Þ pðkÞ 1nþ1 } ¼ 1eðkÞ ¼ 1eðkÞ nþ1 þ {d1 nþ1 þ lnþ1 {anþ1 } n 0 o n o 0 ðkþ1Þ ðkÞ snþ1 } ¼ sðkÞ nþ1 2 {d s ð39aÞ ð39bÞ ð39cÞ k ¼ k þ 1. convergence is ok.3 Development of subroutine.n 0 o  n o ð0Þ d snþ1 ¼ ½D e  {d1nþ1 } 2 d1pð0Þ nþ1 n 0 o n 0o n 0 o ð0Þ ð0Þ snþ1 ¼ sn þ dsnþ1 EC 30. strain and the user-defined solution-dependent state variables (STATEV) from the last converged equilibrium state and the total strain increment for the current step. 3. TOL. Implementation of the material model.

The steps involved within the ABAQUS user defined material subroutine.variables are passed into the UMAT subroutine. which is called the material Jacobian matrix (DDSDDE). From the equilibrium state at time tn. An elasto-plastic constitutive model 85 Initialization of history variables to the UMAT at t = tn Total strain εtotal n Total stress σtotal n Total strain increment dεtotal n Time increment ∆tn Call UMAT Specify new ∆t in UMAT Obtain stress increments dσn p Update plastic strain εn+1 total Update total stress σn+1 using semi implicit integration method Convergence No Yes Calculate the material tangent modulus Update state variables ABAQUS main programme updates strain total total εtotal n+1 = ε n + dεn Compute the global stiffness matrix Generates new strain increment dεtotal n+1 at tn+1 Figure 3. from time tn to tnþ 1 can be illustrated using the flow chart shown in Figure 3. The maximum number of iterations and convergence tolerance used in the subroutine are 50 and 102 3. based on the applied incremental ABAQUS computes the total strain increment d1total n loading at the time increment Dtn to find the updated stress state according to the constitutive law used for the material behaviour. UMAT. After that the convergence is checked using the updated stresses and this procedure is performed iteratively until the convergence is reached. are computed. Flow chart for the UMAT in ABAQUS/Standard . respectively. Within the UMAT subroutine. plastic strain. state variables and tangential stiffness matrix. increments of total stress.

1990). Verification of the formulation The performance of the new finite element formulation of the constitutive model is verified using an Excel spreadsheet program developed by the authors to compute the stress paths and variation of volumetric strain with the axial strain at a single Gauss integration point.nþ1 pcnþ1 ¼ pcn exp lnþ1 2 k 86 Then the continuum Jacobian is calculated using equation (18).1 After the solution is converged to 0the correct stress state. The model parameters used for this simulation are given in Table II. (2004) are incorrect due to some errors in the equations (derivatives) in “Formulation of the Constitutive Model” section of their paper. respectively: 1 þ enþ1 0 0 ð40Þ d1pv. and the size of the yield surface. Figure 4 shows the variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain and Figure 5 shows the variation of volumetric strain with the axial strain for a triaxial test with confining pressures of 20 and 160 kPa obtained from the finite element analysis and the Excel spreadsheet program based on the constitutive equations for a single Gauss integration point. Figure 6 shows the variation of deviatoric stress with axial strain when the confining pressure increases.003 Model parameters for soil type used by Lee et al. Due to the symmetry of the triaxial specimen. 45 250 20. which is used to estimate the strain increment for the next step. the deviatoric stress developed Table I. This is the only possible method we can use to verify the formulation because results given by Lee et al. finite element mesh is developed only for a quarter of the cylindrical specimen of 5 cm in diameter and 10 cm in height. 4. 5.0 EC 30.25 k 0. According to this figure. Finite element simulation results overlap with the Excel spreadsheet results calculated for a single Gauss point. pc . (2004) and Suebsuk et al. The Jacobian should be accurate to achieve the fast convergence and the accuracy of the overall solution as the main finite element program needs this constitutive matrix to compute the global tangent stiffness matrix.9 10. Performance of the UMAT and the constitutive model are investigated in the following sections using the drained triaxial test data reported by Lee et al. Model parameters for the drained triaxial test v 0. the degree of cementation. pt . (2004) MCS kp p 0t (kPa) Confining pressure (kPa) 1. Table I shows the material properties used for the finite element analysis carried out using ABAQUS/Standard. The element type used for this analysis is an eight-node axisymmetric continuum element and reduced integration (four Gauss integration points). These results confirm that the numerical implementation presented in the paper is in agreement with the cement stabilized soil behaviour described by the constitutive model. (2010). Effect of confining pressure on the cement stabilized soil behaviour Drained triaxial tests are simulated using the constitutive model implemented in ABAQUS/Standard by varying the confining pressure from 50 to 400 kPa. 160 . are updated at the end of each time increment using equations (2) and (40) (Borja and Lee.

at higher confining pressures. Therefore.01 Model parameters for soil type used by Lee et al.005 Simulation-20 kPa 0.4 20. Model parameters used to investigate the effect of confining pressure .1 0.200 Deviatoric stress (kPa) Simulation-160 kPa 1. However. Figure 5.05 0.005 Axial strain (ea) 0 0.1. 400 within the soil sample increases with the increasing confining pressure.15 0.025 Single Gauss-20 kPa 0.05 0.01 Experimental-160 kPa 0. Furthermore.015 Experimental-20 kPa 0.25 k 0. 50 200 50. Variation of volumetric strain with axial strain Table II.01 Volumetric strain (en) –0. Variation of deviator stress with axial strain –0.2 0.03 Source: Experimental data by Lee et al. 200. 45. the rate of destructuring decreases with the increasing confining pressure. (2004) MCS kp p 0t (kPa) Confining pressure (kPa) 1.15 0 Simulation-160 kPa 0.000 Simulation-20 kPa 800 Experimental-160 kPa 600 Experimental-20 kPa An elasto-plastic constitutive model 87 Single Gauss-160 kPa 400 Single Gauss-20 kPa 200 0 0 0.02 Single Gauss-160 kPa 0.25 Axial strain (ea) Source: Experimental data by Lee et al.25 0. (2004) Figure 4. 40.1 0. the cement stabilized soil shows highly brittle behaviour under low confining pressures and the ductile behaviour under high confining pressures. (2004) v 0. the soil can undergo large strains before failure. 100.2 0.

25 0.15 0. Cement stabilized soil vs same soil at the reconstituted state In order to investigate the influence of additional structure due to cementation bonds 0 on the soil behaviour. another set of simulations were performed using pt ¼ 0.1 0. after breaking all Volumetric strain (en) 0 Figure 7. q (kPa) 1. the volume change characteristics during drained shear are largely influenced by the confining pressure.25 k 0.2 0. This figure shows that the soil samples subjected to low confining pressures behave more dilatantly than the samples subjected to high confining pressures. These results explain that the cement stabilized soil behaviour is similar to the behaviour of highly overconsolidated clays or soft rocks.05 0.25 Figure 7 shows the variation of volumetric strain with axial strain when the confining pressure is increasing. Model parameters used for cemented and remoulded clay 0 0. According to Figure 8(a). when the cementation bonds are completely removed from the cement stabilized soil). This is due to the higher bonding degradation at low confining pressures and lower bonding degradation of samples at higher confining pressures. (2004) MCS kp p 0t (kPa) Confining pressure (kPa) 1. Furthermore. 200 100 . The model parameters used for this study are given in Table III.03 0.EC 30.01 Confining Pressure 50 kPa 100 kPa 200 kPa 400 kPa 0.05 v 0. which depicts the reconstituted state of the cement stabilized soil (i. Effect of confining pressure on deviatoric stress Confining Pressure 50 kPa 100 kPa 200 kPa 400 kPa 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.1 Deviatoric strain.04 0. Effect of confining pressure on volumetric behaviour Table III.15 Axial strain (ea) 0.000 88 Figure 6.05 Axial strain (ea) 0.01 Model parameters for soil type used by Lee et al.e.02 0.1 0. 6.85 50 0.2 0.

2 0.05 Axial strain (ea) 0. Simulation of the experimentally observed behaviour of cement stabilized clay In this section. the experimentally observed behaviour of cement stabilized soil is simulated using the finite element formulation presented in Section 3 to investigate the Figure 8. q (kPa) 700 600 500 400 Cement treated clay 300 89 Uncemented clay. (b) volumetric strain vs axial strain cementation bonds.025 0.05 0. After breakage of bonds created by the added cement. the cement stabilized soil can sustain higher loads than the reconstituted soil.03 (b) Notes: (a) Deviatoric stress vs axial strain.2 0.02 0. cemented sample reaches a state.15 Axial strain (ea) 0. However.01 0 0. Hence only the cement stabilized sample shows dilatancy behaviour. additional void ratio sustained by the cement stabilized soil diminishes. OCR = 1 200 100 0 0 0.005 0.1 0. 7.1 0. which is exactly similar to the failure state of the reconstituted soil.015 0.25 0.An elasto-plastic constitutive model Deviatoric stress.15 Cement treated clay Uncemented clay.25 (a) 0 Volumetric strain (en) 0. Comparison of model simulations for cement treated and untreated clay . Figure 8(b) shows the higher peak values for the volumetric deformation than that of the reconstituted clay because the cement stabilized soil contains larger void ratio within the same volume compared to the same soil at the reconstituted state. OCR = 1 0.

(2010) and Suebsuk et al. The experimental results given by Lee et al.5 2 1. Therefore. Regression method for the variable l 0 for isotropic compression behaviour of the cemented Ariake with Aw ¼ 9 per cent 4 Aw = 9% 3. Figures 4 and 5 show the drained triaxial test data given by Lee et al. equation (41) is derived to fit the experimental data given by Horpibulsuk et al. It is clear that after the deviatoric stress reaches the peak value. Comparisons of simulated model results with experimental data for Ariake clay with Aw ¼ 9 per cent are shown in Figures 10(a) and (b). (2004). Isotropic consolidation curves in the e 2 lnð p0 Þ space for different soils are different. l0 is given by the following equation: l0 ¼ de de ¼ 0 £ p0 ¼ ½24 £ 1026 p0 2 27 £ 10211 p02  £ p0 0 dðln p Þ dp ð42Þ where p0 is in kPa and the equation (41) is derived using p0 in the range of 0-1430 kPa. it starts to decrease due to the crushing of the soil-cement structure.1 90 applicability of the constitutive model as well as the numerical implementation for the simulation of cement stabilized soil behaviour. 4. After that soil reaches a residual value at the critical state condition while the axial strain further increases. The soil type used to prepare the cement stabilized soil or the cement content used to prepare the soil samples are not given in their paper.EC 30. It varies with the mean effective stress and the void ratio. The cement content Aw is defined as the ratio of cement to clay based on the dry mass. l is not a constant. (2004) for Ariake clay with cement content of 9 per cent: 0 e ¼ 4:355 2 2 £ 1026 p02 2 9 £ 10211 p 3 ð41Þ Therefore.000 10 Mean effective stress. Horpibulsuk et al. (2010) for drained triaxial tests carried out for cement stabilized soils are used in this section. Figure 5 shows the dilation behaviour of the cement stabilized soil after the peak volumetric strain. In the constitutive model. (2010). Another simulation was carried out to simulate the behaviour of Ariake clay with cement content of 9 per cent given by Suebsuk et al.5 Aw = 0% 3 2.000 . These figures clearly show the capability of the finite element implementation as well as the constitutive model in describing the key characteristics of the cement stabilized soil. (2004). The constitutive model uses a third-order polynomial equation to get the void ratio at different mean effective stresses as shown in Figure 9. (2004) 10. According to Figure 10(a). e Regression line Figure 9. p' (kPa) Source: Experimental data by Horpibulsuk et al.5 Void ratio.5 1 100 1. This is because the cement stabilized soil reaches the reconstituted state due to the complete elimination of its structure.

For high confining pressures. Comparison of simulated model results with experimental data for Ariake clay with Aw ¼ 9 per cent . At low confining pressures. (2010) simulations have given the same peak deviatoric stresses as in the experimental results for the range of confining pressures considered for the analysis.Deviatoric stress. model simulations agree well with the experimental results demonstrating the softening behaviour of the Figure 10. ed (%) 15 20 0 Confining Pressure Volumetric strain. q (kPa) 900 An elasto-plastic constitutive model Confining Pressure 800 50 kPa 700 100 kPa 600 200 kPa 500 Simulations 91 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 Deviatoric strain. en (%) 2 50 kPa 4 100 kPa 6 200 kPa 8 Simulations 10 12 14 16 18 (b) Notes: (a) Deviatoric stress vs axial strain. (b) volumetric strain vs axial strain Source: Experimental data by Suebsuk et al. the experimental results show high strain softening behaviour but the simulations do not show any softening. ed (%) 25 30 25 30 (a) 0 5 10 Deviatoric strain.

According to Figure 10(b). The relationships between void ratio and mean effective stress of the cement mixed Ariake clay at different cement contents are shown in Figure 11 and the model parameters for Ariake clay with different cement contents are given in Table IV. This deviation inherently comes from the MCC model as all models belonging to MCC family follow the associated flow rule and according to Lee et al.06 0.000 Mean effective stress.45 1. 200 50 . another simulation was carried out changing the cement content of Ariake clay.25 0. The contradictory experimental results given by Suebsuk et al. (2004) Aw 6% 9% 18% v 0. Model parameters for cemented Ariake clay with different cement contents 3. (2004).1 92 cement stabilized soil. the experimental results given by Lee et al. 45. p' (kPa) 10. (2010) show strain softening at high confining pressures.5 1.25 0. 100. 50 30 50 100 650 50 50.000 Source: Horpibulsuk et al.35 30 30. Isotropic compression behaviour of Ariake clay with different cement contents Table IV. (2010) k MCS Kp p 0t (kPa) Confining pressure (kPa) 0. respectively: 4.EC 30. taking into account the influence of anisotropy on the volumetric behaviour.5 Aw = 6% 2 Figure 11. Suebsuk et al.5 Aw = 18% 1 10 100 1.. However. 2010 has stated that this is because of the influence of anisotropy. (2004) needs to be further investigated by carrying out drained triaxial tests for clay soils with different percentages of added cement by varying the confining pressures applied to the soil samples.6 1. The following equations describe the isotropic consolidation regression lines for cement stabilized Ariake clay with cement contents of 6 and 18 per cent. In order to understand the effect of cementation on the maximum shear stress. (2010) and Lee et al. This has become a controversial point and needs further development of constitutive models for cement stabilized soils with non-associated flow rules.5 Void ratio. volumetric strain at high confining pressure does not exactly follow the associated flow rule. Although the experimental results given by Suebsuk et al.001 1. model simulations successfully describe the dilation behaviour of cement stabilized Ariake clay. (2004) does not show softening at high confining pressures. However.25 Model parameters for Ariake clay Suebsuk et al.024 0. some discrepancy in volumetric deformation can be seen especially at high confining pressures. e 4 3 Aw = 0% 2.

the experimental curve of cement content of 18 per cent shown in Figure 11 shows some discrepancy based on this concept. 2004). b. The applicability of the model to predict behaviour of the cement stabilized soils are investigated by simulating drained triaxial test data published by Lee et al. with increasing cement content. Therefore. an increase in the peak deviator stress as well as dilation behaviour are predicted for the same confining pressure. Some discrepancy in volumetric deformation simulated by the model and the experimental data could be seen. With the increasing degree of cementation. According to Figure 12. increases with the increasing cement content. Nevertheless. (2004). maximum shear stress that can be applied to the clay sample before failure increases. p0 varies from 0 to1500 kPa. (2010). pt . it can be seen from Figure 12(b) that the maximum volumetric strain for Aw ¼ 18 per cent is lower than that of Aw ¼ 9 per cent. Variation of volumetric strain and deviatoric stress with the axial strain predicted by the finite element implementation agrees well with the model predictions simulated for a single Gauss integration point using constitutive equations. Conclusions This paper presented a finite element implementation based on the CPA for the constitutive model developed by Lee et al. regression line is shown in Figure 9 and the relationship between the void ratio and the mean effective stress is given by equation (41). 0 The parameter describing the bond strength.. Figures 12(a) and (b) show the variation of deviatoric stress and volumetric strain with deviatoric strain. (2004) and Suebsuk et al. deviatoric stress vs axial strain deviates from the data for Ariake clay presented An elasto-plastic constitutive model 93 . The parametric study showed that the influence of cementation increases the brittle nature and the bearing capacity of treated clay. (2004) for cement stabilized clays. at low cement percentages. Conversely. However. p0 varies from 0 to 760 kPa and for equation (44). Furthermore. demonstrating the brittle nature of treated clay at higher cement percentages. For the Ariake clay with cement content of 9 per cent. the compression index should increase due to the sudden breakdown of clay-cementation structure (Horpibulsuk et al. post-peak stress suddenly drops with increasing strain. However. especially at high confining pressures. according to Figure 11. at high confining pressures. 8.e ¼ 4:336 2 7 £ 1023 p0 þ 9 £ 1026 p02 2 3 £ 1029 p03 ð43Þ e ¼ 3:760 2 3 £ 1025 p0 2 1 £ 1028 p02 2 3 £ 10212 p03 ð44Þ where p0 is in kPa and for equation (43). Although deviatoric stress vs axial strain agrees well with the data provided by Lee et al. post-peak stress decreases gradually with strain showing ductile behaviour. this parametric study shows that with the increasing cement content. Lorenzo and Bergado. due to the fact that the cement stabilized soils do not obey the associated flow rule under high confining pressures as assumed in the model development and the model does not take into account the anisotropy of the cemented clay. the additional void ratio sustained by the clay-cementation structure of the Ariake clay with cement content of 18 per cent is much lower than that of 9 per cent cement content. 2004a.

q (kPa) 94 1. this numerical implementation is a valuable tool for geotechnical engineers to solve boundary value problems related to the structures founded on ground improved with dry soil mixing.EC 30.1 Deviatoric stress. ed (%) (a) Deviatoric strain. the results presented in the paper showed that the proposed finite element implementation has the ability to illustrate key features of the cement treated clay such as softening with destructuring and the dilation behaviour after the peak stress state. ed (%) Figure 12. (2010). Simulated consolidated drained test results of cemented Ariake clay under confining pressure. . (2010) also contradict each other at high confining pressures. 50 kPa with cement contents of Aw ¼ 6-18 per cent Volumetric strain. Hence this needs to be further investigated using experimental data.400 1.000 Aw = 9% 800 Aw = 18% 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 25 30 Deviatoric strain. Finally. (2004) and Suebsuk et al. It was observed that the experimental data provided by Lee et al. q (kPa) 0 0 5 10 15 20 1 Aw = 6% 2 Aw = 9% 3 Aw = 18% 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) Notes: (a) Deviatoric stress vs deviatoric strain. (b) volumetric strain vs deviatoric strain by Suebsuk et al.200 Aw = 6% 1. Therefore.

Horpibulsuk. Vol.T. Computers and Geotechnique. “Constitutive model for cement treated clay in a critical state framework”. J. S. G. Miura. and Stability of Embankments Founded on Columns Installed by Deep Mixing Method. (2004). 135 No. Providence. “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil”. J. “On the stress-strain behaviour of lightly cemented clay based on an extended critical state concept”. pp. (2004b). ASCE. N. Chan. Horpibulsuk. pp. Huang. “Undrained shear behaviour of cement admixed clay at high water content”. R. B. pp.T. (2006). L. ASCE (GSP 152). “Properties of an artificially cemented carbonate sand”. 40 No. 6. pp. K. “Two and three-dimensional modelling of DM columns under embankments”. Horpibulsuk. 1042-50. 151-4. Vol. Baudet. Vol. ABAQUS Version 6. (1990).. (2004). D. D. Load Transfer. and Liyanapathirana. A. 263-73... H. (2010). 1096-105.T. and Lee.G. “Return mapping algorithms and stress predictors for failure analysis in Geomechanics”. 10. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 37-47. 269-78. 130 No. (2010). 22 No. and Stallebrass. Kasama. D.10 User’s Manual.J. Settlement. 66 No.. pp. DeJong. P. 1. “Effcient return algorithms for associated plasticity with multiple yield planes”. “Behaviour of cemented clay simulated via the theoretical framework of structured Cam Clay model”. and Lorenzo. L.. Geotechnique. and Airey. Vol. Vol. S. J. Vol. pp. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. “Fundamental parameters of cement-admixed clay: new approach”.M. and Porbaha. 130 No. ASCE. and Bergado. 54 No. (2000).. Liu. M. 49-72. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. D. 65-72.R. Huang.A. M. 44-53. G. 69-77. pp. 3. and Griffiths. M. 37 Nos 1/2. (2006). Qin. (2006). Vol. Soils and Foundations. 3. S. Vol. and Lam. Soils and Foundations. G. and Gabr. D. S. J. J.S. part I: implicit integration of elasto-plastic constitutive relations”. 78. Borja. S.. 5. A. D. 276-84. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engieering. Carter. Liyanapathirana. L. pp.T. 50 No. 54 No. 492-9. and Anderson.T. and Bergado. Vol. D. 4. 1036-59. R. “A constitutive model for structured clays”. pp. D. Dong. 1-9. Bergado. Z. pp. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. ASCE. 2.. J. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. and Yasufuku.A. pp.. J. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. “Bearing capacity and settlement of concrete cored DCM pile in soft ground”. Lee. J. (2004a).I.. Geotechnique. Vol. 10. National Technical University of Athens School of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Department – Foundation Engineering Laboratory. “Compressibility of cement admixed clays at high water content”. (2009). GA.References ABAQUS Inc. pp. Lorenzo. in DeGroot. GeoCongress 2006: Geotechnical Engineering in the Information Technology Age.D. and Suebsuk. Ochiai. 105-19.P. Clausen. “Cam-Clay plasticity. Atlanta. (Eds). (2004). Vol. pp.. ASCE. pp.. 128 No. (2002). 1. M. “A constitutive model for structured soils”. Horpibulsuk. Vol. Geotechnique. and Chen. Athens. 44 No. S. Haung.W. D. N. Frost. Damkilde. Liu. and Baise. (1998). Proceedings of Sessions of GeoShanghai 2006: Ground Modification and Seismic Mitigation. J. (2000). Han. Han. ABAQUS Inc. Filz. 4. “Modelling the behaviour of cemented clay”. (2004). Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Kavvadas. 124 No. Vol. pp.D. ASCE. (2007)... and Amorosi. K. J. 6. An elasto-plastic constitutive model 95 . K.

Wheeler. 1009-40. pp. S. S. 2. 65. P.C. M. T. A. 5.N. “Sub-stepping schemes for the numerical integration of elastoplastic stress-strain relations”. (2001). (1998). Vol. E. Springer Verlag. and Carter. in finite plasticity”. Nova. Koseki. (1994). Vol. (2000). 1561-76.S. 40 No.1 96 Muir Wood. 380-9. Vol. Sheng. Rouainia.C.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. and Sheng. 121-54. (2003). 127 No. Karstunen. L.R. M. Vol. 678-87. Computational Mechanics. (1986). and proposed modification. Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics. Vol. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. and Atluri. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. S. and Taylor.. Tokyo.D. R. Vol. Vol. pp. Dafalias.A. (2006). (1987). 5. naturally structured and artificially structured clays”. Naatanen. Prietto. J. “Modified structured Cam Clay: a generalised critical state model for destructured. pp. Oritz. (2010). J. June. “An analysis of an explicit algorithm and the radial return algorithm.J. pp.C. 101-18. 1. 48 No.R. 403-18. “An anisotropic elasto plastic model for soft clays”. 5..emeraldinsight. “Consistent tangent operators for rate independent plasticity”. 37 Nos 7/8. 34 No. pp.. “Kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays with loss of structure”. 24 No. S. Vol. M. J. Computers and Geotechnique. A. R. D. Cambridge. pp... Y. Simo. (1990).. and Hughes. and Suzuki.M. Vol. pp. Liyanapathirana can be contacted at: s. B. and Muir Wood. Corresponding author D. “Stress integration and mesh refinement for large deformation in geomechanics”.L. Vatsala.P. 21 No. Horpibulsuk. London. Vol. S. pp. 9.. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. pp. Wang. Soils and Foundations.. 3. Rotta. Vol. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. A. 10. D. J. “Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations”. M. Computational Inelasticity.R. Geotechnique. Simo. and Peek. Finite Element Analysis of Lattice-shaped Ground Improvement by Cement-mixing for Liquefaction Mitigation. 2. (1985). Sloan. pp. pp.. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 18 Nos 1/2. “A destructuration theory and its application to SANICLAY model”.EC 30. “Isotropic yielding in an artificially cemented soil cured under stress”.J. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. N. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 13 No. Cambridge University Press.H. and Graham. ASCE. P.edu. Nazem. (2003). 893-911. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. and Sirinivasa Murthy. pp. 956-68.. Taiebat. 50 No. (2001). M. M. R. “Redefined explicit integration of elastoplastic models with error control”. D. (1985).. and Popov.com/reprints . pp. Geotechnique. M. Suebsuk. (2007). J. 8. T. (2009). Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Sloan. Abbo. and Liu. pp.L. D. and Taylor. J. Consoli. J. 53 No. Vol. 493-501. 153-64. 1002-27.liyanapathirana@uws. 559-76. and Lojander. “Elastoplastic model for cemented soils”. “A return mapping algorithm for plane stress elastoplasticity”. 649-70. Japanese Geotechnical Society. Coop.C. Simo.au To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Y. Namikawa. Vol. G. 22 No.V. M.