272 views

Uploaded by MinhLê

© All Rights Reserved

- The Hardening-soil Model
- 1_Hardening Soil Model
- Hardening Soil-model GTSNX
- Hardening Soil Model (Plaxis)
- Applications of Computational Mechanics in Geotechnical Engineering
- Plaxis Tutorial 01
- ZSoilDay2011 HSmodels-Course v3.1
- HS Model Presentation
- Mohr-Coulomb model and soil stiffness
- PLAXIS-powerpoint presentation
- Soil Stiffness
- The Calibration of Hardening Soil Models for Northern İzmir Bay Area Soils [İzmir Körfezi Kuzey Kıyı Zeminleri Için Pekleşen Zemin Modellerinin Kalibrasyonu]
- (Database) Typical Soil Parameters Properties (2014)
- PLAXIS Finite element tutorial.pdf
- The Hardening Soil Model
- Plaxis_advanced_course_hong_kong_2012.pdf
- cam-clay
- Cam Clay Parameters
- Plaxis Mum Plaxisbai Course 2012
- The Hardening Soil Model - Formulation and Verfication_noPW

You are on page 1of 111

University of Strathclyde

With thanks to Prof. Pieter Vermeer,

Prof. Thomas Benz, Prof. Steinar Nordal & Dr

Ronald Brinkgreve

Introduction

The aim is to discuss the formulations for

the double-hardening models in PLAXIS:

Hardening Soil Model

HSsmall (small strain stiffness model)

Introduction

The topics to be covered include:

Hardening Soil model in the context of

constitutive models

Hardening Soil model formulation

Limitations of HS model

Small strain stiffness

HSsmall model formulation

Limitations of HSsmall model

Parameter selection for HS models

linear elastic

'0

G

1

max

elastic

efficient, but too much dilation

Non-associated flow ( ) non-symmetric

stiffness matrix not numerically efficient, still far

from real soil behaviour

loading-unloading

q,

yield surface

elastic

Stress-Strain Curve

Based on volumetric hardening: works in the wet side

when volumetric strains are dominating

Not representative in the dry side (e.g. excavations)

p,

Volumetric hardening is complemented by

deviatoric hardening

Deviatoric hardening surface evolves with

deviatoric strains until failure is reached

Model characteristics:

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in axial compression

Plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening)

Plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening)

Stress-dependent stiffness according to a power law

Elastic unloading/ reloading compared to virgin loading

Memory of pre-consolidation stress

Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criterion

Dilatancy below MC line

Small strain stiffness (HS-small only)

Duncan-Chang or hyperbolic model in (tri)axial loading:

where

and

1 = 50

qf =

qa =

q

qa q

2sin

( 3' + c cot )

1 sin

qf

Rf

qf

q

q

q

asymptote

a

1

E

50

qf

ur

1

1

The hyperbolic model with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion constitutes the basis for

the HS and HS-small models. In contrast to the Duncan-Chang model, the HS

models are elasto-plastic models.

Shear hardening

s

Yield function (cone): f =

qa q

2q

ps

E50 qa q Eur

Elastic

MC failure line

q

plastic

Increasing

plastic

shear

strains

-a = c cot

Evolution law for ps: d ps = d s where ds is the plastic multiplier for the

cone type yield surface of the model.

c

q% 2

p '2 p p 2

q

pp

K0

cap

pp

c

Volumetric or

vertical strain,

1

pp

a realistic value of K0NC as a result value in large and the yield cap is

relatively steep.

Therefore: q% = f ( 1 , 2 , 3 , )

m

K s Kc 3 + a

p

Evolution law: dp p =

d v

K s K c p ref + a

Eurref

where K s =

and the bulk stiffness of the cap Kc is determined

3(1 2 )

from Eoed and K0nc

q

asymptote: qa

E50

qf=0,9 qa

y

c

y

Eoed

'+ a

E50 = E50ref 3

pa '+ a

(Secant modulus)

+a

ref '3 / K

Eoed = Eoed

'

+

p

a

a

nc

0

(Tangent modulus)

Input stiffness are values at reference stress, e.g. pa = 100 kPa.

q

Unloading, reloading

by:

E50

1

Eur >E50

1

Eur = Eurref (

y

c

3 '+a

pa '+ a

)m

ur = low value

Eoed

1

Bulk modulus

Kur =

Eur

3(12ur)

Shear modulus

Gur =

Eur

2(1+ur)

Oedometer

Eoed =

ur

Eur(1ur)

(12ur)(1+ur)

d

e

p

t

h

d

e

p

t

h

c

y0

y0 c

Preconsolidation is entered by

OCR or POP relative to initial

vertical stress and is then

converted to pp.

yy

Prestress

Initial

CAP

POP

y0

1

ur

1 ur

ur

Default:

Current

stress

K '0 = 1 sin

criterion is violated

K0

x0

xx

ur

Initial stresses:

q

MC failure line

Output:

K0nc line

pc

p eq =

Cap

p0, q0

peq0

pc,0

( p' )

pc

= eq

p

+ q2 / 2

Dilatancy

~ e max

2sin

1-sin

y

v

sin cv =

1 sin ' sin

sin m =

'1 '3

'1 + '3 2c' cot '

sin m =

sin m sin cv

1 sin m sin cv

Dilatancy formulation:

Rowe (1962) modified

Increasing dilatancy m from zero at

cv to input value input on MC line

(Rowe).

sin, see Material Model Manual.

input

Stress

state

cv

q

-a

Increasing contractancy from

zero to a maximum value at

MC line, but only when cap

moves!

pp

HS input parameters

Parameter

Description

E50ref

Eoedref

Eurref

ur

Effective friction angle at failure

Dilatancy angle at failure

POP: (p vo)

OCR: p/vo

Konc = 1 sin

Earth pressure coefficients at rest

Monotonic

loading

a retaining wall

Wall pulled up

Shear mo

1

Retaining walls

Foundations

Tunnels

Very

small

strains

Small strains

Larger strains

0

-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges

-2

10

-1

10

Limitation: Unloading/reloading

stiffness is the same

q=1-3 [kPa]

1 [%]

Truly elastic behaviour on for very small loops

At small strains stiffness increases

Hysteresis increases with increasing strains

Need to use artificially low POP/OCR value to trigger plasticity within yield

surface in order to represent different stiffness for loading/unloading for nonmonotonic loading.

However the stress path may still be wrong when approaching to failure.

OC clay

HSmodel

p

application

MC model: for simple estimates and for safety factors (stability)

Advanced soil models: for more accurate deformation predictions

Hardening Soil model:

Use previous experience from lab, field and case records for

strength and stiffness (E50 etc)

soil parameter set

estimates / experience

Isotropic compression test:

H-S

p' [kN/m2]

1000

M-C

800

600

400

200

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

eps-v

0.04

0.05

Drained triaxial test:

q' [kN/m2]

300

M-C

250

H-S

200

150

100

50

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0

0

0.02

0.04

eps-1

0.06

0.08

eps-v

9.00E-03

6.00E-03

M-C

3.00E-03

0.000

H-S

-3.00E-03

-6.00E-03

0

0.02

0.04

eps-1

0.06

0.08

sig'-yy [kN/m2]

1000

800

600

M-C

400

H-S

200

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0

0

0.005

0.010

0.015

eps-1

0.020

0.025

0.030

Stress state after unloading

HS

MC

HSsmall

Introduction

The aim is to discuss the extension of the

HS model to account for small strain

stiffness.

The topics to be covered include:

Small strain stiffness

HSsmall model formulation

Limitations of HSsmall model

The strain range in which soils can be

considered truly elastic is very small

indeed

On exceeding this domain irrecoverable

strains start to develop

There are several different approaches to

model soil stiffness at small strains:

Non-linear elastic models (e.g. Jardine et al.

1986, Benz et al. 2005)

Elasto-plastic models include multi-surface

(e.g. Mroz 1967) and bounding surface

models (e.g. Dafalias and Herrmann 1982, Al

Tabbaa & Wood 1989, Stallebrass and Taylor

1997)

q=1-3 [kPa]

1 [%]

Truly elastic behaviour on for very small loops

At small strains stiffness increases

Hysteresis increases with increasing strains

q=1-3 [kPa]

1 [%]

Soil stiffness derived from laboratory testing is commonly plotted as (secant-) shear

modulus G over shear strain . G = G() is a function of the applied shear strain after the

last load reversal.

E0 = 2 (1 + ur) G0

q = 1-3

G = q/

G0

Gur

q

= 1-3

normal -axis

scaled -axis

= 1-3

Not accounting for small strain stiffness in geotechnical analyses may potentially result in

overestimating foundation settlements and retaining wall deflections consequently underestimating stresses. The gradient of settlement troughs behind retaining walls or above

tunnels may be underestimated. Piles or anchors within the working load range may

show a too soft response.

Analysis results are also less sensitive to the choice of proper boundary conditions. Large

meshes no longer cause extensive accumulation of displacements, because marginally

strained mesh parts are very stiff.

True elastic stiffness was first observed in soil dynamics. Back then, the apparent higher

soil stiffness in dynamic loading applications was attributed to the nature of loading, e.g.

inertia forces and strain rate effects. Nowadays, static small-strain measurements are

available as well. These show only little differences to dynamic measurements. Still, the

term dynamic soil stiffness is sometimes used when true elastic or small-strain stiffness is

meant.

Shear mo

1

Retaining walls

Foundations

Tunnels

Very

small

strains

Small strains

Larger strains

0

-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges

-2

10

-1

10

Empirical relationships between G0 or E0 =2(1+ur)G0 and void ratio e:

p' = 100 kPa

250

with wl < 50 % is proposed by

Biarez & Hicher*:

E0 = Eref

0

with E

*

ref

0

p'

pref

140 MPa

=

e

p'

G0 = G

pref

k

with Gref

0 = function (e ) OCR

ref

0

200

Kim et al.

150

Kokusho et al.

Sand &

Gravel

100

Kenya

sand

Clay

50

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

The relationship between E0 and Eur can be estimated from the chart by Alpan* assuming

Edynamic/Estatic E0/Eur (10 kg/m=1 MPa):

E dynamic

E

0

E static

Eur

*

Stiffness reduction curves according to Seed & Idris* (left) and Vucetic & Dobry** (right)

* H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report 70-10,

EERC (Berkeley, Cali-fornia), 1970.

** M. Vucetic, R. Dobry, Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE 117 (1991), no. 1, 89-107.

Based on statistical evaluation of test data, Darandeli* proposed correlations for a

hyperbolic stiffness reduction model, similar to the one used inside the HSS model.

Correlations are given for different plasticity indices.

Based on Darendelis work, 0.7 can be estimated to:

IP = 0:

0.7 = 0.00015

p'

pref

IP = 30:

0.7 = 0.00026

p'

pref

p'

pref

Note: The indicated stress dependency of 0.7 is not implemented in the commercial HSS

model. If needed, the stress dependency of 0.7 can be incorporated into boundary value

problems through definition of sub-layers.

*Darendeli,

Mehmet Baris, Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material

Damping Curves. PhD Dissertation (supervisor: Prof. Kenneth H. Stokoe, II), Department of Civil

Engineering. The University of Texas at Austin. August, 2001.

HS-Small model

1.0

G/G0 [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-3

1e

-2

-1

1e

1e

1e

1e

1e

Normalisierte Scherdehnung /0.7 [-]

1e

model (HSsmall)

Strain(path)-dependent elastic overlay model:

Gs =

G0

1 + 0.385 / 0.7

Gt =

Gur

G0

(1 + 0.385 / 0.7 )2

Gur

G starts again at G0

after full strain reversal

model (HSsmall)

Cyclic loading

leads to Hysteresis

Gt

G0

Gs

-c

+c

G0

CiTG, Geo-engineering,

http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl

G0

Energy dissipation

Damping

model (HSsmall)

0.7

G0

Gt

Gs

Gur

The 1-dimensional model by Hardin & Drnevich*:

G0

f

G

1

=

G0

1+ / r

Modified HS-Small:

G

1

=

G0

1 + (3 ) /(7 0.7 )

Note: r in the original approach by Hardin

& Drnevich relates to the failure shear

stress f.

B.O. Hardin, V.P. Drnevich, Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,

ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 98 (1972), no. SM7, 667-692.

Left: Secant modulus reduction Parameter input

Right: Tangent modulus reduction Stiffness reduction cut-off

If the small-strain stiffness relationship that is implemented in the HS-Small model

predicts a tangent stiffness lower than Gurref, the models elastic stiffness is set

constant as then hardening plasticity accounts for further stiffness reduction.

G0ref

40000

Tangent modulus G [kN/m]

40000

0.7

30000

20000

10000

HS-Small

30000

20000

Gurref

10000

1E-5

0.0001

Shear strain [-]

0.001

0.01

1E-5

0.0001

Shear strain [-]

0.001

0.01

Model response in a standard triaxial test.

Here: Dense Hostun sand

3 = 300 kPa CD

1/3

GSecant [kN/m2]

Vol[-]

-0.20

-0.16

160000

HS (original)

120000

HS-Small

-0.12

2

-0.08

-0.04

0

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

1[-]

Experiment

80000

40000

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

The stress-strain curves of the Hardening Soil model and the HS-Small model are

almost identical (Figure left-hand side). However, in zooming into the first part of the

curve, the difference in the two models can be observed (Figure right-hand side).

1-3[-]

Excavation example

Distance to wall [m]

20

40

60

80

0

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012

MC (E50)

MC (Eur)

-0.016

Settlement [m]

A comparison:

MC (E50): MC calculation with E = E50

MC (Eur): MC calculation with E = Eur

HS: HS calculation with Eoed = E50

HSS: Same as HS but with small

strain stiffness

0

20

40

60

80

0

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012

HS

HSS

-0.016

Settlement [m]

Excavation example

Limburg excavation: Horizontal wall displacement

MC-Model (E50)

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

MC Model (Eur)

0

0

-5

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-15

-20

-20

-20

-20

-25

-25

-25

-25

Excavation example

Limburg excavation: Bending moments in [kNm/m]

MC-Model (E50)

-600 -400 -200

200 400

MC Model (Eur)

-600 -400 -200

200 400

-600 -400 -200

200 400

-600 -400 -200

200 400

-5

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-15

-20

-20

-20

-20

-25

-25

-25

-25

Tunnel example

Steinhaldenfeld - NATM

0

10

20

30

-0.01

Measurement

-0.02

HS (original)

HS-Small

Settlement [m]

40

HS-Small model

1.0

G/G0 [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-3

1e

-2

-1

1e

1e

1e

1e

1e

Normalisierte Scherdehnung /0.7 [-]

1e

HS model (HSsmall)

Relevance of small-strain stiffness:

Very stiff behaviour at very small strains (vibrations)

Reduction of stiffness with increasing strain; restart after

load reversal

Hysteresis in cyclic loading:

Energy dissipation

Damping

Excavations (settlement trough behind retaining wall)

Tunnels (settlement trough above tunnel)

model

Parameters:

E50ref Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure

Eoedref Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref

Eurref

Reference stiffness in unloading / reloading

G0ref

Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall only)

0.7

Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% (HSsmall only)

m

Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour

pref

Reference pressure (100 kPa)

ur

Poissons ratio in unloading / reloading

c

Cohesion

Friction angle

Dilatancy angle

Rf

Failure ratio qf /qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)

K0nc

Stress ratio xx/yy in 1D primary compression

Selected references

Brinkgreve, R.B.J. et al (20xx): Users manual for

PLAXIS 2D.

Schanz,T. Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier P.G. (1999):

The Hardening Soil Model: Formulation and

verification, Beyond 2000 in Computational

Geotechnics 10 years of PLAXIS, Balkema.

Benz, T: Small-Strain Stiffness of Soils and its

Numerical Consequences, PhD Thesis. IGS,

Universitt Stuttgart, Mitteilung 55.

Elastic stiffness properties of the HS-Small model can be visualized in state variable 10.

3.0

20

G m [-]

40

60

2.0

Gm=Gref /Gurref

80

1.0

100

-20

20

40

60

80

100

120

The dark (blue) area is the strain area where G = Gur. The light gray

(yellow) area is the very-small-strain area with G G0. In between Gur

and G0 is the area where shear strains are small but not very small

according to the definition by Atkinson.

Need to use artificially low POP/OCR value to trigger plasticity within yield

surface in order to represent different stiffness for loading/unloading for nonmonotonic loading.

However the stress path may still be wrong when approaching to failure.

200

180

160

q (kPa)

140

120

100

100 kPa Stress Path

80

60

40

20

0

0

50

100

150

P` (kPa)

200

250

By default, the initial stiffness is set to G0.

Care needs to be taken when the geologic loading history of a soil is modeled.

If, for example, a vertical surcharge was applied and removed in order to model

OCR, the model remembers the vertical heave upon unloading including its

decreased small-strain stiffness. The initial stiffness at the onset of loading the

footing might then look as the one shown at the left-hand side of the above

figure. Here, the material should be exchanged or a reverse load step applied.

Hardening Soil model

Based on materials by

Dennis Waterman

Plaxis bv

Prof. Steinar Nordal - NTNU Norwegian University of

Science and Technology

Nubia Gonzlez UPC Universidad Politcnica de Catalua

model

Parameter

Description

E50ref

Eoedref

Eurref

m

ur = 0.2

c

Poissons ratio for loading/unloading

Effective cohesion at failure

Effective friction angle at failure

Dilatancy angle at failure

OCR: p/vo

Ko

Konc = 1 sin

G0ref

0.7

Important:

The Hardening Soil is completely defined in

effective stresses and therefore needs both

effective stiffness parameters and effective

strength parameters

A total stress analysis may be performed with

the Hardening Soil model using both

undrained strength (=0 and c=cu) and

undrained stiffnesses but with the following

limitations:

No stress dependent stiffness, only constant stiffness

No compression hardening, only elastic compression

model

Stress dependent stiffness for primary shear, primary compression and

unloading/reloading behaviour

Plastic Cone hardening

secant modulus:

Plastic Cap hardening,

tangent modulus:

Elastic, unloading, reloading

tangent modulus:

E50 = E50ref

Eoed

3 '+ a

p

+

a

ref

'1 + a

ref

= Eoed

p

+

a

ref

Eur = Eurref

3 '+ a

p

+

a

ref

a = ccot()

m

Parameters:

q

qult

(, c)

3=pref

E50ref

Eurref

c 1=pref

qf=Rf qult

0.5 qf

Triaxial test

1

Eoedref

Oedometer test

Stiffness of Sand

For sands (m0.5):

Schanz (1998)

triaxial testing:

y - x

E50

E50

y

x

y - x E

50

y - x

Test 1:

x= 50kPa

E50

Test 2:

x= 100kPa

E50 = E50ref

ref

50

Test 3:

x= 200kPa

'x

pref

pref = 100kPa

y

Eoed

y

Laboratory experience: y dependency of Eoed

ref

E oed = E oed

'y

p ref

ref

Loose sands: Eoed 15 MPa

ref

Dense sands: Eoed 50 MPa

Stiffness of sand

ref

50

E E

ref

oed

ref

Eoed

RD 60MPa

emax e

RD =

emax emin

Correlation by Lengkeek

for pref=100 kPa

Stiffness of sand

ref

E50ref Eoed

p ref

-1= p ref

-3 = p ref

-3

-1

Eoed

Cone tip

Soil type

of sand

resistance

at v = v0 Stiffness

Eoed = 4qc

qc < 10 MPa

Loose sands:

Eoed = 2qc+20

10 MPa < qc < 50 Unaged and

MPa

MPa

uncemented,

predominantly

Eoed = 120 MPa

qc > 50 MPa

silica

Eoed = 5qc

qc < 50 MPa

Dense sands

Eoed = 250 MPa

qc > 50 MPa

Triaxial tests:

Unloading is purely

elastic in HS model

From oedometer tests for elastic behaviour with low Poissons Ratio:

(1ur )

Eur,oed =

Eur 1.1 Eur

(12ur )(1+ur )

Triaxial test

Alternatively:

m

ref

ur

3 '+ a

1 '+ a

ref

= Eoed

pref '+ a

pref '+ a

m

Eurref

m

ref 1 ' + a

ref

= Eoed

=

E

/

K

(

)

0

oed

'

+

a

3

Sand (m=0.5):

Eur ,oed 3Eoed

ref

ref

Eurref 3Eoed

/ K0 4Eoed

EXAMPLE:

Triaxial test results by Shaoli (2004)

Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,

n = 35,9% (initial) 39,6% (end of test)

D e v ia t o r ic s t r e s s , q [ k P a ]

dense 40

200

150

dense 40

100

50

E50ref = E50

0

0

pref + a

'x + a

= 20000kPa

100kPa

= 32MPa

40kPa

EXAMPLE

Triaxial test results by Shaoli (2004)

Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,

n = 35,9% (initial) 39,6% (end of test)

Dense 40

Volumetric strain, [%]

-4

1-sin

-3

2sin

-2

-1

Dense 40

1 sin

1

5

=

= 1,2

2 sin

4,2

sin = 0,29

0

1

= 17

EXAMPLE

Oedometer test dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% , (Moen, 1975)

0

Loading:

-0,2

Test data

-0,4

ref

Eoed = Eoed

-0,6

-0,8

ref

Eoed

= Eoed

-1

-1,2

-1,4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Unloading:

1 '+ a

pa '+ a

pa ''+

+a

1 '+ a

850kPa 100kPa

0,008 400kPa

= 53MPa

=

3 '+ a

pa '+ a

pa '+ a

850kPa 100

= 0.9

= 195MPa

3 '+ a

0,0028 200

HS Material parameters

for dense Hokksund sand from fitting PLAXIS

results to experimental data

(after trial and error, starting with estimated parameters):

=0

Axial

symmetry

pw = 0

Eoedref = 45 MPa (estimated 53 MPa)

Eurref = 180 MPa (estimated 195 MPa)

m = 0,6

c = 1 kPa

= 440

= 180 (estimated 170)

K0NC = 0,4

ur = 0,2

Triaxial tests by Shaoli (2004)

simulation

Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

Plaxis 40

dense 40

60

40

20

0

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

simulation

Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,

n = 35,9% (initial) 39,6% (end of test

Axial strain [%]

-4

-3,5

-3

-2,5

-2

from PLAXIS 40

Dense 40

-1,5

-1

-0,50,00

0

0,5

1

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% , (Tore Ingar Moen, 1975)

Test data

-0,2

Plaxis

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

-1,2

-1,4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Stiffness of Clay

Stiffness of clay

Drained stiffness from oedometer tests

y

Basically

'y

ref

Eoed = Eoed

p

ref

y

Eoed

Eoed

ref

oed

1

=

mv

Eoed = E

ref

oed

for

ref

oed

'y

p

ref

Soft NC clays:

pref = 100kPa

pref = y '

1 MPa

Stiffness of clay

Ideal: drained triaxial test or consolidated undrained

triaxial test

Practice: undrained triaxial test

y - x

E50 = f Eu50

Eu50

1

1+

1+ u

cu: undrained

shear strength

f =

cu

f = 1/ 3

0.25 < f < 0.35

COB (1997)

Lambe & Whitman (1969)

From oedometer tests for elastic behaviour with low Poissons Ratio:

m

1 '+ a

m

ref

E = E

= Eoed / ( K0 )

3 '+ a

ref

ur

ref

oed

Clay (m=1):

ref

ref

/ K0 20Eoed

NC : Eur ,oed 10Eoed Eurref 10Eoed

ref

ref

OC : Eur ,oed 3Eoed Eurref 3Eoed

/ K0 3Eoed

Stiffness of clay

Other estimations for stiffness of normally consolidated clays (m=1):

ref

oed

1

2

E E

ref

50

ref

oed

50000 kPa

Ip

ref

oed

500 kPa

wL 0.1

Correlation by Vermeer

oedometer tests on

intact lean Norwegian

NC clays for y > c

ref

oed

Oedometer modulus

Stiffness of

clay

5

MP

a

4

ref

Eoed

= 230 (

0

Based on Janbu (1963)

1 + e0

)

Cc

Stiffness of sand

and clay

After Janbu (1963)

Janbu :

Eoed

ref

= Eoed

pref

more general:

+ a

Eoed = Eref

oed

pref + a

with a = c cot

soils and = 100 kPa

105

rock

104

103

sandy gravel

102

sand

10

Norwegian

clays

0

50

porosity

porosityn n[%][%]

100

Stiffness of clay

For normally consolidated clays (m=1):

ref

Eoed

1

2

ref

E50

ref

Eoed

50000 kPa

Ip

ref

Eoed

500 kPa

wL 0.1

Correlation by Vermeer

ref

Eoed

= p ref *

Initial stresses, preconsolidation and parameters

GW

yy

10 m

xx

= 20kN/m3

a vertical column from the

site in question.

Start the test from in situ

stresses and specified

preconsolidation for the

sample studied.

Sample

pw yy

pw xx

5m

Soft clay by

Hardening soil

model:

ref

E 50

= 2 MPa

m=1

= 25o

ref

E oed

= 2 MPa

ur = 0,2

= 0o

E urref = 10 MPa

c = 5 kPa

K0NC = 0.577

Strain

0,00

Note the

preconsolidaton

levels at:

OCR = 3

-0,02

-0,04

yy

OCR = 1,5

-0,06

yy = 150 kPa

yy = 300 kPa

-0,08

-0,10

0

yy

Stress [kN/m2]

0

-200

-400

-600

0

-74

ur

OCR = 1,5

-123

xx-200

-300

ur

OCR = 3

Konc

11

-400

yy

soft clay

Soft clay by

Hardening soil

model:

=0

ref

E 50

= 2 MPa

pw = 0

ref

E oed

= 2 MPa

Axial

symmetry

ref

E ur

= 10 MPa

m=1

ur = 0,2

c = 5 kPa

= 25o

= 0o

K0NC = 0.577

preconsolidation generated by preloading

results

q [kN/m2]

Stress

paths:

q [kN/m2]

200

200

160

160

120

120

80

80

40

40

Initial cap

OCR = 1

OCR = 2

0

0

0

-40

-80

-120

-160

-50

160

OCR = 2

OCR = 1

140

Effect of

OCR:

-150

p [kN/m2]

p' [kN/m2]

180

-100

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

yy

-200

-250

Parameter limitations

HS model has internal parameters that are computed from our

engineering input parameters.

input parameters can be

used

q

pc

E50

Eur

E oed

double hardening

p

E50 / Eoed > 2 difficult to input

(HSsmall)

Strain (path)-dependent elastic overlay model:

G starts again at G0

after full strain reversal

G0ref

0.7

Gur

ref

0

G0 = G

c cos 3 sin

c cos + p ref sin

(HSsmall)

Cyclic loading

leads to Hysteresis

Gt

G0

Energy dissipation

Damping

Gs

-c

+c

G0

Gs =

G0

1 + 0.385

G0

Gt =

0.7

G0

1 + 0.385

0.7

HSsmall model

Drained triaxial test, HS vs. HSsmall model

160

140

HSsmall

q [kN/m]

120

E0

ref

E

0

G0ref =

2(1+ur )

HS

100

80

60

40

20

0 0

Et Eur

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

yy

-0.01

-0.012

-0.014

HSsmall model

ref

0

G0ref

(2.97 e)2

=

33 [MPa]

1+ e

RD 70MPa + 60MPa

0.7 =

Lengkeek

0.385

[2c(1 + cos(2 )) 1(1 + K0 )sin(2 )]

4G0

Benz (2007)

Order of magnitude:

0.7 = (1 to 2) 10 4

where

ref

ur

Eurref

=

2(1 + ur )

application

MC model: for simple estimates and for safety factors (stability)

Advanced soil models: for more accurate deformation predictions

Hardening Soil model:

Use previous experience from lab, field and case records for

strength and stiffness (E50 etc)

soil parameter set

estimates / experience

Soft soil (NC-clay, Hard soils (OCpeat)

clay, sand, gravel)

Primary load.

(surcharge)

HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

Unloading +

deviatoric load

(excavation)

Deviatoric

loading

HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

Secondary

compression

n/a

- The Hardening-soil ModelUploaded byGEOMAHESH
- 1_Hardening Soil ModelUploaded byAlexandra Ene
- Hardening Soil-model GTSNXUploaded byAlex Antonescu
- Hardening Soil Model (Plaxis)Uploaded bybogdan tanasoiu
- Applications of Computational Mechanics in Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded bylephuongdong
- Plaxis Tutorial 01Uploaded byDuc Tran
- ZSoilDay2011 HSmodels-Course v3.1Uploaded byMohamed A. El-Badawi
- HS Model PresentationUploaded bygeologist84
- Mohr-Coulomb model and soil stiffnessUploaded byLuis Lemus Mondaca
- PLAXIS-powerpoint presentationUploaded byjs kalyana rama
- Soil StiffnessUploaded byMuhamad Hassan
- The Calibration of Hardening Soil Models for Northern İzmir Bay Area Soils [İzmir Körfezi Kuzey Kıyı Zeminleri Için Pekleşen Zemin Modellerinin Kalibrasyonu]Uploaded byÇağrı KARABİLLİOĞLU
- (Database) Typical Soil Parameters Properties (2014)Uploaded byHebrews13V8
- PLAXIS Finite element tutorial.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- The Hardening Soil ModelUploaded bymetropodikas
- Plaxis_advanced_course_hong_kong_2012.pdfUploaded byHà Mập
- cam-clayUploaded byProbal Som
- Cam Clay ParametersUploaded byanalysethat
- Plaxis Mum Plaxisbai Course 2012Uploaded byPinakin Gore
- The Hardening Soil Model - Formulation and Verfication_noPWUploaded byvanhungclc1
- soil constitutive modelUploaded byMohamed Yousuf
- Method AnB PlaxisUploaded byElrie Kenneth Omisol
- Plaxis Danang Course-CompiledUploaded byTrần Quang Huy
- Modelling in GeotechnicsUploaded byAdele Maccario
- Numerics in geotechnics 2010.pdfUploaded byRaúl Bernal Luna
- Plaxis 2D Reference ManualUploaded byjames_frank
- Nonlinear Analysis in Soil MechanicsUploaded byYanbeiZhang
- 111348580-Plaxis-Tutorial-02.pdfUploaded byrajahprashanna
- Lecture 1Uploaded byqthach

- Stainless SteelUploaded bysaudiman
- Why Orbitals Do Not ExistUploaded byWilliam Agudelo
- Delightful: The Saturation Spirit Energy DistributionUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- Www.viscopedia.com Viscosity-tables Substances WaterUploaded byHarshal Jadhav
- SMART MATERIALSUploaded bymycatalysts
- 15 ASMEPressureVesselAnalysis Jensen Reiling Predictive EndeavorUploaded byandi suntoro
- ABSTRACT - Benefits, Risks, And Costs of Stratospheric GeoengineeringUploaded byeri hariono
- FEM-APPLICATION-BIOMECHANICS.pptUploaded bySinziana Moldoveanu
- Night Vision TechnologyUploaded byVI V EK
- The Buffer and Backfill HandbookUploaded bysharjahsharjah
- Filtro SecadorUploaded byGuilherme Gomes
- Convection in FluidsUploaded byGurvir Singh
- Air PreheaterUploaded byanup_nair
- 3 Preparation and Characterization of the Ferroelectric Potassium Nitrate Poly Vinyl Alcohol Compsoite Films (IEEE 2009)Uploaded byNavneet Dabra
- Hyper Static EffectsUploaded byaiyubpatni
- 5 Chapter Atomic Structure McqsUploaded byshamsul amin
- 1 EquilibriumUploaded byManuelMacatiag
- ILLUMINATION (Student Version)Uploaded byzeontitan
- TurbineUploaded bygaurav vadaliya
- 4 Vibration Measurement 2008Uploaded byhkajai
- Bureau Veritas Steering GearUploaded byborhec123
- Behavior of Laterally Loaded PilesUploaded byVijay Dandage
- Harmonic Motion pptUploaded byDan Geo
- PXXXXXX Design SummaryUploaded byRenzo C. Lozano
- Expt. 9 Light PhenomenaUploaded byJovilin Manucduc
- che2.xlsUploaded byJaynie Lee Villaran
- Heat Recovery From Exhaust GasesUploaded bynaveen
- Ageing Plant Summary GuideUploaded bycmms88
- Cell Unit Review Worksheet Part II KEY _2013-2014Uploaded byjuliaong
- 3 2 6 abeamdesign docxUploaded byapi-260940359