You are on page 1of 111

Hardening Soil Model

Prof. Minna Karstunen


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

Mohr Coulomb Model

linear elastic

'0

G
1

max

elastic

Associated flow (=) simple, numerically


efficient, but too much dilation
Non-associated flow ( ) non-symmetric
stiffness matrix not numerically efficient, still far
from real soil behaviour

MC vs Real Soil Behaviour

Stress path in oedometer


loading-unloading

Critical State Models


q,

yield surface
elastic

Stress-Strain Curve

Modified Cam Clay & Soft Soil Model:


Based on volumetric hardening: works in the wet side
when volumetric strains are dominating
Not representative in the dry side (e.g. excavations)

p,

Hardening Soil Model


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)

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship


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

For q < qf:

where

and

1 = 50
qf =
qa =

q
qa q

2sin
( 3' + c cot )
1 sin
qf
Rf

qf

Rf = failure ratio (standard value: 0.9)

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

where ps is a state parameter that is tracking the opening of the cone:

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.

Volumetric (density) hardening


c

Yield function (cap): f =

q% 2

p '2 p p 2

where pp is a state parameter that remembers the position of the cap:


q
pp

K0

cap

pp
c
Volumetric or
vertical strain,
1

Volumetric (density) hardening

pp

K0NC is controlled by . By inputting


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

Cap is closing the MC cone in principal stress space

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

Stress dependent moduli


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)

All stiffness moduli are updated according to current stress level.


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

Effect of modulus exponent m

Elastic unloading/ reloading


q

Unloading, reloading
by:

E50
1

Eur >E50
1

Eur = Eurref (

y
c

3 '+a
pa '+ a

)m

ur = low value

Eoed
1

Inside cone and cap:


Bulk modulus

Kur =

Eur
3(12ur)

Shear modulus

Gur =

Eur
2(1+ur)

Oedometer

Eoed =
ur

Eur(1ur)
(12ur)(1+ur)

Initial conditions for the HS model


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.

'c = y 0 '+ POP

'c = OCR y 0 '


yy
Prestress

Initial
CAP

POP
y0
1

ur
1 ur

Initial horizontal stress:

x 0 ' = K 0 ' c '( c ' y 0 ' ) 1

ur

Default:

Current
stress

K '0 = 1 sin

Modified if the MC yield


criterion is violated

K0

x0

xx

ur

Initial conditions for the HS model

Initial stresses:
q

MC failure line

Output:

' OCR ' = OCRiso

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 =

sin ' sin


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

Dilatancy from cone (most important part):

Nonassociated cone flow:


Increasing dilatancy m from zero at
cv to input value input on MC line
(Rowe).

Dilatancy set to zero for sinm <


sin, see Material Model Manual.

input

Stress
state

cv

Contractancy from cap during shearing (less dominating):


q

-a

Associated cap flow:


Increasing contractancy from
zero to a maximum value at
MC line, but only when cap
moves!
pp

HS input parameters

Parameter

Description

E50ref

Stiffness modulus for primary loading in drained triaxial test

Eoedref

Stiffness modulus for primary loading in oedometer test

Eurref

Stiffness modulus for unloading/reloading in drained triaxial test

Modulus exponent for stress dependency

ur

Poissons ratio for loading/unloading

Effective cohesion at failure


Effective friction angle at failure
Dilatancy angle at failure

POP: (p vo)
OCR: p/vo
Konc = 1 sin

Initial preconsolidation stress, p


Earth pressure coefficients at rest

Example: Settlement of strip footing

Monotonic
loading

Example: Vertical displacement of


a retaining wall
Wall pulled up

odulus G/G0 [-]


Shear mo

Limitation: No small strain stiffness


1

Retaining walls
Foundations
Tunnels

Very
small
strains

Conventional soil testing

Small strains

Larger strains
0
-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10

Dynamic methods
Local gauges

-2

10

-1

10

Shear strain [-]

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

Limitation: Non-monotonic loading in heavily OC clays


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

Recommended procedure for


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)

Simulate an oedometer or/and a triaxial test to calibrate your


soil parameter set

Run your design problem

Check the results and compare to hand calculations or other


estimates / experience

Comparison HS models and MC model


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

Comparison HS models and MC model


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

Comparison HS models and MC model

Drained triaxial test:

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

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

Comparison HS models and MC model

One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):


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

Comparison HS models and MC model

One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):


Stress state after unloading
HS

MC

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

Small Strain Stiffness and


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

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains


The strain range in which soils can be
considered truly elastic is very small
indeed
On exceeding this domain irrecoverable
strains start to develop

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains


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)

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains


q=1-3 [kPa]

1 [%]
Truly elastic behaviour on for very small loops
At small strains stiffness increases
Hysteresis increases with increasing strains

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains


q=1-3 [kPa]

1 [%]

Small-strain stiffness or Gur vs. G0


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

Why is small-strain stiffness important?


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.

Experimental evidence and data for small-strain stiffness


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.

odulus G/G0 [-]


Shear mo

Soil Stiffness at Small Strains


1

Retaining walls
Foundations
Tunnels

Very
small
strains

Conventional soil testing

Small strains

Larger strains
0
-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10

Dynamic methods
Local gauges

-2

10

-1

10

Shear strain [-]

Experimental evidence and data for small-strain stiffness


Empirical relationships between G0 or E0 =2(1+ur)G0 and void ratio e:
p' = 100 kPa

Most relationships are of the form:

250

Hardin & Black

A simple relationship for soils


with wl < 50 % is proposed by
Biarez & Hicher*:

E0 = Eref
0
with E
*

ref
0

p'
pref
140 MPa
=
e

Iwasaki & Tatsuoka

Shear moduluss G0 [MPa]

p'

G0 = G
pref
k
with Gref
0 = function (e ) OCR
ref
0

Biarez & Hicher

200

Kim et al.

150

Kokusho et al.
Sand &
Gravel

100

Kenya
sand
Clay

50

0
0.5

1.5

Void ratio e [-]

J. Biarez, P.-Y. Hicher. Elementary Mechanics of Soil Behaviour. Balkema, 1994

2.5

Experimental data & empirical relationships (E0)


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

E static [kg/cm] Eur


*

I. Alpan, The geotechnical properties of soils, Earth-Science Reviews 6 (1970), 5-49.

Experimental data & empirical relationships


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.

Empirical relationship for 0.7


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

IP = 100: 0.7 = 0.00055

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

Small-strain stiffness in the HS


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

Small-strain stiffness in the HS


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

Small-strain stiffness in the HS


model (HSsmall)
0.7

G0

Gt

Gs

Gur

HS-small extension 1-dimensional


The 1-dimensional model by Hardin & Drnevich*:

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.

HS-small model stiffness reduction


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]

Secant modulus G [kN/m]

40000

0.7

30000

20000

10000
HS-Small

30000

20000

Gurref
10000

Hardin & Drnevich

1E-5

0.0001
Shear strain [-]

0.001

0.01

1E-5

0.0001
Shear strain [-]

0.001

0.01

Difference HS and HS-small


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

Parameter: Eurref = 90 MPa, E0ref = 270 MPa, m = 0.55, 0.7=2x10-4


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]

Limburg excavation: Settlement trough

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

Distance to wall [m]


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

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

Hardening Soil Model


0

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

Hardening Soil Small

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

-5

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-15

-20

-20

-20

-20

-25

-25

-25

-25

Depth below surface [m]

Depth below surface [m]

Depth below surface [m]

Depth below surface [m]

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

Hardening Soil Model


-600 -400 -200

200 400

Hardening Soil Small


-600 -400 -200

200 400

-5

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-15

-20

-20

-20

-20

-25

Depth below surface [m]

-25

Depth below surface [m]

-25

Depth below surface [m]

-25

Depth below surface [m]

Tunnel example
Steinhaldenfeld - NATM

Distance to tunnel axis [m]


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

Also relevant for applications like:


Excavations (settlement trough behind retaining wall)
Tunnels (settlement trough above tunnel)

Parameters of the HS(small)


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.

HS-small model application


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.

Limitation: Heavily OC clays


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

HSsmall Model Prediction

40
20
0
0

50

100
150
P` (kPa)

200

250

Limitation: Heavily OC clays


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.

Selection of parameters for the


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

Input parameters - Hardening Soil


model
Parameter

Description

E50ref

Reference modulus for primary loading in drained triaxial test

Eoedref

Reference modulus for primary loading in oedometer test

Eurref

Reference modulus for unloading/reloading in drained triaxial test

m
ur = 0.2
c

Modulus exponent for stress dependency


Poissons ratio for loading/unloading
Effective cohesion at failure
Effective friction angle at failure
Dilatancy angle at failure

POP: (p vo) Initial preconsolidation stress, p


OCR: p/vo
Ko
Konc = 1 sin

Earth pressure coefficients at rest

G0ref

Reference shear stiffness at very small strain levels, (HSsmall only)

0.7

Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% of G0ref , (HSsmall only)

Input parameters - HS model


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

Stiffness parameters - Hardening Soil


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 of the HS model


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

Parameters of the HS model


For sands (m0.5):

Schanz (1998)

Stiffness of sand, drained


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

Loose sands: E50ref 15 MPa


pref = 100kPa

Dense sands: E50ref 50 MPa

Stiffness of sand, K0 test:


y
Eoed

y
Laboratory experience: y dependency of Eoed
ref
E oed = E oed

'y
p ref
ref
Loose sands: Eoed 15 MPa

Oedometer results confirm:

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

How can this be true?

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

Lunne et al. (1997)

Stiffness for unloading-reloading loops

Triaxial tests:
Unloading is purely
elastic in HS model

Stiffness for unloading-reloading loops


From oedometer tests for elastic behaviour with low Poissons Ratio:

(1ur )
Eur,oed =
Eur 1.1 Eur
(12ur )(1+ur )
Triaxial test
Alternatively:

Eur ,oed = Eoed and Eur Eur ,oed :


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

Axial strain [%]

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

Axial strain [%]


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:

Vertical strain [%]

-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

Vertical effective stress [kPa]

Unloading:

Eur oed 1.1 Eur , Eur = Eurref

Low Poisson Ratio

Eurref 0.9 Eur oed

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

E50ref = 35 MPa (estimated 32 MPa)


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)

Triaxial test results and PLAXIS


simulation
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,

Deviatoric stress, q [kPa]

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


200
180
160
140
120
100
80

Plaxis 40
dense 40

60
40
20
0
0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

Axial strain [%]

4,00

5,00

Triaxial test results and PLAXIS


simulation
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,
n = 35,9% (initial) 39,6% (end of test
Axial strain [%]

Volumetric 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

Oedometer test and PLAXIS simulation


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

Vertical strain [%]

Test data

-0,2

Plaxis

-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1
-1,2
-1,4
0

200

400

600

800

Vertical effective stress [kPa]

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

Hard NC clays: 3 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

CUR 195 (2000)


COB (1997)
Lambe & Whitman (1969)

Stiffness for unloading-reloading loops


From oedometer tests for elastic behaviour with low Poissons Ratio:

Eur,oed = Eoed and Eur Eur,oed :


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

Order of magnitude (very rough)

ref
oed

50000 kPa

Ip

Correlation with Ip for pref =100 kPa

ref
oed

500 kPa

wL 0.1

Correlation by Vermeer

Drained stiffness from


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

Eoed [MPa] for NC-soils


soils and = 100 kPa

105

rock
104

103

sandy gravel
102

sand
10

Norwegian
clays

Mexico City Clay


0

50

porosity
porosityn n[%][%]

100

Stiffness of clay

Tomlinson (1995): Foundation Design and Construction, Pitman Publishing Inc.

Parameters of the HS model


For normally consolidated clays (m=1):
ref
Eoed

1
2

ref
E50

Order of magnitude (very rough)

ref
Eoed

50000 kPa
Ip

Correlation with Ip for pref=100 kPa

ref
Eoed

500 kPa
wL 0.1

Correlation by Vermeer

ref
Eoed
= p ref *

Relationship with Soft Soil model

Oedometer test simulation, soft clay.


Initial stresses, preconsolidation and parameters
GW
yy

10 m

xx

= 20kN/m3

High oedometer cut out as


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

Oedometer test results, soft clay


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

-100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600

yy

Stress [kN/m2]

For OCR = 1,5:


0

-200

-400

-600

0
-74

x 0 ' = K 0 ' c '( c ' y 0 ' ) 1

ur

OCR = 1,5

-123

xx-200
-300

ur

x 0 ' = 0.577 150 (150 100) 100, 2, 2 = 74 kPa

OCR = 3

Note that for OCR = 3: xx > yy

Konc
11

-400

yy

Drained triaxial test simulation


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

Zero initial stresses,


preconsolidation generated by preloading

Drained triaxial test on soft clay


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

Top curve OCR = 3


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.

Not all combinations of


input parameters can be
used
q

pc

E50

Eur

E oed

double hardening

p
E50 / Eoed > 2 difficult to input

Small-strain stiffness in the HS model


(HSsmall)
Strain (path)-dependent elastic overlay model:

G starts again at G0
after full strain reversal

Input parameters of HSSmall:


G0ref
0.7

Gur

ref
0

G0 = G

c cos 3 sin
c cos + p ref sin

Small-strain stiffness in the HS model


(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

Small-strain stiffness parameters in the


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

Small-strain stiffness parameters in the


HSsmall model
ref
0

G0ref

(2.97 e)2
=
33 [MPa]
1+ e
RD 70MPa + 60MPa

0.7 =

Hardin & Black (1969)


Lengkeek

0.385
[2c(1 + cos(2 )) 1(1 + K0 )sin(2 )]
4G0

Benz (2007)

Order of magnitude:

G0ref = (2.5 to10)Gurref

0.7 = (1 to 2) 10 4

where

ref
ur

Eurref
=
2(1 + ur )

Recommended procedure for


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)

Simulate an oedometer or/and a triaxial test to calibrate your


soil parameter set

Run your design problem

Check the results and compare to hand calculations or other


estimates / experience

Which model in which situation?


Soft soil (NC-clay, Hard soils (OCpeat)
clay, sand, gravel)
Primary load.
(surcharge)

Soft Soil (Crp),


HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

Unloading +
deviatoric load
(excavation)
Deviatoric
loading

HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

Soft Soil (Crp),


HS / HSsmall

HS / HSsmall

Secondary
compression

Soft Soil Creep

n/a