A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils Jean H. Prevost Department of Cieil Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA A simple elastic-plastic constitutive model for cohesionless soils is proposed, The model retains the extreme versatility and accuracy of the simple multi-surface J,-theacy in describing observed shear nonlinear hysteretic behaviour, shear stress-induced anisotropy; and reflects the strong dilatancy dependency on the fective stress ratio, The theory is applica le to general three-dimensional stress-strain conditions, but its parameters can be derived entirely from the results of conventional laboratory soil tests. A number of examples are presented including an analysis of induced liquefaction behind a retaining structure INTRODUCTION Recent advances in digital computer technology have rendered possible and economically feasible, the nameri- cal analysis of complex. geotechnical engineering pro- blems. The main difficulty sti encountered in such analysis is associated with the realistic modeling of soil stress-strain behaviour. Considerable attention has been given in the past decade to the development of con- slitative equations for soil media, but although many different models have been proposed. there is not yet firm agreement among researchers. Flastic (see eg. RefS. and 6), endochronie tsee eg. Ref. 26). and many elastic-plastic models with various degrees of sophistication andjor complexity have been proposed. Elastic-plastie models appear to be the most promising ‘The most popular and most widely used sand models are Cap models? based on classical isotropic plasticity theory with associated flow, and are sariations and refinements (see eg. Ref. 2) of the basic Cap model pioneered by DiMaggio and Sandler*. The most obvious limitations of these Cap models are (1) They do not adequately model soil stress-induced anisotropy; are not applicable to eyelic loading conditions. Similar limitations apply to the models presented in Ref. 9,13, 14. It may be argued that plastic models based on isotropic plastic hardening rules are adequate for si- tuations in which only loading (and moderate unloading) occurs. However, its unlikely that such restrictions can be met atovery point in general boundary value problems. Ip border to account for hysteretic effects, more elaborate plastic models based on a combination of isotropic™ and kinematic!* plastic hardening rales have recently been proposed. Some researchers prefer a two-yield surface plasticity See eg. Refs. 7,12), while others prefer a multi- Yield surface plasticity (Gee e- Refs. 18, 19), Both theories Suffer inherent limitations namely: storage requirements for the multisurfice theory. “a prior selection of an evolution law for the two-susface theory. However, neither limitation is more degrading than the other. This is further discussed in Ref, 20, Accepted May 1984, Discussion sloves March 1985 261-7277/85/010009-008200 © 1985 CML Publieations miafly It is the purpose of this paper to present a simple plasticity model for cohesionless soils. The model has been tailored (1) to retain the extreme versatility and accuracy of the simple multi-surface J,-theory (see eg Refs. 16 and 17) in describing observed shear nonlinear hysteretic behaviour, shear stress-induced anisotropic effects; and (2) to reflect the strong dependency of the shear dilataney on the effective stress ratio! in granue lar cohesionless soils, Conical yield surfaces are used for that purpose. The theory is applicable to general three- dimensional stress-strain conditions, but its paramet can be derived entirely fron the results of conventional triaxial soil tests, The model versatility i illustrated by umber of examples. Asfor rotation, bold face letters denote vectors, second- and fourth-order tensors in three-dimensions, All stresses are effective stresses. BASIC THEORY 1. Constitutive equations The constitutive equations are written in the following form: = Bue—é") where @=ellective (Cauchy) stress tensor; deformation tensor (symmetric part of the spatial solid velocity gradient); = plastic rate of deformation tensor; and a dot denotes the (solid) material derivative. In Fg. 1 Eis the isotropic elastic coefficient tensor, viz, Ex (8 2G)303,5y + G48, +5xn) 2D where B= bulk modulus; G= shear moduluss6 ecker delta. The plastic rate of deformation tensor is defined through the following PL 3) where Pisa symmetric second-order tensor which defines [in stress space) the “direction” of plastic deformations: L is the “so-called” plastic loading function, and the symbol ©) denotes the MacCauley’s bracket, viz, (L) =L if 56; otherwise (L) =0, The plastic loading function Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol, 4, No.1 9defined as 1 da. 4 Lap Qe “4 where Q (symmetric second-order tensor) denotes the outer normal to the yield surlace; /7'= plastic modulus It is convenient to decompose P and Q into theit eviatorie aad dilatational components, and in the fotfowing P=P+PS —-Q-Q'4+0% ‘3 where BP = oP 3Q°=trQ © and = identity tensor. Combining Eqs. (1)-14) enables us to write the loading function as o where QUEP=BBP BQ) +2GP:Q 8) and Eg. 11) now writes as = EE PCL) 9) 2. Yield fanction. ‘The vield function is selected of the following form: 3 (S—pa):(s—px)—m?p?=0 10) where $=@-—pb=deviatorie stress tensor: p=hire=ellective mean normal stress: a=kinematic deviatoric tensor defining the coordinates of the yield surlace centre in deviatoric stress subspace; m=material parameter. The outer normal to the yield surface Q may be normalized in any convenient fashion. and in the follow Q=srad fiigrad f| ay with trom Eg, (10) =3is—pa)+ [pta:a—Sme)—s:a]6 (12) 0:0-0:9'+ {307=1 03) The yield function plots as a conical yield surface in stress space with its apex at the origin. Unless a=0, the axis of the cone does not coincide with the space diagonal. The cross section of the yield surface by any deviatoric plane (p=constant) is circular. Its centre does not ge erally coincide with the origin but is shifted by the amount pa. This is illustrated by Figure | in the principal stress space. Remark: If deemed necessary. the model may be easily ‘modified to accommodate a non-circular cross section, For instance. a round cornered hexagonal cross section of the Mohr-Coulomb type can be obtained by using = ROmp?=0 (14) in which [1] 2k RO HTT Lae us) k=material parameter. and 16) an 8) with S=3is—pa) a9 In the following k= 1 3. Flow rule ‘The plastic potential is selected such that the deviatone ie flow be associative, However, a nonasoennse flow rule is used for its dilatational component. and in the following. 201 where 1/=U38:9)p=stress ratio. and j= material para meter, When |<. 3P” <0 and plastic compaction takes place. whereas when >=. 3P">0 and plastic dition takes phice. The case =i corresponds to no plastic volumetric strains, In the foifowing, when 11s? <0, and j=me when 1's >0, 4, Hardening rules: A purely deviatoric kinematic hardening rule is adop- ted and in the following. pamap an where 4 —(eviatorie) tensor defining the direction of translation: amount of translation determined the rough the consistency condition which emanates from time differentiating Eq, (10) viz. f=Q:e~PQrand 22) Employing Eqs. (4) (7Pand (21) in Eq, 422). yields: e fa na 123) and finaly. = ge tLe 024) Yield surface in principal stress space Figure 1. 10 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985. Vol. 4, No. 1Figure 2. Yield surface translation by the stress point in deviatoric stress subspace Note that the direction of translation remains arbitrary at this stage, and thus may be selected independently of any Formal plasticity constraints. In order to allow for the adjustment of the plastic hardening rule to any kind of experimental data, for example, data obtained from axial or simple shear soil tests, collection of nested yield surfaces! ' is used. Much, pros and cons have been said about multi-surfaee versus two-surface plasticity theories and a eritical assessment of their relative merits and shortcomings is reported in Rel. 20. The viekd surfaces ate all similar conical surfaces. Upon contact, the yield surfaces are to be translated by the stress point. In order to avoid overlappings of the surfaces (which would lead to a non-unique definition of, the constitutive theory), the direction of translation w of the active yield surface is selected such that is pa)—(s—pa) es) where mand a are the plastic parameters associated with the next outer surface (m’ > m). This illustrated in Figure 2 5. Remarks (i) Under the assumptions spelled above, Eq, (9) writes in expanded form as $=2604 (#7200 +B3P"8KL) (26) with, La. 26Q': + B30") 7) Waite’ GQ’ 0"é.) en where ¢,=tré. Or equivalently. in terms of deviatoric and dilatational components, 2G8-26Q(L) (28a) = Bi, B3P"(L) (28b) where €=&— é,6=deviatoric rate of deformation tensor. Lif It is assumed that no pure elastic domain exists The first yield surface is thus chosen as a degenerate yield surface of size zero which coincides with the stress point. The normal assoetated with that yield surface is assumed to be purely dilatational tie, from Eq, (13), Q=0 and 3Q" = — 3). The plastic loading function associated with the stres point is defined through 1 7 23) 1g" 0) (iii) The dependence of the model moduli upon the effective mean normal stress is assumed of the following. form ~ (LY 0 (%) - col} wale respectively, where m:- experimental parameter (n=0.5 for most cohesion-less soils"; p, ~reference effective ‘mean normal stress. {iv) The dependence of the plastic modulus associated with any given yield surface, upon the deviat assumed of the following form where 02 On the Jast outermost surface H’-<0, and the last surface therefore plays the role of # failure surface. (v) The preceding formulation has been described within the context of small-deformation theory for si plicity. The generalization to the large deformation ease may be facilitated by replacing the stress rate in Eq. (1) by the co-rotational stress rate, APPLICATION TO THE “TRIAXIAL” STRESS STATE/PARAMETERS IDENTIFICATION In this section, attention is restricted to the “triaxial” test for which the two effective principal stresses are equal, =a. In order for the soil specimen to deform in an axisymmetric fashion (s, ~¢5), the axes of loading must coincide with the principal axes of the anisotropic tensor «znd 2, = 2, In the following, in ofder to follow common usage in soil mechanics, compressive Stresses and strains tare counted as positive and the discussion is presented in terms of the following stress and strain variables: G=(~03) plo +203 3) (e,-e5) 26, +209 Eq, (10) then simplifies to: Sf =(q—ap)?—m?p?=0 64 where x= (2, ~24)=3a,/2. The trace of the yield surface onto the triaxial (gp) sttess plane consists of two straight lines of slopes (2-+m) and (a—m), respectively. This is strated in Figure 3 ‘When upon loading in compression, the stress point Teaches the yield surface f. whereas upon unloading in extension ‘ =), and (from Eq, (28) ett temid o36°W Tbe 36) Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No.1 11Figure 3. Model inerpreration — triaxial soi test 12 1m itn 7 - ar BBW ol tna tape Wp where 1=no: )iieand H'= HY in compression: n =n fig and H’=H,; in extension. Given the experimental stress-strain curves obtained in a triaxial shear soil test, identification of the model parameters associated with any given yield surface f proceeds as follows. The smooth experimental shear stress-strain curves are approximated by linear segments along which the tangent (or secant) modulus is constant. (Evidently, the degree of accuracy achieved by such a representation of the experimental curves is directly dependent upon the number of inca segments used.) The yield surface fis identified by the condition that the be the same in compression and extension, respectively, when the stress point has reached that yield surface. This is illustrated in Figure 3. The model para~ meters: 25m, HH. fie and fj; are then sitaply computed from Eqs (35)-(37), where p'~slope ofthe effective stress path (given by the specifi stress path followed in the test) Therefore, once the elastic shear Gand bulk B moduli are known, the identification procedure is straightforward and can easily be automated” The elastic shear modulus (low strain modhis determined by the steepest sfope measured at the origin of| the shear stress-strain curve, or better, through seismic- type measurements. The elastic B, and plastic 1’, bulk ‘moduli associated with the stress point are determined by measuring the slopes j/é, of small hydrostatic load- unload cycles at selected hydrostatic pressures, viz. (Load) (38) (unload) Typically. B=26/3, Remark: In general, the model allows different dilation parameters jj and n, to be associated with each yield surface. However, such a level of sophistication is usually unwarranted because of the rather inaccurate experimen- tal measurements of the detailed volumetric strains observed in conventional {riaxial tests (especially in extension}, Therefore, in the following, one averaged value for j, and jis used, and assumed to pertain to all yield surfaces, EXAMPLES Figure 4 shows typical stress-strain curves corresponding. to drained axial compressionjextension test. The curves shown in Figure 4 are synthesized daca generated from real sind data. As shown in Figure 4b, the sandis assumed. to exhibit first volumetric compaction then dilatio both compression and extension loading condit ‘Table I shows the corresponding model parameter values 2uf 9/P 18 12 6 4 0 +6 ed (crea age cares oveeetiz ys 18 1 P/E, 16 1. 12 10 03 81% -6 6-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 4. Sand behaviour ~ triaxial soil test (a) Shear stress-strain curve (b) Volumetric stress-strain curve Table 1. Modet parameters 12670 Bypj~ 8485 AMD neo fe Yield surace umber deh 1 103525575, 2 042 53.40 1000s a 0598 173K 4082 4 076 = 6m 1934 5 Deis Soy 988 6 oo Bae 522 7 to 0231 ® 18 Og 2a ° rt 0083 0 10 0990.00 12. Soil Dynamies and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No.8 strain response and Figure Sb shows the corresponding, Ae stress path. Note that the loading portion of the stress— strain curveis S-shaped. As the applied load increases, the material densifies and the curve exhibits an upward ‘concavity typical ofa locking tendency. Upon unloading- reloading, the stress-strain curve describes a hysteresis Toop. The corresponding stress path (Figure Sb) indicates tendency upon loading to reach a constant lateral stress, ratio (g 8. p tends to become linear). Note that upon, unloading to ¢, =0, (1) the corresponding stress path falls, below the positive shear stress axis indicating shear reversal, and (2) the shear stress eventually vanishes when tz] P P/P, > 3 & & 6 7 Figure 5. Sand behaviour ~ model prediction uniaxial sirain test (a) Shear stress-strain eurce (b) Stress path i - al 0 6 12 182m 3.0 Figure 6. Sand behaviour ~ model prediction monotonic simple shear strain test ~ shear stress-strain curves L 2/Py 0 25 oy 75, 1.0 generated using the procedure explained in the previous Figure 7. Sand behaviour - model prediction eyelic simple section. Ten yield surfaces were ased in order to closely shear strain test model the behaviour depicted in Figure 4. (a) Shear stress-strain curve Figure 5 shows the mode? predictions for a ui (b) Changes in lateral normal stresses strain test (¢, =¢3 =0), Figure Sa shows the shear stress~ (ec) Stress-path Soll Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No. 1 13Such behaviour have been observed in many experimental uniaxial strain test data, The effects of the material anisotropy are illustrated in Figure 6 which shows the mode! prediction for a simple- shear strain test simulation (6, =¢2=¢,=0). Figure 6 shows the shear stress-strain response r, vs. y;.and the lateral stress-difference response (034 —1 2) Ws. 3. Note that the model predicts that the lateral stress difference first increases, then decreases, upon shearing. Such be- haviour is typical of overeonsolidated materials" and has, been observed experimentally Figure 7 shows the model prediction of a cyelic simple shear strain test simulation. In that test. ¢he shear strain amplitude |, |= 0.55%, is kept constant. Figure 7a shows the corresponding shear stress-strain hysteretic response of the material, AS a result of eycling, the material softens and the shear stress amplitude decreases. Figure 7b shows the corresponding changes in lateral normal stresses and Figure Te the associated stress path 1, vs. p. Note that ‘due to the compactive tendency of the material at low Strain level, the ellective mean stress decreases con- tinuously as the load iseycled, and the material eventually “Tiqueties” (p=0) after 4} cycles APPLICATION — SEISMIC INDUCED LIQUEFACTION BEHIND 4 RETAINING WALL, As an illustration, the proposed model is used in this section to analyze seismic induced liquefaction in a cohesionless backfill behind a retaining structure. Satu- rated backfills are encountered behind marine structures suc has dry docks. These structures are sometimes damaged during earthquakes because of seismic induced lateral earth pressures on the walls and liquefaction of the backfill soil deposit. Figure & shows the particular geo- ‘metry to be studied. and the finite element mech used. Fhe backfill is discretized by using 100 four-node plane finite elements up €0 5H away from the wall, where H=height I of the wall. Attention is restricted herein to the seismic = behaviour ofthe backfill material, and the wallistherefore assumed to be rigid. Further. for simplicity. the interface ae between the wall and the backfill material is assumed frictionless, The saturated backfill is modelled as 2 Wo Figure 8. Backfill liquefaction ~ problem geametryifinite phase system consisting of a porous solid cohesionless soil element mesh skeleton and a compressible water fluid. The field equa PACOIMA RECORD 0.80 0.60 4 0.40 ef je 9-00 } 170-20 | z Z-0.u0 & = 5 -0.60 S -0.00 + -1.00 4 0.00 - 0.40 7 0.60 0.80 1.00 COMPONENT (xX 101 1 ACCELERATION SCALED TO 0.126 Figure 9, Input solid horizomal base acceleration ~ Pacoima record scaled to 0.126 time history 14 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engincering, 1985, Vol. 4, No. 1tions used and thar numerical treatment have been reported in Refs. 22 and 23, ‘The soil skeleion is modelled by using the material properties shown in Table 1. The initial gravitational stresses are assumed to increase linearly with depth, and the cocflicient of lateral stresses is assumed equal to one initially Ge, intially 0 3) The material proper- ties are assumed as follows Soil Steleton: as of Table 1 with 19, =4.65 108 kgim? (mass density) 4B (porosity) 10°* m/sec (coefficient of permeability) Fluid: 2° =10!° Nim? n= 00 a= 10 kgim? (bulk modulus) (shear viscosity) (mass density) The total mass density (solid + fluid) is defined through pall nips +1" Py =3.08 10" kg/m? and the buoyant mass density is defined as 2,08 x 10° kg/m’. The assumed drainage conditions are shown on Figure 8, Note that no drainage of the fluid is allowed along the wall boundary D=P— Pu The soil strata was svojected to the Pacoima accele- ration time history recorded during the San Fernando Earthquake (California) on February 9, 1971, with the maximum acceleration scaled to 0.128. The first 120 seconds of the input ground shaking are shown in Figure 9, The input honzontal acceleration was applied to the bottom solid boundary nodes. Liquefaction of the backfill was computed to occur uring the strong phase of the input record after 75 seconds cf shaking. Figure 10 shows the computed horizontal solid acceleration time history of node A (see Figure8) at the surface. Note that in the early phase of the shaking, the motion is amplified. However, asa result of the progressive build-up of excess pore fluid pressures in the underlying substrata, the motion is thereafter at- tenuated and its period elongated. Finally, the motion dies out when liquefaction takes place. Figure 11 shows the computed build-up of pore Nuid pressure usa function of time and depth at the distance H/4 from the wall and Figure 12 shows the corresponding decrease in effective lateral normal stress. CONCLUSIONS \ simple elastic-plastic constitutive model for cohesion- less soils is proposed. The model retains the extreme versatility and accuracy of the simple multi-surface J~ theory in describing observed shear nonlinear hysteretic behaviour, shear stress-induced anisotropy; snd reflects 0.90 ) 0.60 -1 10 0.30 ox OMPONENT -0.60 -0.90 = 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 SOLID ACCELERATION 1 Figure 10. Computed solid horizontal acceleration at the surface ~ node A 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 COMPONENT (xX 10 9 } time history Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No. 1 151.20 component cx 105 3 (N/m2) 0.80 0.30 9.00 + + 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 FLUID PRESSURE COMPONENT ( x 10 9 9 co. 2 Figure 1. Computed fluid pressure built-up time history at distance H/4 COMPONENT + + + 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 EFFECTIVE STRESS 11 COMPONENT ( x 10 9 ) co”. 2 Figure 12. Computed decrease in effective lateral normal stress time history’ at distance H)4 16 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No. 1sith Anisotropic 7.1983, pp. 305-3 13, NematNasser, § “On Dynamic and Static Behaviour of Granular Mates in Soil Mechanics ~ Transient and Cyclic Lands, Eds. G. N. Pande and 0. C.Zienkiewicy, Wiley, 1982 pp. 9-456 Nemat-Naster,S. and Shokooh, A. “On Finite Phstic Flows of the strong difatancy dependency on the effective stress ratio. The theory is applicable to general three dimensional stress-strain conditions, but its parameters can be derived entirely from the results of conventional laboratory soil tests. A number of examples are presented including an analysis of seismically induced liquefaction 4 ‘Compressible Material with Internal Priction™ ft J. Solids and ee Struts, Vol. 16, 1980, pp. 495-51 15 Prager, N. “The Theory of Plasticity: A Suey of Recent on Achievement, Procedings Ins. Meck. Bg. London, England, Vol 169, 1985, pp. 1-57 1 Atgysis, 1 Ho! al “Recent Developments in Finite Element 16 Prevost, J. H, "Mathematical Modelling of Monotonic and ‘Analysis of PCRV". Proceedings ud In. Con, SMIRT, Beli, Cyclic Undruined Clay Behaviour” It J. Nim. Meth, Grom 3 Vol. 1, No.2, 1977 pp. 195-216 Balad, G. ¥. and Rohan, B. “Elstic-Plastic Model for Sat 17 Prevost J: Anisotropic Undraned Stress Strain Behavior of ‘ated Sand”. J. Geotech. Eng. Dis, ASCE. Vol. 10S, No, GTS, (Cays" J Geotch- Eng. it. ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GTB, 1978, Apa! 1979, pp 465480 pp. 1075-1090 3 Coon, M. Drand Evans. R.J.“Recoverable Deformation of 18—-Prevost, J.-H. “Plasticity Theory for Soil Stes-Stcain Cohesionless Soi, J Soi, feck. Found. Eng, ASCE, VoL 97, haviour’ Jing Mech, Die, ASEC, Vol 108, No, EMS. 1978, No, SMD, Feb 197i, pp. 335-390 pp.i77-1194 4 DiMaggio, FL. and Sandles, 1. S. °Matenal Models for 19 Prevost, J.-H. “Constitutive Equations for Soil, Media’ Granular Soi”. J. Eng. Meck. Die. ASCE. Vol. 97. No. EM3, Proceadings NATO Adsanced Study Insitute on Numerical une 1971, pp. 938-980 Methods Geomechanics, Postygal, 1981, pp. 79-102 5 Drucker.D-C. Gibson, RE and Henkel.D.1"Soil Mechanics 20. Prevost. JH "Two-Sudace vs. Mutt Surface Plasiity and. Work-Hardening Theones of Plastkiy", Tansatlons, “Theories” In J. Nam Meth. Gaom. Vol. 6. 1982, pp. 325 338 ASCE, Vo 122, 1987, pp. 338 346 21 Prevost, j. He "MUD: A. Computer Program to” Compute 6 Duncan, J. M-and Chang. ¥."Noninear Analysis of Stress ‘Constititive Model Parameters for Elato-Platic Matera, and Stain in Soils. J. Sol ach, Fund. En. ASCE, Vol. 9, Department of Civil Engineering, Pnnecton Unies, Report No. SMS, Sept. 1970, pp 1628-1653 SESMAMarch 1984) 7 Ghabousi.I'and Momen, H "Modelingand Analyssof Cyclic -22-—-Prevost J. H. "Nonlinear Transient Phenomena in Saturated Behaviour of Sands”. in Soil Mechanicy —Tursont and Cycle Porous Media Comp. Meth. Appl. Mack Eng. Vol. 30, No.1 Loads, Eds, G.'N. Pande aad 0. C. Zienkiewicr. Wiley, 1982, 1982, pp 3-18 pp. 313-382 23 Provost J H."Nonlinear Transient Phonomena in Soll Media" 8 Hill R The Mathemateal Theory of Plasticity, Oxford Uni ‘Chapter 26 in Mechanics of Enginering Materia (Bis. C. S) Press, London, Englind, 1950 Desai and R-H, Gallagher, John Wile, 1984, pp. 315-533 9 Lade, P.'V. and Duncan, J. M.“Elasoplasic Stess-Stain 28 —-Rishar.R.E, Woods RD anf Hall JR. Hbrations of Sols and ‘Theoty for Cohesionles Soi"-J. Geotech Ey Di, ASCE, Vol Foundations, Pentce-Hall, WJ. 1970 111978, pp 1037-1083 25 Rowe, PE “The Siress-TMlatancy Relation for Static Equiit 10 Luong. M.-P. “Phenomenes Cyeliques dans ks Sols rium of an Assembly of Parties In Comtac™, Pro. Ros Soe, Pulverulents” Reowe Franguise de Gentechnigus Vo 10, 1980, Vol A269, 1962, pp. 500-527 pes 26 Valais, KC. and Read, H.E.A New Eadochronie Plasticity ‘Meos.2. "On the Descnption of Anisotropic Work Hardening”. I. Mech, Phys, Solids, Vol. 8, 1967, pp. 163-178 Mror. 2. and Pietroseouk,§.T,"A Constitutive Model for Sand Mosel for Sos in Soil Mechanics ~ Transient and Cvclie Loads, Eds GN. Pande and 0. C. Zinkiewicz, Wiley, 1982, pp a75-317 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Vol. 4, No.1 17