# New Constitutive Material

Models in RS 2

1.0 The Softening-Hardening Material Model
Experimental evidence indicates that plastic deformation in soils starts from the early stages of loading. The
typical elasto-perfect plastic models are not adequate for capturing such behavior in a constitutive model.
To simulate such behavior, constitutive models that utilize a hardening law after initial yielding are required.

The Softening-Hardening Model in RS2 has been developed to meet the afore-mentioned need. The model
can utilize up to three yield surfaces that include deviatoric (shear), volumetric (cap), and tension cut off. The
yield surfaces and hardening characteristics of this model are illustrated in Figure 1 below. The formulations
of these three mechanisms, definitions of yield surfaces, and their corresponding plastic potential and
hardening laws are presented in the following sections.

q q
1 1

M f
M f

Yield Surface Yield Surface

Hardening Hardening

pc p pc p
(a)                                                                                                (b)
Figure 1. The yield surfaces of the Softening-Hardening model; a) deviatoric yield surface (red) and the vertical cap (green); b)
the deviatoric yield surface (red) and elliptical cap (blue)

RocNews Spring 2015

. There are two types of hardening laws considered for this model. 0 (Elliptical Cap) Eq. respectively. & . The advanced option for plastic potential is to define a compaction-dilation angle in such a way that when the mobilized friction angle ( ) is less than this angle ( ) the volumetric plastic strain is positive (compaction) and when the mobilized friction angle is greater than the volumetric plastic strain is negative (dilation). 0 . The first one uses a relationship between tan and the deviatoric plastic strain.1 The Deviatoric Mechanism The deviatoric yield surface is very similar to the yield surface of the Mohr-Coulomb model. presented in equation 2. and is the hardening parameter (positive and constant).2 The Volumetric Mechanism There are two options for the yield surface of the volumetric mechanism. The equation for the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface (Pietruszczak. 2010) using the . .1. 3 Where is the location of the intersection of this yield surface with the axis. 2 where: is the deviatoric plastic strain. Eq. RocNews Spring 2015  . 1 √ The hardening for this yield surface is considered for the mobilized friction angel (and cohesion) and it is attributed to plastic distortion. (Vertical Cap). 1. The yield surfaces are defined as follows. or the cap: vertical and elliptical. In the above equation is the ultimate/failure friction angle and and are the mobilized cohesion and friction angle. . The second hardening law uses custom tabular piecewise linear values for the mobilized friction angel and cohesion with deviatoric plastic strain. tan tan Eq. invariants is given by equation 1 (the convention is compression positive).

is also available for this model.0 mm aluminum rods in the ratio of 3:2 by weight.3 The Tension Cut-Off Mechanism This mechanism is to incorporate the tensile strength of the material to this model. 2013). 2.1 Tunnel with Nearby Building Load The 2D model ground consists of a mix of 1.0 Numerical Examples The applicability of the Softening-Hardening model is demonstrated in simulations of tunnels and retaining walls in the following sections. Figure 2. Material used in building 2D scaled model The biaxial test results of this material are presented in the following figure. The build in function for the hardening follows the same hardening law as in the Modified Cam-Clay model. In this mechanism the minor principal stress is limited to the tensile strength of the material. Tabular hardening law which uses custom tabular pricewise linear values for versus volumetric plastic strain . The flow rule is associated for this yield surface. The hardening for these yield surfaces is considered for and it is attributed to volumetric plastic strain. The flow rule is associated and the mechanism has no hardening. The simulated result using the Hardening Softening model is in very good agreement with the observed behavior.   2.The elliptical cap is very similar to the yield surface of the modified Cam-Clay model with an offset to consider the cohesion. The ground is prepared by piling up the stack of aluminum rods from the bottom (Nakai. Since the material is RocNews Spring 2015  . 1.6 and 3.

6 kPa) The scaled model for tunnel with nearby building is illustrated in Figure 4. the deviatoric mechanism would be dominant for this material and thus the cap yield surface is not activated for modelling the behavior of this material.     Figure 4. Biaxial Compression Test results (σ2=19.inherently frictional. Apparatus for 2D foundation and tunnel model tests RocNews Spring 2015  . Figure 3.

is demonstrated in Figure 7.                       Figure 6. The numerical results published in Nakai (2013) overestimate the bearing capacity.   Figure 5. which is an indication of slip surfaces. The RS2 results are in very good agreement with the observed behavior. Surface settlement profile.The bearing capacity of the foundation without excavation of the tunnel is presented in Figure 5. Tunnel with nearby building load     RocNews Spring 2015  . The distribution of deviatoric strain in the ground. Load-displace and bearing capacity of the rigid strip shallow foundation   The surface settlement profiles for the tunnel excavation for the case of greenfield and nearby surface load are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 7. Fixed Invert The failure pattern and settlement profile is in good agreement with the observations. Problem geometry and excavation stages (Schweiger.2 Tieback Retaining Wall The benchmark exercise described by Schweiger (2002). Distributions of the deviatoric strains in the ground. Figure 8 shows the geometry and the excavation steps of the problem.   2. is the basis for this comparison.   Figure 8. consisting of a deep excavation problem in Berlin sand. 2002) RocNews Spring 2015  .

FLAC and PLAXIS. The results of the triaxial test on layer 1 is presented in Figure 9. Wall deflection (m) ‐0. Then the simulated triaxial tests were used to identify the material properties of the Softening-Hardening model.01 ‐0. Lateral wall deflection at the final stage of excavation RocNews Spring 2015  .02 ‐0. Figure 9.025 ‐0.005 0 0 ‐5 Depth below the surface (m) ‐10 ‐15 ‐20 ‐25 Measured Plaxis ‐30 Flac RS2 ‐35 Figure 10. Since the material is Sand the deviatoric mechanism is dominant and so the cap is not used in the constitutive modelling of the materials in this problem. Drained Triaxial Compression Test results (σ3=100 kPa) The results of the excavation problem is presented in the form of the deflection of the retaining wall.To identify the material properties the material properties reported for a Hardening Soil model in the PLAXIS Material Models Manual were used to first simulate some triaxial test data. Figure 10 shows the observed deformation versus the simulation result produced by RS2.015 ‐0.

S. Fundamental of Plasticity in Geomechanics. Taylor & F. The dll file that is included in the install folder includes the Double-Yield. H. Leiden/London/New York. 2013 Pietruszczak.  RocNews Spring 2015  .01 0 0 ‐5 Depth below the surface (m) ‐10 ‐15 ‐20 ‐25 Measured Flac ‐30 RS2‐CySoil ‐35   Figure 11. “Benchmarking in Geotechnics. Schweiger. T. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials: Principles and Applications. Lateral wall deflection at the final stage of excavation     4. 2010.03 ‐0. Taylor & Francis Group.02 ‐0. and CySoil of FLAC as well as the Hardening Soil and HSS Small soil of PLAXIS. Austria 2002.   Wall deflection (m) ‐0. Graz University of Technology.3.0 References Nakai. The excavation problem in Berlin sand was simulated by the CySoil model in RS2 and the results are presented in Figure 11 below.” Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. ChSoil.0 The User Defined Material Models The latest version of RS2 has the option of accepting user defined material models by dll.F.