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
τ τ
σ'0 linear elastic

τ
γ
G τmax
1 elastic

γ σ‘
• Associated flow (φ’=ψ’) – simple, numerically
efficient, but too much dilation
• Non-associated flow (φ’ ≠ ψ’) – 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, τ
τ

yield surface

elastic
γ p′′, σ‘
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)
 Hardening Soil Model
• Volumetric hardening is complemented by
deviatoric hardening
• Deviatoric hardening surface evolves with
deviatoric strains until failure is reached
τ

γ
 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:

q
q asymptote
For q < qf: ε1 = ε 50 q
qa − q a

q f

2sin ϕ 1
where qf = (σ 3' + c cot ϕ ) E
1 − sin ϕ 50

qf ½ qf E
ur
and qa = ≥ qf
Rf
1
Rf = ‘failure ratio’ (standard value: 0.9) ε1

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 qa q 2q
Yield function (cone): f = − − γ ps
E50 qa − q Eur

where γps is a state parameter that is tracking the opening of the cone:
Elastic
q MC failure line
q
plastic
Increasing
plastic
shear
strains
-a = c cot ϕ p’
γ
Evolution law for γps: d γ ps = d λ s where dλs is the plastic multiplier for the
cone type yield surface of the model.
Volumetric (density) hardening
q% 2
Yield function (cap): f = c
− p '2 − p p 2
α2

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

q
αpp’
K0’

cap
p’
pp’

σ1’
σc’
Volumetric or
vertical strain,

ε1
Volumetric (density) hardening

αpp

K0NC is controlled by α. By inputting

a realistic value of K0NC as a result α-
value in large and the yield cap is
relatively steep.
Cap is closing the MC cone in principal stress space

Therefore: q% = f (σ 1 , σ 2 , σ 3 , ϕ )
m
K s Kc  σ 3 + a  p
Evolution law: dp p =   d ε v
K s − K c  p ref + a 
Eurref
where K s = and the bulk stiffness of the cap Kc is determined
3(1 − 2ν )
from Eoed and K0nc
Stress dependent moduli

q asymptote: qa
E50
qf=0,9 qa
1
m
 σ '+ a 
E50 = E50ref  3 
 pa '+ a 
(Secant modulus)
εy

σc’ σy’

m
ref  σ '3 / K +a
nc
Eoed 0
εy 1 Eoed = Eoed  
 p a '+ a 
(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
E50
1 by:

Eur >E50
1
σ 3 '+a
εy Eur = Eurref ( )m
pa '+ a
σc’ σy’
ν ur = low value
Eoed
εy 1

Inside cone and cap:

Bulk modulus Shear modulus Oedometer

Eur Eur Eur(1−νur)

Kur = Gur = Eoed =
3(1−2νur) 2(1+νur) ur (1−2νur)(1+νur)
Initial conditions for the HS model

d d
e e
p p
t σc’ t
h h
σy0’
Preconsolidation is entered by
OCR or POP relative to initial
vertical stress and is then
converted to pp.
σy0’ σc’

σ 'c = OCR ⋅ σ y 0 ' σ 'c = σ y 0 '+ POP

σ’yy

Prestress
σ’c Initial horizontal stress:
Initial
CAP
POP 1 σ x 0 ' = K 0 '⋅σ c '−(σ c '−σ y 0 ' ) ⋅ 1ν−ν
ur

ν ur ur

σ’y0 1−ν ur Default: K '0 = 1 − sin ϕ

Current
stress
1
Modified if the MC yield
K’0
criterion is violated

σ’x0 σ’xx
Initial conditions for the HS model

Initial stresses:

q
MC failure line
Output:
pc
K0nc line
' OCR ' = OCRiso = eq
p
α pc Cap p eq = ( p' )
2
+ q2 /α 2
p’0, q0

peq0 pc,0 p
Dilatancy

~ e max
2sin ψ ψ
1-sin ψ
εy
εv
sin ϕ '− sin ψ
sin ϕ cv =
1 − sin ϕ ' sin ψ
Dilatancy formulation:
Rowe (1962) modified
σ '1 −σ '3
sin ϕ m =
σ '1 +σ '3 −2c' cot ϕ '

sin ϕ m − sin ϕ cv
sin ψ m =
1 − sin ϕ m sin ϕ cv
 Dilatancy from cone (most important part):

Nonassociated cone flow:

q Stress ψinput Increasing dilatancy ψm from zero at
state
ϕcv to input value ψinput on MC line
ψm (Rowe).
ϕcv Dilatancy set to zero for sinϕm <
p’ ¾·sinϕ, see Material Model Manual.

Contractancy from cap during shearing (less dominating):

q
Associated cap flow:
Increasing contractancy from
zero to a maximum value at
MC line, but only when cap
moves!
-a pp’ p’
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

m Modulus exponent for stress dependency

νur Poisson’s ratio for loading/unloading
c’ Effective cohesion at failure
φ’ Effective friction angle at failure
ψ Dilatancy angle at failure
POP: (σp – σvo’) Initial preconsolidation stress, σp
OCR: σp/σvo’
Konc = 1 – sinφ’ Earth pressure coefficients at rest
Example: Settlement of strip footing

Monotonic
loading
 Example: Vertical displacement of
a retaining wall
Wall pulled up
Limitation: No small strain stiffness
1 Retaining walls
odulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations

Tunnels
Very
small
Shear mo

strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges
 Limitation: Unloading/reloading
stiffness is the same
q=σ1-σ3 [kPa]

ε1 [%]
• 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 non-
monotonic 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:

p' [kN/m2] H-S M-C

1000

800

600

400

200

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
eps-v
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 0.06 0.08
eps-1
Comparison HS models and MC model

Drained triaxial test:

eps-v
9.00E-03
6.00E-03
3.00E-03 M-C

0.000
H-S
-3.00E-03
-6.00E-03
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
eps-1
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 0.020 0.025 0.030
eps-1
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=σ1-σ3 [kPa]

ε1 [%]
• Truly elastic behaviour on for very small loops
• At small strains stiffness increases
• Hysteresis increases with increasing strains
 Soil Stiffness at Small Strains

q=σ1-σ3 [kPa]

ε1 [%]
Small-strain stiffness or Gur vs. G0
Soil stiffness derived from laboratory testing is commonly plotted as (secant-) shear
modulus G over shear strain γ. G = G(γ) is a function of the applied shear strain after the
last load reversal.
E0 = 2 (1 + νur) G0
Gγ = ∆q/∆γ
q = σ1-σ3 G0
Gur

∆q

γ = ε1-ε3 ∆γ γ = ε1-ε3

normal γ-axis scaled γ-axis

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 under-
estimating 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.
 Soil Stiffness at Small Strains
1 Retaining walls
odulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations

Tunnels
Very
small
Shear mo

strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges
Experimental evidence and data for small-strain stiffness
Empirical relationships between G0 or E0 =2(1+νur)G0 and void ratio e:

p' = 100 kPa

Most relationships are of the form: 250 Hardin & Black
m
 p'  Iwasaki & Tatsuoka
G0 = G ref
0


Shear moduluss G0 [MPa]

Biarez & Hicher
 pref  200
Kim et al.
0 = function (e ) ⋅ OCR
with Gref k
Kokusho et al.
150 Sand &
A simple relationship for soils Gravel
with wl < 50 % is proposed by
Biarez & Hicher*: 100
Kenya
sand

Clay
p' 50
E0 = Eref
0
pref
140 MPa 0
ref
with E 0 = 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
e Void ratio e [-]
* J. Biarez, P.-Y. Hicher. Elementary Mechanics of Soil Behaviour. Balkema, 1994
 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/m²=1 MPa):

E dynamic E
≈ 0
E static Eur

E static [kg/cm²] ≈ 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 γ0.7
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 Darendeli‘s work, γ0.7 can be estimated to:

p'
IP = 0: γ 0.7 = 0.00015
pref

p'
IP = 30: γ 0.7 = 0.00026
pref

p'
IP = 100: γ 0.7 = 0.00055
pref

Note: The indicated stress dependency of γ0.7 is not implemented in the commercial HSS
model. If needed, the stress dependency of γ0.7 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

0.8

0.6
G/G0 [-]

0.4

0.2

0.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
1e 1e 1e 1e 1e 1e 1e
Normalisierte Scherdehnung γ/γ0.7 [-]
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)
Strain(path)-dependent elastic overlay model:
G0
Gs =
1 + 0.385 γ / γ 0.7

G0
Gt = ≥ Gur
(1 + 0.385 γ / γ 0.7 )2
G starts again at G0
Gur after full strain reversal
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)
τ

Gt Cyclic loading
G0 leads to Hysteresis
Gs

-γc
Energy dissipation

γ
Damping
+γc

G0
G0

CiTG, Geo-engineering,
http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)

G0 γ0.7

Gt Gs

Gur
HS-small extension 1-dimensional
The 1-dimensional model by Hardin & Drnevich*:
τ
G0 Hardin & Drnevich:

τf 1 G 1
=
G0 1+ γ / γ r

Modified HS-Small:

G 1
γ =
G0 1 + (3γ ) /(7γ 0.7 )

Note: γr in the original approach by Hardin

& Drnevich relates to the failure shear
stress τf.

* 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 model‘s elastic stiffness is set
constant as then hardening plasticity accounts for further stiffness reduction.

G0ref
40000 40000

Tangent modulus G [kN/m²]

γ0.7
Secant modulus G [kN/m²]

30000 30000

20000 20000

Gurref
10000 10000
HS-Small
Hardin & Drnevich
0 0
1E-5 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1E-5 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Shear strain γ [-] Shear strain γ [-]
 Difference HS and HS-small
Model response in a standard triaxial test.
Here: Dense Hostun sand

σ1/σ3 σ3 = 300 kPa CD εVol[-] GSecant [kN/m2]

-0.20
Experiment
160000
HS (original)
4 -0.16
120000
HS-Small
-0.12
80000
2 -0.08

-0.04 40000

0 0.00 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 ε1[-] 0.0001 0.001 0.01 ε1-ε3[-]

Parameter: Eurref = 90 MPa, E0ref = 270 MPa, m = 0.55, γ0.7=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).
Excavation example
Distance to wall [m]
Limburg excavation: Settlement trough
0 20 40 60 80
0

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012 MC (E50)

-0.016 MC (Eur)

Settlement [m]

A comparison: Distance to wall [m]

0 20 40 60 80
MC (E50): MC calculation with E = E50
0
MC (Eur): MC calculation with E = Eur
HS: HS calculation with Eoed = E50 -0.004

HSS: Same as HS but with small -0.008

strain stiffness
-0.012
HS

-0.016
HSS

Settlement [m]
Excavation example
Limburg excavation: Horizontal wall displacement

MC-Model (E50) MC Model (Eur) Hardening Soil Model Hardening Soil Small
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0
0 0 0 0

-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) MC Model (Eur) Hardening Soil Model Hardening Soil Small
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
0 0 0 0

-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]
Tunnel example
Steinhaldenfeld - NATM

Distance to tunnel axis [m]

0 10 20 30 40
0

-0.01
Measurement
HS (original)
-0.02
HS-Small

Settlement [m]
 HS-Small model
1.0

0.8

0.6
G/G0 [-]

0.4

0.2

0.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
1e 1e 1e 1e 1e 1e 1e
Normalisierte Scherdehnung γ/γ0.7 [-]
 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)
γ0.7 Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% (HSsmall only)
m Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour
pref Reference pressure (100 kPa)
νur Poisson’s ratio in unloading / reloading
c’ Cohesion
ϕ’ Friction angle
ψ Dilatancy angle
Rf Failure ratio qf /qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
K0nc Stress ratio σ’xx/σ’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,
Universität Stuttgart, Mitteilung 55.
HS-small model application
Elastic stiffness properties of the HS-Small model can be visualized in state variable 10.

0
3.0
20

40

G m [-]
2.0 Gm=Gref /Gurref
60

80
1.0
100

-20 0 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 non-
monotonic loading.

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

200

180

160

140

120
q (kPa)

100

80 100 kPa Stress Path

60
HSsmall Model Prediction
40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
P` (kPa)
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 González – UPC Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña
 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 Modulus exponent for stress dependency
νur = 0.2 Poisson’s ratio for loading/unloading
c’ Effective cohesion at failure
φ’ Effective friction angle at failure
ψ Dilatancy angle at failure
POP: (σp – σvo’) Initial preconsolidation stress, σp
OCR: σp/σvo’
Ko Earth pressure coefficients at rest
Konc = 1 – sinφ’
G0ref Reference shear stiffness at very small strain levels, (HSsmall only)
γ0.7 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 (φ=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

m
Plastic Cone hardening  σ 3 '+ a 
E50 = E50ref   a = ccot(ϕ)
secant modulus: p + a
 ref 
m
Plastic Cap hardening, ref
 σ '1 + a 
tangent modulus: Eoed = Eoed  
p
 ref + a 
m
Elastic, unloading, reloading  σ 3 '+ a 
Eur = Eurref  
tangent modulus: p + a
 ref 
 Parameters of the HS model
Parameters:

q
σ3=pref σc σ1=pref σ1
qult
(ϕ, c)
E50ref qf=Rf qult
Eurref
0.5 qf 1
Eoedref
ε1 εv
Triaxial test Oedometer test
Stiffness of Sand
 Parameters of the HS model

For sands (m≈0.5):

Schanz (1998)
 Stiffness of sand, drained
triaxial testing:

σy - σx σy - σx σy - σx E
50
E50
E50

εy εy εy
∆σy’

Test 1: Test 2: Test 3:

∆σx’
σ’x= 100kPa σ’x= 200kPa
σ’x= 50kPa

E50 σ 'x
E50 = E50ref
ref
50
pref
E
Loose sands: E50ref ≈ 15 MPa
pref = 100kPa σx’
Dense sands: E50ref ≈ 50 MPa
 Stiffness of sand, K0 test:

σy’

Eoed
εy

Laboratory experience: σy’ dependency of Eoed

ref σ 'y
E oed = E oed
p ref
ref
Loose sands: Eoed ≈ 15 MPa
Oedometer results confirm: ref
Dense sands: Eoed ≈ 50 MPa
 Stiffness of sand
ref ref
E ≈E
50 oed

ref
Eoed ≈ RD • 60MPa Correlation by Lengkeek
for pref=100 kPa
emax − e
RD =
emax − emin
 Stiffness of sand
E50ref ≈ Eoed
ref
How can this be true?
p ref

-σ’1= p ref

-σ’3 = p ref

-σ’3 -σ’1
 Eoed Cone tip Soil type
at σ’v = σ’v0 Stiffness of sand
resistance
Eoed = 4qc qc < 10 MPa Loose sands:
Eoed = 2qc+20 10 MPa < qc < 50 Unaged and
MPa MPa uncemented,
Eoed = 120 MPa qc > 50 MPa predominantly
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 Poisson’s Ratio:

(1−νur )
Eur,oed = Eur ≈1.1⋅ Eur
(1−2νur )(1+νur )
Triaxial test

Alternatively:

Eur ,oed = α Eoed and Eur ≈ Eur ,oed :

m m
Sand (m=0.5):
 σ 3 '+ a   σ 1 '+ a 
E ref
ur 
ref
 = α ⋅ Eoed   ⇒ Eur ,oed ≈ 3Eoed
 pref '+ a   pref '+ a 
m Eurref ≈ 3Eoed
ref ref
/ K0 ≈ 4Eoed
ref  σ 1 ' + a  m
Eurref = α ⋅ Eoed   = α ⋅ E ref
oed / ( K 0 )
σ
 3 ' + a 
 EXAMPLE:
Triaxial test results by Shaoli (2004)
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,
n = 35,9% (initial) – 39,6% (end of test)

dense 40
D e v ia t o r ic s t r e s s , q [ k P a ]

200

150
dense 40
100

50
pref + a
E50ref = E50
0 σ 'x + a
0 1 2 3 4 5
100kPa
Axial strain [%] = 20000kPa = 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 [%]

-4
1 − sinψ
1− 5
Volumetric strain, [%]

-3 1-sin ψ = = 1,2
-2
2sin ψ Dense 40 2 sinψ 4,2
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 sinψ = 0,29
0

1 ψ = 17°
 EXAMPLE
Oedometer test dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% , (Moen, 1975)

0
Loading:
-0,2
Test data
Vertical strain [%]

-0,4 ref σ 1 '+ a

Eoed = Eoed
-0,6 pa '+ a
-0,8
ref +a
pa ''+
-1 Eoed = Eoed
-1,2
σ 1 '+ a
-1,4 850kPa 100kPa
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
=
0,008 400kPa
Vertical effective stress [kPa]
= 53MPa

σ 3 '+ a
Unloading: Eur oed ≈ 1.1⋅ Eur , Eur = Eurref
Low Poisson Ratio pa '+ a
pa '+ a 850kPa 100
Eurref ≈ 0.9 ⋅ Eur oed = 0.9 ⋅ = 195MPa
σ 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):

E50ref = 35 MPa (estimated 32 MPa)

Eoedref = 45 MPa (estimated 53 MPa)
Eurref = 180 MPa (estimated 195 MPa)
m = 0,6
γ=0 c = 1 kPa
pw = 0 ϕ = 440
ψ = 180 (estimated 170)
K0NC = 0,4
ν ur = 0,2
Triaxial tests by Shaoli (2004)
symmetry
Axial
Triaxial test results and PLAXIS
simulation
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,
n = 35,9% (initial) – 39,6% (end of test)

200
180
Deviatoric stress, q [kPa]

160
140
120
Plaxis 40
100 dense 40
80
60
40
20
0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Axial strain [%]
Triaxial test results and PLAXIS
simulation
Dense Hokksund sand at 40 kPa,
n = 35,9% (initial) – 39,6% (end of test

Axial strain [%]

-4
-3,5
Volumetric strain, [%]

-3
-2,5
-2 from PLAXIS 40
Dense 40
-1,5
-1
-0,50,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
0
0,5
1
Oedometer test and PLAXIS simulation
dense Hokksund sand, n = 39% , (Tore Ingar Moen, 1975)

0
Test data
-0,2
Vertical strain [%]

-0,4 Plaxis
-0,6
-0,8
-1
-1,2
-1,4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vertical effective stress [kPa]
Stiffness of Clay
 Stiffness of clay
Drained stiffness from oedometer tests
σc’ σy’ Basically

ref 
σ 'y 
Eoed = Eoed  
p
 ref 
εy 1
ref 1
Eoed E oed = for pref = σ y '
σy’ mv

Eoed ref  σ 'y 

Eoed = E oed  
p
 ref 
ref
oed
E Soft NC clays: ≈ 1 MPa

pref = 100kPa σy’ Hard NC clays: ≈ 3 MPa

 Stiffness of clay
Ideal: drained triaxial test or consolidated undrained
triaxial test
Practice: undrained triaxial test

σy - σx E50 = f ⋅ Eu50

cu: undrained 1+ ν
f = CUR 195 (2000)
Eu50 shear strength
1+ νu
1 cu f = 1/ 3 COB (1997)
0.25 < f < 0.35 Lambe & Whitman (1969)
εy
Stiffness for unloading-reloading loops
From oedometer tests for elastic behaviour with low Poisson’s Ratio:

Eur,oed = αEoed and Eur ≈ Eur,oed :

m
 σ1 '+ a  m
 = α ⋅ Eoed / ( K0 )
ref ref ref
E =α ⋅ E 
ur oed
 σ3 '+ a 

Clay (m=1):
NC : Eur ,oed ≈ 10Eoed ⇒ Eurref ≈ 10Eoed
ref ref
/ K0 ≈ 20Eoed
OC : Eur ,oed ≈ 3Eoed ⇒ Eurref ≈ 3Eoed
ref ref
/ K0 ≈ 3Eoed
 Stiffness of clay
Other estimations for stiffness of normally consolidated clays (m=1):

ref 1 ref
E ≈ E
oed 2 50 Order of magnitude (very rough)

ref 50000 kPa Correlation with Ip for pref =100 kPa

E oed ≈
Ip
ref 500 kPa
E oed ≈ Correlation by Vermeer
wL − 0.1
Stiffness of 5
ref
E
clay oed MP
a
4

Oedometer modulus
1 + e0
Drained stiffness from ref
Eoed = 230 ⋅ (
Cc
)
3
oedometer tests on
intact lean Norwegian
2
NC clays for σy’ > σc’
1

Based on Janbu (1963)

Stiffness of sand
and clay
105
After Janbu (1963) rock

soils and σ´ = 100 kPa

104

Janbu :
m 103
 σ′ 
Eoed = Eoed ⋅ 
ref

 sandy gravel
 pref 

Eoed [MPa] for NC-soils

102

sand
more general: 10
m
 σ′ + a  Norwegian
Eoed = Eref ⋅
oed 
  clays
 pref + a  1

with a = c´ cotϕ´ Mexico City Clay

0 50 100
porosity
porosityn n[%][%]
 Stiffness of clay

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

Parameters of the HS model

For normally consolidated clays (m=1):

ref 1 ref
Eoed ≈ 2 E50 Order of magnitude (very rough)

ref 50000 kPa

Eoed ≈ Correlation with Ip for pref=100 kPa
Ip
ref 500 kPa
Eoed ≈ Correlation by Vermeer
wL − 0.1
ref
Eoed = p ref λ* Relationship with Soft Soil model
Oedometer test simulation, soft clay.
Initial stresses, preconsolidation and parameters

GW
σyy σxx High “oedometer” cut out as
a vertical column from the
site in question.
10 m γ = 20kN/m3 Start the “test” from in situ
stresses and specified
preconsolidation for the
Sample sample studied.
pw σ’yy pw σ’xx

5m

Soft clay by
ref
E 50 = 2 MPa m=1 ϕ = 25o
Hardening soil ref
E oed = 2 MPa νur = 0,2 Ψ = 0o
model: c = 5 kPa K0NC = 0.577
E urref = 10 MPa
 Oedometer test results, soft clay
Strain
0,00

-0,02 OCR = 3 Note the

preconsolidaton
-0,04
εyy levels at:
-0,06
OCR = 1,5
σ’yy = 150 kPa
-0,08 σ’yy = 300 kPa

-0,10
0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 σ’yy
Stress [kN/m2]

For OCR = 1,5:

0 -200 -400 -600 σ’yy
0
-74
σ x 0 ' = K 0 '⋅σ c '−(σ c '−σ y 0 ' ) ⋅ 1ν−νur
ur
OCR = 1,5
-123
σ’xx-200 OCR = 3 σ x 0 ' = 0.577 ⋅150 − (150 − 100) ⋅ 1−00, 2, 2 = 74 kPa

-300 Konc Note that for OCR = 3: σ’xx > σ’yy

11
-400
 Drained triaxial test simulation
soft clay
Soft clay by
Hardening soil
model:
ref
γ=0
E 50 = 2 MPa m=1 ϕ = 25o
pw = 0
ref
E oed = 2 MPa νur = 0,2 Ψ = 0o
ref
E ur = 10 MPa K0NC = 0.577
c = 5 kPa

Zero initial stresses,

preconsolidation generated by preloading
symmetry
Axial
 Drained triaxial test on soft clay
results
q [kN/m2] q [kN/m2]

Stress 200 200

paths:
160 160

120 120

80 80

Initial cap
40 40
OCR = 1 OCR = 2

0 0
0 -40 -80 -120 -160 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250

p' [kN/m2] p’ [kN/m2]

180

160
q Top curve OCR = 3
140
OCR = 2
Effect of 120
OCR = 1
100
OCR: 80

60

40

20
εy
0

-20 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

εyy
 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

E50
α pc
Eur E oed

β p´
double hardening 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
• γ0.7
m
Gur ref  c cos ϕ − σ 3 sinϕ 
G0 = G0  c cos ϕ + p ref sinϕ 
 
Small-strain stiffness in the HS model
(HSsmall)
τ Cyclic loading
leads to Hysteresis
Gt
G0
Energy dissipation
Gs

Damping
-γc
γ G0
+γc Gs =
γ
1 + 0.385
G0
G0
γ 0.7
G0
Gt = 2
 γ 
 1 + 0.385 
 γ 0.7 
 Small-strain stiffness parameters in the
HSsmall model

Drained triaxial test, HS vs. HSsmall model

160

140

120
HSsmall E0
ref
E
q [kN/m²]

100 HS
G0ref = 0
80 2(1+νur )
60

40

20
Et ≥ Eur
0 0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.008 -0.01 -0.012 -0.014
εyy
Small-strain stiffness parameters in the
HSsmall model

ref (2.97 − e)2

G 0 = 33 [MPa] Hardin & Black (1969)
1+ e
G0ref ≈ RD • 70MPa + 60MPa Lengkeek
0.385
γ 0.7 =
4G0
[2c(1 + cos(2ϕ )) − σ 1(1 + K0 )sin(2ϕ )] Benz (2007)

Order of magnitude:
ref Eurref
G0ref = (2.5 to10)Gurref where G
ur =
2(1 + ν ur )

γ 0.7 = (1 to 2) ⋅10 −4
 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 (OC-
peat) clay, sand, gravel)
Primary load. Soft Soil (Crp), HS / HSsmall
(surcharge) HS / HSsmall
Unloading + HS / HSsmall HS / HSsmall
deviatoric load
(excavation)
Deviatoric Soft Soil (Crp), HS / HSsmall
loading HS / HSsmall
Secondary Soft Soil Creep n/a
compression