Hypoplasticity Course Handouts Public PDF

Hypoplasticity for Practical Applications
Part 4: Determination of material parameters
David Mašín
Charles University in Prague Zhejiang University
PhD course on hypoplasticity

Zhejiang University, June 2015
David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 1 / 71

Outline
7 Determination of material parameters

Sand hypoplastic model (von Wolffersdorff, 1996)
Clay hypoplastic model (Mašín, 2014)
Intergranular strain concept (Niemunis and Herle, 1997)

Determination of material parameters Sand hypoplastic model (von Wolffersdorff, 1996)
Parameter determination of sand hypoplasticity

The model by von Wolffersdorff (1996) is now considered as a
reference hypoplastic model for granular materials. It requires 8
material parameters:
ϕc is the critical state friction angle
hs and n control the shape of limiting void ratio curves (normal
compression lines and critical state line)
ed0 , ec0 and ei0 are reference void ratios specifying positions of
limiting void ratio curves
α controls the dependency of peak friction angle on relative
density
β controls the dependency of soil stiffness on relative density
Calibration procedure for the von Wolffersdorff hypoplastic model
detailed in Herle and Gudehus (1999).

Critical state friction angle ϕc
The critical state is reached during monotonic shearing while both

the stress rate and the volumetric deformation rate vanish.
However, problem of shear testing is localisation of deformation
into shear bands. A suitable way for determination of ϕc is
measurement of the angle of repose ϕrep .
Not suitable for materials with grain size below 0.1 mm (increase
of ϕrep due to capillary water resulting from air humidity).


Measurement of the angle of repose corresponds well to the
measurement of ϕc in shear tests (Herle and Gudehus, 1999):

Principle of the measurement of the angle of repose: simple shear

type of deformation occurs under quite low confining pressure
within the thin surface layer:
Miura et al. (1997)

Sliding in the thin surface layer may be explained by ordinary

stability analysis of infinite slope:
Miura et al. (1997)

The sand is necessarily in a loose state, because of dilatancy

caused by shear deformation within the thin layer.
The sand heap is loose. Because ϕrep is a good approximation of
the mobilised friction angle, it is then also a good approximation of
the critical state friction angle.
The most common way of mea-

surement ⇒ the funnel filled with
dry sand lifted vertically and slowly
to form a sand heap. Funnel is in
contact with the heap
Miura et al. (2010)

Herle (2010)

Miura et al. (1997), however, observed, that the measured angle of
repose depends on a number of factors, such as amount of sand,
roughness of the base plate and funnel lifting rate.
Miura et al. (1997)


Based on the findings of Miura et al. (1997)
The base should be rough to prevent sliding along the base
causing non-planar shear planes within the cone
The lifting should be slow to ensure quasi-static conditions
The amount of sand should be approx. 50 g.

Measurement of ϕc as the angle of repose is possible also in the

case of gravel:
Herle (2010)

Friction angle of gravel is larger than friction angle of sand
Herle (2010)

Measurement of ϕc by means of measurement of the angle of

repose is unsuitable for material with grain sizes below 0.1 mm.
In the case the amount of fines

is low (below cca 20%), they do
not have substantial influence on
ϕc . They can thus be sieved-
out and the angle of repose can
be mesured on the coarse-grained
fraction.
Different percentages of Kaolin in sand.
From Pitman et al. (1994)

In the case of silty soils, ϕc cannot be measured as the angle of

repose due to capillary effects. For these soils, however, the von
Wolffersdorff hypoplastic model may still be adequate.
In this case, shear experiments are required. It is necessary to
minimise the effects of localisation of deformation into shear band.


If shear banding occurs, the overall stress and strain measured does
not correspond to the state within the shear band (critical state is
achieved inside the shear band only).
(stereofotogrammetric measurements by Desrues and Viggiani 2004)


Shear-banding affects the measured stress-strain relationship:
(from Desrues and Viggiani 2004)


To limit the influence of localisation of deformation in triaxial tests
The sample should be in the loosest state possible:
shear-banding is related to the post-peak softening, which in turn
depends on relative density.
Frictionless plattens should be used.
Shear box test can be used to estimate ϕc . Unsuitable to measure
critical state void ratio.

Parameters hs and n
Limiting void ratios by Gudehus (1996):
ei is maximum void ratio
(isotropic normal
compression)
ec is critical state void ratio
(CSL)
ed is minimal void ratio at the
state of maximum density
− tr σ n

ei ec ed
= = = exp −
ei0 ec0 ed0 hs
hs , n, ei0 , ec0 and ed0 are model parameters
(equation by Bauer, 1996)

Parameters hs and n
In fact, in any proportional compression (constant direction of

strain rate), a normal compression line (NCL)
n
3p
ep = ep0 exp −
hs
is followed after reaching normally consolidated state. ep0 controls
position of the given NCL with ec0 < ep0 < ei0 .
Any proportional compression test can thus be used for the
determination of hs and n. Oedometric test is the most easy to
perform.
Oedometric test on loose soil, either dry or fully saturated.
It is NOT RECCOMENDED TO CALIBRATE hs AND n BY DIRECT
REGRESSION , but rather adopt the physical meaning of the
parameters →
Parameters hs and n
The slope of the oedometric curve plotted in the ln σa vs. e space

described by the compression index Cc :
∆e
Cc =
∆ ln σa
During proportional loading along NCL, K0 is constant

3 3
ln σa = ln p = ln + ln p
1 + 2K0 1 + 2K0
we thus also have

∆e
Cc =
∆ ln p

Parameters hs and n
Time-differentiation of the Bauer formula yields
ne 3p n

ė = − ṗ
p hs
Comparing with the above equation for Cc , we have

1/n
ne
hs = 3p
Cc
where Cc is a tangent compression index.

Parameters hs and n
Considering the value of Cc at two
different values of p, the above
equation for hs can be rewritten to

ln ee21 C
Cc2
c1
n=
ln (p2 /p1 )
⇒ direct calculation of n from Cc1

and Cc2
hs can then be calculated from the secant compression index in

the range p1 to p2 using equation on the previous slide.

Parameters hs and n
The influence of the parameters hs and n on the shape of compression
curves: hs controls the overall slope and n controls curvature.
Herle and Gudehus (1999)

.

Parameter ec0
The parameter ec0 defines the po-

sition of the critical state line in the
ln p vs. e space:
n
3p
ec = ec0 exp −
hs
The most appropriate way for its

determination is thus through eval-
uation of undrained triaxial shear
tests.
It is advisable, however, to use the parameters hs and n evaluated

from the oedometric compression as explained above. Thus, only ec0
is varied while fitting the CSL data.
Parameter ec0
As in the case of the ϕc determination, calibration of ec0 using

results of shear tests is problematic due to shear banding.
⇒ Sample as loose as possible, frictionless platens.
Simpler way of its determination is based on the following idea:

soil heap during evaluation of the angle of repose is close to the
critical state. Such a soil is close to the loosest state, and stresses
are due to small size of the heap small.
Soil for the oedometric test performed for the determination of hs
and n is also aimed to be in the loosest state:
Initial void ratio of the oedometric test on loose soil can be thus
considered as appropriate estimate of ec0 ⇒ no additional
experiment needed for the determination of ec0 .
Calculation of hs , n and ec0 in real calibration
Now I explain how to calibrate the parameters hs , n and ec0 for a

real oedometric test on loose sample with 6 loading steps.
0.84
experiment
0.82 calibration
a
0.8 b
0.78 c
void ratio e [-]
0.76 d
0.74
0.72 e
0.7
0.68 f
0.66
100 1000
mean stress p [kPa]
Calculation of hs , n and ec0 in real calibration

The following procedure leads to the best fit:
eb − ea
0.84
experiment Cc1 = −
0.82 calibration ln pb − ln pa
a
0.8 b ef − ee
Cc2 = −
0.78 c ln pf − ln pe
void ratio e [-]
0.76 d ed − ec
0.74
Cc = −
ln pd − ln pc
0.72 e
0.7
e1 = (ea + eb )/2
0.68 f e2 = (ee + ef )/2
0.66
100 1000 e = (ec + ed )/2
mean stress p [kPa]

ln pa + ln pb ln pe + ln pf ln pc + ln pd
p1 = exp p2 = exp p = exp
2 2 2
ec0 subsequently adjusted so the curve fits vertically.

Parameter ec0
Comparison of "nominal" end predicted K0 test
Unification of ec line with K0 line for calibration purposes is

approximation only, but the discrepancy is relatively minor
(depends on the other model parameters)
0.95
simulation
0.9 direct calibration
0.85
0.8
void ratio e [-]
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
100 1000
mean stress p [kPa]
Parameter ei0
Parameter ei0 controls the position of the isotropic compression

line. For the given mean stress, ei represents the theoretical
loosest possible state.
Difficult to measure experimentally: emax reached while preparing
the loose soil sample corresponds to ec0 . During isotropic
compression, the compression line converges towards the ideal
NCL very slowly. ei in fact represents theoretical emax in
gravity-free space.
Herle and Gudehus (1999) suggest

ei0 = 1.2ec0 , based on a study of
idealised loosest packing of
spherical particles.

Parameter ed0
Parameter ed0 controls position of the minimum void ratio line.

The best densification can be obtained by means of cyclic
shearing with small amplitude at constant pressure.
ed0 then obtained by extrapolation using hs and n evaluated from

oedometric experiments results.

Parameter ed0
Alternative empirical approach: Herle and Gudehus (1999)

evaluated ed0 and ec0 on 7 different granular soils. The ratio
ed0 /ec0 varied within the range 0.52-0.64.
ed0 = 0.5ec0 would be a reasonable estimate of ed0 in the case
the minimum void ratio test is not available.
Lower bound of the range by Herle and Gudehus (1999) to ensure
the inallowed state e < ed is not reached.

Parameter α
Parameter α controls the dependency of peak friction angle ϕp on

relative void ratio
e − ed
re =
ec − ed

Parameter α
Calibration by means of single element simulation of triaxial shear

test on soil with re < 1.
450
400
350
300
q [kPa]
250
200
150 α=0.05
100 α=0.10
α=0.13
50 α=0.15
α=0.20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
εs [-]’

Parameter β
The parameter β enters the expression of fs ⇒ it influences the

size of the response envelope (both bulk and shear stiffness).
400
350
300
It is best
250
calibrated by
q [kPa]
200
means of fitting
150
shear stiffness
100 β=0.5
in triaxial shear β=1.0
test. 50 β=1.5
β=2.0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
εs [-]’

Minimalistic experimental programme
"Minimalistic" experimental programme for von Wolffersdorff

(1996) hypoplastic model:
Angle of repose test: Parameter ϕc .
One oedometric test on initially loose sample: hs , n, ec0 ; empirically
ei0 and ed0 .
One drained triaxial shear test on initially dense sample: α and β.

Performance of the model

using minimalistic (3-test) experimental programme
Research project on applicability of hypoplastic model in

probabilistic numerical analyses: large number of specimens
needed, minimum number of experiments possible.
Suchomel and Mašín (2011)


Predictions of oedometric tests [Mašín (2015). The influence of

experimental and sampling uncertainties on the probability of unsatisfactory
performance in geotechnical applications. Géotechnique (in print)].
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
e [-]
e [-]
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 natural variability 0.4 natural variability

- experiments - simulations
0.3 0.3
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
p [kPa] p [kPa]


Predictions of drained triaxial tests (Mašín, 2015).

1000 1000
800 800
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
600 600
400 natural variability 400 natural variability

200 200
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
εs [-] εs [-]
0.5 0.5
natural variability natural variability
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.4
e [-]
e [-]
0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
εs [-] εs [-]

Range of parameters for different soils

Herle and Gudehus (1999) evaluated parameters of von Wolffersdorff
hypoplastic model for 7 different granular soils.
ϕc hs n ed0 ec0 ei0 α β

[◦ ] [GPa] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
Hochstetten gravel 36 32 0.18 0.26 0.45 0.5 0.1 1.9
Hochstetten sand 33 1.5 0.28 0.55 0.95 1.05 0.25 1.5
Hostun sand 31 1.0 0.29 0.61 0.96 1.09 0.13 2
Karlsruhe sand 30 5.8 0.28 0.53 0.84 1 0.13 1
Lausitz sand 33 1.6 0.19 0.44 0.85 1 0.25 1
Toyoura sand 30 2.6 0.27 0.61 0.98 1.1 0.18 1.1
Zbraslav sand 31 5.7 0.25 0.52 0.82 0.95 0.13 1.0
min. 30 1.0 0.18 0.26 0.45 0.5 0.1 1
max. 36 32 0.29 0.61 0.98 1.1 0.25 2


Variability of parameters in 40 samples (Mašín, 2015):
0.5 0.6 1.4
0.45
0.5 1.2
0.4
Rel. frequency
Rel. frequency
Rel. frequency
0.35 0.4 1
0.3
0.25 0.3 0.8
0.2 0.6
0.15 0.2
0.1 0.4
0.1
0.05 0.2
0 0
30 32 34 36 38 40 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0
φc [°] ln(hs/1 kPa) -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
ln(n)
4 0.9 1.2
3.5 0.8
1
3 0.7
Rel. frequency
Rel. frequency
Rel. frequency
2.5 0.6 0.8
2 0.5
0.6
1.5 0.4
1 0.3 0.4
0.5 0.2
0.2
0 0.1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0
ec0 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -1 0 1 2 3 4
ln(α) β

Determination of material parameters Clay hypoplastic model (Mašín, 2014)
Parameter determination of clay hypoplasticity
CLAY HYPOPLASTICITY
The clay hypoplasticity model requires altogether 5 material

parameters. The parameters are equivalent (but not identical) to
the parameters of the Modified Cam-clay model.
ϕc is the critical state friction angle
N and λ∗ control the position and slope of the isotropic normal
compression line
κ∗ controls the slope of the isotropic unloading line
ν controls the shear stiffness
Here I describe only calibration of the parameters of the basic
model. Important is consideration of the effects of structre (Part 6).

Unlike in the case of hypoplasticity for granular materials, ϕc of

clays cannot be calibrated using the simple angle of repose test.
On the other hand, we may take advantage of the fact that the
natural and reconstituted soils have the same ϕc .
From the reconstituted soil we easily create "loose" (soft, normally
consolidated) sample ⇒ less susceptible to shear banding.
ϕc is thus preferably measured on reconstituted, normally
consolidated sample using undrained triaxial shear test
(undrained just because it is faster than drained).
To ensure as much as possible homogeneous deformation,
frictionless platens should preferably be used.

Parameters controlling NCL (N and λ∗ )
Parameters N and λ∗ straightforward to calibrate using isotropic

compression test on reconstituted soil and natural soil with stable
structure. Much more complicated in natural soils with the effects
of structure – Part 6.
ln (1+e) 1.05
experiment
N 1 κ*=0.005
κ*=0.010
0.95 κ*=0.015
Isotr. normal compression line
0.9
ln (1+e) [-]
0.85
Isotr. unloading line
current state 0.8
0.75
κ* 1 0.7
0.65
Critical state line λ* 0.6
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ln p/pr [-]
pcr p*e ln p


Isotropic vs. oedometric compression
The parameter N specifies the position of the isotropic normal

compression line.
However, it is often useful to calibrate N using results of
oedometric compression test – easier and faster to perform.
q
State Boundary Surface

When projected onto
the p vs. e plane,
CSL
K0 NCL
isotropic and
oedometric normal
p’
compression lines are
shifted with respect to
isotropic NCL each other
e

When plotted in the ln p vs. ln(1 + e) plane, the isotropic and

oedometric normal compression lines are parallel.
0.65 The simplest way to evaluate ∆N

0.6
0.55
corresponding to the particular soil
0.5 parameters is simulation of isotropic
ln (1+e)
0.45 ∆N
0.4
and oedometric tests. ∆N is the
0.35 vertical offset of the normal
0.3 isotropic compression
0.25
oedometric compression compression lines in the ln p vs.
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
ln p/pr ln(1 + e) plane.


The oedometric results need to be plotted in terms of ln p, not

ln σv .
Calculate p from σv
1 + 2K0
p = σv
3
using Jáky formula K0 = 1 − sin ϕc .

Parameter κ∗
Within Modified Cam clay model, the parameter κ represents the

slope of unloading line in the ln p vs. e plane. The slope of
unloading line is constant.
In hypoplasticity, there is also parameter κ∗ , but the model
predicts non-linear behaviour even inside SBS.
This difference between Modified Cam-clay and hypoplasticity
must be considered in the model calibration.
κ∗ should preferably be calibrated using experiments on
undisturbed soil samples (they are performed anyway for the
calibration of N).

Parameter κ∗
Unlike in elasto-plasticity, in hypoplasticity κ∗ represents exactly

the slope of unloading line in the ln p vs. ln(1 + e) plane at
unloading from normally consolidated state
0.75
elasto-plasticity
0.7 hypoplasticity
0.65
ln(1+e) [-]
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
ln(p/pr) [-]

Parameter κ∗
The slope of unloading (loading) line is controlled by the

parameters κ∗ , but the model takes over control of the
non-linearity
1.05
1
experiment
κ*=0.005 κ∗ thus should be calibrated
κ*=0.010
0.95 κ*=0.015 by parametric study by
0.9
simulation of the isotropic /
ln (1+e) [-]
0.85
0.8
oedometric test
0.75
0.7 Not as λ∗ by a direct
0.65
0.6
measurement of the slope of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ln p/pr [-]
the loading/unloading line.

Parameter κ∗
The ratio λ∗ /κ∗ controls size of response envelope. It thus,

indeed, controls also undrained stress paths.
240
220
200
-σa [kPa]
180
160
140 κ*=0.007
120 κ*=0.010
κ*=0.015
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-σr√2 [kPa]

Parameter ν
The parameter ν controls the shear modulus (increase of ν

decreases the shear modulus).
Preferable way of calibration of ν are undrained shear tests on
undisturbed soil.
500
450
400
350
300
q [kPa]
250
200
150
experiment
100 ν=0.2
50 ν=0.33
ν=0.4
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
εs [-]

Parameter ν
The parameter ν controls shape of response envelope, and thus

also undrained stress path (similarly to parameter κ∗ ).
240
220
200
-σa [kPa]
180
160
140 ν=0.10
120 ν=0.27
ν=0.34
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-σr√2 [kPa]

Initial value of e
The initial void ratio in the simulation of the shear test must
correspond to the adopted position of NCL so that the implied
OCR is correct.
If e from compression and shear tests (for the same state) is
different due to the experimental scatter, use e from the
compression test.
Alternatively, it is possible to directly initialise OCR.


Parameters of the clay hypoplastic model from different sources
ϕc λ∗ κ∗ N ν
Brno clay 22◦ 0.128 0.015 1.51 0.33
London clay 21.9◦ 0.095 0.015 1.19 0.1
Kaolin 27.5◦ 0.065 0.01 0.918 0.35
Dortmund clay 27.9◦ 0.057 0.008 0.749 0.38
Weald clay 24◦ 0.059 0.018 0.8 0.3
Koper silt 33◦ 0.103 0.015 1.31 0.28
Fujinomori clay 34◦ 0.045 0.011 0.887 0.36
Pisa clay 21.9◦ 0.14 0.01 1.56 0.31
Beaucaire clay 33◦ 0.06 0.01 0.85 0.21
Trmice clay 18.7◦ 0.09 0.01 1.09 0.09
min. 18.7◦ 0.045 0.01 0.85 0.09
max. 34◦ 0.14 0.02 1.51 0.38

Determination of material parameters Intergranular strain concept (Niemunis and Herle, 1997)
Intergranular strain concept
INTERGRANULAR STRAIN CONCEPT
The intergranular strain concept Niemunis and Herle (1997) enables to

model small-strain-stiffness effects in hypoplasticity. It requires 5
material parameters:
mR : parameter controlling the initial (very-small-strain) shear
modulus upon 180◦ strain path reversal and in the initial loading
(supplemented by Ag and ng in the clay model).
mT : parameter controlling the initial shear modulus upon 90◦
strain path reversal (supplemented by mrat in the clay model)
R: The size of the elastic range (in the strain space)
βr and χ: control the rate of degradation of the stiffness with strain.

Intergranular strain concept
The intergranular strain concept may be used with both von

Wolffersdorff and clay hypoplasticity without any modification.
Response of the combined model then, however, depends on the
basic model used.
When used with clay hypoplasticity, model can be calibrated
directly to fit the initial stiffness G0 :
ng
p
G0 = pr Ag
pr
The parameters Ag and ng supplement the parameter mR of the

sand model.

Parameters Ag and ng (clay model)

Representation of the bender element measurements on clay:
160
140
120
100
Gvh0 [MPa]
ng
80 p
G 0 = pr Ag
60 pr
40
experiment
20 Gvh0=Ag (p/pr)ng
linear dependency
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
p [kPa]

Parameter mR (sand model)
Using von Wolffersdorff hypoplasticity, G0 is proportional to p(1−n)
G0 ∼ p(1−n)
1200
1000
800
mR is a proportionality
G0 [MPa]
600
constant. Calibrated by a
400
parametric study.
200
von Wolffersdorff, n=0.25
linear dependency
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
p [kPa]

Parameter mT (mrat in clay model)
Parameter mT (or mrat = mT /mR in the clay model) is difficult to

calibrate.
The ratio mrat is the ratio G90 /G0 , where G90 is the initial shear
stiffness after 90◦ change of strain path direction.
G90 cannot be measured by bender element tests. We need
accurate strain measurements using local strain transducers. Still,
it is hard to estimate G0 /G90 .
Experiments with different strain path direction change with local
strain measurements allow us to evaluate the ratio of shear moduli
at larger strains. They may be used to estimate mrat .

Parameter mT (mrat in clay model)
Examples are experiments by Richardson (1988). They indicate

mrat ≈ 0.7
Richardson, 1988; Atkinson et al., 1990

Parameter R
The remaining parameters R, βr and χ need to be calibrated by

means of a parametric study by fitting the stiffness degradation
curve obtained using accurate local strain measurements
The influence of the parameter R (size of elastic range):
140
exp., 226gUC
120 exp., 25gUC
exp., 23gUE
R=1.e-5
100 R=5.e-5
R=1.e-4
G [MPa]
80
60
40
20
0
1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
εs [-]

Parameters βr and χ
βr and χ control the shape of the stiffness degradation curves

140 140
exp., 226gUC exp., 226gUC
120 exp., 25gUC 120 exp., 25gUC
exp., 23gUE exp., 23gUE
βr=0.1 χ=1
100 βr=0.033 100 χ=0.5
βr=0.3 χ=2
G [MPa]
G [MPa]
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1e-07 1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
εs [-] εs [-]
We see that R has similar influence on the stiffness curve as βr . It

can then be advised to treat R = 10−4 as material independent
constant, and control the stiffness curve by βr and χ.

Calibration using results of cyclic tests
The above calibration procedure is suitable for simulation of

geotechnical problems with continuous loading or several strain
path reversals.
However, the hypoplastic model with intergranular strains also
enables us to model the effects of cyclic loading.
In the case of simulation of cyclic loading problem, it is preferable
to use cyclic loading tests also for the model calibration.

Using the results of cyclic tests only,

it is difficult to distingush the
influence of individual parameters
⇒ Cyclic undrained triaxial test, the
influence of mR
100 100
no istr. mR=8
mR=5 mR=10
50 50
q [kPa]
0 q [kPa] 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
p [kPa] p [kPa]

The parameters βr and χ, however, have similar influence on the

cyclic behaviour as mR
βr=0.033 χ=2
100 βr=0.1 100 χ=1
βr=0.3 χ=0.5
50 50
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
0 0
-50 -50
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

p [kPa] p [kPa]


A possible simplified way to model calibration could then be
Treat R = 10−4 and χ = 1 as material independent constants.
Calibrate mR (Ag and ng for the clay model) using bender element
measurements (they are relatively easy to perform).
Set mT = 0.7mR (mrat = 0.7).
Control the cyclic behaviour using the parameter βr only.

Parameters for different soils

Not many rigorously calibrated parameters sets for the intergranular
strain concept available. Even some parameters in the following tables
are estimates only.
R mR mT βr χ
Hochstetten sand 1x10−4 5 2 0.5 6
Karlsruhe sand 5x10−5 6.7-12 (p dep.) - 0.3 1
R βr χ Ag ng mrat
London clay (data Gasparre) 5.e-5 0.08 0.9 270 1 0.5
Brno clay (nat.) 1e-4 0.2 0.8 5300 0.5 0.5

Hypoplasticity for Practical Applications
Part 6: Advanced modelling approaches
David Mašín
Charles University in Prague Zhejiang University
PhD course on hypoplasticity

Zhejiang University, June 2015
David Mašín Part 6: Advanced modelling approaches course on hypoplasticity 1 / 163

Outline
10 Modelling the effects of structure (fabric, bonding, crushing)
11 Stiffness anisotropy
12 Unsaturated soils
13 Expansive soils
14 Thermal effects

Fabric, bonding, crushing Structure of fine-grained soils
The influence of structure on clay behaviour
To quantify the effects of structure on mechanical behaviour, we

first need to define a reference material - material without
inter-particle bonds and with sort-of "standard" structure.
As an international consensus, so-called reconstituted soil as
defined by Burland (1990) is used. By Burland’s definition, it is
created by thorough mixing of natural soil at water content 1 to 1.5
times higher then liquid limit wL . Mix in distilled de-aired water.
Mixed with water to form slurry without drying prior to mixing.
Samples then prepared by consolidation up to stresses high
enough so they can be handled (cca 70 kPa) under 1D conditions.
Low stress enough so permanent effects of cross-anisotropy are
not induced.

Structure:
Fabric – arrangement of particles. Predominantly created during
soil sedimentation. Influenced greatly by the chemistry of
sedimentation environment.
Bonding – cementation bonds between individual particles. Formed
by precipitation of bonding chemicals during subsequent
diagenetical processes.


Dispersed and flocculated fabric
Clay fabric depends on the sedimentation environment:
In neutral environment (pH=7), edges and

faces are neutrally charged ⇒ dispersed
structure.
Feda (1982)
In acid environment (pH<7), edge charge

is positive and face charge is negative ⇒
edge-to-face flocculated structure.
Feda (1982)


In alkaline environment (pH>7), edge

charge is negative and face positive.
However, repulsive double layer forming
around faces is very thin, and attractive
van der Waals-London forces prevail ⇒
"salty" flocculation. Feda (1982)
Distilled water has pH=7 ⇒ Fabric of reconstituted soil will tend to

be dispersed.
Sea water has 7.9 < pH < 9 ⇒ tends to create "salty flocculated"
fabric.


Fabric of a real soil is much more complex. In any case, it turns

out that the undisturbed soil has at the same stress more open
structure than the reconstituted soil
Reconstituted soil Undisturbed soil

Sides and Barden (1970)

• The more open structure of undisturbed soil is manifested in different

positions of normal compression lines in the ln(1 + e) vs. ln p space:
natural, only fabric
reconstituted
ln p’

Let’s interpret this behaviour using the Cam-clay concept.
q/pe*
standard CC
1 2 p/pe*
Natural soil should have higher undrained shear strength than the
reconstituted one at the same void ratio.

Let’s interpret this behaviour using the Cam-clay concept.
q/pe*
structured CC, s=2
standard CC
1 2 p/pe*
Natural soil should have higher undrained shear strength than the
reconstituted one at the same void ratio.

This really is the case. Recall

the well-known example of
quick clay.
Sedimented in salty
environment, but then uplift
caused the quick clay to rise
above current water level and
the salt was leached out from
the pores.
Structure broken more easily
than by thorough
reconstitution.
David Mašín Part 6: Advanced modelling approaches

Mitchell (1993)
course on hypoplasticity 12 / 163

Typically, soils with fabric-dominated structure have normal

compression lines parallel to NCL of reconstituted soil. Structure
remains = stable structure:
Gullá et al. (2006) Takahashi et al. (2006)


It is important to point out that also reconstituted soil has its

structure. When the sample is prepared in different way, different
response. Reconstitution using Burland’s definition = standard.

Behaviour of fine-grained soils
Also structure, as observed by scanning electron

microphotography, is different: (Fearon and Coop, 2000).
reconstituted minced


Bonding
• Diagenesis (post-sedimentation processes) often causes

precipitation of chemical agents between particle contacts =
cementation, bonding
e
reconstituted
ln p’
Bonding increases the resistance of the skeleton, but up to certain
stress only. Then, bonds break.

Bonding
• Diagenesis (post-sedimentation processes) often causes

precipitation of chemical agents between particle contacts =
cementation, bonding
e
natural, fabric and bonding
reconstituted
ln p’
Bonding increases the resistance of the skeleton, but up to certain
stress only. Then, bonds break.

Bonding
Typical example is compression behaviour of soft clay.
Nash et al. (1992)

Callisto and Rampello (2004)


Sensitivity framework
Framework for the behaviour of

structured soils – sensitivity frame-
work by Cotecchia and Chandler
(2000).
Undisturbed soil has larger

undrained shear strength (cu ) than
the reconstituted soil at the same
void ratio. Their ratio = strength
sensitivity
cunat
Su =
curec
David Mašín Part 6: Advanced modelling approaches

Mitchell (1993)
course on hypoplasticity 19 / 163

• Compression behaviour is used to define stress sensitivity:
e
natural, fabric and bonding
Stress sensitivity:
natural, only fabric pnat
Sσ =
prec
reconstituted
prec pnat ln p’


Sensitivity framework (Cotecchia and Chandler, 2000):

Strength sensitivity is equal to stress sensitivity, i.e. Sσ = Su .

Modelling the effects of clay structure
The primary features of structured soil behaviour are modelled by

variation of the size of state boundary surface (Rouainia and Muir
Wood, 2000; Kavvadas and Amorosi, 2000; Baudet and
Stallebrass, 2004).
ln (1+ e )
N nat
Due to the effects of structure,
λ* ln s
two different values of N may be
distinguished:
N rec
κ* 1
current state
Current SBS, nat. Nrec : Reconstituted soil
Nnat : Natural soil
Isot. unl.
Clearly, Nnat = Nrec + λ∗ ln s
SBS for s= 1
Sensitivity s is additional state
ln s
λ*
1 variable.
0 p*e s p*e ln p

In models for clays with meta-stable structure, sensitivity

decreases with loading.
ln (1+ e )
N rec
NCL nat. (UCL)
ln s
ln s
NCL rec.
λ*
1
0 ln p

For demonstration purposes, hypoplastic model for structured

clays (Mašín, 2007), but the other models similar in principle.
Sensitivity additional state variable, such that Nnat = N + λ∗ ln s
Evolution equation for sensitivity:
k
ṡ = − (s − sf )˙d
λ∗
where k and sf are additional parameters. ˙d is a "damage strain
rate", defined as
r
A
˙ = (˙v )2 +
d
(˙s )2
1−A
Parameter A specifies the relative influence of volumetric and
shear strain rate on the rate of structure degradation.
The parameter k specifies the rate of structure degradation.

1.1
0.9
ln (1+e) [-]
0.8
0.7
k=0
0.6
k=0.4
k=0.7
0.5 k=1
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

ln (p/pr) [-]

A controls the influence of shear strains on structure degradation.

Calibration by simulation of the shear test.
60
50
40
q [kPa]
30
20
stable structure
10 A=0.1
A=0.2
A=0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
p [kPa]

The parameter sf quantifies stable elements of structure (Baudet

and Stallebrass 2004). In many soft clays, sf = 1.
ln (1+ e )
N rec
NCL nat. final
NCL rec.
λ*
1 ln sf
0 ln p


Example of predictions: stress paths normalised with respect to pe∗ of
experiments of natural and reconstituted Pisa clay (experiments by
Callisto and Calabresi, 1998)
2 2
A135 A90 A60
1.5 A135 A90 1.5
A60
A30 A30
SOMS nat.
1 A180 1 A180
A0 A0
0.5 R90 R60 R30 0.5 R90 R60 R30
q/p*e
q/p*e
R0 R0
0 SOMS rec. 0
R315 R315
-0.5 A280 A315 -0.5 A280 A315
-1 -1
hypo., reconst. experiment, reconst.
-1.5 hypo., nat. -1.5 experiment, nat.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
p/p*e p/p*e

Hypoplasticity Course Handouts Public PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypoplasticity Course Handouts Public PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypoplasticity for Practical Applications

Part 4: Determination of material parameters

Charles University in Prague Zhejiang University

PhD course on hypoplasticity

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 1 / 71

7 Determination of material parameters

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 2 / 71

Parameter determination of sand hypoplasticity

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 4 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

The critical state is reached during monotonic shearing while both

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 5 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 6 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Principle of the measurement of the angle of repose: simple shear

Miura et al. (1997)

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 7 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Sliding in the thin surface layer may be explained by ordinary

Miura et al. (1997)

Critical state friction angle ϕc

The sand is necessarily in a loose state, because of dilatancy

The most common way of mea-

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 9 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Miura et al. (1997)

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 11 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 12 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Measurement of ϕc as the angle of repose is possible also in the

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 13 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Friction angle of gravel is larger than friction angle of sand

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 14 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

Measurement of ϕc by means of measurement of the angle of

In the case the amount of fines

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 15 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

In the case of silty soils, ϕc cannot be measured as the angle of

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 16 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

(stereofotogrammetric measurements by Desrues and Viggiani 2004)

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 17 / 71

Critical state friction angle ϕc

(from Desrues and Viggiani 2004)

Critical state friction angle ϕc

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 19 / 71

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 20 / 71

In fact, in any proportional compression (constant direction of

The slope of the oedometric curve plotted in the ln σa vs. e space

During proportional loading along NCL, K0 is constant

we thus also have

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 22 / 71

Time-differentiation of the Bauer formula yields

Comparing with the above equation for Cc , we have

where Cc is a tangent compression index.

David Mašín Part 4: Calibration of material parameters PhD course on hypoplasticity 23 / 71

⇒ direct calculation of n from Cc1