Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes of Dr. Desai PDF
Notes of Dr. Desai PDF
By
Chandrakant S. Desai
2012
Tucson, AZ, USA
1
PREFACE
These notes present descriptions of static and dynamic finite element method, nonlinear
techniques used, various constitutive models (elastic, plastic, creep, thermal, and disturbance-
softening , procedures for determination of parameters for the constitutive models, parameters
for typical materials and interfaces, and program features for the DSC-SST2D code.
The DSC-SST2D based on the finite element method with the DSC model is considered
to be a general purpose finite element code for analysis of a wide range of problems involving
solids and interfaces or joints, subjected to thermomechanical static, cyclic (repetitive) and
dynamic loadings. The code permits a range of constitutive models for elastic, plastic, and creep
responses, microcracking leading to fracture, and fatigue and softening. As a result, the code can
be used for solutions in civil and geotechnical, mechanical and aerospace engineering,
engineering mechanics, and electronic packaging systems.
Although these notes mainly cover static problems, other codes are available for dynamic
two-dimensional analysis (DSC-DYN2D) and for dynamic three-dimensional analysis (DSC-
SST3D). Their brief descriptions are given below:
I. DSC-SST2D: Two-dimensional Computer code for Static, Dynamic, Creep and Thermal
analysis-Solid, Structures, and Soil-Structure Problems
1. Part I: Manual for Technical Background. The Notes for the Short Course herein have
been adopted from this manual.
2. Part II: User’s Guide
3. Part III: Examples Problems-Verifications and Applications
II. DSC-DYN2D: Two-Dimensional code for Dynamic and Static Analysis-Dry and
Saturated (Porous) Materials including Liquefaction
III. DSC-SST3D: Three-Dimensional Computer code for Static and Coupled Consolidation
and Dynamic Analysis-Solid (Porous), Structures and Soil-Structure Problems:
This manual (Part I) presents the descriptions of the DSC-SST2D code. The other two are
available in separate reports.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC Page
Preface.......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 6
3
Appendix I: Constitutive Models .......................................................................................................... 33
Linear and Nonlinear Elastic Models ............................................................................................ 33
Linear Elastic Model……………………………………………………………………….33
Nonlinear Elastic Models ........................................................................................................ 33
Plasticity Models ..................................................................................................................... 34
Von Mises .................................................................................................................. 35
Mohr-Coulomb ........................................................................................................... 35
Drucker Prager ........................................................................................................... 35
Modified Cam-Clay ................................................................................................... 35
Cap Model .................................................................................................................. 37
Hoek-Brown Model ................................................................................................... 39
Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) Models .............................................................. 39
Initial Values of and ...................................................................................................... 41
Interface/Joints Element………………………………………………………………….43
Cohesive and Tensile Strengths ........................................................................................... 44
Creep Models………………………………………………………………………………44
Viscoelasticplatic (vep) or Perzyna Model............................................................................. 46
Multicomponent DSC or Overlay Models .............................................................................. 46
Specializations of Overlay Model ........................................................................................... 50
Number of Overlays and Thicknesses ............................................................................... 51
Layered Systems with Different Material Properties .............................................................. 51
Disturbance (Disturbed State Concept – DSC) Model: Microcracking,
Degradation and Softening .................................................................................................... 53
Speciaqlizations……………………………………………………………………………55
Thermal or Initial Strains ........................................................................................................................ 55
Elastic Behavior ...................................................................................................................... 55
Plane Stress ....................................................................................................................... 56
Plain Strain ........................................................................................................................ 56
Axisymmetric .................................................................................................................... 56
Thermoplastic Behavior .......................................................................................................... 57
Thermoviscoplastic Behavior .................................................................................................. 58
DSC Model .............................................................................................................................. 61
4
Appendix IV: Determination of Constants for Various Models ......................................................... 77
Elastic Constants ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Plasticity Constants ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Ultimate: , ........................................................................................................................... 79
Phase Change ........................................................................................................................... 81
Hardening ................................................................................................................................ 84
Nonassociative......................................................................................................................... 84
Cohesive and Tensile Strengths ........................................................................................ 86
Computer Code to Find Constants for 0- and 1-Models ..................................................................... 87
Viscoplastic and Creep Models, 0 + vp .................................................................................... 88
Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution ........................................................................................ 88
Elastoviscoplastic: Overlay Models ........................................................................................ 92
Disturbance Model .................................................................................................................. 93
Material Constants.................................................................................................................................... 99
Material Constants for Typical Materials: Soils, Rock, Concrete, Solders ................................ 101-107
5
INTRODUCTION, FINITE ELEMENT METHOD,
INTRODUCTION
Nonlinear behavior of materials involving solids and interfaces can arise due to material
or geometric nonlinearity, or both. Material nonlinearity under mechanical, thermal and other
environmental loadings, can be due to several factors such as initial state of stress, stress path
dependent response, elastic, plastic and creep strains, change in the physical state defined by
change in the density, void ratio or water content, plastic yielding or hardening, microcracking
Problems in solid and geomechanics can involve both types of nonlinearities. However,
in the current computer procedures, only material nonlinearity is considered with two-
dimensional (2-D) (plane stress, plane strain and axisymmetric ) and three-dimensional (3-D)
idealizations. The procedures and codes can be used for stress-deformation analysis of a wide
range of problems in solid, structural, geotechnical, and mechanical engineering and electronic
packaging involving “solid” materials, interfaces and joints. The loading can be static, cyclic and
repetitive and dynamic, and the material response can include elastic, plastic and creep
deformations, microcracking and damage leading to softening or degradation, fatigue failure, and
in microstructural instabilities like liquefaction. Typical examples are also presented. Part III of
Realistic solution procedures for engineering problems require appropriate provision for
classical theories of elasticity and plasticity may not be capable to handle the above factors.
6
Hence, the approach should be to adopt improved but simplified models that are capable to allow
for factors important for a given application. Very often it becomes necessary to resort to
numerical techniques so as to allow for these factors; the finite element method (FEM) is one of
the most powerful methods to solve engineering problems, and is used herein. The FEM code
involves the unified and general approach called the disturbed state concept (DSC), which allows
continuous yielding, elastoviscoplastic, and disturbance (damage), depending upon the need of
In this part of the report, two-dimensional static idealization is considered. Two- and
The finite element method has been discussed in detail in books such as Desai and Abel
(1972) and Desai (1979). The method presented here is based on the displacement approach for
2-D problems, which has been adopted in the computer code. For two-dimensional typical
element (Fig. 1), the displacement components at any point are written as
u = N q (1)
where {u}T = [u v] is the vector of displacement components u and v at a point in the x- and y-
directions, respectively, [N} is the matrix of interpolation functions, {q}T = [u1 v1 u2 v2 … un vn]
= B q (2)
and
7
= C (3)
where {} and {} are strain and stress vectors, respectively, [B] is the strain-displacement
By using the principle of minimum potential energy, the element equilibrium equations
k t q = Q (4)
where [k1] is the tangent element stiffness matrix, {Q} is the element nodal load vector, {Qr} is
the vector of unbalanced or correction loads, and denotes increment. The terms in Eq. (4) can
be expressed as
k t = B T C t B d V (5)
V
and
Q = N T X d V + N T T d S (6)
V S1
and
in which X is the body force vector, T is the surface traction vector, r is the unbalanced
or correction stress vector, V is the volume of the element, and S1 is the portion of surface on
which surface loads are prescribed. Equations (5) and (6) are usually integrated numerically by
Computational Algorithm
incremental techniques in which the tangent constitutive matrix {C1] is updated at each load
8
t
(-1,-1) (1,1)
Y
t
6 5 s
7 1 s
1 4
8
1 23
1 11 X
1 (-1,-1) (1,-1)
(-1,-1) t (1,1)
Y
t 3
4 s s
1 2
X (1,-1)
(-1,-1)
9
increment, Fig. 2. A mixed procedure (Figure 2) which combines both incremental and iterative
techniques has been adopted together with improved drift correction procedure(s). In this
procedure, after applying each load increment, iterations are performed until convergence is
reached. The convergence criterion employed is based on the ratio of the norm of unbalanced
load and sum of the norm of total load and norm of equilibrating load; details are given
Element Library
The computer program has the provision for the following types of elements:
elements (not operational at this time) (Damajanic and Owen, 1984) as shown in Fig. 3, can be
used. Equations (5) to (7) are used to compute element stiffness matrix and nodal load vector,
respectively. The Gauss quadrature process allows 2 or 3 point integration rules, i.e., total 4 or 9
integration points.
These elements are represented by a thin layer solid element (Desai, et al., 1984; Sharma
and Desai, 1992), or zero thickness Goodman element (Goodman, et al., 1968). They can be
either 4-noded or 6-noded elements (Fig. 4) corresponding to 4-noded or 8-noded solid elements.
The shear and normal responses found from special laboratory tests are used to define the
element stiffness matrix. The constitutive laws, discussed later, are written in terms of shear
10
Load
Q3
Q2
Q1
Displacement
11
Y
6 t
5
s
1
4
2
3 X
0
Global coordinate Local coordinate
Y
2 t
1 3 X
0 Global coordinate Local coordinate
12
(8-noded)
t Body 1
Body 1
Thin-Layer
Element Body 2
Body 2 (4- or 6-
noded)
x
Two-Dimensional
13
stress, , and normal stress, n. For the thin-layer solid element, the parametric study shows that
the ratio of thickness of interface element to its width of the order of about 0.01 yield satisfactory
simulation of the interface response simulated by using the thin-layer element with finite
thickness.
Two types of bar elements, 2-noded linear, and 3-noded quadrilateral elements (Fig. 5),
have been used and provide compatibility with solid and joint elements. The element stiffness
matrix and computation of axial stress are given by Desai (1979) and Lightner and Desai (1979).
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
A number of material models have been implemented in this program. They are:
Brown),
(v) Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) continuous yielding (0 and 1)
(vii) Disturbed State Concept (DSC) models; details of this general and unified approach,
from which almost all of the above models can be derived as special cases, are given
later.
14
Y
2
l
3
l
2
15
Each of these categories may be used for solid, structural and geologic materials and
interfaces/joints, depending upon the material behavior and user’s judgment. However, the most
realistic models are considered to be those based on plasticity or viscoplasticity, in particular the
HISS models, as they include other plasticity models as special cases, and provide a number of
advantages and simplifications (Desai, et al., 1986 and Desai, 2001). The disturbed state concept
(DSC) allows for the above models as special cases, and includes microcracking, damage and
degradation or softening and stiffening or healing (Desai, 1994, 1995, 2001; Desai and Toth,
Nonlinear Analysis
iterative (drift) correction and convergence schemes. The basic incremental stress-strain
d = Ct d (8)
where {d and {d} = incremental stress and strain vectors, respectively, and [C1] is the tangent
constitutive matrix. In the case of piecewise linear approximation to nonlinear elastic behavior,
[C1] = C1e will be composed of Et and t for solids, or knt and kst for interfaces and joints. For
elasto-plastic behavior
where C1p = tangent plasticity matrix (Appendix II).
The elastoplastic response forms a part of the creep or elastoviscoplastic and disturbance
(microcracking and softening) models in the DSC. Details of the models, elastoplastic, creep and
disturbance, and associated equations are given in Appendix I, together with the incorporation of
16
thermal and cyclic hardening effects. In all cases, a drift correction procedure is used with
respect to the drift of the yield surface during incremental loading. A brief description of the drift
Drift Correction: During each increment of loading, the stress must lie on or within the yield
surface (assuming unloading is elastic). If the increments are not very small, the stress state at the
end of an increment may not lie on the relevant yield surface leading to the problem of the drift
of the currently computed stress as shown in Figure 6. The initial stress state {A} at point A lies
on the previous yield surface, F ({A}, A) = 0, where is the hardening parameter (Appendix
I). During the next increment, yielding occurs and the state of stress moves to point B. The new
yield surface is given by F ({B}, B) = 0. Owing to the tendency to drift, the stress state
represented by point B does not necessarily lie on this new yield surface, Figure 6. This
discrepancy can be cumulative and, therefore, it is important to ensure that the stresses and the
Potts and Gens (1985) examined five different methods for drift correction. They
considered subincrements of strains for each increment, and concluded that the method which
considered hardening during drift correction gave improved results. This scheme is modified and
version of the scheme proposed by Ortiz and Simo (1986). Details of the modified schemes are
The classical plasticity models such as von Mises, Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager do
not allow adequately for the volumetric response, and for the existence of yielding before the
17
J2D
Drift
F({A},A)=0 F({B},B)=0
J1
18
ultimate (failure) surface is reached. Hence, their use is often limited for evaluation of failure or
ultimate loads.
In the critical state and cap models, the continuous hardening or yielding parameter is
dependent only on the volumetric plastic strain, vp . However, in the hierarchical single surface
(HISS) models, hardening is dependent on both volumetric and deviatoric plastic strain
trajectories, v and D, respectively. These models, including the viscoplastic and general
The critical state and cap models allow for yielding before failure, but do not allow for
(c) different strengths under different stress paths (e.g., compression and extension),
(e) involve multiple (two) yield surfaces, which can cause computational difficulties.
The HISS models that involve single continuous yield surface, removes the above
limitations, are considered to be general and more powerful. A perspective and comparison of
the HISS model with such other models as critical state, cap and Lade are given by Desai, et al.,
(1986), Desai and Hashmi (1989), Desai (1992), Desai (1994), Desai (2001).
The program allows for three types of loads, as static, repetitive and dynamic:
19
c) Prescribed temperature.
External Loads: Point loads, constant or time dependent, are prescribed at nodes,
whereas the surface loads (constant or time dependent) in the form of distributed traction or
pressure acting on the element sides, are converted to the equivalent nodal loads in the program.
nodes.
For a linear elastic analysis, total load or temperature may be applied in a single
increment, but in the case of nonlinear analysis, the total load or temperature is applied in several
increments.
Total displacements at the nodes may be applied in a single increment for linear elastic
analysis, whereas in the case of nonlinear analysis, they are applied in several increments.
A number of options are available for computing the in situ stresses (see Part II: User’s
a) Prescribed in situ stress: The in situ stress is calculated using the expressions
(Chowdhury, 1978)
y = y 1 + K o s i n2
x= Ko y (10)
x y= Ko y s i n c o s
20
where x, y, and xy are in situ horizontal, vertical, and shear stresses, respectively, is the unit
weight of soil, Ko is the in situ ratio (x/y), y is the depth to the point of stress, and is the
b) Computed in situ Stresses: A finite element analysis of a soil mass is carried out for
body forces only, assuming linear elastic behavior. The computed vertical stress y is kept the
same, and the horizontal stress x and shear stress xy are computed as
x= Ko y
s i n c o s (11)
x y = x
1 + K o s i n2
Simulation of Sequences
sequential construction procedure is shown in Figure 8. For each layer (lift) of embankment
placed, the equivalent nodal forces due to gravity are computed. The Young’s modulus, E, of the
material in the added lift is set to a very small value (about one percent of initial E), which
simulates a very “weak” material. The incremental displacements and stresses are computed
during each lift cycle and are added to those from the previous cycle; iterations are performed (if
necessary) to obtain the equilibrium for each lift. The displacements of the new surface of the
embankment are set to zero. The horizontal stress in the newly placed lift is calculated as the
Note that in the program, the sign of the element material numbers in a newly placed lift
are set to negative, which assigns small value of Young’s modulus to those elements. At the end
21
v
y
y
xy
h
x
xy
(a) (b)
22
{o}
Initial Stresses
{1}
First Lift
{i}={o}+{i}
Final Lift
23
of computations for the lift when equilibrium is reached, the sign of the element material
cut-outs in plates, and involves removal of material(s). The elements to be excavated (removed)
for each lift are deleted from the system and iterations are performed (if necessary) until
a) Excavated elements are deleted from the initial and changing mesh.
The above process was proposed by Goodman and Brown (1963) and Brown and King (1966).
instantaneous response. The main effect accounted for is the increase in effective stress due to
change in the unit weight of the soil in the dewatered elements. This increase is equal to the body
force due to the weight of water within each of the elements which is dewatered. The equivalent
F = W N T d V (12)
V
where {F} is the element nodal force vector and w is the unit weight of water.
24
{o} Initial Stresses
Nodal Point
Forces
25
Note that Eq. (12) applies only to elements which were submerged earlier and are now above the
water-table due to the dewatering. Figure 10 shows the dewatering in which only elements 1, 2
and 3 have body force loads due to dewatering, and the remaining elements are affected
11, can be considered similar to the prestressing of concrete beams, and introduces compressive
stresses to counteract extension and tensile stresses. The installation of tie-backs involves four
simulation steps: drilling/boring a hole (at an angle to the horizontal), placing the tie-back,
grouting the tie-back, and then tensioning the tie-back to provide the design compressive stress.
A tie-back usually consists of either steel cables or steel reinforcing rods or other
structural supports. In the case of geotechnical systems, only the last portion of the tie-back is
grouted to form an anchor, and the rest of it is usually encased in a sheath to prevent transfer of
In the simulation of the tie-backs installation in the FEM procedure, the first two steps are
1. Apply a force along the direction of the tie-back equal and opposite to the tension
4. Set the bar elements stresses to the initial tension in the tie-back.
The order of these steps may not follow the actual construction procedure. In the
construction procedure, the bar is placed first before the tensioning force is applied. If this is
26
Initial Water Level
1 2 3
Final Water Level
4 5 6
7 8 9
27
followed in the numerical procedure, bar elements will resist the tensioning forces, which is not
correct. The wrong and correct sequences are illustrated in Fig. 11.
During any increment of the loading, the mesh can be changed, i.e., some elements can
be added or deleted, or some nodes added or deleted and/or material number of elements is
changed. This option is used to simulate embankment construction and excavation. The material
The prescribed boundary conditions (e.g., fixity) are imposed in such a manner as to
minimize the number of equations to be solved. This is achieved by not formulating equations
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
M q + C q + K q = Q t (13)
Where [M], [ C ] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffnesses matrices, respectively, {q} is the
vector of nodal displacements, {Q(t)} is the vector of time dependent nodal forces and the
The mass matrix can be consistent when it is evaluated from the expression resulting
from energy considerations, while it is evaluated as lumped when the mass is lumped at nodes
and appears only on the diagonals of the matrix (Desai and Abel, 1972).
Details of the frequency and time domain solutions for the dynamic equations are given
in Desai and Abel (1972) or in other texts on the finite element method. For the time domain
28
Physical Problem
P
2P
2P
Step 1
2P
Step 2
29
analysis, Equations 13 are integrated in the time domain, particularly for nonlinear analysis, by
using various time integration schemes such as Euler, Newmark Method, and Wilson’s -
Method. In the present code, Newmark and Wilson’s -methods are used. At time tn+1 = tn + t,
where t is the time step and tn is the previous time level at which quantities are known, Eq. (13),
are derived as
K q = Q
*
n +1
*
(14)
K = * 1
M + C + K (15a)
t2 t
in which , are integration parameters in the Newmark’s scheme. For conditional stability: 2
0.5.
K * 6
M 3 C K (16a)
t 2
t
Q = Q + Q - Q
*
n n+1 n
6
+ M qn + 6 q n + 2 qn (16b)
t t
2
3
+ C qn + 2 q n + t qn
t 2
30
It is often difficult to define the damping matrix [C]. Hence, approximate procedures are
sometimes employed; in one such method, the damping matrix is expressed as (Clough and
Penzien, 1993):
C = k K + M M (17)
In the case of cyclic material behavior, the hysteretic damping is included through the
tangent stiffness matrix, [K*], and it may not be necessary to include the damping in the
analysis.
Mass Matrix
The code allows for two options: consistent mass and lumped mass. The consistent mass
matrix is fully populated and is derived from the energy formulation. In the case of lumped mass,
the matrix is diagonal and the tributary masses are lumped at the element nodes.
Absorbing Boundaries
In dynamic analysis, the waves radiating from a structure are reflected back in the mesh
(body) from the artificial or discretized end boundaries. This can cause spurious errors in the
computed response. One way to reduce this effect is to select the end boundaries far enough such
that the waves are absorbed by internal damping of the material. However, if the end boundaries
are close to the structure, it is desirable to provide for the absorption of the waves at the end
boundaries. In this code, the viscous damping model proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer
(1969) is implemented. Since this model is not very efficient in absorbing surface waves, it is
advisable to extend the (lateral) end boundaries as far as possible away from the structure.
31
Details of cyclic or repetitive loading involving loading, unloading and reloading and
Creep Behavior
The code includes the general DSC model which allows for microstructural changes
leading to fracture, failure or liquefaction and available continuum models such as elastic, plastic
and creep. For the latter, viscoelastic (ve), elasticviscoplastic (evp), and viscoelasticviscoplastic
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Appendix IV gives details for the determination of material constants for the above
models, based on appropriate laboratory tests for solids and interfaces/joints. It also gives details
of the determination of initial hardening and yield surface based on in situ stresses. Further
details for the HISS and DSC are also discussed in various references. Desai, et al. (1986), Desai
and Zhang (1987), Desai (1994, 1995, 2001), Desai, et al. (1995), Katti and Desai (1995), Desai
The computer program consists of a main program and about 65 subroutines. The
program is coded in FORTRAN 90. All storage is allocated at the time of execution, and if
desired, the storage can be readily adjusted to the minimum required for the problem to be
analyzed.
32
APPENDIX I
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
This Appendix describes various constitutive models including the unified Disturbed State
Concept (DSC).
It is simplest, but probably the least applicable model for the realistic simulation of
nonlinear behavior. Its main use can be for preliminary studies, and for limited situations
= Ce (I.1)
where [Cc] is the elastic constitutive matrix, which, for linear elastic and isotropic material, is a
function of two elastic constants, Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, [Desai and
In the computer program, hyperbolic model proposed by Kondner (1963) and formalized
by Kulhawy, et al. (1969) and Duncan and Chang (1970) is included to represent the nonlinear
elastic behavior of solid or soil materials. The tangent modulus, Et and tangent Poisson’s ratio,
1 - s i n 1 - 3
n
3
2
E t = K pa 1 - Rf
2 c c o s + 2 3 s i n
(I.2)
pa
and
G - F l o g 3 / pa
t=
1 - A 2
33
where
d 1 - 3
A= (I.3)
R 1 - s i n 1 - 3
n
K p a 3 1 - f
pa 2 c c o s + 2 3 s i n
1 and 3 are major and minor principal stresses, respectively, c is cohesion, is the angle of
t. If the Poisson’s ratio is assumed constant, five parameters, K , n , Rf, c, and are required.
For the joint/interface elements, the normal stiffness, kn, is often assumed constant (with
a high value) for compressive normal stress and the shear stiffness, ks, is represented by the
n* 2
n Rf
*
k s t = K w 1 -
*
(I.4)
pa ca + n t a n a
where and n are shear and normal stresses, respectively, ca is adhesion, a is angle of interface
friction, w is unit weight of water and K*, n* and R *f are constants. Thus, for the interface, six
Plasticity Models
Various plasticity models with relevant yield criteria swhave been incorporated in the
program. The details of these criteria can be found in Desai and Siriwardane (1984), Desai
(1994), Desai, et al. (1986), Desai (1995, 2001). Here, the expressions for the yield criteria are
34
1. von Mises yield criterion
where J2D is the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, Sij, and y is the yield stress in
1 3 3 J3D
= s i n- 1 1 .5
3 2 J2D (I.7)
-
6 6
where * and k are material constants, e.g., for plane strain conditions:
t a n 3c
* = , k= (I.9)
9 + 12 t a n 2
9 + 12 t a n2
and p = (1 + 23)/3 and q 1 3 3 J 2D . If the critical state line is considered similar to
35
Critical State Line
q=3J2D
p
dp
A vp
Mcs
2po
J1/3
36
3 s i n
M=
3 c o s - s i n s i n (I.11)
The size of ellipse, po, is an exponential function of the hardening parameter v = plastic
volumetric strain vp :
po = pc o e x p v (I.12)
1 eo
= hardening constant = ,
eo = initial void ratio,
= compression index,
= swelling index, and
v = trajectory or volumetric plastic strain.
5. Cap Model
The Cap model proposed by DiMaggio and Sandler (1971) has been adopted here. It
consists of a failure envelope (Ff) and a Cap surface (Fc), Figure I.2, the expressions for which
are
/
Ff = J2 D - - e x p - J1
/ /
= 0 (I.13)
and
2
Fc = R J 2 D - X - L + J1 - L =0
2 2
(I.14)
where /, / and / are material parameters, and R, X and L refer to the geometry of the cap
X = L + R / - / e x p - / L (I.15)
The yielding (hardening) defined by the cap is function of the plastic volumetric strain,
37
J2D
Drucker-Prager Surface
Ff
Fc
Rb
Z L X J1
38
1
X =- n 1 - + Z (I.16)
D W
Hoek and Brown (1980) proposed a yield (failure) criterion for rock masses as
F = 1 - 3 - m c 3 + s c2 (I.17)
where 1 and 3 are major and minor principal stresses, respectively, c is uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock material, and m and s are constants which depend upon the properties of
rock and upon the extent to which it has been broken before being subjected to stresses 1 and
3. The constant m has a finite positive value which ranges from about 0.001 for highly
disturbed rock masses to about 25 for hard intact rock. The maximum value of s is unity for
intact rock, and the minimum value is zero for heavily jointed or broken rock in which tensile
4 J 2 D c o s2 s i n J
F= + m c o s + J 2 D - m 1 - s c = 0 (I.18)
c 3 3
where is the Lode angle (Eq. 1.7).
7. Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) Models (Desai, et al., 1986; Desai, 1995, 2001)
Advantages of the HISS model with respect to the foregoing models are listed in Chapter
1.
The two hierarchical models, isotropic hardening with associative behavior (0 model)
and isotropic hardening with nonassociative behavior (1 model), have been incorporated in the
program.
39
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRESS AT FAILURE
Major principal stress 1 at failure
1
Triaxial
compresion
3
c
Uniaxial
compresssion
Tension t Compression
Uniaxial tension
40
The continuous yield function (Fig. I.4) in the HISS plasticity Model:
J1
n
J1
2
p 1 - Sr m= 0
J2D
F = 2 - - +
(I.19)
pa pa a
where , , m and n are material parameters, pa is atmospheric pressure, Sr is the stress ratio
27
J 3 D J 21.D5 , and is a yield or hardening function defined as (Desai, et al. 1986; Desai and
2
Hashmi, 1989):
= a1 / 1
(I.20a)
D
or = b1 e x p - b2 1 -
(I.20b)
b 3 + b4 D
in which a1, 1, and b1 to b4 are material constants, d ijp d ijp 1/ 2
is the trajectory of or
accumulated plastic strains, including the volumetric plastic strain (v) and deviatoric plastic
strain (D) trajectories: v vp / 3; D d Eijp d Eijp
1/ 2
; where Eijp = tensor of deviatoric
plastic strains.
J1
n
J1
2
p 1 - Sr m
J2D
Q = 2 - - Q +
(I.21)
pa a
p a
where
Q = + o - 1 -
rv (I.22)
in which rv v / , o is value of at the beginning of shear loading, and is a nonassociative
parameter. Equations I.19 and I.21 are used for the nonassociative (δ1) model.
Solution for in Eq. (I.19) leads to (Desai, et al., 1991; Desai, 1995, 2001)
41
J2D
F/
90 FQ
Ca
Ca J1
(a) 0 model
J2D
F/ Q/
Q
Ca
Ca
J1
(b) 1 model
42
J1
2-n
= - 2 J2D (I.23)
J 1 1 - S m
a
p
The initial value of = o is obtained by substituting J1, J2D, Sr based on the initial state
of stress and the knowledge of the material constants , , n and m = -0.5. Then, the initial value
of =o is found from Eq. (I-20) as the values of a1, 1, etc. are known. The value of the
Q
ii
vo = 1/ 2
(I.24)
Q Q
3
i j i j
D o = 2 - v2 (I.25)
2-n
J1
o =
a
p
= 0 = ao / o 1 / 1
D=0
Interface/Joint Elements
The yield function and plastic potential function for the two-dimensional case are given
by [Desai and Fishman (1991); Desai and Ma, 1992; Desai (1995)]
2 n 2
F n n 0 (I.26)
pa pa pa
2 n 2
Q Q n n 0 (I.27)
pa pa pa
43
where and n are shear and normal stresses, respectively, n and are related to phase change
and ultimate envelope, and and Q are hardening parameters for 0 and 1, respectively. A
= a / b
= d u + d v
p
r
2 p
r
2 1/ 2
v = d vrp
in which du rp and dv rp are the incremental plastic shear and normal relative displacements,
respectively, a and b are hardening parameters, and Q is similar to that in Eq. (I.22).
The yield function in the HISS model is extended to include cohesive or tensile strengths
*i j = i j + R i j (I.28a)
where R is related to cohesive or tensile strength. Details are given in Appendix IV.
Here, R can be found from empirical relations (see Appendix IV). It can also be found as
R = ca / (I.28b)
where c a is the intercept along J2D-axis (intersection of J2D-axis and ultimate yield surface)
and is related to the cohesive strength, and is related to the slope of the ultimate yield envelope,
Fig. I.4.
Creep Models
Various models including elastoviscoplastic (evp) by Perzyna (1966) have been used to
characterize the creep behavior, Fig. I.5 (Cormeau, 1976; Owen and Hinton, 1980; Desai and
Zhang, 1987; Desai, et al., 1995; Samtani, et al., 1995). Overlay model for creep has been
proposed in (Zienkiewicz, et al., 1972; Pande, et al., 1977; Owen and Hinton, 1980). A general
44
i
Failure
Tertiary creep
h
e
Primary creep
Strain
Secondary creep
f
a
c
g
0 t1 d Permanent set
t2
Time
45
approach called Multicomponent DSC (MDSC) has been proposed by Desai (2001). If the strains
in the component overlays, Fig. I.6, is assumed to be the same, the MDSC model specializes to
MDSC model contains various versions, such as elastic (e), viscoelastic (ve),
elastoviscoplastic (evp), and viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp). Figure I.7(b) shows the general
rheological representation of MDSC model, from which various versions can be extracted
(Desai, 2001). For instance, the evp, Perzyna type model is shown in Fig. I.7(a), which is based
N
F
(I.30)
Fo
where is the fluidity parameter, is the flow function, N is the power law parameter, and Fo is
the reference value (e.g., yield stress, atmospheric constant, etc.). For associative plasticity, F
Q.
In the overlay model (Fig. I.6), the behavior of a material is assumed to be composed of
those of several overlays, each of which undergoes the same deformation (strain) and provides a
specific material characterization. The total stress field is obtained as the sum of different
contributions from each overlay. By introducing a suitable number of overlays and assigning
different material properties (parameters) to each, a variety of special models can be reproduced,
as shown below.
46
The typical strain-time (creep) relationship under constant stress is shown in Fig. I.5. The
instantaneous elastic strain. o-a, is followed by a primary creep, a-b, during which, if unloading
47
occurs, an instantaneous elastic recovery, b-c, is followed by delayed elastic recovery, c-d. If the
load is continued beyond the primary creep range, secondary creep (b-e) begins which is
accompanied by irreversible deformations. Unloading at any time during b-e leaves a permanent
deformation or set (strain). On continued loading, tertiary creep begins leading to failure.
The overlay model for the two-dimensional problem is illustrated in Fig. I.6. Each
overlay can have different thicknesses and material properties. The overlays do not experience
relative motion, or they are “glued” together. Therefore, the overlay models exhibit the same
In the MDSC (overlay) model developed here, a number of units are arranged in parallel,
Fig. I.7. This results in different stress fields, {j}, in each overlay (j) which contributes to the
total stress field {} according to the overlay thickness, tj; hence,
= j t j
k
(I.31)
j=1
tj=1
j =1 (I.32)
t
k
V B d V =Q
T
j j (I.33)
j=1
k = V B T C j t j B d V
k
(I.34)
j=1
48
where [Cj] is the constitutive matrix. This matrix will be different for each overlay, according to
ti 1
49
The solution procedure (see later) is then identical to that of standard viscoplasticity (Perzyna
type) involving time integration, with stress being calculated for each overlay (Owen and Hinton,
1980). It should be noted that the viscoplastic strain in an overlay will be different due to
differences in threshold yield values and flow rates, but the total strains in all overlays are the
same.
The material parameters for elastic, viscous and yield characterizations are shown in Fig.
I-6. By adopting different values of the parameters, the overlay model can specialize to various
versions. For instance, consider the overlay model with two viscoplastic units; such a two-
Plasticity No. of
Specialization Model Overlays Thickness Parameters
E, , , N and very
Elastic (e)1 von Mises 1 1.0 high y
1-4
The following notes show resultant models with the specific choice of parameters.
50
Notes: 1Here, as σy is high, only the elastic spring will be operational because the dashpot slider
unit will be essentially not operational.
2
Here, for overlay 1 as yl = 0, only the spring and dashpot will operate, as y2 > > , only the
spring will operate in overlay 2.
3
Here, with one overlay, all units are operational.
4
Here, the first overlay (with y1 = 0), leads to the spring and dashpot, and, in the second
overlay, all units are operational.
Usually, two overlays are sufficient and the thickness of each overlay is prescribed as 0.5.
When a problem with layered material (e.g., pavement) is to be analyzed, some materials
may behave as viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp), and others are elastic or elasto-plastic, the
(i) For the material with vevp response, two overlays (Table I.1) can be used.
51
(ii) For the elastic response, the material is considered with one overlay and infinitely large
(iii) For the elasto-plastic response of the material, one overlay is used and the fluidity
parameter, , is taken to be very small, approximately 1/600 of fluidity parameter prescribed for
general and unified from which most of the other models can be obtained as special cases. Its
hierarchical nature allows formulation of general constitutive matrix in computer (finite element)
procedures; hence, a chosen model can be achieved by inserting material parameters for that
The DSC has been covered in a number of publications (Desai and Ma, 1992; Desai,
1995, 2001; Desai and Toth, 1996; Katti and Desai, 1995; Desai, et al., 1998a,b). Hence, brief
For instance, for a dry material, it is assumed to contain two components: continuum or relative
intact (RI) and discontinuum or fully adjusted (FA) phases. These components interact and
merge into each other, transforming the initial RI phase to the ultimate FA phase. The
transformation occurs due to continuous modifications in the microstructure of the material. The
phases.
The incremental constitutive equations for the DSC can be expressed as follows:
52
d 1 D C d
a i i
DC d
c c
(I.35a)
dD
c i
where a,i, and c denote observed, RI and FA states, respectively, {} and {} are the stress and
The disturbance can be defined on the basis observed (laboratory and/or field) behavior
in terms of stress-strain, volumetric strain, pore water pressure, ultrasonic properties as P- and S-
waves, e.g., shear wave velocity (Desai, 2001). For instance, D can be expressed (Fig. I.8) as
i a
D (I-36a)
i c
D Du 1 e A D
z
(I-36b)
elasticity, plasticity or viscoplasticity. For instance, the constitutive matrix [Ci] can be defined by
the HISS plasticity or conventional plasticity model. The FA part can be modeled in various
ways by assuming that FA part (i) has no strength like conventional damage model by Kachanov
(1986), (ii) has hydrostatic strength like in classical plasticity, and (iii) has strength
corresponding to the critical state (Schofield and Wroth, 1968), at which the material deforms
without change in volume or density. For instance, if we assume that the FA part has only
53
Elastoplastic(virgin)
(a) Elastoplastic Response with Unloading and Reloading
Elastoplastic(i)
Softening: Observed(a)
Fully Adjusted(c)
(b) DSC Softening with Unloading and Reloading
54
d 1 DC d D3 I
a i i
ii
(I-35b)
dDS i
where {I} is the unit vector and {S} is the vector of shear stress components. Here, it is assumed
that the mean pressure p (= Ji/3 = ii/3) and the strains are the same in the RI and FA parts. In
d C d
a DSC
(I-35c)
where [CDSC] is the general constitutive matrix and dD = {R}T {di}, R is derived on the basis of
the adopted yield function (Desai, 2001). The constitutive matrix is given by
C 1 DC DC
DSC i c
(I-35d)
R
T c i
Specializations
Thermal and mechanical (loading) cycles are available in the finite element code. The
Elastic Behavior
In the case of elastic behavior, the effect of known temperature change causing initial
55
Plane Stress
x T T dT
y T T dT (I.37)
xy T 0.0
where is the coefficient of thermal expansion and dT is the temperature change = T – To, To is
Plane Strain
x T T dT 1
y T T dT 1
(I.38)
xy T 0.0
z T E T dT
Axisymmetric
r T T dT
z T T dT
(I.39)
T T dT
rz T 0.0
d C e d e
C e d d T
(I.40)
where [Ce] is the elastic (tangent) constitutive matrix, and {d }, [d e} and {d (T)} are the
56
If the parameters E and vary with temperature, they can be expressed in terms of
CT
T
E Er (I.41a)
Tt
C
T
r (I.41b)
Tr
where Er and r are values at reference temperature, Tr (e.g., room temperature = 300 K), and cT
Thermoplastic Behavior
The normality rule gives the increment of plastic strain vector {dp(T)} as
57
Therefore,
F F F
T
dF d d dT (I.46)
T
C T d dT T e o
T
T (I.47a)
1/ 2
Q F Q Q
F e
T T
C T
Therefore,
Q F e
T
C T
e
d C T I
1/ 2
d
Q F Q
F e
Q
T T
C T
(I.47b)
Q F e
F Q
T
T C T I o
e
C T T I
o T
1/ 2
dT
Q F Q Q
F e
T T
C T
The parameters in the elastoplastic model, e.g., HISS-0. can be expressed as function of
temperature as
c
T
PT Pr (I.48)
r
T
where P is any parameter such as E, , Eq. (I.40); , , R, n, Eq. (I.19); a1, 1, Eq. (I.20); Pr is its
value at reference temperature Tr, and c is parameter found from laboratory tests.
Thermoviscoplastic Behavior
The total temperature dependent strain rate vector, , is assumed to be the sum of
thermoelastic strain rate, e (T ) , thermoviscoplastic strain rate, vp (T ) , and the thermal strain
rate due to temperature change dT, (T ), as
58
With Perzyna’s (1966) viscoplastic theory, Eq. (I.29), Eq. (I.49) can be written as
Viscous or creep behavior requires integration in time. The thermoviscoplastic strain rate
is evaluated from Eq. (I.29) at time step n, Fig. I.9. Then the strain rate at step (n + 1) can be
expressed by using Taylor series expansion as (Desai, et al., 1995); Owen and Hinton, 1980)
T
vp n 1
T
vp n
vp T
d
n n
~
~
vp T
n
dT n I (I.52a)
T ~
vp T G1 d n G2 dT n I
n
n n
The increment of viscoplastic strain, d vp (T ) , can be found during the time interval
n
where 0- 1. For = 0, Eq. (I.53) gives the Euler scheme, for = 0.5 the Crank-Nicolson
scheme and so on. The present code allows for = 0 and 0.5.
59
n+1vp
vp
nvp nvp
tn
tn tn+1 t
60
d C T d
~
n e n
(I.54)
d vp
T d T
n
d C
~
n evp
T d ~ n vp T n t n
(I.55)
G 2 t n dT n T
n
where
DSC Model
In the case of the DSC model, Eq. (I.35), the RI response can be simulated as elastic, Eq.
(I.40), elastoplastic, Eq. (I.47b), or elastoviscoplastic, Eq. (I.55), which include the temperature
dependence.
With the general DSC model, Eq. (I.35), the disturbance parameters, Du, A and Z, Eq.
(I.36b) can be expressed as functions of temperature, by using Eq. (I.48). Their values
determined from tests at different temperatures, which are used to define the function in Eq.
(I.48).
Cyclic and repetitive loading, involving loading, unloading and reloading, occur in many
packaging and semiconductor systems, and pavements. If the simulated behavior involves
continuing increase in stress along the same loading path, without unloading and reloading, Fig.
I.10, it is often referred to as monotonic or virgin loading. The unloading and reloading are often
referred to as nonvirgin loading. Loading in the opposite side, i.e., negative side of the (stress)
response, is sometimes referred to as reverse (reloading) loading. Cyclic loading without stress
61
Virgin
Loading
Reloading
A
Unloading
Reloading(Reverse)
Unloading
62
reversal is often referred to one-way, while with stress reversals, it is referred to as two-way. In
the case of degradation or softening, decrease in stress beyond the peak occurs, but it is
For the virgin loading, the constitutive equations, Eq. (I.35), apply. For nonvirgin
In the case of elastoplastic model (e.g., HISS-0), the simulated virgin response allows
for the effect of plastic strains and plastic hardening or yielding, Fig. I.11(a). In the case of the
softening behavior, the plasticity model can simulate the RI behavior, and the use of DSC allows
Plastic deformations can occur during unloading and reloading, and can influence the
overall response, Fig. I.11. Although models to allow for such behavior have been proposed in
the context of kinematic hardening plasticity (Mroz, et al., 1978); Somasundaram and Desai,
1988), they are often relatively complex and may involve computational difficulties. Hence,
approximate schemes that are simple but can provide satisfactory simulation have often been
used; one such method implemented in the present code, is described below.
Unloading
simplification, it is often treated as linear. Here, both linear and nonlinear elastic simulations are
included. For the nonlinear case, of which the linear simulation is a special case, the procedure
proposed by Shao and Desai (1998a,b) is used. During unloading, the following incremental
63
1-3
Eb
A
Eu
Current Ee
1
1 p
1 e
(a) CTC Test
Gb
Ge
p e
(b) Simple Shear Test
64
where [CUL] is the elastic constitutive matrix with variable elastic unloading modulus, Eu, Fig.
I.11, and the Poisson’s ratio, , is assumed to be constant. The modulus Eu is given by
1 1 1
u
b p (I.57)
E E E
where Eb is the slope of the unloading curve (response) at the point (A) of unloading, Fig.
I.11(a), and Ep is the “plastic” modulus, which is evaluated by using the following equation:
K2
pa
E p a K1
p
(I.58)
J 2 D J 2 D
b
where K1 and K2 are constants, pa is the atmospheric pressure (used for nondimensionalization,
and J 2bD and J2D and the second invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor, Sij, at the start of
unloading (point A), and at the current state during unloading, respectively.
The values of K1 and K2 are found from laboratory tests. For triaxial compression CTC:
1 > 2 = 3) and simple shear (SS) tests, their values are derived as follows:
K2
3 J 2bD J 2 D 1
1
e b 1.0 (I.59a)
1p
E E
K 2 1
3 J b J
K1 2D 2D
(I.59b)
K 2 11
p
pa
where Ee is the elastic modulus (slope) at the end of unloading and 1p is the “plastic” strain, Fig.
I.11(a).
The relation between the elastic (Young’s) and shear moduli (G) are given by
E b 21 G b (I.60a)
65
E e 21 G e (I.60b)
Substitution of Eq. (I.60) into Eq. (I.59) and replacing J 2 D by (shear stress) and 1p
b 1 1
K2 1.0 (I.61a)
p Ge G
K 2 1
1 b
K1 p
K 2 1 pa
(I.61b)
where b and are the shear stresses at the point of unloading, and during unloading,
respectively.
Figure I.12 shows two cases of reloading, for the one-way and two-way. In both cases,
reloading and R = 1 at the end of reloading. Thus, at the beginning of reloading, the behavior is
elastic, given by
d C d
a e
(I.64a)
66
Ebr=Eb B
Reloading
Eb
E
Unloading
A
(a)Reloading case 1: A B (one-way)
Ebr=Ee
Unloading
A
Unloading Reloading(Reverse)
B’
(b)Reloading case 2: A B’ (two-way)
67
d C d
a DSC
(I.64b)
The elastic modulus, ER, for the two cases, Fig. I.12, is different. For case 1, the elastic
E br E b (I.65a)
where Eb is the unloading slope at the beginning of unloading, Fig. I.13(a). For case 2,
E br E e (I.65b)
J 2D
R (I.66)
J 2bD
where J 2bD and J2D are the second invariants of the shear stress tensor at the beginning of the last
In computer (finite element) analysis, the reloading stress path may be between the above
S
d
b T
(I.67)
b d
where -1 S 1, {b}, {} and {d} are the stress vectors before unloading, the current stress
vector and the next stress increment respectively. S = -1 indicates case 1 reloading, while S = 1
1 1 S 1 S
br
(I.68a)
E 2E b 2E e
Then, the modulus for reloading, ER, is found as
1 1 R R
R
br (I.68b)
E E E
68
where E is the elastic modulus of the material, which is often found as (average) slope of the line
joining the unloading and end of unloading points or the initial slope, Fig. I.13(a). Then at the
beginning of reloading when R = 0, ER = Ebr, which ensures smooth transition from unloading to
reloading, Fig. I.12(b). At the end of reloading (R = 1), E-R- = E, which ensures smooth transition
Cyclic Hardening
In the case of elastoplastic behavior, there exists a yield surface (Fo) corresponding to the
initial or past state of stress experienced by the material before the present cyclic or repetitive
load is applied, Fig. I.13. When unloading occurs, the plastic strains can change (increase or
decrease), and hence, for the reloading after the unloading, the yield surface that defines the
elastic limit usually expands from Fo to the initial surface, Fi, corresponding to each cycle N (= 1,
2, …). As a result, the magnitudes of plastic strains decrease from one cycle to the next, which is
For a given load or stress (increment), the final or bounding surface, Fb, can be defined
by solving the incremental constitutive equations, (I-35). In the case of repetitive loading under
constant amplitude of load (stress), Fig. I.13(b), the maximum load (Pmax) will be the amplitude
of the load (stress). In the case of cyclic (one-way) loading, Fig. I.13(c), the bounding surface,
Fb, would change for each stress increase. Note that in the repetitive load analysis, here, the time
Mroz, et al. (1978) proposed a model for cyclic hardening, which was adopted by
Bonaquist and Witczak (1997) for materials in pavement structures. The approximate (modified)
method for cyclic hardening implemented in the present code is similar, and is described below.
69
J2D
A
B’
Fb
B F2
O F1
F0
J1
(a)Cyclic hardening
P
A
A C
Pmax
B’
B
O B Time O
(b)Repeated wheel load (c)Loading-Unloading-Reloading
70
For the given load or stress increment, two bounding surfaces are defined, Fo and Fb, Fig.
I.13, and the corresponding hardening functions and parameters are o and b, Eq. (I.20), and o
d p d p
T
1/ 2
(I.69)
where {dp} is the vector of incremental plastic strains. Then the initial yield surface parameter,
1
i o 1 b o (I.70a)
N hc
where hc is the cyclic hardening parameter, determined from laboratory repetitive tests. It
controls the rate of expansion of the initial yield surface, Fi, at the end of unloading for a given
Bonaquist and Witczak (1997) considered repeated tests involving the same stress
1
b i b (I.70b)
N hc
1
or h
b N c
where is the plastic strain trajectory up to cycle N. Plots of normalized trajectory /b vs
number of cycles are used to find hc through a least square procedure. For the granular material,
With the above formulation, the value of i, Eq. (I.70) is used to evaluate the hardening
function, i, Eq. (I.20). It is used to define the elastoplastic constitutive matrix [Cep] = [Ci], Eq.
(I.36e), the general DSC matrix [DDSC], Eqs. (I-35e), and (I.63), when reloading occurs
71
APPENDIX II
ELASTO-PLASTIC EQUATIONS
The incremental total strain vector {d} is the sum of incremental elastic, {de} and
d = d e + d p (II.1)
The incremental elastic strain is related to the incremental stress as
d = Ce d e (II.2)
e
where {d} is the incremental stress vector and [C ] is the elasticity matrix.
Using the theory of plasticity, the incremental plastic strain vector is given by the flow
rule
d = Q
p '
(II.3)
where / is the scalar constant of proportionality.
dF = 0 (II.4)
Equations (II.1) to (II.4) are combined to obtain the incremental stress-strain relation
d = Ce p d (II.5)
ep
where [C ] is the elasto-plastic constitutive matrix.
F
T
C d
e
=
'
(II.6)
F Q
T
C - H
e
and
72
C Q F C
T
e e
ep
C = C - e
(II.7)
F
T
C
Q
- H
e
where H is the term due to hardening. For non-hardening yield function, H = 0 and for hardening
F
H= (II.8)
F
1/ 2
F F
where F =
(II.9)
i j i j
F F
H= Q+ (II.10)
D QD
1/ 2
Q Q
where Q =
(II.11)
i j i j
1/ 2
Q Q
and Q D =
(II.12)
i j D ij D
The elastoplastic constitutive matrix [Cep] represents the response of the material in the
relative intact (RI) state and forms a part of the general DSC matrix, Eq. (I.35c), when
Derivations for creep and DSC models are given by Desai (2001).
73
APPENDIX III
Under a given stress increment, {d}, the stresses at point B do not lie on the yield
surface, Fig. 6 (in the main text), i.e., F ({B}, B) > 0, where is the hardening function. The
stress vector {B} and B are to be corrected so that F ({B}, B) 0. The method, designated as
“correction” method by Potts and Gens (1985) and modified by Desai, et al. (1991), is described
below.
The correction is carried out by an iteration procedure. At the nth iteration, the stresses
n n1 / C e Q (III.1)
n n1 d (III.2)
vn v d v
n 1
(III.3)
Dn D d D
n 1
(III.4)
where
F n 1 , n -1
/ (III.5)
F
e Q
T
C H
d / F (III.6)
d v / FV (III.7)
d D / FD (III.8)
74
0in which
1/ 2
F F
F =
(III.9)
i j i j
F
FV = / 3 (III.10)
ii
1/ 2
F F
F D =
(III.11)
i j D i j D
For non-hardening, yield function, H = 0 in Eq. III.5 and for hardening yield function, H
F Q F F
The derivatives , and , are evaluated at the stress point {n-1}. The
D
iterations are performed until the yield function is satisfied, i.e., F ({n}, n) 0 within the
tolerance of 10-6 or less. For the first iteration, {o} is taken as {B} and o as B.
According to Eq. (I.35a), the DSC incremental finite element equations are given by
d q Q - Qo d Q
DSC i
k (III.12)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DSC i
where k is the nonsymmetrical stiffness matrix, d q is the vector of nodal increment
~ ~
displacements, Q is the applied load vector, Qo is the balanced load vector. Incremental
~ ~
iterative solution of Eq. (III.12) involves negative definite stiffness matrix in the softening zone
(Desai and Toth, 1996). However, a number of approximate but simplified strategies can be used
(Desai and Woo, 1993; Desai, et al., 1999; Desai, 2001). One such scheme is to first solve for the
75
DSC
RI response by considering only the symmetric part of k that defines the RI behavior. Hence,
~
k ni d q ni d Qni 1 (III.13)
~ ~ ~
i i
where k is based on elastic, elastoplastic or other suitable model for the RI behavior, d Q , is
~ ~
the vector of applied loads, and n denotes incfremental step. For elasticplastic model, the drift
i
correction will lead to convergent solution for incremental displacements, d q , which in turn
~ in 1
can be used for computing the RI strains, d ~ in 1 and stresses, d ~ in 1 , Fig. III.1. Then by
i i
considering the observed and RI strains to be at the same level, i.e., ~ in 1 ~ in 1 , the observed
i a
stress, ~ in 1 , is found by using Eq. (I.35) through an iterative procedure in which the
i
disturbance, Eq. (I.36), is found and updated. Details of the procedure are given in Desai (2001).
76
APPENDIX IV
DETERMINATION OF CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS MODELS
Procedures for the determination of constants for the HISS-0 and 1 models are first
described below, Desai and Wathugala (1987), Desai (1990), Desai (1994). Brief details for
determination of constants for other models, elastoviscoplastic, and disturbance (softening or
degradation) are given later.
As stated before, the constants involved in the HISS models have physical meanings and
can be determined from uniaxial, shear, hydrostatic, triaxial (cylindrical) and multiaxial (cubical)
tests.
In fact, the constants can be estimated from One Compression and One Extension
Test.
If the angles of friction in compression and extension are assumed to be equal,
i.e., c = , then three compression test can be used to find constants.
For 0 and 1 models, computer code (see below) can be used to calculate the
constants.
Schematic plots required to find the constants and brief details are given below.
1-3
1
v
1
(a) E and
Fig. IV.1. Elastic Constants
77
1. Find (average) E and from unloading slopes of (1 - v) vs. 1 and v vs. 1 curves,
Fig. IV.1(a)
J1
2. For G and K use curves in terms of oct vs. oct and vs. v, Fig. IV.1(b).
3
3. Relations between elastic constants and unloading (reloading) slopes (S) for different
J1/
3
G K
v
(b) Shear Modulus, G, and Bulk Modulus,
K
2 oct
3
S
S S
3
2 1
2 , 1
(c) Slopes in Stress-Strain
3
Curves
Figure IV.1 (continued)
78
Table IV.1
Test E
CTC 3S1 2 S1
RTE 2 S2 + S3 1 HC
CTC
CTE 32 S1 (S2 + S3 ) S2 + S3 SSTC
RTC 4 S1
4 S1 +S2 + S3 )
RT
3S1 CTE
C
TC (1+)( S1 +S2 + S3 ) PL
TE 2
TE
RTE
3
SS (1+)( S1 + S3 )
22
22 =23
Note: The elasticity parameters can be expressed as nonlinear functions of factors such
as shear stress and mean pressure.
Plasticity Constants
J1
Figure IV.2. Ultimate Parameters: and
79
J2D
C
S
E
J1
(a) Ultimate Envelopes in J2D - J1 Space
C=Compression
S=Simple shear
E=Extension
C
S
E
(b) Ultimate Envelopes in Mohr-Coulomb (-) Space
80
1. Find ultimate (asymptotic) stresses for given stress-strain curve under initial values of J1.
Ultimate value can be found by drawing an asymptote to the curve or by taking a value of about
5 to 10% higher than stress at peak.
2. Plot J 2 D vs. J1 for ultimate values for compression, extension and/or simple shear
paths. At least two such points are needed. If the angle of friction is compression c =
angle of friction in extension E, only one point can be sufficient.
3. Use lease square fit to find and from F = 0 with = 0.
tan c tan E
(IV.1
1 1
m m
2 2
1 ( p) m
2
(IV.1b)
1 ( p) m
J2D
F/J1=0 0.014
1
=0.04
v
J1
(a) In J1-J2D Space
1
Contraction to
Dilation
81
F
1. Find the state of stress at which the volume change = 0 (i.e., = 0).
J 1
2. Find n by substituting the stresses in the following equation:
2
n= (IV.2)
J 1
1 - 2D2
J1 Fs
J1
n-1
d k k = 3 (n - 2) dJ 1 (IV.3)
where dJ1 and dkk are increments in the J1 vs. kk curve.
Although it may depend on factors such as initial density, an average constant value of n
can be often used. For dense sands, the value of n may be around 3.0, while for loose sands and
other materials such as rock and concrete, it would be higher, often of the order of 7 to 10.
Cohesive Materials (Soils): In the case of cohesive soils, usually the (undrained) stress path may
not reach the ultimate (asymptotic) curve, and failure can occur as the phase change or the
critical state line, Fig. (IV.5), is approached (Wathugala and Desai, 1991). Then, the parameter n
is found from
J 1a 2 1
= n- 2 (IV.4)
J 1m n
where Jlm = maximum value of J1 of a yield surface and Jia = intersection of the phase change line
and the same yield surface, Fig. (IV.5). Jlm can be obtained from the effective consolidation p/ as
J 1m = 3 p (IV.5)
n can also be found from the slopes of the phase change line, SPC, and the ultimate line
(curve), SUL as
82
J2D
Yield Surface
SPC
J1
1
S PC n - 2 2
= (IV.6)
S UL n
The values of and are found by least square or an optimization procedure from:
J 2D n 1 1
- m + S r = 1 (m = - 0.5) (IV.7)
2 n - 2
m
J
1 pc
where the subscript pc denotes stress quantities at the phase change; a minimum of two such
values are needed for two stress paths such as compression and extension.
83
ln
▪▪ i
▪ ▪
a1 ▪▪ ▪ ▪ p
▪ dpp
▪ ▪ ▪ i
1 ▪ ▪ ▪▪ ▪
ln i
p 1/2 p
=∫( dij pp
dij) pp ; F=0
Nonassociative
Su
1. For a given stress increment find d 1p , d 2p , d 3p based on unloading modulus. Then find
.
2. Substitute the state of stress in F = 0, from which find corresponding .
3. Plot ln vs. ln for different stress-strain curves. In many cases, the results will form a
narrow band. Then draw an average straight line. The slope gives 1 and the intercept
along ln gives a1, at ℓn = 0.
If the points are scattered, it may be necessary to express a1 and/or 1 function of factors
such as initial pressure and density.
84
4. For nonassociative parameter , find the (constant) slope, Su, Fig. IV.6, of the final
portion of the v vs 1 curve. Use Su in the following equation to find .
1 Y
= - (IV.8)
( o - ) (1 - r v ) Z
where
3 / 2 1 / 2
Z 2J1(p 3)(1 27J 3D J 2 D )
5 / 2
pS11 3J 3D J 2 D J1 pS11
2
3 / 2 3 / 2 1 / 2
(1 27 J 3D J 2 D 2 3J 2 D J1
2
)
3 / 2 3 / 2
(1 27J 3D J 2 D )
3 / 2 1 / 2
Y nJ1n 1 (p 3)(1 27J 3D J 2 D )
5 / 2
pS11 3J 3D J 2 D
n
J1
3 / 2 3 / 2
(1 27J 3D J 2 D )
1 / 2 3 / 2 3 / 2
2 3J 2 D J1 (1 27J 3D J 2 D
n
)
and
vp / 3
r v = v / =
If a material possesses cohesive and tensile strengths, the yield function F is shifted in the
stress space shown in Fig. (IV.7). Then the transformed stress tensor, ij, is expressed as
85
1*=1+R 1 Ultimate Envelope
Hydrostatic Axis
Compression
Ultimate Envelope
Extension
2 2 =2 3
R ft
2 * *
2 =2 3
2R
2 (2 +R)=2 (3+R)
Uniaxial Tensile Strength
ij * = ij + R ij (IV.9)
where the term R is related to c and , Fig. I.4, and ij = Kronecker delta; R = 0 for
cohesionless materials. R can be related to the uniaxial tensile strength of the material, ft. An
Once R is known, ij* is used in F* = 0 Fig. (IV.7), and the plasticity parameters ( and ) are
86
The value of R can also be obtained in a simplified procedure, as
3R = ca / (IV.11b)
where c a = the intercept of J 2 D - axis with respect to the ultimate yield surface and is related
to the cohesive strength, and is related to the slope of the ultimate yield surface (line).
and for
1-model will be 8 + 1 = 9.
models. Here, the user needs to input available stress-strain data, and the constants are computed
For the viscoplastic model (Samtani and Desai, 1991; Desai, et al., 1995; Perzyna, 1966):
vp vp F Q
= d =
i j ij Fo ij
(IV.12)
N
F
=
Fo
87
Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution
t=0 t=∞
(a)
(b) σ
J2D
J2D
J2D
+ B B
J2D
B
+ B + +
A J1 A J1 A J1 A J1
(c-i) (c-ii) (c-iii) (c-iv)
plastic
(d)
plastic
vp
(e)
A = a1/ v1
B
(f)
F F=J2D-(-J1n+J12)(1-Sr)m
(g) F=0
From creep tests (on rock salt), general expression for axial strain, 1, is given by
1= K tq ( 1 - 3 ) T p
N
(IV.13)
88
where t = time, T = temperature, 1 - 3 = d = stress difference, and q, N and p are parameters.
From creep tests, Eq. (IV.13) can be established by finding the constants using least square fit.
For a rock salt, average values q = 0.4 and N = 3.0 were found. Now, a general form of rate vp
F F
= q K t
vp q -1
N
(IV.14a)
Fo
1 t
= 0 K t q-1 dt (IV.14b)
t
t = total time during creep test, Fig. (IV.9). Then Eq. (IV.14b) can be integrated numerically
over total time, t , Fig. (IV.9a), and the average value of can be found. For the rock salt =
5.06 x 10-7 (day-1) was found based on 22 tests on rock salt (Desai and Zhang, 1987).
89
Axial Strain, 1 Point
Point 1 Point 2 Point 1
d
t
Point 1
0
Time, Seconds(105)
(a) Typical Creep Test for Rock Salt(Hermann, et al.,1980)
,N
90
F/F0
ln
ln
ln(F/F0)
91
In general, the creep parameters and N can be found from laboratory creep tests.
F
N
vp T vp
(IV.15a)
T
Fo F F
~ ~
Hence,
F
n N n n (IV.15b)
Fo
The values of F/Fo and are found from test data [Fig. IV.9(b)] for various stress increments
(levels). Then ℓn vs ℓn (F/Fo) are plotted, Fig. IV.9(c). The average slope gives the value of N
and the intercept when ℓn (F/Fo) = 0 gives the value of , the fluidity parameter.
The foregoing gives details of the viscoplastic model according to Perzyna’s theory,
which is a special case of the general elastoviscoplastic (vevp) model available in the code; it is
based on the overlay model (Appendix I) and provides four options: elastic (e), viscoelastic (ve),
It is useful to note that the parameters in the elastoviscoplastic models are essentially the
same as elastic, plastic and viscous, Table I.1 (Appendix I). Hence, their determination follows
92
Some of the advantages of the MDSC (overlay model) are:
2. The parameters are the same as those required for various characterizations such as
(damage) can be used directly with the evep models to characterize the relative intact (RI)
behavior. Thus, creep effects can be integrated with disturbance (or damage).
4. The parameters have physical meanings as they are related to specific deformation
states, and hence, the need for regression (which may lose the physical meanings) is minimized.
5. The model can allow implicitly for elastic, plastic and creep strains with
forward and standard, and includes the available convergence and rebustness characteristics
As a result, the MDSC (overlay) model can provide an integrated and unified approach
with compactness of parameters, and can lead to significant advantages and simplification
Details are given in Desai and Ma (1992), Desai (1995, 2001), Katti and Desai (1995),
In this model, the intact behavior is represented by using the 0-model (7 or 8 constants).
It can also be simulated as linear or nonlinear elastic (Desai and Toth, 1996).
93
J2D
Ultimate
Relative
Intact Behavior(i)
D
Peak Observed Behavior(a)
I2D
●
ln[-ln( Du-D)]
●
D
●
Z
●
1
●
ln(A)
ln(D)
94
The behavior of the material part in the fully adjusted (FA) state can be simulated in various
ways (Desai, 1995); Desai and Toth, 1995): (i) it has no strength, like in classicalo continuum
damage model (Kachanov, 1986), (ii) as a constrained liquid with no shear strength but with
hydrostatic strength, or (iii) as critical state (Roscoe, et al., 1958) when the material can carry
shear stress reached up to that state for a given hydrostatic stress and deform at constant volume.
For the disturbance and softening behavior, three additional constants, Du, A and Z, are
D = Du - 1 - e x p - A ZD (IV.16)
i a
J 2D - J 2D
D= (IV.17)
i c
J 2D - J 2D
where a, i, and c denote observed, intact and fully adjusted responses, respectively. It can also be
found from other test data such as void ratio (or volume), effective stress or pore water pressure,
and nondestructive properties such as velocities (Desai and Toth, 1996; Desai, 1995; Desai, et
al., 1998).
Z D D
exp - A u (IV.18a)
D Du
Z D D
- A n u (IV.18b)
D Du
and
95
-D
Z n ( D ) + n ( A ) = n - n Du (IV.18c)
Du
The values of D and D (Eq. IV.17) are found for a number of points on the stress-strain
D D
curve and a plot of Pn (D) versus ℓ n n u is obtained. Then the slope gives Z and
Du
the intercept gives A, Fig. (IV.10b).
Disturbance: = 3
An anisotropic hardening model (2) in the context of HISS models for sands is available
in Somasundaram and Desai (1988). A similar model (*0) for clays is available in Wathugala
and Desai (1993). These models have been implemented in dynamic coupled finite element
procedures. However, the disturbed state concept (DSC) provides a relatively simple procedure
for including the cyclic behavior. Hence, the DSC model for soils, interfaces and solders (Katti
and Desai, 1995; Desai, et al., 1995; Desai, et al., 1997; Park and Desai, 1997; Shao and Desai,
1998a,b) is implemented in separate code that allows for static and cyclic behavior of solids,
geologic materials and interfaces; it also allows identification of instability and liquefaction
(Desai, et al., 1998b). This code (DSC_DYN2D) and its documentation can be available
separately.
The present codes are based on use of the 0 or 1 model for virgin loading; hence, the
parameters are the same as those above for the virgin loading. The unloading and reloading are
96
simulated by using special procedures described in Appendix I. The elastic parameters involve
slopes of unloading and reloading curves (Appendix I), and cyclic hardening involves parameter
To introduce initial (stress) conditions, the values of and need to be found to establish
= - J 2D 2- n (IV.19)
2
m
J1
J (1 - S r )
1
For general initial stress conditions {o}, Eq. (IV.19) is used to find = o. Then 0 is
found from
0 = ( a1 / 0 )1/ 1
(IV.20)
For hydrostatic initial stress (x = y = z; xy = yz = zx = 0), Eq. (IV.19) reduces to
0 = J 1
2- n
Environmental Effects
Fluid or Water
The DSC model has been developed for saturated porous materials, and is implemented
(as stated above) for dynamic and liquefaction analysis (Park and Desai, 1997; Desai, et al.,
1998b). Here, the effective stress approach is used. Separate codes (DSC-DYN2D and DSC-
97
The DSC model has been developed for partially saturated materials by incorporating
suction (or saturation); details are given in (Desai, et al., 1996; Geiser, et al., 1997).
5
0
Rough Interface
Ultimate Phase Change
4
0
P(n)
30
F()
R=Roughness
120 =0
0
0
Smooth Interface
4
0
Ultimate
30
Phase Change
20
=0
1
0
0
98
The procedures for finding material constants for interfaces/joints are similar to those for
solids, and are described in Desai (1994, 2001) and other references on joints and interfaces:
Navayogarajah, et al. (1991), Desai and Fishman (1991), Desai and Ma (1992).
MATERIAL CONSTANTS
A summary of material constants in various versions of the DSC/HISS models are given
below; the first four models and the overlay model are included in the present code.
*8 Constants if R is included.
Material constants for typical materials and interfaces/joints are given at the end of this
Appenedix.
Various versions described before have been implemented in static and dynamic
nonlinear finite element procedures. A computer subroutine for 0- and 1-models that the users
Some of the practical problems solved and validated are stated below:
Laboratory
Beams
99
Footings
Piles: Static, Dynamic, Saturated Soils
Single, Group
Retaining (Reinforced) Walls
Dams and Slopes
Tunnels
Building – Foundation Systems
Nuclear Power Plant Structures
Multilayer Systems
Railway Beds
1-D,. 2-D, 3-D
Pavements
Semiconductor Chip-substrate Systems
100
MATERIAL CONSTANTS for TYPICAL MATERIALS
Phase Change
Parameter n 2.5 3.2 4.0
Nonassociative
Constant 0.29 0.35
*Usually, the hardening function, Eq. (1.20a) is used. However, when the effect of hydrostatic
(HC) and proportional loading is significant, a mixed form of can be used (Eq. I.20b)
D
= b1 e x p - b2 1 -
b 3 + b 4 D
which for HC loading reduces to
= b1 e x p - b2 v
Then b1 and b2 are found from HC tests and then b3 and b4 are found from shear tests.
101
MATERIAL CONSTANTS FOR SOAPSTONE FROM DIFFERENT
STRESS PATH TESTS (0-MODEL) (Salami and Desai, 1990)
0.0792 0.0792
0.0468 0.0468
Ultimate
0 0.74922 0.74922
1 6.8410-4 6.8410-4
Plasticity
a1 1.21510-12 1.21510-12
102
Material Constants for Rock Salt (ov-Model)
K 14,989 MPa
Elasticity G 8,143 MPa
E 20,685 MPa
0.27
m -0.50
Ultimate 0.0945
0.995
1 0.00049
a1 1.80910-5
Hardening 1 0.2322
Non-
associate 0.275
103
MATERIAL CONSTANTS FOR PLAIN CONCRETE FROM
0.154 0.154
n 7.0 7.0
104
Material Constants for Plain Concrete
Disturbance
Du 0.875
Z 1.502
A 668.0
Plasticity
0.750
0.0678
n 5.24
a1 4.6 x 10-11
1 0.83
R 1.50 MPa
Elasticity
105
Material Constants for Solder (Pb/Sn)
Material parameters for various solders (e.g., Pb/Sn) are evaluated based on available test
data; they are reported, e.g., by Desai, et al. (1997, 1998a), and Desai (2001). The elastic, plastic,
creep and disturbance parameters for 40 Pb/60 Sn solder at strain rate 0.02 / sec including
Elastic and plastic constants for Pb-Sn solders at different temperatures 0.02 / sec
5.5
a1
() 300 , 300 ;
300 1
0.034
() 300 , 300 0.00082;
300
1.91
R () R 300 , R 300 240.67MPa;
300
0.292
0.14
T () T , T 3.0 10 6 .
300 300
300
106
Viscous constants for Pb-Sn solders at different temperatures
6.185
Load Drop, 0.026 0.062 0.068 0.054 0.007 0.069 0.046 0.039 0.058
A
b 0.567 0.617 0.377 0.470 0.630 0.453 0.505 0.586 0.578
1.55
107
REFERENCES
Bonaquist, R.F. and Witczak, M.W. (1997). “A Comprehensive Constitutive Model for Granular
Materials in Flexible Pavement Structures,” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Asphalt Pavements,
Brown, C.B. and King, I.P. (1966). “Automatic Embankment Analysis,” Geotechnique, Vol. 16,
No. 3.
NSF, Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng. Mechs., The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
USA.
Chowdhury, R.N. (1978). “Slope Analysis,” Developments in Geotech. Engr., Vol. 22, Elsevier
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993). Structural Dynamaics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
USA.
Cormeau, I.C. (1976). “Viscoplasticity and Plasticity in Finite Element Method,” Ph.D.
Damjanic, F. and Owen, D.R.J. (1984). “Mapped Infinite Elements in Transient Thermal
Desai, C.S. (1974). “Numerical Design Analysis of Piles in Sand,” J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE,
108
Desai, C.S. (1979). “Elementary Finite Element Method, “ Prentice-Hall, revised version
published as Desai, C.S. and Kundu, T. (2001), Introductory Finite Element Method,
Desai, C.S. (1989). Letter to Editor on “Single Surface Yield and Potential Function Plasticity
Desai, C.S. (1990). “Modelling and Testing: Implementation of Numerical Models and Their
Lade, P.V., J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2, pp. 337-341.
Desai, C.S. (1994). “Hierarchical Single Surface and the Disturbed State Constitutive Models
Emerging Trends in Design and Practice, Saxena, K.P. (ed), Oxford & IBH Publ. Co.,
Desai, C.S. (1995). “Constitutive Modelling Using the Disturbed State as Microstructure Self-
Desai, C.S. (2001). Mechanics of Materials and Interfaces: The Disturbed State Concept, CRC
Desai, C.S. and Abel, J.F. (1972). Introduction to the Finite Element Method, Van Nostrand
Desai, C.S., Basaran, C., Dishongh, T. and Prince, J. (1998a). “Thermomechanical Analysis in
Electronic Packaging with Unified Constitutive Model for Materials and Joints,”
109
Components, Packaging and Manuf. Tech., Part B: Adv. Packaging, IEEE Trans., Vol.
Desai, C.S., Chia, J.., Kundu, T. and Prince, J. (1997). “Thermomechanical Response of
Materials and Interfaces in Electronic Packaging: Parts I & II,” J. of Elect. Packaging,
Desai, C.S. and Fishman, K.L. (1991). “Plasticity Based Constitutive Model with Associated
Testing for Joints,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.
15-26.
Desai, C.S. and Hashmi, Q.S.E. (1989). “Analysis, Evaluation, and Implementation of a
Nonassociative Model for Geologic Materials,” Int. J. Plasticity, Vol. 5, pp. 397-420.
Desai, C.S. and Ma, Y. (1992). “Modelling of Joints and Interfaces Using the Disturbed State
Concept,” Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 16, No. 9, pp. 623-653.
Desai, C.S., Park, I.J. and Shao, C. (1998b). “Fundamental Yet Simplified Model for
Liquefaction Instability,” Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech,., Vol. 22, pp. 721-748.
Desai, C.S., Samtani, N.C. and Vulliet, L. (1995). “Constitutive Modeling and Analysis of
Creeping Slopes,” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Desai C.S., Shao, C. and Park, I. (1997). “Disturbed State Modelling of Cyclic Behavior of Soils
and Interfaces in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction,” Keynote Paper, Proc., 9th Int.
Desai, C.S., Sharma, K.G., Wathugala, G.W. and Rigby, D. (1991). “Implementation of
Hierarchical Single Surface 0 and 1 Models in Finite Element Procedures,” Int. J. Num.
110
Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, Prentice-
Desai, C.S., Somasundaram, S. and Frantziskonis, G.N. (1986). “A Hierarchical Approach for
Desai, C.S. and Toth, J. (1996). “Disturbed State Constitutive Modelling Based on Stress-Strain
and Nondestructive Behavior,” Int. J. Solids and Struct.Solids and Struct., Vol. 33, No.
Desai, C.S. and Varadarajan, A. (1987). “A Constitutive Model for Short-Term Behavior of
Rock Salt,” J. of Geophys,. Res., Vol. 92, No. 11, pp. 11445-11456.
Desai, C.S., Vulliet, L., Laloui, L. and Geiser, F. (1996). “Disturbed State Concept for
Desai, C.S., Wang, Z. and Whitenack, R. (1999). “Unified Disturbed State Constitutive Models
for Materials and Computer Implementation,” Plenary Paper, Proc., 4th Int. Conf. of
Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, R.C. Picu and E. Krempl (Editors),
Desai, C.S. and Wathugala, G.W. (1987). “Hierarchical and Unified Models for Solids and
Desai, C.S. and Woo, L. (1993). “Damage Model and Implementation in Nonlinear Dynamic
Problems,” Int. J. Computational Mechanics, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp. 189-206.
Desai, C.S., Zaman, M.M., Lightner, J.C. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). “Thin Layer Elements
for Interfaces and Joints,” Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomech., Vol. 8, pp. 19-43.
111
Desai, C.S. and Zhang, D. (1987). “Viscoplastic Model for Geologic Materials with Generalized
Flow Rate, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Methods in Geomech., Vol. 11, pp. 603-620.
DiMaggio, F.L. and Sandler, I.S. (1971). “Material Model for Granular Soils,” J. Engg. Mech.
Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.Y. (1970). “Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils, J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp. 1629-1653.
Geiser, F., Laloui, L., Vulliet, L. and Desai, C.S. (1997). “Disturbed State Concept for Partially
Goodman, L.E. and Brown, C.B. (1963). “Dead Loud Stresses and the Instability of Slopes,” J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM3, pp. 103-134.
Goodman, R.E., Taylor, R.L. and Brekke, T.L. (1968). “A Model for the Mechanics of Jointed
Rock,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, SM3, pp. 637-659.
Herrmann, W., Waversik, W.R. and Lauson, H.S. (1980). “Creep Curved and Fitting Parameters
for Southeastern Near Mexico Bedded Salt,” Report SAND-80-0087, Sandia National
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980). “Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses,” J. Geotech.
Katti, D.R. and Desai, C.S. (1995). “Modeling and Testing of Cohesive Soil Using Disturbed
State Concept,” J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 5, pp. 648-658.
Kondner, R.L. (1963). “Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive Soils,” J. Soil Mech.
112
Kulhawy, F.H., Duncan, J.M. and Seed, H.B. (1969). “Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and
California, Berkeley.
Lade, P.V. (1982). “Three-Parameter Failure Criterion for Concrete,” J. of Eng. Mech., ASCE,
Lightner, J.G. and Desai, C.S. (1979). “Improved Numerical Procedure for Soil-Structure
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1969). “Finite Element Model for Infinite Media,” J. of Eng.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V.A. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1978). “An Anisotropic Hardening Model for
Soils and Its Application to Cyclic Loading,” Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., Vol.
2, pp. 203-221.
Navayogarajah, N., Desai, C.S. and Kiousis, P.D. (1991). “Hierarchical Single Surface Model for
Static and Cyclic Behavior of Interfaces,” J. of Eng,. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 5, pp.
990-1011.
Ortiz, M. and Simo, J.C. (1986). “An Analysis of a New Class of Integration Algorithms for
Elastoplastic Constitutive Relations,” Int. J. Num. Methods in Eng., Vol. 23, pp. 253-366.
Owen, D.R. and Hinton, E. (1980). Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice, Pineridge
Pande, G.N., Owen, D.R.J. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1977). “Overlay Models in Time-Dependent
113
Park, I.J. and Desai, C.S. (1997). “Dynamic and Liquefaction Analysis Using Disturbed State
Concept,” Report, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Eng. Mechs., The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ, USA.
Pender, M.J. (1980). “Elastic Solutions for a Deep Circular Tunnel,” Geotechnique, pp. 216-222.
pp. 243-377.
Potts, D.M. and Gens, A. (1985). “A Critical Assessment of Methods of Correcting for Drift
from the Yield Surface in Elasto-Plastic Finite Element Analysis,” Int. J. Num. Analyt.
Prager, W. (1958). “Nonisothermal Plastic Deformations,” Bol. Koninke Nederl., Acad. Wet.,
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A. and Wroth, C.P. (1958). “On Yielding of Soils,” Geotechnique, Vol.
8, pp. 22-53.
Salami, M.R. and Desai, C.S. (1990). “Constitutive Modelling Influencing Multiaxial Testing for
Plain Concrete Under Low-Confining Pressure,” J. of Materials, ACI, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp.
228-236.
Samtani, N.C. and Desai, C.S. (1991). “Constitutive Modeling and Finite Element Analysis of
(NSF), Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng. Mechanics, The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
Samtani, N.C., Desai, C.S. and Vulliet, L. (1995). “An Interface Model to Describe Viscoplastic
Behavior,” Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomechanics, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 231-252.
114
Schapery, R.A. (1969). “On the Characterization of Nonlinear Viscoelastic Materials,” Polymer
Schapery, R.A. (1984). “Correspondence Principles and a Generalized J Integral for Large
Deformation and Fracture Analysis of Viscoelastic Media,” Int. J. Fracture, Vol. 25, pp.
195-223.
Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.P. (1968). Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
London.
Shao, C. and Desai, C.S. (1998a). “Application of Disturbed State Model for Cyclic Behavior of
Clay-Steel Interfaces,” Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in
Shao, C. and Desai, C.S. (1998b). “Implementation of DSC Model for Dynamic Analysis of
Soil-Structure Interaction Problems,” Report to NSF, Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng.
Sharma, K.G. and Desai, C.S. (1992). “Further on Analysis and Implementation of Thin-Layer
Element on Interface and Joints,” J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 2442-
2462.
Smith, I.M. and Griffiths, D.V. (1988). “Programming for Finite Element Method,” John Wiley
Somasundaram, S. and Desai, C.S. (1988). “Modelling and Testing for Anisotropic Behavior of
Wathugala, G.W. and Desai, C.S. (1993). “Constitutive Model for Cyclic Behavior of Clays I:
115
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Nayak, G.C. and Owen, D.R.J. (1972). “Composite and Overlay Models in
Warsaw, Poland.
***12-25-12
116