See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326132441

Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for sands incorporating density effects without

parameter calibration

Article  in  International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · December 2018
DOI: 10.1002/nag.2851

CITATIONS READS

2 1,459

1 author:

Jinhyun Choo
The University of Hong Kong
40 PUBLICATIONS   527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Mechanics of Geologic Fracture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinhyun Choo on 09 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 13 May 2018 Revised: 30 June 2018 Accepted: 2 July 2018
DOI: 10.1002/nag.2851

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for sands incorporating density

effects without parameter calibration

Jinhyun Choo

Department of Civil Engineering, The

University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong
Kong
Correspondence
Jinhyun Choo, Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Email: jchoo@hku.hk
Funding information
The University of Hong Kong,
Grant/Award Number: Seed Fund for
Basic Research (No. 201801159010)
Summary
A simple approach is proposed for enabling the conventional Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity to capture the effects of relative density on the behavior of dilative
sands. The approach exploits Bolton's empirical equations to make friction and
dilation angles state variables that depend on the current density and confin-
ing pressure. In doing so, the material parameters of Mohr–Coulomb plasticity
become void ratios for calculating the initial relative density and the criti-
cal state friction angle, all of which are measurable without calibration. A
Mohr–Coulomb model enhanced in this way shows good agreement with exper-
imental data of different sands at various densities and confining pressures.
In this regard, the proposed approach permits a significant improvement in
the conventional Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for sands, without compromising its
practical merits.

K E Y WO R D S
constitutive modeling, dilatancy, Mohr–Coulomb, plasticity, relative density, sands

1 I N T RO DU CT ION

Mohr–Coulomb plasticity* is perhaps the most widely used constitutive model by practitioners and academics alike for the
simulation of sand behavior in geotechnical engineering problems. Such popularity of the Mohr–Coulomb model may be
attributed to its unparalleled familiarity and simplicity. As mentioned by Muir Wood and Gajo,1 the Mohr–Coulomb fail-
ure criterion is understood by every undergraduate civil engineer, and its constitutive model version is available in almost
all finite element programs for geotechnical analyses. As such, one can easily apply the model to practical problems using
the familiar strength parameter(s) in the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model is also widely
used in research work, since it allows one to capture the pressure-dependent strength of a geomaterial with a fraction
of costs for sophisticated constitutive models. This exceptional efficiency makes the model a common choice for com-
putationally intensive simulations in geomechanics, such as those involve complex domains, soil-structure interactions,
contacts, large deformations, and/or coupled multiphysics.2-29
Despite its popularity and efficiency, Mohr–Coulomb plasticity is inherently limited as compared with advanced con-
stitutive models. Some of the major limitations are as follows. First, the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is usually invalid
for a contractive (loose) soil. Second, the model is unable to capture plastic deformations under cyclic loading condi-
tions. These limitations are the primary motivations for advanced sand plasticity models that build on critical state soil

* Here, we use this term to refer to a family of plasticity models taking the strength parameter(s) of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, say the friction angle
and the cohesion (if the soil is cohesive).

Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2018;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nag © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 CHOO

mechanics, bounding surface plasticity, and/or generalized plasticity, and/or others.30-44 Oftentimes, however, these limi-
tations are not so problematic for routine geotechnical problems, such as the design and stability analyses of foundations,
retaining walls, and slopes. In these cases, the Mohr–Coulomb model may be favored over advanced models, since it is
much more efficient and simple.
Nevertheless, the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model has another important limitation: it does not take into account
the effect of relative density on the strength and dilatancy of sands. This limitation is critical since the relative density
exerts dominant control on the behavior of sands in most cases. See, for example, page 84 of Mitchell and Soga45 that states
“most important indicators of mechanical behavior are relative density, Dr , and applied confining pressure” for granular
soils. Furthermore, it has been shown that the spatial distribution of density—which is often highly heterogeneous—is a
determining factor for the localized failure of sand.46-49 Whereas the density is completed ignored in the Mohr–Coulomb
criterion, it is central to critical state soil mechanics since the density and the confining pressure are the two parameters
that determine the state of a sand. In this regard, it may be thought that the density is the key variable that distinguishes
the strengths predicted from Mohr–Coulomb and critical state soil mechanics theories.
A common way to incorporate the density into critical state plasticity is to use the state parameter proposed by Been
and Jefferies,50 which is defined as the difference between the current void ratio and the critical state void ratio. Examples
of well-known constitutive models using the state parameter include the Nor-Sand model34 and the Manzari–Dafalias
model.35 These models have shown that the use of the state parameter allows one to successfully capture the effects
of density on the strength and dilatancy of sands. However, compared with the Mohr–Coulomb model, these critical
state models demand non-trivial additional efforts in various stages, from calibration to implementation to computation.
For this reason, it remains rather scarce to use a critical state sand model for computationally intensive simulation or
geotechnical engineering practice.
The objective of this work is to enable the conventional Mohr–Coulomb plasticity to incorporate the density effects on
sands, in a way as simple and efficient as possible. This objective is motivated by that the key advantage of the conventional
Mohr–Coulomb model is its unmatched simplicity and efficacy. The most challenging task for achieving this objective may
be to minimize the efforts for determining additional parameters. For example, while several hardening/softening laws
have been proposed for Mohr–Coulomb plasticity,51-53 they entail non-standard parameters that are uneasy to measure
or calibrate. This is presumably the main reason why most practitioners and researchers often resort to the perfectly
plastic Mohr–Coulomb model. In this regard, a successful enhancement of the Mohr–Coulomb model must minimize
the number of additional parameters that need to be calibrated.
With this objective in mind, here we propose a simple approach to incorporating the effects of density on sand behav-
ior without any further calibration effort. It exploits Bolton's empirical equations relating the relative density, strength,
and dilatancy of sands,54 in order to make the material parameters of the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model—friction
and dilation angles—state variables that depend on the current density and confining pressure. The material parameters
then become void ratios for calculating the initial relative density and the critical state friction angle, all of which are
measurable without calibration. It is noted that here we use the empirical equations for capturing the evolving strength
and dilatancy of sand during the course of loading, rather than for estimating constant parameters in the conventional
Mohr–Coulomb model. To the best of our knowledge, while Bolton's equations have been used to address a variety of
geotechnical problems,55-57 they have not yet been interwoven with Mohr–Coulomb plasticity in the way proposed herein.
In the next section, we describe how these empirical relationships can be used to enhance the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity
in a calibration-free and numerically efficient manner, such that the practical merit of the original model retains as much
as possible. Subsequently, we show that a simple Mohr–Coulomb model enhanced by the proposed approach shows good
agreement with experimental data of different sands at various densities and confining pressures.
As for notations, stresses and strains are positive in compression following the geomechanics sign convention. All
stresses are understood as effective stresses without special notations. Bold-face letters denote tensors and vectors.

2 MOHR–COULOMB PLAST ICITY INCORPORATING RELATIVE DENSITY

This section proposes a simple approach to enabling the conventional Mohr–Coulomb plasticity to capture the effects of
relative density on sand behavior. After brief review of the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model, Bolton's empirical equations
are applied to make Mohr–Coulomb parameters dependent on the current density and confining pressure. Discussions
on parameter determination and numerical implementation follow. For completeness, the modified Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity is combined with the simplest elasticity model, namely, isotropic linear elasticity.
CHOO 3

To develop a specific model, here we choose the yield and potential functions that directly emanate from the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. Note, however, that the proposed approach can also be applied to a family of related
models that takes the same plasticity parameters, say the friction angle and the dilation angle. Examples include the
Drucker–Prager model, which is also widely used in research and practice.

2.1 Yield and potential functions

To begin, we briefly review the conventional Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model for cohesionless sand. We denote by 𝝈 the
(Cauchy) stress tensor, and denote by 𝜎 1 and 𝜎 3 the maximum and minimum principal stresses, respectively. The peak
friction angle of the sand is denoted by 𝜙. The yield function of the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model can be written as
follows:
𝜎 − 𝜎3 𝜎1 + 𝜎3
𝑓 = 𝑓̂(𝜎1 , 𝜎3 , 𝜙) ∶= 1 − sin 𝜙 ≤ 0. (1)
2 2
The material undergoes elasto-plastic deformation when f = 0, whereas it undergoes purely elastic deformation when
f < 0.
In addition to the yield function, a flow rule is necessary to determine the magnitude and the direction of plastic defor-
mation. Without loss of generality, we consider infinitesimal deformation theory throughout. Then, as standard, it is
postulated that the infinitesimal strain tensor 𝜺 is additively decomposed into an elastic part 𝜺e and a plastic part 𝜺p , ie,
𝜺 = 𝜺e + 𝜺p . When the material is yielding (f = 0), the rate of the plastic strain is given by the flow rule
𝜕g
𝜺̇ p = 𝜆̇
, (2)
𝜕𝝈
where 𝜆 is the plastic multiplier and g is the plastic potential function. The flow rule is associative if g = f, and
non-associative otherwise. For sands, a non-associative flow rule is supported by experimental evidence. Thus, we
consider the following form of the potential function:
𝜎1 − 𝜎3 𝜎1 + 𝜎3
g = ĝ (𝜎1 , 𝜎3 , 𝜓) ∶= − sin 𝜓, (3)
2 2
where 𝜓 is the dilatancy angle. The flow rule is non-associative when 𝜓 ≠ 𝜙. Theoretically, the dilatancy angle must
be smaller than the friction angle for positive energy dissipation during plastic deformation. Experimental results also
suggest 𝜓 < 𝜙 for sands.
For geomaterials, it is often more convenient to express yield and potential functions in terms of the following three
invariants of the stress tensor: the mean normal stress p, the deviator (von Mises) stress q, and Lode's angle 𝜃. The three
invariants are formally defined as follows:
( √ )
1 √ 1 −1 3 3 J3
p ∶= tr (𝝈) , q ∶= 3J2 , 𝜃 ∶= sin , (4)
3 3 2 J 3∕2
2

where tr(·) is the trace operator, and J2 and J3 are the second and third invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor, s ∶= 𝝈−p1,
respectively, with 1 denoting the second-rank identity tensor. Here, Lode's angle is defined in the range of −30◦ ≤ 𝜃 ≤ 30◦
such that 𝜃 = −30◦ under pure extension, 𝜃 = 0◦ under pure shear, and 𝜃 = 30◦ under pure compression. In terms of
these three invariants, the yield and potential functions of the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity, respectively, can be written as
follows58 :
q
𝑓 = 𝑓̃(p, q, 𝜃, 𝜙) ∶= 𝜁 √ − p sin 𝜙 ≤ 0, (5)
3
q
g = g̃ (p, q, 𝜃, 𝜓) ∶= 𝜁 √ − p sin 𝜓, (6)
3
where
1
𝜁 (𝜃, 𝜙) ∶= cos 𝜃 − √ sin 𝜙 sin 𝜃. (7)
3
An advantage of this type of representation is that one can adjust 𝜁 in order to smoothly approximate the compres-
sion/tension corners of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface (at 𝜃 = ±30◦ ). Here, we use a popular approximation function
proposed by Abbo and Sloan59 for |𝜃| ≥ 28◦ , for simulating triaxial compression tests later on. Note, however, that a
smooth approximation is not an essential component of the proposed approach.
4 CHOO

As shown above, the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for cohesionless soil requires two input parameters: (1) the friction
angle, 𝜙, and (2) the dilation angle, 𝜓. It is well known that the values of the two parameters depend heavily on the cur-
rent state of stress and density rather than being material constants. Nevertheless, they are often assumed to be material
constants such that the model is perfectly plastic. This is mostly because there is lack of a widely accepted harden-
ing/softening law for Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for sands, as well as because currently available hardening/softening laws
entail significant additional efforts for parameter determination and calibration. This problem is tackled in the sequel.

2.2 Incorporation of relative density effects

In this section, we devise a way to incorporate the effect of relative density on the Mohr–Coulomb parameters, without
any parameter that needs to be calibrated. For this purpose, we draw heavily on empirical relationships proposed in the
soil mechanics literature. Let us first consider the peak friction angle, 𝜙. Physically, the peak friction angle is determined
by the combination of various particle-scale mechanisms: interparticle friction, particle rearrangement, crushing, and
dilations, among others. In his seminar paper,54 Bolton analyzed triaxial and plane strain test data of 17 sands at various
densities and confining pressures. Based on the data, he proposed that the peak friction angle of sand is well correlated
with the following empirical equation (angles in degrees):
𝜙 = 𝜙crit + 0.8𝜓, (8)
where 𝜙crit is the critical state friction angle. Observe that this equation decomposes the peak friction angle into the
constant volume part (𝜙crit ) and the dilation part (0.8𝜓). This type of decomposition of soil strength, which dates back to
the earlier works of Taylor60 and Rowe,61 is generally agreed in the soil mechanics community. Equation 8 is particularly
useful for the purpose of Mohr–Coulomb modeling because it explicitly contains the dilation angle.
Experimental evidence suggests that, for a given sand, the dilation angle 𝜓 is a function of the current state, whereas the
critical state friction angle 𝜙crit may be considered a constant material parameter at a strain rate typical in geotechnical
engineering. Therefore, accurate modeling of sand plasticity must take into account the dependence of the dilatancy on the
state of sand. In advanced constitutive models for sands, a common approach to incorporating the state-dependent dila-
tancy is to introduce the theory of critical state soil mechanics and the state parameter suggested by Been and Jefferies.50
While it is possible to adopt the state parameter and critical state soil mechanics to the conventional Mohr–Coulomb plas-
ticity, it would add non-standard parameters that require further calibration. This additional complexity may render the
resulting Mohr–Coulomb plasticity far less practical than the conventional one.
For this reason, this work seeks to incorporate the state dependency of the dilatancy angle as phenomenologically as
possible. In the same paper,54 Bolton proposed another empirical relationship of
{
3I for triaxial compression conditions,
𝜙 − 𝜙crit = 5IR for plane strain conditions, (9)
R

where IR is the relative dilatancy index proposed in the paper, given by ( p in kPa)
IR ∶= Dr (10 − ln p) − 1. (10)
Here, Dr is the relative density† and defined as follows:
emax − e
Dr ∶= , (11)
emax − emin
where emax and emin are the maximum and minimum void ratios, respectively. It is noted that this is the standard definition
of relative density in geotechnical engineering, which may date back to Burmister.62 Combining Equations 8-10, we arrive
at the following simple equation for the dilation angle:
𝜓 = kIR = k[Dr (10 − ln p) − 1], (12)
where k = 3∕0.8 = 3.75 for triaxial compression conditions and k = 5∕0.8 = 6.25 for plane strain conditions. One may
use k = 3.75 for examining the performance of the model with triaxial test data, and use k = 6.25 for applying the model
to practical geotechnical problems that are usually approximated to be in plane strain conditions. Note that Equation 12
agrees well with critical state soil mechanics theory in which the state of soil is determined by the confining pressure and
the density (void ratio).

†
This corresponds to ID in Bolton.54 Here, it is denoted by Dr , which is a more common notation in geotechnical engineering.
CHOO 5

To summarize, we have proposed to replace the friction angle and the dilation angle in the conventional Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity with Equations 8 and 12, respectively. Both the friction and dilation angles then become state variables depend-
ing on the confining pressure and the void ratio (relative density), which are the major two variables controlling the
mechanical behavior of granular soils. This means that the effect of density has been incorporated to the yielding hard-
ening/softening, and plastic flow of the model. The input parameters are 𝜙crit , emax , emin , and e0 (the initial value of e), all
of which are readily measurable by standard laboratory tests. No parameter calibration is necessary. For implementation,
the current void ratio e is the only variable that needs to be newly calculated for IR , since p is already calculated in the
conventional Mohr–Coulomb plasticity. It is noted that changes in the void ratio e during the course of loading can be
easily calculated from the volumetric strain, tr𝜺, and the initial void ratio, e0 .
Several remarks on the proposed approach are made in the following:
• Applicability and limitations. For obvious reason, the applicability of the proposed approach is tied to that of Bolton's
empirical equations. Since proposed in 1986, these empirical equations have been extensively used for the analysis
and prediction of a variety of problems in geotechnical engineering. Remarkably, it has also been demonstrated that
critical state lines constructed by setting IR = 0 in Equation 10 show good agreement with experimental data (see
other works,15,45,57 for example). This suggests that the empirical equations could work well for all values of 𝜙 ≥ 𝜙crit
mobilized after the peak stress, as stated by Bolton.54 These previous studies may justify the application of Bolton's
equations to Mohr–Coulomb plasticity modeling of various problems in geotechnical engineering. Nevertheless, one
must aware the limitations of the empirical equations. For example, the equations do not consider some important
properties that can greatly affect the strength and dilatancy of sands, such as fabric and particle shapes (see, eg, other
works63-67 for the significance of these properties). Also importantly, the equations have been derived from exper-
imental data under axisymmetric and plane strain conditions, so their validity becomes increasingly questionable
as the stress/strain condition deviates more from these two conditions. See the original paper of Bolton54 for more
detailed and extensive discussions on the limitations of these equations. At the same time, however, it is also noted
that many of these limitations already exist in the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model.
• Upper and lower bounds of IR . Bolton's empirical equations have been suggested to be valid for IR in between 0 and 4.
Since IR = 0 means that the sand is at the critical state, the sand is loose (contractive) if IR is negative. Loose sands
are inappropriate to be modeled by Mohr–Coulomb plasticity anyway, as mentioned in Introduction. Also, when the
confining pressure is very low, IR may become too large. For this reason, it has been suggested to limit the value of
IR to be smaller than 4. Usually, 0 < IR < 4 is satisfied without special treatment.
• Unit of IR . As typical in empirical parameters in geotechnical engineering, the unit of IR in Equations 9 and 10 are
inconsistent. While Bolton's original equations may be slightly revised to make it consistent, this is not done for the
reader's familiarity as well as for simplicity. One just needs to be aware of two units: degrees for the angles, and kPa
for the confining pressure.
• Alternative expression for IR . Although Equation 10 is commonly referred to in the literature, an alternative expres-
sion for IR has also been put forward by Bolton in his response to the discussion raised by Tatsuoka.68 The alternative
expression is given by
{
D [5 − ln(p∕150)] − 1 for p > 150 kPa,
IR ∶= 5Dr − 1 for p ≤ 150 kPa. (13)
r

It seems that Equations 10 and 13 have not been directly compared in the literature. Figure 1 juxtaposes the two
expressions in the range of 0 ≤ p ≤ 2000 kPa (for Dr = 0.6). It can be seen that the revised Equation 13 gives lower
values of IR throughout. We have tested the two equations, and found that the original Equation 10 gives results
closer to experimental data.
• Alternative relationship between IR and 𝜓. In 1996, Schanz and Vermeer69 proposed an equation to unify the two
expressions in Equation 9. The equation is
( )
0.3IR
𝜓 = sin −1
. (14)
2 + 0.3IR

Note that the definition of IR here corresponds to the original one, Equation 10. They, however, did not show how
this equation is different from the two expressions in Equation 9 for triaxial and plane strain conditions. This dif-
ference is illustrated in Figure 2 in case 𝜙crit = 32◦ . The figure shows that Equation 14 leads to somewhat a high
dilation angle rather than the average of the two expressions in Equation 9. We have also observed that Equation 14
6 CHOO

FIGURE 1 Comparison between two relationships between p and IR : Bolton's original equation in the 1986 paper,54 Equation 10, and
revised equation in the 1987 discussion paper,68 Equation 13 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 2 𝜓 versus IR from the equation proposed by Schanz and Vermeer,69 in comparison with Bolton's original equations under
triaxial (TX) and plane strain (PS) conditions [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

often leads to an overestimation of the soil strength under triaxial compression tests. Therefore, for validation of the
approach proposed in this work, here we use Bolton's original expressions. Regardless, we note that Equation 14
and/or Equation 13 can readily substitute Equation 12 and/or Equation 10 if justified by experimental results of
a specific sand, and that this replacement does not entail any significant additional effort. This is true for other
modified versions of Bolton's equations as well.

2.3 Parameter determination

As described above, the proposed model takes four material parameters: (1) the maximum void ratio, emax , (2) the mini-
mum void ratio, emin , (3) the initial void ratio, e0 , and (4) the critical state friction angle, 𝜙crit . Among them, emax and emin
can be readily measured by standard test methods, eg, ASTM D425370 and D425471 respectively. Notably, variations in the
limiting void ratios measured by different methods are usually smaller than 0.02.72 The initial void ratio can also be deter-
mined in a standard manner. Also, if the model is used in coupled deformation-flow simulation, this is not an additional
parameter since porosity (equivalently, void ratio) is already an input parameter for the coupled simulation. Furthermore,
because the relative density is very widely used in geotechnical engineering, several empirical relations are available for
estimating the relative density in practice. An example is the empirical relation between the relative density and the stan-
dard penetration test value. The relative density has also been related to qualitative descriptions of sand density. Such a
CHOO 7

TABLE 1 Classification of sand density according

to the value of relative density. From figure 4.1 of
Mitchell and Soga45
Relative Density, Dr , % Description
0-20 Very loose
20-40 Loose
40-60 Medium dense
60-80 Dense
80-100 Very dense

relation, which seems to be first proposed by Burmister,62 is also widely used in geotechnical engineering. Table 1 is an
example from Mitchell and Soga.45 Note that this classification is subjective in that it differs slightly by people.
The critical state friction angle, 𝜙crit , can be obtained by performing a series of shear tests on soil samples of various
densities, as explained in Bolton.54 This way uses the same type of experiment for the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model.
Alternatively, one can use a simple test suggested by Santamarina and Cho73 that measures the angle of repose. In either
case, it has been reported that a measurement error for 𝜙crit usually does not exceed 1◦ . Interestingly, if 𝜙crit is determined
from the angle of repose, all the parameters of the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model can be obtained without a single
shear test.
In some sense, the parameters in the proposed model can be determined more objectively than those in the conventional
Mohr–Coulomb model. Firstly, the dilation angle in the conventional model is often roughly approximated because it
indeed evolves continuously throughout plastic deformation. The peak friction angle in the conventional model can be
measured by performing multiple shearing tests. However, it is well known that the measured value of the peak friction
angle can differ by the specific test method used. For example, it is not uncommon that the peak friction angles measured
by triaxial, plane strain, and direct shear tests are all significantly different. On the other hand, the four parameters in the
proposed model are less sensitive to the measurement method, as described above. In this regard, although the proposed
approach increases the number of parameters from two to four, it may allow a more objective determination of the model
parameters.

2.4 Elasticity
The approach described above is completely independent of elasticity. Regardless, it should be combined with an elastic-
ity model to complete an elasto-plastic model. Since soils show highly non-linear and complex elasticity responses,74-77
advanced constitutive models often employ pressure-dependent non-linear elasticity models. Although such non-linear
elasticity is fully compatible with Mohr–Coulomb plasticity, it would be rather inconsistent to use a complex elastic-
ity model in conjunction with Mohr–Coulomb plasticity. Thus, here we just use the simplest elasticity model, namely,
isotropic linear elasticity. As is well known, it requires two independent material parameters, such as Young's modulus
and Poisson's ratio.

2.5 Numerical implementation

Since the proposed approach introduces a hardening/softening law derived from Bolton's empirical equations, it requires
one to modify an existing implementation of the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model. The modification is also simple,
however. In what follows, it is described in the context of implicit stress integration.
Among several possible choices for implicit integration, here we use the technique of return mapping in principal strain
space described in chapter 6 of Borja.78 The technique is chosen since it is general enough for accommodating non-linear
elasticity and finite deformation, if necessary. For brevity, we do not repeat the description of the return mapping
8 CHOO

technique explained in Borja.78 Instead, specific points that need to be modified for the present Mohr–Coulomb model
are concisely described in the following. In the process of return mapping in principal strain space (𝜀1 , 𝜀2 , and 𝜀3 ), the
(local) residual vector r and the (local) unknown vector x are given by

⎧ 𝜀1 − 𝜀1 + Δ𝜆𝜕g1 ⎫
e e tr
⎧ 𝜀e1 ⎫
⎪ 𝜀e2 − 𝜀e2 tr + Δ𝜆𝜕g2 ⎪ ⎪ 𝜀e ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 2 ⎪
r(x) = ⎨ 𝜀e3 − 𝜀e3 tr + Δ𝜆𝜕g3 ⎬ , x = ⎨ 𝜀e3 ⎬ , (15)
⎪ 𝑓̃(𝜀1 , 𝜀2 , 𝜀3 , 𝜓) ⎪ ⎪ Δ𝜆 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 𝜓 ⎪
⎩ h(𝜀̃ 1 , 𝜀2 , 𝜀3 , 𝜓) ⎭ ⎩ ⎭

where 𝜕gA ∶ = 𝜕g∕𝜕𝜎 A for A = 1, 2, 3, the superscript (·)tr denotes the trial value, and Δ𝜆 denotes the increment in the
plastic multiplier. In the residual vector, the first three components come from the predictor–corrector forms of the three
principal strains. The fourth component, 𝑓̃, is the discrete consistency condition, and it takes 𝜓 as an argument since
𝜙 = 𝜙crit + 0.8𝜓. The fifth component, h, ̃ is the discrete hardening law, given by
[( ) ]
emax − e
h̃ ∶= 𝜓 − k (10 − ln p) − 1 . (16)
emax − emin
It is noted that p is a function of the elastic strains, while e is a function of the trial strains.
The return mapping technique uses Newton's method to find an x making r(x) ≈ 0. At the kth Newton iteration, the
tangent (Jacobian) matrix is given by
e
⎡ 1 + Δ𝜆𝜕g1 ∕𝜕𝜀1 Δ𝜆𝜕g1 ∕𝜕𝜀2
e
Δ𝜆𝜕g1 ∕𝜕𝜀e3 𝜕g1 Δ𝜆𝜕g1 ∕𝜕𝜓 ⎤
⎢ Δ𝜆𝜕g2 ∕𝜕𝜀1 1 + Δ𝜆𝜕g2 ∕𝜕𝜀2 Δ𝜆𝜕g2 ∕𝜕𝜀e3
e e
𝜕g2 Δ𝜆𝜕g2 ∕𝜕𝜓 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Ak = r ′ (x k ) = ⎢ Δ𝜆𝜕g3 ∕𝜕𝜀1
e
Δ𝜆𝜕g3 ∕𝜕𝜀e2 1 + Δ𝜆𝜕g3 ∕𝜕𝜀e3 𝜕g3 Δ𝜆𝜕g3 ∕𝜕𝜓 ⎥ . (17)
⎢ 𝜕 𝑓̃∕𝜕𝜀e1 𝜕 𝑓̃∕𝜕𝜀e2 𝜕 𝑓̃∕𝜕𝜀e3 0 𝜕 𝑓̃∕𝜕𝜓 ⎥
⎢ ̃ ̃ ̃ ⎥
⎣ 𝜕 h∕𝜕𝜀 e
1 𝜕 h∕𝜕𝜀 e
𝜕 h∕𝜕𝜀 e
2 3
0 1 ⎦

Here, the partial derivatives with respect to the elastic principal strains can be conveniently obtained by the chain rule.
Note that whenever 𝜓 is updated, 𝜙 is also updated as 𝜙 = 𝜙crit + 0.8𝜓.
Once the local residual is converged, one can obtain the (global) algorithmic tangent operator which is essential for
optimal convergence in boundary value problems. The only necessary change is to calculate the derivatives of the discrete
hardening law with respect to the trial principal strains, because the void ratio e is a function of the trial volumetric strain.
This change is trivial, and the reader is referred to Borja78 for a complete derivation of the algorithmic tangent operator.

3 M O DE L EVALUAT ION

In this section, we evaluate the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model with respect to two aspects: (1) whether it can capture
changes in the stress, strain and strength of sand solely due to density differences, and (2) whether it can well predict exper-
imental results of different sands at various densities and confining pressures. For an objective assessment of the model,
we purposely select three different sands that were not included in the database of Bolton's work.54 They are Toyura, Erk-
sak, and Fuji River sands. The material parameters for the three sands are directly adopted from the literature,34,42,79-81 and
their specific values are summarized in Table 2. It is noted at the outset that only dilative sands subjected to drained and
monotonic loading are considered, since they are the target of Mohr–Coulomb modeling. We also exclude experimental
data that appear to be significantly affected by strain localization, because they involve heterogeneous deformation. For

TABLE 2 The material parameters of the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model for the three
types of sands considered for model evaluation. These parameters are adopted from the
literature cited in the table
Parameter Toyura79 Erksak34,80 Fuji River42,81
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.977 0.963 1.123
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.597 0.525 0.489
◦ ◦
Critical state friction angle, 𝜙crit 31.15 30 36.64◦
CHOO 9

this reason, we focus on data of triaxial compression tests, since strain localization is far more pronounced in plane strain
compression tests. All the simulation results in the following are obtained using the algorithm described in Bardet and
Choucair,82 with the strain rate of 0.05% per load step. The implicit integration algorithm described in the previous section
is used in doing so.

3.1 Model behavior at different relative densities

Firstly, to investigate the basic behavior of the model, we simulate triaxial compression tests for sands at three different
relative densities: (1) Dr = 40 %, (2) Dr = 70 %, and (3) Dr = 100 %. According to Table 1, they correspond to medium
dense, dense, and very dense sands, respectively. The material is assumed to be Toyura sand, and it is subjected to an
isotropic confining pressure of 100 kPa. The elasticity parameters are set as E = 90 MPa and 𝜈 = 0.25. The triaxial tests
are conducted until the axial strain reaches 10%.
Figure 3 presents the simulation results of triaxial compression tests for the three different densities. The model pro-
duces a higher peak strength and dilatancy for a denser soil, confirming that it has correctly incorporated the effect of
relative density on sand behavior. The densest one (Dr = 100%) shows softening throughout, whereas the loosest one
(Dr = 40%) is more or less perfectly plastic. All the three cases show shear-induced dilatancy after yielding, and dilatancy
becomes more pronounced as the material becomes denser. The kinks at the yield points are very sharp, which is typical
in Mohr–Coulomb plasticity models combined with linear elasticity.
To demonstrate the efficiency and correctness of the computational implementation, Figure 4 shows the convergence
profiles during Newton iterations for the local return mapping and global triaxial loading processes at the last load step. It
can be seen that both the local and global iterations converge optimally, ie, asymptotically quadratic. In both of the local

FIGURE 3 Simulation of the drained triaxial tests of Toyura sand at different relative densities. The confining pressure is 100 kPa. A,
Deviator stress versus axial strain. B, Volumetric strain versus axial strain [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 4 Convergence profiles during A, local Newton iterations for return mapping and B, global Newton iterations for triaxial loading,
at the last load step [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10 CHOO

and global iterations, the convergence rate is slightly slower for a denser sand because it manifests more softening. Never-
theless, all the local iterations converge at the third iteration (for tolerance 10−9 ), and all the global iterations converge at
the fifth iteration (for tolerance 10−10 ). The results thus show that the model can be efficiently used for computationally
intensive simulations.
At this point, we remark that the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model—which does not consider relative
density—would produce the same results for the three density cases as they are under the same confining pressure. In
other words, if the three cases were simulated by the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model, the three curves in each plot
of Figure 3 would collapse into a single curve. Therefore, the foregoing results have demonstrated that the proposed
approach can provide the ability to capture changes in the stress–strain–strength response of a sand solely due to den-
sity differences. In what follows, we examine whether this model can reasonably predict experimental results of different
sands at various densities and confining pressures.

3.2 Comparison with experimental data

Now, we investigate the predictive capabilities of the model by simulating laboratory experiments in the literature. Toyura
sand is considered first among the three sands in Table 2. We specifically simulate the triaxial tests of Verdugo and
Ishihara,79 of which results have been commonly used for validation of several advanced constitutive models.38,40,42 From
these results, we select two tests that exhibit dilation under monotonic loading. The first test is conducted at the initial
void ratio e0 = 0.831 and the isotropic confining pressure pc = 100 kPa, and the second one is conducted at e0 = 0.810
and pc = 500 kPa. Both of the tests are performed up to an axial strain around 25%.
Figure 5 compares the model predictions of the two tests with the experimental data of Verdugo and Ishihara.79 It can
be seen that, for both tests, the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model can predict the peak stresses fairly closely. In terms of the
deviator stress-axial strain response, the most significant difference between the model prediction and the experimental
data is that the transition from elasticity to plasticity is more abrupt in the model. As discussed previously, this is rather
unavoidable due to the use of linear elasticity and Mohr–Coulomb plasticity. Other than that, however, the predicted
stress-strain curves match well with the experimental data at two different combinations of densities and confining pres-
sures. As for the volumetric behavior, the model slightly underpredicts the dilation in the case of e0 = 0.831 and pc = 100
kPa, but it predicts the dilation of the other case (e0 = 0.810 and pc = 500 kPa) quite well.
Next, we consider the triaxial test results of Erksak sand that were used to validate the Nor-Sand model by Jefferies.34
The critical state friction angle is determined from the slope of the critical state line of the Nor-Sand model in that paper.
The maximum and minimum void ratio values of Erksak sand are not presented in the same paper, so they are taken from
Jefferies and Been.80 The elasticity parameters are assigned as E = 60 MPa and 𝜈 = 0.25. Same as the Toyura sand case,
we use two sets of experimental results in which the sand shows dilative behavior. The initial void ratio and the confining
pressure are e0 = 0.590 and pc = 130 kPa for the first set, and e0 = 0.675 and pc = 300 kPa for the second set.

FIGURE 5 Model prediction of the triaxial compression tests of Vergudo and Ishihara79 for Toyura sands. A, Deviator stress versus axial
strain. B, Deviator stress versus void ratio [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
CHOO 11

The model predictions and the experimental results of Erksak sand are compared in Figure 6. As shown, the model
again predicts the sand's strengths fairly well for both combinations of densities and confining pressures. Although some
differences are observed between the predicted volumetric responses and the experimental data, they are not very signif-
icant from a practical point of view, and they are also due to elastic compression prior to plastic dilation. Importantly, the
model predicts higher dilation for the case of e0 = 0.590 and pc = 130 kPa than the other, being consistent with the
experimental results. Such change in dilatancy cannot be captured by the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model assuming
a constant dilation angle.
Lastly, we consider the experimental data of Tatsuoka81 for Fuji River sand, which have been used for validating
advanced constitutive models of Ling and Yang,42 among others. The critical state friction angle is calculated from the
slope of the critical state line reported in Ling and Yang.42 The maximum and minimum void ratios are computed from
two values of relative density mentioned in the same paper, Dr = 51% for e = 0.80 and Dr = 92% for e = 0.54. For sim-
plicity, we use the same elasticity parameters used for Erksak sand, because they reasonably reproduce the initial portions
of the stress-strain curves. This time, we simulate three triaxial tests conducted on dense sands, whose initial void ratios
and confining pressures are e0 = 0.496 and pc = 98 kPa, e = 0.519 and pc = 196 kPa, and e0 = 0.515 and pc = 294
kPa, respectively.
Figure 7 shows the proposed model's prediction results compared with the experimental data of Fuji River sand. The
model again provides decent predictions of the strengths of Fuji River sands at three different densities and confining
pressures. The model predictions of the volumetric responses are also good, except the most dilative case after about 4%
of axial strain. Given the shape of the experimental curves, this difference may be in part due to the inception of shear
band in the experimental specimen, although the exact point of strain localization is unknown from the literature. Other
than this, the predictions of the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model for Fuji River sand are as good as those for the other
two sands.

FIGURE 6 Model prediction of the triaxial compression tests for Erksak sands used by Jefferies.34 A, Stress ratio versus shear strain. B,
Volumetric strain versus shear strain [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 7 Model prediction of the triaxial compression tests for Fuji River sands, conducted by Tatsuoka81 and used by Ling and Yang.42
A, Deviator stress versus axial strain. B, Volumetric strain versus axial strain [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
12 CHOO

The foregoing comparisons indicate that the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model can give reliable predictions of the
strengths of different sands at various densities and confining pressures. Remarkably, all these predictions have been
made without calibration of a single parameter of the Mohr–Coulomb model. Given that the primary goal of most
Mohr–Coulomb modeling is to predict the strength, it can be concluded that the proposed Mohr–Coulomb model has the
ability to capture the effects of relative density on dilative sands.

4 C LO S U R E

This paper has introduced a simple approach to incorporating density effects into Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for dilative
sand. Exploiting Bolton's empirical equations, the approach changes the friction and dilation angles to be state variables
that depend on the current density and confining pressure, from constant material parameters as in the conventional
Mohr–Coulomb model. As a result, void ratios for calculating the initial relative density and the critical state friction
angle become material parameters of the proposed model. These parameters can be readily measurable through standard
procedures without calibration. A Mohr–Coulomb model enhanced in this way well predicted the strengths of different
sands at various densities and confining pressures. Thus, the proposed Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model allows very effi-
cient capture of density effects on sand behavior, which would be useful for various problems from practical geotechnical
analyses to computationally intensive simulations.
Future work of this study includes the application of the proposed model to boundary-value problems. It would reveal
whether Bolton's equations could remain reasonably valid for general loading conditions, which is an important question
not only for the present model but also for other classes of geotechnical problems to which Bolton's equations have been
applied. Another, and related, question is whether the Mohr–Coulomb model could also capture persistent shear band
in heterogeneously dense sand, as the Nor-Sand model did in previous studies.46-49 Investigation of this question would
allow us to further validate the model for problems involving strain localization.
Moreover, the proposed approach may be generalized to a wider class of sandy soils by using an extended version of
Bolton's equations. For example, Xiao et al83 have modified the strength-dilatancy equation to accommodate the effect of
nonplastic fines. Fern and Soga15 have shown that the relative density index can also be correlated with the dilatancy of
sands with different water contents. The findings of these studies suggest that it may be possible to develop another simple
Mohr–Coulomb model for silty or unsaturated sand. Studies on these topics will be reported in future publications.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Professor Hoe I. Ling at Columbia University for sharing the digitized experimental data of Fuji
River sand. Financial support for this work was provided by the Seed Fund for Basic Research of The University of Hong
Kong (No. 201801159010).

ORCID

Jinhyun Choo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5861-3796

REFERENCES
1. Muir Wood D, Gajo A. Hierarchical critical state models. In: Yamamuro J, Kaliakin V, eds. Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection
and Calibration. ASCE; 2005:459-482. Geotechnical Special Publication 128.
2. Huang W, Sheng D, Sloan S, Yu H. Finite element analysis of cone penetration in cohesionless soil. Comput Geotech. 2004;31(7):517-528.
3. Coetzee CJ, Vermeer PA, Basson AH. The modelling of anchors using the material point method. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.
2005;29(9):879-895.
4. Young YL, White JA, Xiao H, Borja RI. Liquefaction potential of coastal slopes induced by solitary waves. Acta Geotech. 2009;4(1):17-34.
5. Borja RI, White JA. Continuum deformation and stability analyses of a steep hillside slope under rainfall infiltration. Acta Geotech.
2010;5(1):1-14.
6. Borja RI, Liu X, White JA. Multiphysics hillslope processes triggering landslides. Acta Geotech. 2012;7(4):261-269.
7. Sabetamal H, Nazem M, Carter J, Sloan S. Large deformation dynamic analysis of saturated porous media with applications to penetration
problems. Comput Geotech. 2014;55:117-131.
8. Bandara S, Soga K. Coupling of soil deformation and pore fluid flow using material point method. Comput Geotech. 2015;63:199-214.
9. Yerro A., Alonso E, Pinyol N. The material point method for unsaturated soils. Géotechnique. 2015;65(3):201-217.
CHOO 13

10. Bennett KC, Regueiro RA, Borja RI. Finite strain elastoplasticity considering the Eshelby stress for materials undergoing plastic volume
change. Int J Plast. 2016;77:214-245.
11. Borja RI, Choo J, White JA. Rock moisture dynamics, preferential flow, and the stability of hillside slopes. In: Gardoni P, LaFave JM, eds.
Multi-Hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering. Springer International Publishing; 2016:443-464.
12. Camargo J, Velloso RQ, Vargas EA. Numerical limit analysis of three-dimensional slope stability problems in catchment areas. Acta
Geotech. 2016;11(6):1369-1383.
13. Castro J. An analytical solution for the settlement of stone columns beneath rigid footings. Acta Geotech. 2016;11(2):309-324.
14. Choo J, White JA, Borja RI. Hydromechanical modeling of unsaturated flow in double porosity media. Int J Geomech. 2016;16(6):D4016002.
15. Fern EJ, Soga K. The role of constitutive models in MPM simulations of granular column collapses. Acta Geotech. 2016;11(3):659-678.
16. Klár G, Gast T, Pradhana A, et al. Drucker-Prager elastoplasticity for sand animation. ACM Trans Graphics. 2016;35(4):1-12.
17. Lü X, Huang M, Andrade JE. Strength criterion for cross-anisotropic sand under general stress conditions. Acta Geotech.
2016;11(6):1339-1350.
18. Meng X, Wang Y. Modelling and numerical simulation of two-phase debris flows. Acta Geotech. 2016;11(5):1027-1045.
19. Papanastasiou P, Papamichos E, Atkinson C. On the risk of hydraulic fracturing in CO2 geological storage. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech. 2016;40(10):1472-1484.
20. Meng J, Huang J, Sheng D, Sloan SW. Granular contact dynamics with elastic bond model. Acta Geotech. 2017;12(3):479-493.
21. Tampubolon AP, Gast T, Klár G, et al. Multi-species simulation of porous sand and water mixtures. ACM Trans Graphics. 2017;36(4):1-11.
22. Vrakas A. A finite strain solution for the elastoplastic ground response curve in tunnelling: rocks with non-linear failure envelopes. Int J
Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2017;41(7):1077-1090.
23. Wang L, Coombs WM, Augarde CE, et al. Modelling screwpile installation using the MPM. Procedia Eng. 2017;175:124-132.
24. Bennett KC, Borja RI. Hyper-elastoplastic/damage modeling of rock with application to porous limestone. Int J Soil Sci. 2018;143:218-231.
25. Chen S, Abousleiman Y. Cavity expansion in strain hardening frictional soils under drained condition. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.
2018;42(1):132-142.
26. Choo J, Sun W. Coupled phase-field and plasticity modeling of geological materials: from brittle fracture to ductile flow. Comput Meth
Appl Mech Eng. 2018;330:1-32.
27. Choo J, Lee S. Enriched Galerkin finite elements for coupled poromechanics with local mass conservation. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng.
2018;341:311-332.
28. Perazzelli P, Anagnostou G. Upper bound limit analysis of uplift failure in pressurized sealed rock tunnels. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech. 2018;42(5):719-735.
29. Yin Z-Y, Jin Y-F, Shen JS, Hicher P-Y. Optimization techniques for identifying soil parameters in geotechnical engineering: comparative
study and enhancement. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2018;42(1):70-94.
30. Dafalias YF, Popov EP. Cyclic loading for materials with a vanishing elastic region. Nucl Eng Des. 1977;41(2):293-302.
31. Bardet J. Bounding surface plasticity model for sands. J Eng Mech. 1986;112(11):1198-1217.
32. Dafalias YF. Bounding surface plasticity. I: mathematical foundation and hypoplasticity. J Eng Mech. 1986;112(9):966-987.
33. Pastor M, Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC. Generalized plasticity and the modeling of soil behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.
1990;14(3):151-190.
34. Jefferies MG. Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model for sand. Géotechnique. 1993;43(1):91-103.
35. Manzari MT, Dafalias YF. A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands. Géotechnique. 1997;47(2):255-272.
36. Gajo A, Muir Wood D. Severn–Trent sand: a kinematic-hardening constitutive model: The q–p formulation. Géotechnique.
1999;49(5):595-614.
37. Pestana JM, Whittle AJ. Formulation of a unified constitutive model for clays and sands. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.
1999;23(12):1215-1243.
38. Li X-S, Dafalias YF. Dilatancy for cohesionless soils. Géotechnique. 2000;50(4):449-460.
39. Ling HI, Liu H. Pressure-level dependency and densification behavior of sand through generalized plasticity model. J Eng Mech.
2003;129(8):851-860.
40. Dafalias YF, Manzari MT. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. J Eng Mech. 2004;130(6):622-634.
41. Yang J, Li XS. State-dependent strength of sands from the perspective of unified modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2004;130(2):186-198.
42. Ling HI, Yang S. Unified sand model based on the critical state and generalized plasticity. J Eng Mech. 2006;132(12):1380-1391.
43. Wu W, Lin J, Wang X. A basic hypoplastic constitutive model for sand. Acta Geotech. 2017;12(6):1373-1382.
44. Wei X, Yang J. A critical state constitutive model for clean and silty sand. Acta Geotech. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0675-0
45. Mitchell JK, Soga K. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
46. Borja RI, Andrade JE. Critical state plasticity. Part VI: meso-scale finite element simulation of strain localization in discrete granular
materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2006;195(37–40):5115-5140.
47. Andrade JE, Borja RI. Capturing strain localization in dense sands with random density. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 2006;67(11):1531-1564.
48. Andrade JE, Borja RI. Modeling deformation banding in dense and loose fluid-saturated sands. Finite Elem Anal Des. 2007;43(5):361-383.
49. Borja RI, Song X, Rechenmacher AL, Abedi S, Wu W. Shear band in sand with spatially varying density. J Mech Phys Solids.
2013;61(1):219-234.
14 CHOO

50. Been K, Jefferies MG. A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique. 1985;35(2):99-112.
51. Vermeer PA, de Borst R. Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron. 1984;29(3):1-64.
52. Wan R, Guo P. A simple constitutive model for granular soils: modified stress-dilatancy approach. Comput Geotech. 1998;22(2):109-133.
53. Li X, Hu Y, White D. Extension of Mohr-Coulomb model into state dependent softening of sand and its application in large deformation
analysis. In: Yang Q, Zhang JM, Zheng H, Yao Y, eds. Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2013:583-591.
54. Bolton MD. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique. 1986;36(1):65-78.
55. Yu HS. State parameter from self-boring pressuremeter tests in sand. J Geotech Eng. 1994;120(12):2118-2135.
56. Salgado R, Randolph MF. Analysis of cavity expansion in sand. Int J Geomech. 2001;1(2):175-192.
57. Boulanger RW. Relating k𝛼 to relative state parameter index. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2003;129(8):770-773.
58. Nayak G, Zienkiewicz O. Convenient forms of stress invariants for plasticity. J Struct Div. 1972;98:949-953.
59. Abbo AJ, Sloan SW. A smooth hyperbolic approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. Comput Struct. 1995;54(3):427-441.
60. Taylor D. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1948.
61. Rowe PW. The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc R Soc London A: Math, Phys Eng
Sci. 1962;269(1339):500-527.
62. Burmister DM. The importance and practical use of relative density in soil mechanics. ASTM Proc 1948. 1948;48:1249-1268.
63. Wan RG, Guo PJ. Stress dilatancy and fabric dependencies on sand behavior. J Eng Mech. 2004;130(6):635-645.
64. Cho G-C, Dodds J, Santamarina JC. Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: natural and crushed sands. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng. 2006;132(5):591-602.
65. Sze HY, Yang J. Failure modes of sand in undrained cyclic loading: impact of sample preparation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng.
2014;140(1):152-169.
66. Yang J, Wei L. Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Géotechnique. 2012;62(12):1111-1125.
67. Yang J, Luo X. Exploring the relationship between critical state and particle shape for granular materials. J Mech Phys Solids.
2015;84:196-213.
68. Bolton MD. Discussion: the strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique. 1987;37(2):219-226.
69. Schanz T, Vermeer PA. Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand. Géotechnique. 1996;46(1):145-151.
70. Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM Standard D4253-16. American
Society for Testing and Materials; 2016.
71. Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM Standard D4254-16.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 2016.
72. Tavenas F, La Rochelle P. Accuracy of relative density measurements. Géotechnique. 1972;22(4):549-562.
73. Santamarina JC, Cho G-C. Determination of critical state parameters in sandy soils—simple procedure. Geotech Test J. 2001;24(2):185-192.
74. Hardin BO, Richart FE Jr. Elastic wave velocities in granular soils. J Soil Mech Found Div. 1963;89(1):33-66.
75. Choo J, Jung Y-H, Chung C-K. Effect of directional stress history on anisotropy of initial stiffness of cohesive soils measured by bender
element tests. Soils Found. 2011;51(4):737-747.
76. Choo J, Jung Y-H, Cho W, Chung C-K. Effect of pre-shear stress path on nonlinear shear stiffness degradation of cohesive soils. Geotech
Test J. 2013;36(2):198-205.
77. Jung Y-H, Choo J, Cho W, Chung C-K. Patterns of nonlinear shear stiffness degradation of reconstituted clay with different stress histories.
Mar Georesour Geotechnol. 2013;31(4):309-331.
78. Borja RI. Plasticity Modeling and Computation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.
79. Verdugo Ramon, Ishihara Kenji. The steady state of sandy soils. Soils and Foundations. 1996;36(2):81-91.
80. Jefferies M, Been K. Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach. 2nd ed.: Taylor & Francis; 2016.
81. Tatsuoka F. A fundamental study of the behavior of sand by triaxial testing. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Tokyo; 1972.
82. Bardet J, Chouciar W. A linearized integration technique for incremental constitutive equations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech.
1991;15:1-19.
83. Xiao Y, Liu H, Chen Y, Chu J. Strength and dilatancy of silty sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2014;140(7):06014007.

How to cite this article: Choo J. Mohr–Coulomb plasticity for sands incorporating density effects without
parameter calibration. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2018; 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2851

View publication stats