‘A’Simple Flastoplasc Model for Geomaterials Based on Ty-Concept and ts Calibration by Various Test Dit nn ‘Teruo Nakai and Masaya Hinokio ‘A Simple Elastoplastc Model for Soils and Soft Rocks.. Roherto Nowa Calibration of Flast-Viscoplastic Models for Cohesive Soil. Fusto Oks, SayariKimoto, and Toshiist Adachi Calibration ofa Simple Anisotropic Pasticity Model for Soft Clays, ‘Achilleas G. Papadimitriou, Majid T. Maazari, and Yannis .Dafalias Selection of Material Parameters for Sands using the MIT-S1 Model, ‘Juan M, Pesan, Maria Nikolinakou, and Andrew J. White Parameters for Average Gulf Clay and Prediction of Pile Set-Up in the Gulf of Mexio, "Andrew J. Whitle and Twarath Suabutr Hierarchical Critical State Model ‘David Muir Wond and Alessandro Gajo Calibration ofa Generalized Plasticity Model and Its Application o Liquefaction Analysis Songtuo Yang Subject Tadenennn ‘Author Index. OVERVIEW OF CONSTITUTIVE MODELS FOR SOILS Poul V. Lade!, Member, Geo-Instiute ABSTRACT: Numerous constitutive models have been developed over the past forty sears for modeling the strest-strain behavior of soils, These models are to be used ‘with injte element and/or finite difference calculations of soil structures and. soil/structuze interaction problems under axisymmetric, plane strain, and/or general three-dimensional conditions. Simple at well as advinced models have been {formulated on the hasis of principles of mechanics, some more rigorous then others, some based on experimental evidence, and others based on theoretical principles. The cepabiltios and the shortcomings of those models are net always easy to aseestain, sand the requirements for determination of parameters are not uniform. It is ‘consequently difficult to determine which model to select for a particular task. resented here is an overview of the principles, main characteristic features, and ‘components of existing, widely available constitutive models. Their requirements in terms of experimental data for calibration are presented, and their capabilities are reviewed. INTRODUCTION ‘With the development of mumerical methods such as finite clement and finite difference methods it has become feasible to analyze and predict the behavior of complex sol strictures and sol/tructure interaction problems. Such analyses depend considerably on the representation ofthe relations between stresses and strains for the various materials involved in the geotechnical structure. In numerical computations the relations between siresses and sirans in a given material are represented by a s0- called constitutive model, consisting of mathematical expressions that model the Inchavior ofthe soil in a single clement, as indicated in Fg. 1. Because soils are most ‘often the weakest materials involved in common gectechnical problems, they Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The Catholic University of Ametica, ‘Washington, D.C. 20064, ULS.A., Lade@eua edu2 SOW CONSTITUTIVE MODELS SBS RBSORX! FIG. 1. Soil strucure divided into a finite number of elements each of which is represented by a constitutive model based on elasticity and plasticity theories. ddotermine the deformations and the possibility of failure of the structure, and it is therefore important to characterize these materials accurately over the entie range of stresses and strains to which they will become exposed. Other construction materials such as concrete and steel may remain stiff in comparison with the soils, audit may be sufficient to characterize these materials as elastic or as elastic-perfecty plastic. ‘Thus, the purpose of 2 constitutive madel is to simulate the soil behavior with sufficient accuracy under all loading conditions in the mumerial computations, Significant developments of constitutive models have occurred over the past four decades. Naturally, the initial models were relatively simple, anda progression in ‘complexity and capabilities of the models have lead to much improved abilities to capture the behavior of soil structures under complex loading conditions. Simple as well a8 advanced models have been formulsted on the basis of principles of ‘mechanics, some more rigorous than others, some based on experimental evidence, and others based on theoretical principles. Characterization of soil behavior can become quite involved, because the sres-stran relations are nonlinear in nature, the SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS, a soils are fundamentally frictional materials, and volume changes occur during drained heaving 1H is clear that constitutive models have already gone through substantial improvements, and more will come, Thus, development of new and improved constitutive models is a continuing endeavor over a foresecable future. However, the principles, main characteristic features, and components in the constitutive models for toils that are currently widely available to practitioners and researchers in packaged numerical software and in the techaical literatare are briefly presented and reviewed here. Important aspeets of these models are the requiremect for experimental data for calibration and the ease with which material parameters are determined, ‘This presentation is not intended as a highly in-depth discussion of each model Virally no particular modols are mentioned in the text other than when used as ‘examples in general discussions of e.g. the number of parameters in the models. ‘Simple comparisons of the major components and capabilities of models are all eesentod in tables with no further comments. ‘CONSIDERATIONS IN MODEL DEVELOPMENT Soils ere complex materials consisting of a solid skeleton of grains in contact with cach other and voids dilled with gas (air) anor water or other fluid. The soil skeleton frausmits normal and shear forces at te grain contacts, end this skeleton of grains ‘behaves in a very complex manner that depends on a large number of factors, void ratio and confining pressure being emong the most important. However, the overall behavior of the soil ekeleton may he captured within principles of continium ‘mechanics (solid mochanies) Interspersed inthe voids is water (incompressible Quid) and gas (compressible fluid), each of which obeys its own physical laws. The mixture ‘of grains, water, and sir produces a material that, in comparison with other engincering materials, is one of the most dffieult to characterize, "The Effective Stress Principle ‘A key principle in the behavior of soils was realized by Terzaghi (1923), namely that soils deform in response to changes in effective stresses, and these are calculated ‘om: oo-nn o in which a” is the effective stress, is the total stress isthe pore pressure, and 7 is coefficient whose value depends on the compressbiltes ofthe grain skeleton and the ‘gains themselves. For all common geotechnical problems the value of 7 ean be taken ‘as unity, Only for extremely high stresses, encounterod under very exceptional circumstances, does the value of 7 bevome smaller than unity (Lade and de Boct 1997), Since soils deform in response to changes in effective stresses, theoretically sound constitutive models are expressed in tems of effective stresses. Nevertheless, models have also been expressed in terms of total stresses, but they suffer from the same shortcomings as any total stress analysis ofa soil structure: They are only valid for the+ SOlL CONSTIFDTIVE MODELS meee es ‘Lahoratry Soil Tests (Isotropic Comp, Tviaxal Comp. ote) Insita Tests (CPT, SPT, Pressuremter, ta.) ‘Hap Soll Paramters (eedimete) ‘Parameters for ‘Consttative Model ‘Modelor Pull Seale Tests ‘Simple Closea-Foem (Lg Tests, Coutrifuge Tests) ‘Analytical Solations Prediction & Comparison With Model or Full Seale Tests: ES FIG.2, Simple and advanced procedures for predicting the behavior of prototype structures. Prediction of Prototype partielar conditiens for which they have been calibrated. Variations in pore pressure ‘or drainage concitions, different from those developing in the experiment from which paramsier values are determined, cannot be modeled (sce aay textbook in geotechnical engineering, eg. Lambe and Whitman 1969), so their usefulness is United, ‘Simple versus Advanced Analysis - What is Gained? Fig. 2 shows a simplified diagram of the analysis procedures generally used in ‘geotechnical engizecring. Inthe simple procedures, represented on the left hand side, simple and easily recognizable soil parameters (e.g. c, 0, E, v) ace decived from Inhoratory and/or -n-stu tests and utilized in closed-form solutions for the particular ‘boundary value problem under consideration, Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate some simple ‘SO. CONSTITUFIVE MODELS: 5 Assumed Strew-StalnBohavior: Constant Shear Strength wth Stra ‘Mobilized Unlormty Along Faure Surface No Masti Palle Strais Before Walle g, pes aaa —— Sey deni Inattease Ensior of Safer is produced, ‘which’ then evaaated| Dated on experience “SES HIG. 3. Examples of failure or stability of soil structures for whieh closed-form solutions are available. ‘ses for which closed-form solutions are readily available, Usvally considerations of failure or stability are made first using formulas ftom which the factor of safety may te caleulatod from solutions for slope stability, bearing capacity, andor stability of retaining walls as shown in Fig. 3. In these analyses strains are not considered, which corresponds to am assumed siress-sran relation as shown in the upper part of Fig. 3. Onee the stability s ensured, the defonmations or settlements may be evaluated using cloged-form solutions based on elasticity theory, such as hat indicated in Fig. 4 for the settlement of a footing, No matter how high the besring pressures used in the ‘lastic formulation, failure considerations are not part ofthe caleulations from such fomulas, The results of these classical procedures may be verified by prediction and ‘comparison with model or full scale tests of elements of the prototype structure (cx,SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS ‘Assumed Hastie Behavior: Immediate deformations andlor settlements calculated as linear elastic Using closed-form solntions for elastic boundary value problems ‘with on “elastio” modulus estimated froma stres+strain curve id of Poudston_-—Shape Factor fr eri (based on small on pd Segn-p oly f Se ren ame at FIG.4. Example of deformation consideration represented by settlement caleulation of a footing for which a closed-form solution is available. ‘one pile). Finally, prediction of the behavior ofthe prototype may be performed, The simple procedures predict simplified responses such as linear elastic settlements and failure, but prediction ofthe entre load-deformation relation for a prototype structure is offen inaccurate if not impossible to perform, especially in the load range where {allure is adistinet possiblity ‘The real behavior of a footing is indicated in Fig, 5. As loading progrosses, the stresses in soil elements located along the potential failure surface in the ground, shown inthe uppec part of Fig. 5, advance along the stress-strain curve as indicated in the lower part of Fig. S. The initial state of stress in the ground may be characterized by a Ke-condition, and as loading progresses, the stesses increase up to peak failure and beyond into the softening region of the streseatrain curve, Thus, a highly ‘nonlinear relation between stresses and strains are encountered in the real behavior of| the footing. Inthe advanced procedure, indicated on the right hand side of Fig. 2, a constitutive ‘model is used to capture the entire stress-strain relation obtained ffom laboratory and/or in-situ tests. Incorporating the constitutive model in numerical methods, the behavior of model or full-scale tests may be prodicted and serve to verify’ the SOIL. CONSITTUTIVE MODELS Mor Sgt Rag of Si Babar FIG. 5. Real behavior of a footing involving highly nonlinear soil stress-strain behavior. capability of the constitutive model and the numerical method. Finally, the behavior ‘of the prototype may be calculated with better overall accuracy. ‘Using finite eloment (or finite difference) methods, a geotechnical structure of any axisymmetric, plane, or three-dimensional shape may be divided into a finite number of elements (nodes), as indicated in Fig. 1. A constitutive model for each element then simulates the soil behavior, and the numerical methed cusures equilibrium and compatibility between the soil lements. Thus, mnch more complex eerth structures ‘nd soil/structure interaction problems can be analyzed, and their behavior in the form of deformations and stress conditions everywhere in the structure may be obtained for the entire loading history. Such results could not be obtained with closed-form solutions, which are typically only developed for rather simple boundary value problems.SOM. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS Requirements of Constitutive Models ‘One ofthe critical elements in the advanced procedure is the constitutive model. It is paramount to employ realistic constitutive models that can reproduce the important aspects of the soi stress-srain behavior under various loading conditions. To develop such models requires advanced experiments to study the soil behavior under various loading conditions, and it requires employment of mathematical tools based on sound theoretical framevorks such as, e.g elasticity and plasticity theories Some of the advanced experiments available today are the torsion shear, directional shear, and true trata tests. These are suitable for studying soil behavior under threo- dimensional stress conditions with and without stress reversals and with and without rotation of principal stresses. While the model should be able to simulate the soil behavior observed in these tests, they should not be required for calibration of the constitutive models. The constitutive model should be such that the required soil parameters can be abtained from relatively simple tests, Sequential Development of Models ‘Most practical models, applicable in numerieal methods, are formulated in terms of ‘some form of theories of elasticity and plasticity. They have been developed based on ‘observed behavicr in laboratory experiments, und it is the responsibility of the rescarch commumty fo demonstrate that they do, in fac, capture the behavior of soils 1s they are purpored to do. Thus, as realization about the complex behavior of soils is expanding, the models are continuously being improved and new modeling prineiples have been develoyed For example, the following sequence of observations of soil behavior have lead to improved models Effects of virgin (primary) loading and unloading-reloading, confining pressure, sress path (stress history), isfermediate principal stress, instability (loading to shear tanding in dense sand and overeonsolidated soils end to Fiqueféction in loose silty sands, anisotropy, and sess rotation (aot: this list of phenomena is not exhaustive). While all ofthese (and many more) effects have been known to exit for some time, some of them are sill to be researched and understood in detail hefore they may be modeled correctly. Thus, the simple models can only handle the first mentioned phenomens, while the more advanced models may handle additional phenomena. It is dificult to say that any one of these phenomena has definitively ‘been researched, tnderstood, and ineluded in any given model. The later two topios (effects of anisotropy and effects of stress cotstion) are in the foretzont of current research, and practically applicable models that correctly capture these effects are still tabe developed, Shortcomings of Elasticity Theory “The behavior of sis may be predicted with easonable accurecy by models based oa clasicity for siessstetes not approaching faire. However, phenomena such as imeversibilty ofa portion of the strains, strese-path dependency, coupling efeots such as volume changes due to shear streates, refered to ax shoar-dilataney, rotation of principal stress as, and most behavior paters near and beyond fire eamot be SOUL. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS ¥ handled by elasticity theory. Two simple examples will strate the shortcomings of Hook's ln for elastic bchavir. Fig. 6 shows that zeroes occupy the sub-mattices (1, 2) and @, 1) of the elastic material matrix that relates plate stain increments to sess inerements. Tae zeroes in sub-matrx (1,2) imply that thete re no relations between normal strains and shear stresses. However, Example (1) in Fig. 6 shows a dense sand specimen acted upon by ‘a nommal stress and 2 shear sires, as for example in a simple shear test. If the shear ssress is increased, then inerements in shear stains will rsalt, but observations of reel soil indicates thatthe soll will also dilate suc that the specimen height increases ds, Ao, As, Ac, Ae, Ao, 7 | At, AY. Ar Ary Ar, 7a) Increr- Prone, hp 7 xample(}: Decrease = Frode cle etch pias dicate that Hooke’s Inw for elastic behavior does not FIG. 6. Examples to correetly handle coupling effects: (1) normal (and volumetric) strain Jincrements due to changes in shear stress, and (2) shear strain ‘merements due to changes in normal stress.0 ‘Son. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS. ‘Thus, normal stain inerements result from increments in shear stress. Since zeroes are present in aubanstrix (1, 2) of the elastic material matsix, no normal strain {noromenis can te predicted ffom increments in shear stress, Therefore, Hooke'’s law is not able to model this behavior of sails, The zeroes in sub-matrix (2, 1) of the clastic material matrix may be checked by the experiment in Example (2) in Fig. 6 Feere the inital condition is the same as in Example (1), but now the normal stress on the specimen is reduced. Observations of real soil behavior shows thatthe specimen ‘will produce shear strain increments for such reduction in normal stress, and sufficient reduction will result in feilure, However, the zeroes in sub-matrix (2, 1) preclude any prediction of shear strain increments due to increments in normal stresses. These wo examples clearly demonstrate some serious shortcomings of elasticity theory for modeling behavior of soils for stress conditions approaching failure. In fat, «ll ftictional materials exhibit behavior of the types exemplified in Fig.6. ‘Why Using Hardening Plasticity Theory? ‘Models based on hardening plasticity have the potential fo predict the behavior reviewed above. In addition, elasticity and plasticity also differ in predictions of ‘materiel behavior during gradual stress rotation, as indicated in Fig. 7. The theoretical framework for incremental elasticity implies that the increment of elastic strain ‘coincides in direction with the inerement of stress, as shown in Fig. 7(a). This differs clearly from the oredictions of isotropic hardening plasticity theory, which has built into its ffamework the condition that the inerement of plastic strain coincides in direction with the total stress, as shown in Fig. 7(b). Observations of soil behavior show that far away from failure the behavior favors the elastic predictions, while the behavior observed closer to failure rsembles the behavior simulated by plasticity theory. ey pple a jae af (a) Elastic Behavior —_(b) Plastic Behavior FIG. 7. (a) Elastic, and (b) plastic behavior of soil element during rotation of stress axes, SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS " By %y sks tar ‘Ar lc, iF a, (a) suteot —(e) Plante (eh Elie Stress Near Behavior Behavior Felture FIG.8, (a) Stresses on a soil clement near failure, its (b) plastic behavior (Saint ‘Venant’s principle, and its (c) elastic behavior. Another way of indicating the diffrence betweon clastic and plasticity theories is shown in Fig. 8. A soil specimen is acted upon by verical and horizontal normal stresses such that 0, > diy but fulure has not been reached, as shown in Fig. S(a). An {ncrement in shea sess is added tothe sil element, as stown in Figs. 8() and (2). Plastic behavior, shown in Fig. 8), entails vertical compression of th specimen, because the direction of the much lrger total sttess determines the direeton of the plaste stain increment, independent of wether the srs increment is normal or Shear sees increment. In comparison elastic behavior rss in stain increments in proportion to the applied stress increment and is independent of the already existing sires att. ‘These two Ispes of behavior are both observed in soils. The elastic type behavior is observed at ow stress levels neat the isotropic stress ste and immediately upon unloading andr reloading where plate behavior is abst or minimal, while plas behaviors obscrved at higher stes levels close o flue. Elastic strain inerements are always present when the sate of sess changes, whle plastic strain increments ‘may be present or completely abseat “Thus, realistic constitutive models require both elasie and hardeniny/softening plastic behavior in their framework. Al realistic constitive models for seils involve theno two components of deformation. Associated versus Nonassoclated Plastic Flow Barly considerations in development of plasticity theory required the relative _magnitudes of the plastic strain increments to be suck thal the dizection of the plastic strain inerement vector, when superimposed on stress spzce, would be normal to the plastic yield surface. That implied that this direction (or th relative magnitudes of the plastic strain increments) could be determined fiom the derivative of the ‘mathematical expression Sor the yield susface, which was therefore also refered to as tho plastic potential surface. Thus, the plastic flow rule (i.e, the expressions for the plastic strain increments) could be derived from the expression forthe yield surface,2 SOIL. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS i.e. plastic low vas assosiied wit the plato yield surfve. A constitutive model based on this concep was using an “essocated flow rule.” Employing “associated ow" resid in a great advantage, because knowing iter the yield sufice (fom experimental determination of stess conditions at plastic ‘ielding) or knowing the plastic potential surface (from experimental detecminslion of the relative magnitudes of plastic sean increments and therefore the direction ofthe plaste strain increment vector at different siross points) would automatically result in knowing both surfaces. This simplified the mathematical fancwork forthe model of the plastic behavior. Besides, violation of the “normality rule” was considered to have serious implications in terms of stability of the matril, and constitutive models ‘sod on so-cilad sonassovated plastic flow rules, for which the plastic potential surface would be diffrent fiom the yield surface, could result in unstable rsteial ‘behavior. ‘The concept of assocsted plastic flow wovks well fr solid metals, but frictional materials do not sem to fit well with this concept. Much too high rates of volume dilation are predicted if associated flow is used in conection with models for ‘tctional materials. The differenao between observed soil behavior and. behavior proticted on the basis of associated flow is most pronounced for fictional materials ‘with high effecive friction angles (eg, dense sand), while materials with less pronounced fictional characteristics, such as clays with lower effective fiction amgls, may be modeled with some approximation by associat low rules. “Later theoretical considerations have shown thatthe nommality rae does not have to be fulfilled, and observations of sand behavior clearly indicate that experimentally determined plastic strain increment vectors are not pexpendicular tothe yield surlace Further, the iniliies chat might occur n- materials that exhibit nonasociated low avvally have been observed in the foma of shear bands occurring inthe hardening regime (the ascmding branch of the stessstrain relation) under plane sain conditions unin he form of instability (Gecrease in load bearing capacity) leading to liquefaction foose silty sand. While it is generally understood at this time that fitonal materials obey rnonassocated flow rules, some consitive models developed for clay are sil Bnet on assoeiated phistic flow. The characteristics of ‘fictional materials are less pronounced for these materials Prediction of Poro Water Pressures Pore water pressures are rigorously determined from a constitutive model on the basis that 2 fully ssurated soil element cannot change volume during shearing, Thus, the suum of all volumetric strain components mast add up to ze during any change in stress, This requires that for each increment in loading, plastic dilation is balanced by an equal and opposite amount of elastic contzaction oF vice versa: plastic contraction is balanced by an equal and opposite amount of dilation. This results in a unique effective stress path from which the pore pressure can be obtained as the difference betwen the foal sresses andthe effective stresses for each increment of loading. In case that only one component of volumetric strain is present, e3. the elastic component inside the yield surface, then the effective stress path will remain in one SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS 3 octahedral plane corresponding to a constant mean normal stress until the yield surhice is reached again If a constitutive model contains only one componen! of volumetric strain, then realistic pore pressures cannot be predicted from the model. On occasion, a separate pore pressure generation mode! has then been employed to predict pore pressures under undrained conditions. However, such models aze usually not compatible with the performance ofthe constitutive mode, WHICH PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED? ‘Many different types of geotechnical problems may te analyzed using advanced constitulive models and mumecical methods, Duncan (1994) reviewed the literature ten years ago to study’ the varity of problems that had been investigated using the advanced approach, and (0 look into the constitutive models that ad been employed ‘in the numerical analyses. He organized the review into sections and pousted out that the Jallowing types of geotechnical applications had been encountered: Soil structure ‘interaction, soil reinforeement and anchorage, dams, embankments and setement due to fluid extraction, tunnel, and natural and unbraced cut slopes. Thus, a large variety of problems benefit from insight provided by advanced analyses of stresses and ‘deformations in the soil structures. In fact, it has become feasible to anslyze and predict the behavior of any type of complex soil structure and soil/stucture interaction problem, ‘The greatest advantages and insights are obtained for problems in which the soil ‘behavior plays an important role. These include problems in which the interaction ‘between sieases and soil volume changes plays # dominant role. Fig. 9 gives some ‘examples of soil/structure interaction in which the interaction between confinement and volume changes, ic. the Teal soil behavior is escential in prediction of the behavior of the structurs. ‘Another type of problem demonstrating the importunce of understanding. and capturing the soil behavior correciy is shown in Fig. 10. Here the rockfill material in the upstream shell of a roekfill dam may collapse during frst wetting due tolling of the water reservoir. This produces displacements of the crest that resemble those ‘observed duc to imminent upstream slope failure. Ts the dam falling or are these dligplacements to be expected? An advanced analysis with appropriate modeling ofthe soil behavior ean answer the question, Fig. 11 illustrates somo problems in which the sel-veight of the soil plays an Important role in the stability analyses of the soil strucure. For example, in slope stability analyses, the weight of the soil is the direct cause of potential instability. A classical slope stability analysis produces an accurate estimate of failure, because the normal stresses on the failure plane are proportional to the weight of the soil and independent of the soil behavior. Thus, the nomal stress, and therefore the shear strength available along the failure plane, does not change due to e.g. a tendeney for the soil fo change volume, The normal stress remains proportional with the soil ‘weight, even if the soil tends fo dilate, Thus, the calculed factor of safety remains tunaifected in any advanced analyses that may include more accurate soil modeling. In such problems, there is limited advantage in an advanced analysis forthe purpose of4 SOUL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS ‘ont Renata ooraoe ah oem / - ro FIG. 9, Examples of soil/structare interaction in which the soil behavior plays 1m impertant role iu the deformation and stability of the struecure, ling Reser ein Roe Dam: Rock ole om weting Crested ves tomar reservoir (etre minen?) FIG. 10, Filling of water reservoir behind a rockfil| dam with resulting erest displacement due to first wetting and collapse of rockfill material in upstream shell. SOIL. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS 1s Natural, Cut and Fa Stopes: Pa Gee oe wr ‘Rotaining Wal: Stability considerations produce aceurate estimate of fllare,becanse ‘ormal stresses on allure plane ae proportional to weight of sll and Independest af ol bchavie ‘ut deformations are wot elastic ple procedures cannot be ased calculate deformations FIG. 11, Examples of slope and retaining wall problems in which sol sel-weight plays a dominant rote in thetr stability. etormining the stability. However, deformations eannot be obtained from a classical ope aability analysis, whilo an advances numerical analysis will be able to produce such deformations. IMPLEMENTATION IN NUMERICAL COMPUTER PROGRAMS: Many of the commercially available finite elemeat and finite difference programs, eg, ABAQUS, PLAXIS, and FLAC, allow implementation of most simple as well as advanced constitutive models. Many of these programs have become inereasingly swer-fiendly, and some have heen specialized for geotechnical engineering problem solving. Unfortunately, the perception that advanced models may be too complicated for implementation and for easy parameter determination reduces the usefulness of such numerical programs. Therefore, the present exposuze of constitutive models for sil should be useful for mors frequent applications of advanced analysis procedures inthe future6 SOmL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS PARAMETER DETERMINATION Testing Requirements “To predict deformations as well as stengths of sols, the constitutive model should include expressions for the sil behavior observed during compression and during searing, The modes of deformation are different under these two loading conditions One involves continuous compression with no Cure, while the other leads to failure aun beyond. Cansequetly, the model should costa component thet simulate the conesponting two modes of deformation, and experiments that contin information regneding theso two modes of deformation should bo available for determination of the material perameter values (calibration) that characterize the parcular soil in sueston. ln principle, tho parameters for a given model should be derivable from any set of experiments tet contains information regarding compression and shearing behavior. This is because the mathematical expressions inthe ideal constitutive model may be specialized 10 corespond othe particular texts auailabl for parameter determination, ‘But most offen, the simplest and most convenient experimental esuls that contain tt roquired information are these from conventional triaxial compression tests and isotropic compression tests “Typically the resalis of thee winval compression tests and one isotopic compression tt contain the minsnur required information, and such test rests are olen avilable for parameter determination. t may be possible to use the reuls from tial compression txts (K,-eonsoidation in place of isotopic compression test. However, it becomes much more complicated if model requires results ffom shear ‘esis thal cannot be performed. in_a triaxial apparatus, bocause more advanced ‘sjipment is som available for sil eating. On te other hand, results fem simpler sharing tests such as those performed in a dirext shear box may not be appropriate for parameter determination for any but the mos simple models. The three wievel compression tests and the isotropic compression test should be performed with he following important points in mind: 1) The specimens are tested with the assumption that they represent the average sil behavior atthe Ieaton of the sil samples in the round (here is no ineret i the fowest Cul") strength fr the advanced analy) 2) The fests are perfommed by simulating the conditions in the ground as Closely as possible. This includes a} range of atrssos (due to variable, nonlinear behavior) 1) drainage conditions in the Geld (but typically drained tess are parformed on sands and undained toss are performed on clays) density snd sil fabric (undisturbed soil specimens are required in ros cass) 3) The test performance should include primary loading as well ss unfoading- reloading eycles (to evaluate the clastic parameters), and ll physical quantities such as loads, pressure, deformations volume changes or pote pressures must ‘bemeasued for a complete characterization of he stress-strain behavior of the soil: Every portion ofthe experiments is required for parameter determination. SOM CONSTITUTIVE MODELS 0 Because the resulls of advanced tests such as tuo triaxial tests and torsion shear tsts ae not available on # routine basis, the constitutive model must have built-in effects ofthe intermediate principal stress, anisotropy, and stress rotation for which necessary parameters, if any, must come from conventional triaxial test. Once the parameters for a model have been detemnineé, they do not change value arameters are in all cases simply curve-fitting parameters whose ‘usefulness i similar to the well-known parameters. ‘The Single Hardening Model (Kim and Lade 1988, Lae and Kim 1988s and b) is an elasto-plastic constitutive model that includes the various necessary components {ypical of these types of models, as indicated in Table 1, The function of each Component and tir physical significance are described in this table (where possible). ‘The parameters oocurring in the Single Hardening Mode! are employed to characterize these components, as shown in Table 2, and while the components have functions and pfysical significance in the overall model, it may not be possible to assign physical significance to each individual parameter, Rather, these parameters are curve-fitting parameters, Number of Model Parameters “The number of parameters in ¢ model is ofien mentioned as a consideration and @ concert in relation to employment ofthis model. But should it rally be a concer, or fre there other considerations that are more important for employment of advanced ‘constitutive models? To answer this question, tree analyses methods are discussed in ‘view of the number of parameters involved, their role in the models, and the capabilities of the methods Parameters are listed in Table 2 for the simple analysis approach (SA) described above in which a stability analysis is followed by a deformation or settlement analysis, The parameters used in the Modified Cam Clay (MCC) model are also listed, since this model is well known to geotechnical engineers. Finally, Table 2 contains the paremeters employed inthe Single Hardening (SH) model. For the SA approach, the elastic propertios are represented by one value of Poisson's ratio, », and one value of Young's modulus, &. Similarly, the MCC model involves two constant, elastic parameters, x and G; such that the elastic bulk modulus, K = pik ie. K (~ £/3(1-20)}) is proportional with the mean normal stress p’, and the hear modulus G (= £//2(/+7)]) is constant. In the SH model, Poisson's ratio is ‘constant, and Young's modulus increases linearly with the modufus number Mf, and increases according to a power function that contains the stress stats to the power “Failure is described by the well-known parameters c und qin the SA approach, while the MCC model involves the parameter Mf that indicates the straight-line critical state (© failure for normally eonsolidatod elay), The MCC model does not involve effective cohesion (or tensile sttength) unless another parameter is added. The SH model includes a curved feinre surface for which n; indicates the opening angle similar to the fiietion angle), m isthe curvature parameter, and the parameter “a” characterizes the effective cotesion (or the tensile strength). For sand a = 0, ic. one less parameter than indicated ir Table 2. Th the MCC model T’ indicates the void ratio for which the crtial state line passes through p’= 1, and relates to the slope of the compressibility line andthe critical state line (whic is parallel to the compressibility line) on an e-In(p’) diagram. These two parameters ate used to calculate the znagnitude ofthe plastic strain increments. fn the SH model the magnitude of the plastic strain increments are controlled by the ‘SOM. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS. » TABLE 1. Components and Their Physical Significance in Elasto-Plastic Mods ‘Component Function se] Hania Taw | Finches clans drains whenever te rss Behave change i illus terion | lnposes imix on ares dates Ta an be reached asic | Plate Pte | Produces waive magnitude of plastic strain Behavior Function, increments (similar function as: mn's ratio | fore sis) "Ysid Crion | Detemines when pls: sain increments ect: Only when yl aioe i pushed cin hedening/soesing) TaximingSofsing | Deemincs magnitudes of plas sain Rettion | ieremens (smiar futon as Young's tv fo lst state) TABLE 2. Components and Number of Parameters in Elnsto-Plastic Models. Companeat | Farancies fo Sinple] Parmer or | _Parmetersfor Tuticcrertecty | Mouiied | Single Hardening Plnste Approach _| CamCiayModel_| Model Toaks's mE 5G 7M i ~ Failure Ge M iy My terion | Paste 5 ae Potential Funcion Yield 5 hea citron andenng? Ta Gp Softening Ae20 SOIL. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS. parameters Cand p, which are both curve-fitting parameters used in a power fonction relating plastic work tothe state of sess. Thus, C and p serve the sume purpose inthe SH model asT'and Ain the MCC model. Four more parameters are present in the SH model. Two of these, and oy are-used to deseribe the shape ofthe yield surfne in three dimensions. Inthe MCC model, this is done by the value of M, which therefore contols failure as well as the shape of the yield surface. While this is very practical and reduces the number of parameters, it ‘does not provide the same flexibility in the MCC model as found in the SH model. Finally, two parameters, 1 and Wz, are used in the SH model to describe the plastic potential, which is different trom the yield surface, chus providing for non-associated plastic flow, as found from experiments on real soils. Associated plastic flow is assumed in tke MCC model, i. the yield surface acts asthe plastic potential, and no additional pazameters are therefore required inthis model, IC these thre: analysis procedures and models are evaluated on an equal basis, then for soils without effective cohesion, the SA approach involves 3 parameters ( for ¢ = 0}, the MCC model requires 5 parameters, and the SH model requires 11 parameter values (for a= 0) However, the SA approach clearly has its shortcomings in analysis capabilities as deseribed in a previous setion, while the MCC model primarily works ‘for “well-behaved, inscusitive” clays. Analyses performed with the SA and che MCC procedures do nat provide the flexibilities presented hy the SH model, which works cqually well or sand and clay, involves non-associated plastic flow, models 3D failure comely, and can handle contractive as well as diletive volume changes for soils in the nermally consolidated range. The SH model has also been show to work ‘well for mateials with effective cobesion such as cemented soils, conerete, and rock (for which a 0). ‘Thus, models with larger number of parameters are typically more versatile and provide more flexibility than models with fewer parsmeters. In addition, determination of parameters for a given model does really nat represent the greatest limitation on the use of the model, because the parameter values can typically be found by computer programs or by some computer program-asssted method. ‘The real lirritaion in the employment of advanced analysis methods fies in the ‘expense fr perfoaming dhe required experiments. Allhough ihe isotropic compression and the taxi compression tests are relatively simple to perform, they most often require undistaed samples as well asa laboratory with the necessary equipment and know-how fo perform these tests. Determination of parameters represents a small cffort compard fo the effort and expense involved in obiaining the experimental results, OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CONSTITUTIVE MODELS ‘To compare many of the well-known models available today, their atibutes are listed and compered in tabular form, and an evaluation of the models is attempted. Several mode's occur in many different versions in the literature. To the extent possible, a representative version has been used for comparison with the other ‘models. Ne discussion is presented in connection with the comparison of the models. SOUL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS 2 Tables 3-6 contin the models divide into diffrent groups with similar frameworks und each model is given a name, usualy the name under which they are generally \inoin, However, many models could st under different ameworks, because they include appeeeches and/or components fom different frameworks. Key references to the literate where each model has been presented first or in which it has been plained paticulary well aro also given. The types of sol for which the model has hoen developed and shown to work ae listed slong with the Key attributes such asthe apes of the file, yield, and plastic potential surfaces as wll a8 the harcening purameter() employed. The capabilities of cach model (as well as they could be discemned Som the yublictions) are given slong with the experiments equi for calibration of the hod parameters. In particular, it has been noted whether difficult, non-standard experiments are reguced for ealibation, Here it has been ésumed that conventional \rianial compression tests, isotropic compression tests, and conventional Ky- ‘compression tests (conventional oedomer tests) ean be performed on a routine basis, However, experiments such a8 Ky-compression tests with meamurements of lateral tress and triaxial extension tests s wol as other experiments usually performed for Purposes of research are considered here to be relatively complex and beyond Conveational esting expertise Finally, the tables contain the number of parameters required in each model {although thi sbould not be of primary concern, a8 discussed cbove) along with an ‘vera evauation ofthe model The evaluations Tsted in the tbles ae given with the intent of providing some idan towards realistic, practicaly weful, and applicable constistive models for foil. In this evaluation it has been kent in mind that “a model should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." Thus, inclided in the tables ae some of the early, simple Modes along with the most advanced models available todsy. Several models are experimental” in nature, and some of thom are still under development. Thus, the valuation, which aims to indicate practically useful model, reflects these conditions ‘Only thre categories are usd inthe evaluation, Thess categories and the conditions fora model to tin each of these categories sxe summarized as follows: Category 1: Model includes (1) theoretically sound framework that is (2) sufficiently transparent and accessible to anticipate and ovaluate the model performance; (3) model includes effect of confining pressure, (4) model can handle 3D conditions; (9) it is straight forward to find the parameters; (6) these may be determined from conventional experiments (difReulty not beyond conventional (iaxial compression tests, isoropie compression tests and Ke-compression tests (Conventional oedometer tes); and (7) the model exhibits en overall high quality of ft with the obsarved behavior. Note that cach todel is only applicable as indicted in the other columns, but within these limitations it prforas wel, (Category 2: Model lacks one or mare ofthe conditions mentioned above {Category 3: Model is deficient in severl of the conditions mentioned above.SOUL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS IVE MODELS IL CONSTHTUTT os fn 2 ox | ox | ox | ot | omeoper wsws ox. dwomuie | 2A ox | ow | ow | ow | sv S200 1 ps t ‘ rs ramos | ow ox | ox | ow | ox | oot smn z s ox ng m1 ox ox_| ox | om | ox | “ame Sar |S wordanyenng | some omen £ w ® swim amy [aposmeoy| on | ox | on | a _| sang to « w o to ox ex} oe | ow | ow | sem. st ‘ * ox ts EY ox | ow | ow |x| See ones £ e ox cto wane _|wogfenn'ex| on | ox | on | on |anonoain ere an ‘ z ox zertoog tay [rag earn) ox | on | ow | ox | soon [ee ae ee eee el prior soumeg | "ang. | foyer | “sans. | mmapos soamedeg | mopar | aranerex | ovement | amo | ste1 | pom eta | soxamemg | joensen | mescee Leven? | semen | "Sremna” | sx semates emeapopen ror soc Epon ie pean | See ‘ane ee com “soma | sumer | pum | soumsommes peso sod som torent | sek “SORIA aL pus SINTTAY AL OPON SATURN CO) ATAVEIITUTIVE MODELS i f 3 3 ox amo on 120 85 ow yo HL ®s on eux | awsposrn ame ‘gyn m9 mL 09 euro, 0120 85 ox | "pedmy mage | i 2) fen | om [SK | mse ISTE] AC Ta ‘doco 1 sms | Arsen z a x | vamos | ow | =: ow ox | at | anon * ‘ieng ont ors | aoa pimp nc ox ox | | stony ae “dawg 08 1 sox | sme -y ony NL ow ex | Mee | ramon a ‘daeo ont gas | sumdoonn, os grim nL =) ex | ow ox | ee | Seer aa shaay st so | srouey i 5 a. x | sn on ox | a | rome —— oe parton og | uperr | geamax | somyos sete onmmen | sommey | xt) | eemngstiey| “panic Gotan | smameny | papemgany | emma more sen | oma |" poua | ma seat sparred EPON 20a ie SBITTERED IBTL Pa IMEEM SRT MAPOW SANIT Th a AV Sem (arom send. | emma) | 200 OR) 09 (een) 20 smog | “onash | siamo oe, aa) wwamea | spamowy | “perme | ox | goog: jeonmypae ners | wooons FESPA eS Tepe emgsons > penta ape pewed | pemoy |" Posner ‘poms | on. 25 | 656i) em erm | aes rou oa TE ey 0) ‘moe awqsuna| pmcony [pameotma ‘woo | ow wx | Geapemmor | _peossons g == Sener ancy ts reed — pavoma | pemormns | pwonma | oe | Gemew | os | x | on | Geom me mma | orev i ‘es tn, an sax 0) smn wad m9 crea |_pamony [painoonea| ox | omens | om | ex | ov | mmorerrentres | tony a i ox ox ow 2 os x ox x esamon ox | pane sap 5 8 LoNoW ‘ea9 201 ope pies | ey x stv -amoent gauomre |) on oon mg oa ‘om saiop aut | oa =) 2 E 2) wean | sey a1s% sEry om og, eu pon 2) ox eK “ano nae tury | © = endo sea "gion on 2k ox, ara So a ee vwonrouaaiea | acansters | ossnea | of | sangadirr | rome ‘een sey sata speeepesa BpOR soa sr = (oe) sont Sent som aaterrneo ems, | ox | wore | ox [on | ox | ivamaeion | _ronove eer E ver Score a wssyamann | trvpt aS eae re rox repo ime. Soo et ene wsywe | or arr wise = rate sor seyret | sepine en Boos, | ma | ma | mn | opetiewee | oles neo a tune one ae ‘isto! | mae : | "ert sete | Fame mm (oe) ee a (cee) me i rooms | ew | ox | wx | deste | smntr fl eoneo cnoN ane 1) @D.z sx_|ex | sa | ex | oon |pommmty Teen ec "e009 ea oot smi ine es 3 009 at ox_| ox | oa | ow ex _| pore “oma 261 xe ox porn seu wx] sx ox ox | sewers Tai sve ye est >) any 1 see ‘unos ox primey “en sx_| ex | sx [seen] no | us Sea SOM CONSTITUTIVE MODELS. ray eyo) eg se a 9 (Gyenp don 082 wa | ex | ex | mx | ex | isu TaD aoe sero] sop ES “aoe ‘fog "LC 1 fe 24H OL 20% BA ‘09 LO ex | mx | sea | mx | “ea | cram Saye 77 rains 20 Bx try SL 3 wx | ex | ex | me | Se | em Sarer | ST E28 car | sod | Samer | semana | Suyos oe sosttg [oven | ame. | mag etey | posta, arom operas soncieemra | __ semen emt spepenaenera POR EK. SOL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: em & ‘apie (Go0e)errpae tin — | Karem wonina | ex | noms | ox | ox | ex | oapyeemms _|peeresen DSS meg pom) g poles ‘pst, ‘1002 es € socrmen| on | goems_|_sx_| ox | ex | orn term | reaming = 751809 as msc (cop ween — | ex E airmen | on | ‘woomg | ex | wx | ox fest) SERS : | one (4061) wx poner atons oem (east axes opeT | tamper augwer| —sx__| woos | oa _| sox |x| Goucopeipeemry | aaas. re (sccce) ee renee semen ‘soe, (rego eis voae touea'| on | ‘worms | ox | wea | soa | Gosotdommn poreresea | isu g a soxyy208 g vender os 6561) rg pon emn=wy yamer | ow | fpomog |__| oa | ow oot) 2m Sra 188 eo same, (agp ssc po ose reins | one | Meg | one | | oe | ers eeemngea —| erre ce T rom, ws eras pease | An | es cogns | omer | ams Pew mx | puma | ommes 12570208, 6 vero _| sod, oa (eomeng java ABUL ue TaINUEENY IPUL SPORT STATANTTUC Ip TTAVTx0 SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS ‘The early models were developed at the time when only the simplest, classical 3D faifure critesia were available, experimental results of 3D tests had not been performed, concepts in hardening plasticity were stil being formulated, and ‘conditions for plastic yiekding were not yet fully discovered, These models appear ‘category 3. The models in category 1 fulfill all the points listed above, while those in category 2 are clearly missing one or moce of the important qualities given above. I should be noted that some of the most advanced end capable models have been placed in category 2, because they require difficult, aon-standard experiments for calibration, Fowever, if performance of such experiments is not considered to be a ‘impediment ‘o employment of such models, then the models clearly belong in ‘category 1 ‘The waiter is responsible for placement of each model within one of the three categories, ard he apologizes for erors to the extent that misunderstandings have resulted in incorrect evaluation of the models, ‘SUMMARY Presented hare is « short review of many of the considerations involved in decisions to use advanced methods in analyses and’ design of geotechnical structures. This inctudes the requirements of the models, and why the models have been developed in terms of elasicity and hardening plasticity theories, An atlempt has been made to answer some of the frequently asked questions regarding the use of constitutive ‘models in advanced numerical analyses. Tables are presented with comparison of the main characteristic features and components of existing, widely available constitutive ‘models. Key references are given to publications in which the models are fist presented or particularly well explained. The requirements of the models in terms of experimental data for calibration are presented and compared in tables, and the capabilities of the models are reviewed. To provide some guidance in selecting realistic, practically useful, end epplicable constitutive models for soils to employ in ‘advanced numerical analyses, each model has been placed in one of three eategeries, the conditions for which are clearly stated Acknowledgment ‘The writer has benefited from countless invaluable discussions with Dr. Jeny A. ‘Yamamuro over many years regarding experimental techniques, soil behavior, and conslitutive modeling. Much appreciation is expressed for the assistance extended in connection with prodiicing the present article. REFERENCHS ‘Adachi, T, and Oka, F (1982) “Constitutive equation for normally consolidated clays based on lesto-viscoplastciy,”" Soils and Foundations, 2: 57-70. Bauer, E,(19%6) "Calibration of a comprehensive hypoplastic model for granular ‘aterials” Sols and Foundations, 36(1), 13-26. Brinkgreve, RBJ,, and Vermeer, PA. (1997) “PLAXIS fie element code for soil ‘and rock analysis— Version 7," Balkeme, Rotterdam SOIL. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS a Dafilias, YF, Herrmann, LR, and DeNatale, 1S. (1982) “The bounding surice plasticity model for isotropic cohesive soils and its aplication at the Grenoble Workshop.” Proc. Int. Workshop on Consiutve Relations for Soils, Grensble, 273-281, Dafalias, VF, Papadimitriou, A.G, and Manzari, MT. 2003) “Simple znisotropic plasty model for soft clays," Pree. fat. Workuhop on Geotechnes of Soft Clas Theory and Practice, P.A. Vermeee etl. (es.), 189-195, Douro, F. (1982) “An incrementally non-linear consti law: Assumptions and edicions;” Proc. In. Workshop on Consttuive Reletions for Soils, Grenoble, 385-403. Dessi, CS. (2001) Mechanics of Maveriats and Interfaces: The Disturbed Siate Concept, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FT, USA. Dest, CS, Somasundaram, S.and Frantziskonis,G. (1986) “A hierarchie! approsch for constitutive modeling of geologic material," Jn. J. Numer. Anal. Meth Geomoch., 10(3),225-257 DiMaggio, FL. and Sandler, LS. (1971) “Material Moe for Granular Soil.” J Engr Mech. Diz, ASCE, 91(2NB), 935-950. Drucker, D.C., and Prager, W. (1982) "Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis or Limit Design," Quart. Appl. Aah. 10Q2, 157-168, Drucker, D.C, Gibson, RE, and Henkel, DJ. (1957) *Soil Mechanics and Work- Hardening Theories of Plasticity" J. Soil Meck. Pound. Egr. Drv, ASCE, 122, 338-346 Dunean, JM. (1994) “The Role of Advanced Constitutive Relations in Practical Applications,” Proc. 13" In. Conf Soil Mech Found. Eng, New Deh India, 5, 31-48. Duncan, JM, and Chang, C.Y. (1970) “Non-linear analysis of stress and stain in ils" J Soft Mech, Founds Div, ASCE, 96(SMS) 1629-1653. Duncan, JM. Byme, P., Wong, K-., Mabry, P. (1980) “Strength, Stress-Stain end Bulk Moghus Paramcters for Fete Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses,” Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of California, Berkley, 77 CGaenira,D, and Potts, DM. (1995) Discussion of Evaluation of consutive model for overconsolidated clays,” by A. White, Geotechnigue 45(1), 169-173 rifts, DL, Smith, LM, and Molenkamp, P. (1982) “Computer implemenston ofa doubl-hardcning model for sand,” Proc. 1UTAM Conf. on Deformation and Failure of Granular Materials, Delft, 213-221 Ghdehas, . (1996) “A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular mata,” Soils and Foundations, 36(1), e12 Hicks, MCA. (1998) “MONICA ~ a compute algorithm for solving boundary vale problems using the double hardening constitutive lav. MONOT: L. Algorithm evelopment” In. J. Num, Anal. Meth. Geomech, 19: 1-27. Hicks, MA (2003) “Experience in calirating the doable-hardening coustintive ‘model Monot." Fut. J. Numer. Anat. Meth, Geomzch, 21(13), 1123-11512 SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: ‘uel, $, and Lade, P.V. (1997) “Rotational Kinematic Hardening Model for Sand, Part Il. Characteristic Work Hardening Law and Predictions,” Computers and Geotechnics, Elsevier, 213), 217-234. Iwan, WD, (1967) “On a Class of Models for the Yielding Behavior of Continuous sand Composite Systems,"J. Appl Mech, Trans. ASME, 34(E3) 612-617. Jefferies, MG. (1993) “Nor-Sand: a simple critical’ stato model for send, Geotechn'que, 431), 91-103. Kaliakin, VN. and Dafulias, YR. (1989) “Simplifications to the bounding surface ‘model for cohesive soil,” In. J: Numer. Analyt. Meth, Geomech., 13, 91-100, Kim, MK. and Lade, P.V. (1988) "Single Hardening Constitutive Model for Frictional Materials, 1. Plastic Potential Function", Computers and Geotechnies, 5(4), 307-324, Kilisnski, M_ (1988) “Plasticity Geory based on fuzy sets,” J. Engr. Mech, ASCE, 114(8), 503-582. Kilsinsla, M, Alawi, MM, Stu, 8, Ko, H.-Y., and Muir Wood, D, (1987) “Blasto- plastic model for sand based on fuzzy sets,” Proc. Int. Workshop on Constinative Equations for Granular Non-Cohesive Soils, A. Saada and G. Bianchini (eds), Case Weser Reserve University, Cleveland, 325-347. Kolymbas, D. (1991) "Computer-aided design of constitutive models, Ie J. Numer. Anaibt. Meth. Geomech, 15, 593-604, Lade, PL, (1977) "Flasto-Plastic Stress-Strain Theory for Cohesionless Soil with Curved Yield Surfaces," Int Solids Structures,13, 1019-1035. Lade, P.V., and de Boer, R, (1997) “The concept of efletive stress for soil, concrete ‘and rock,” Geotechnigue, 47(1), 61-78 Lade, PLV., and Duncan, 1M, (1975) “Elastoplastic Stress-Strain Theory for (Cobesionless Soil,” J. Geotech. Engr. Div., ASCE, 101(GT10), 1037-1053, Lade, P.Y., snd Inel, S. (1997) *Rotational Kincmatie Hardening Model for Sand, Put 1. Concept of Rotating Yield and Plastic Potential Surfaces.” Computers and Geotechnizs, Elsevier, 21(3), 183-216. Lade, P.V., and Kim, MX. (1988a) "Single Hardening Constitutive Mode! for Frictioaal Materials, IL Yicld Criterion and Plastic Work Contours", Computers and Geoteshnics, 01), 13-29. Lado, P.V., and Kim, M.K. (1988b) "Single Hardening Constitutive Model for Fictional Materials, TL. Comparisons with Expetimental Data", Computers and Geotechnics, (1), 31-47. Lambe, T:W,, and Whitman, R.V. (1969) “Soil Mechanics," John Wiley & Sons, ‘New York Ling, HL, and Liu, H, (2003) "Pressure-level denpendency and densification behavior of sand through a generalized plasticity model,” J. Sngr. Mech., ASCE, 129(8), 851-860. ‘Liu, MD, ard Carter, LP. (2002) *Structured Cam Clay Model," Can, Geotech. J, 39(6), 1313-1332. ‘Matsuoka, H, and Nakai, T (1974) “Stross-doformation and strength characteristics of sil under three different prneipal stresses,” Proc. JSCE, 232, 59-70. SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS x Maisuoka, H., Yao, ¥.P., and Sun, D.A. (1999) “The Camcelay models revised by the SMP efiterion, * Sotls and Foundations, 39(1), 81-95. Molenkamp, F. (1981) Elasto-plastic double hardening model MONOT,” LGM Report CO-218595, Delf Soil Mechanics Laboratory. Mioz, Z, (1967) “On the Description of Anisotropic Work Hardening,” J. Mech Pigs, Sots, 15, 163-175. Nakai, T. (1989) “An isotropic hardening elatoplastic mocel for sand considering the siress path. dependency in three-dimensional stresses” Soils and Foundations, 29(1), 119-137. Nok, 7, and Matsuoka, H, (1986) “A generalized clastoplastic constitutive model for cla in three-dimensional stresses,” Soils and Foundations, 26(3), 81-98, Nova, R. (1988) “Sinfonietta classica: an exercise on classical soil modeling,” Proc. ‘Symp. Constitutive Equations fer Granular Non-Cohesive Soils, Cleveland, A. Suais & G. Bianchini, (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, $0119, Nova, R, Castellanea, R, and Tamagnini, C. 2003) “A constitutive model for bonded geomaterials subject 10 mechanical and/or chemical degradation,” In. J um. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 27(9), 705-732. Pastor, M, Zienkiowiez, 0.C,, and Chan, A.H.C. (1990) “Generalized plasticity and the modeling of soit behavior,” Int J Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech.. 14(3), 151= 190. Pestana, LM. and Whit, A.J. (1999) “Formulation of unified constitutive mode! for clays and sands,” dnt. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech,,23(12), 1215-1243. Pestana, JM., Whittle, Au, and Salvati, L.A. (2002) “Evaluation of a constitutive mode! for clays and sands: Part I— sand behaviour,” Int J. Numer. Analy. Meth Geomec, 26(11), 1097-1121 Pestana, IM., Whitle, A.J, and Gens, A. (2002) “Evaluation ofa constitutive model for clays and sands: Part I~ clay dehavious,” Int J. Numer. Analyt. Meth Geomechy, 26(11, 1123-1146, Prevost, HL. (1978) “Plasticity Theory for Soil Stress Strain Behavior,” J. Engr Meck, Div, ASCE, 104(EM5), 1177-1194, Prevost, J. (1979) “Mathematical modeling of sol strese-strain-strength behavior Proc. Thin! Int. Conf: Munerical Methods i Geomechanics, 1, 347-361 Roseoe, KH, and Burland, JB. (1968) “On the generalized behaviour of ‘wet’ clay,” Engincering Plasticity, 48: 535-609, Rowe, P.W. (1962) “The stessiletancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in conac,” Proceedings ofthe Royal Soctety, 269, 800-527 Sandler, LS., DiMaggio, FL, and Baladi, GLY. (1976) “Generalized Cap Model for Geologic Materials," J. Geoteck, Eng. Div., ASCE, 102(617), 683-699 Sekiguchi H., and Ohte, H. (1977) “Indwced anisotropy and time dependency in clays," Constitutive arquations of Soils, Proc Specialty Session 9, Ninth Int Conf, Soil Meck. Found. Engr, Tokyo, 229-238. Smith, IM, and Griffiths, DV. (1982) Progranming the finite element method ~ Seconal edition, Joh Wiley & Sons.SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS. ‘Terzaghi, K. (1923) “Die Berechnung der Durchltssigkeitszffer des Tones aus dem Veriauf Jer Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheimmgen,” Sitzungher. Akad. Wiss, Wien, V32, 125-138, Whittle, AJ. (1993) "Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays,” Geotechn'jue, 43(2), 289-313, ‘Wood, D.M. (1990) "Soi! Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanies," Cambridge University Press. ANISORT - CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR UNDRAINED LOADING OF ANISOTROPIC AND STRAIN-SOFTENING CLAY Lars Andresen! and Hans Petter Josad? ABSTRACT: An clostoplastic constiutive model is presented. Tie mod! is thoveloped in onder to suady the effects of anisotropy and pose-peak softening in ‘joblems of saturated clay subjected 10 monotonic undrained loading The non-linear fucss-stain relationship depends on the orientation of she major principal stress Iviaive 19 the vertical. The model is demonstrated by simulation of an undrained ‘imple shear deformation where the dreston of the principal siresses rotates, INTRODUCTION The stress-strain response of clay subjected to undrained loading isin general non~ nea, stress path dependent (anisotropic) and displays post-peak softening. This lochaviour is well recognised when the same clay is tested under undrained conditions in triaxial compression, direct simple shear and triaxial extension. Results fiom laboratory tests (Lecasse ef al. 1985) on sensitive clay from Bllingsrud, Norway fue shown in Figure 1, The maximum shear stress + frum triaxial testing and the shear stress te from the DSS testing have been novmalised with the in-situ vertical fflective stress o', These light overconsolidated (OCR=1.4) specimens were isotopically consolidated to their in-situ effective stresses prior to undrained Jooding. ' br, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Geomechanics, P.O.Box 3930 Ullevsal Siadion, N-0806 Osa, la@ng.no Dy, Norwegian Geotechnical Insitute, Geomechanics, P..Box 3930 Ullevaal ladon, N-0806 Oslo, hpi@nginoGEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 128 SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND CALIBRATION January 24-26, 2005 ‘Austin, Texas SPONSORED BY Soil Properties and Modeling Committee of ‘The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Jerry A. Yamamuro, Ph.D, P.E. Victor N. Kaliakin, Ph.D. ASCE ubliked by the American Society of Coll Engineers GA oT BIBL