Hardening Model FLAC

Plastic-Hardening Model Page 1 of 25
Plastic-Hardening Model
The Plastic-Hardening (PH) model is a shear and volumetric hardening constitutive model for
the simulation of soil behavior. When subjected to deviatoric loading (e.g., during a
conventional drained triaxial test), soils usually exhibit a decrease in stiffness, accompanied
by irreversible deformation. In most cases, the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain
obtained in a drained triaxial test may be approximated by a hyperbola. This feature was
discussed by Duncan and Chang (1970) in their well-known “hyperbolic-soil” model, which is
formulated as a non-linear elastic model. The PH model is formulated within the framework
of hardening plasticity (Schanz et al. 1999) allowing the removal of the main drawbacks of
the original non-linear elastic model formulation (e.g., detection of loading/unloading
pattern, non-physical bulk modulus).
The main features of the PH model are:
1. hyperbolic stress-strain relationship during axial drained compression;
2. plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening);
3. plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening);
4. stress-dependent elastic stiffness according to a power law;
5. elastic unloading/reloading compared to virgin loading;
6. memory of pre-consolidation stress; and
7. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
The model is straightforward to calibrate using either conventional lab tests or in-situ tests.
It is well established for soil-structure interaction problems, excavations, tunneling, and
settlements analysis, among many other applications.
In this section, principal stress, , and strain, , i = 1,3, components are positive in tension.
Also, all stresses are effective by default if not explicitly stated. The principal effective
stresses are with the order , and is the most compressive stress.
Incremental Elastic Law
The PH model adopts hypo-elasticity for the description of elastic behavior,
(1)
(2)
where is the mean pressure defined as , is the volumetric elastic strain defined
as , and are the deviatoric stress tensor and deviatoric
mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Itasca\Flac3d600\flac3dhelp.chm::/common/m... 4/11/2021
elastic strain tensor, respectively. is defined as if and if . and are

the elastic bulk and shear moduli, which can be derived from the elastic unloading-reloading
Young’s modulus, , and the unloading-reloading Poisson’s ratio, , are obtained using the
relations:
(3)
(4)
In the PH model, the Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be a constant with a typical value of 0.2 (if
otherwise not provided at input).
The Young’s modulus is a stress-dependent parameter:
(5)
where
(6)
and , , , , and are user-defined constant parameters. is the reference

unloading-reloading stiffness modulus at the reference pressure . The current
unloading-reloading stiffness modulus depends on the maximum (minimum
compressive) principal stress, , the cohesion, , and the ultimate friction angle, , as well
as the power, . For clays, is usually close to 1. For sands, is usually between 0.4 and
0.9. The default cut-off factor is 0.1.
The PH model also employs an additional stiffness measure, , which defines the initial
slope of the hyperbolic stress-strain curve (see Equation (7) and Figure 1). Parameter
obeys the following power law:
(7)
Here is a material parameter, which could be estimated from a set of triaxial

compression tests with various cell stresses.
Shear Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
The shear yield function determining the onset and development of shear hardening is
defined as
(8)
where is a shear hardening parameter (one of the internal variables) defined in (13),
, , and is given as
(9)
where
(10)
The failure ratio has a value smaller than 1 (typically, = 0.9 is used). Note that
the ultimate deviatoric stress, , is defined as
(11)
is consistent with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (Figure 1).
For a standard drained triaxial test, the connection between the axial (vertical compressional)
strain, , and deviatoric stress, , can be described by a hyperbolic relation:
(12)
Equation (12) is graphically represented in Figure 1 with the cut-off at .
Figure 1: Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary shear loading.
The shear hardening parameter is defined so that its incremental form is:
(13)
Due to the increase of , the shear yield surface will expand up to the ultimate surface,
which is defined by the conventional Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. In case the material
experiences ultimate shear failure, the conventional Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion applies.
The PH model uses the following flow rule between volumetric and shear plastic strains:
(14)
where is the mobilized dilation angle, which should be smaller or equal to the user-
defined ultimate dilation angle . The mobilized dilation angle is based on Rowe’s dilation
law (1962):
(15)
(16)
where the parameter is a contraction scale factor, with the allowable range of 0 to 0.25
and default value of 0.0 for most soils if the contraction is not considered. The critical state
friction angle is defined as
(17)
The mobilized friction is defined in terms of the current stress state
(18)
A non-associated flow rule consistent with the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is used in the
model. The shear potential function is defined as
(19)
where and .
In order to avoid over-dilatancy when the soil reaches its critical void state at , the
dilation angle needs a minor modification. One way proposed by Schanz et al. (1999) is to
set a cut-off rule, so that
(20)
Here we introduce a smoothing technique to avoid a sudden change of dilation angle:
(21)
The dilation rules with cut-off, smoothing technique, and without dilation cut-off are
schematically compared in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Volumetric strain curve for a standard triaxial compression test

with dilation cut-off and smoothing.
Volumetric Cap Criterion and Flow Rule
The volumetric (cap) yield function is defined as
(22)
where is a constant derived internally from other material parameters based on a virtual
(numerical) oedometer test, is a shear stress measure defined as ,
and . The initial value of hardening parameter , which denotes the
preconsolidation pressure, can be determined using the initial stress state and over-
consolidation ratio, , so that
(23)
If has a large value, the model behaves as if there is no cap present. The associated flow
rule is adopted for volumetric hardening, which means that the potential volumetric function
is assumed to be the same as the volumetric yield function (see Equation (24)).
The volumetric hardening parameter (one of the internal variables) is defined

incrementally as
(24)
where is the volumetric plastic strain increment.
Evolution of the hardening parameter, , is given by the relation:
(25)
where is a constant parameter that can be derived internally from other material
parameters. Instead of taking and as input material parameters, another two
parameters, and are specified as input. Parameter denotes normal consolidation
coefficient and stands for the tangent oedometer stiffness at the reference pressure
. If is not provided by the user, it is taken as (default value). The PH
model reserves the flexibility for the user to input user-defined and instead of internal
calculation for and . A typical value for is between 0.6 and 2.0 for most soils.
Parameter is calculated as , where is a correction factor with a typical value of
, , , and . Specifically, =
1 if at isotropic compression state.
Tensile Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
The model checks for the tension failure condition. The tension failure and potential
functions are
(26)
where is the tension limit. By default, is zero and the user can provide a value with an
upper limit of . The model does not consider tension hardening.
Plastic Corrections
In the implementation of the PH model, elastic trial stresses, , are first computed by
adding to the old stresses, , elastic increments computed using the total strain increment
for the step (see Eq. (1.395)). During this step, the moduli and mobilized dilation angle
are assumed to be constants (for simplicity) and calculated based on the old stress
components. All stresses are assumed to be effective.
The formulation for the trial stresses (denoted by a superscript ) in principal axes are:
(27)
where , , and are the tangent elastic bulk and shear modulus,
respectively, and ( ) is the set of principal strain increments.
The trial internal variables, and , take their values from the previous step. If the
hardening yield criteria (Equation (8) and/or (22)) are exceeded, both the stress components
and internal variables will be corrected as described below.
First, consider the situation when only shear hardening occurs, . The plastic strain
increment is oriented in the direction of the gradient of the potential function in the principal
stress space. Using Equation (19), we get
(28)
The shear hardening parameter increment is obtained from Equation (13),
(29)
Thus, the corrected (new) stress components become:
(30)
and the corrected internal variable is
(31)
Using Equation (30) and definitions and from Equation (19), updated shear stress and
parameter (see Equation (9)) are calculated as
(32)
(33)
After substituting the corrected parameters , , into Equation (8), parameter can be
obtained by solving a nonlinear equation = 0 using an iteration method. Note that
in Equation (31) uses the current value of updated in each iteration step, which implies
that the correction algorithm is semi-implicit.
If the trial shear stress exceeds the Mohr-Coulomb shear failure surface, the corrections
used in Mohr-Coulomb model implementation apply.
Now consider the case when the elastic guess (Equation (22)) exceeds the volumetric yield
criterion, , and the volumetric hardening occurs. The plastic strain increments are
related to the gradient of the potential function in the stress space as
(34)
Evolution of the hardening parameter is given by the relation:
(35)
In the above formulation, the plastic strain and volumetric hardening parameter increment
are related to the current stress measurement ( or ), so the correction algorithm again
uses a semi-implicit approach.
The corrected stress components are obtained by analogy with shear hardening,
(36)
Noting that and , and using Equation (36) we

get
(37)
(38)
where . After substituting the corrected and into the yield function
, (Equation (22)), parameter can be obtained by solving the nonlinear equation =0
for the smallest root using an iterative method.
Finally,we consider the situation when the elastic trial stresses exceed both the shear yield
hardening surface and volumetric yield hardening surface. In this case, the plastic strain
increment is related to the partial derivatives of the potential functions as follows:
(39)
Parameters can can be found by using an iterative method similar to that adopted in the
shear or volumetric hardening correction technique. If the trial stress is out of both the
volumetric hardening surface and Mohr-Coulomb failure surface, the Mohr-Coulomb failure
function should be used instead of the shear hardening function.
Implementation Procedure
In the initialization step, the initial stress, evolution parameters can and strain
increment are defined for the zone and are assumed to be constant during this step. For
simplicity, the stiffness moduli and dilation, which are dependent on the current stress and
evolution parameters, are also assumed to be constant in the zone during this step. The trial
elastic stresses and the possible stress corrections are defined at the sub-zone level. The
trial stress increments obey the linear elastic (Hooke’s) law. If the trial stresses violate the
tension limit, the tension failure procedure is called. The next step is to check whether the
tension-corrected stress is in the tension or compression side. If the corrected stress is
tensile, volumetric hardening will not apply. In either side, if the stress is out of the shear
failure or shear yield surface, the shear failure or hardening procedure will be called,
respectively. In the compression side, if the stress is out of the volumetric yield surface, the
volumetric hardening procedure will be called. In particular, if the stress is also out of the
shear failure or shear yield surface, the mixed procedure with both the volumetric hardening
and shear failure/hardening corrections will be called. To ensure the averaged stress in the
zone level is within the tension limit, a second tension failure procedure is called if any
volumetric hardening or shear hardening/failure occurs. After all sub-zones complete the
stress check for tension and shear failure, shear and volumetric hardening criteria, the
internal variables, stiffness moduli and dilation are updated based on the zone-averaged
stresses.
Comparison of the PH model and CYSoil model
The PH and CYSoil models share many similar features. For example, both models have
stress-dependent moduli, both have primary shear and volumetric hardening, both employ a
hyperbolic relation for the deviatoric stress versus axial strain during triaxial compression,
the volumetric yield and potential functions are the same in both models, etc. However, there
are some differences between the models as outlined below.
 For primary shear, the CYSoil model uses a Mohr-Coulomb type yield function
associated with the mobilized friction angle, while the PH model uses the yield function
described by Equation (19).
 The CYmodel uses the accumulated plastic shear strain as one of the evolution
parameters ( ), while the definition for differs from plastic shear strain in the PH
model (see Equation (13)).
 The CYSoil model moduli are dependent on the mean pressure, while the PH model
moduli are dependent on the maximum principal stress (minimum compressive).
 The PH model introduces a modulus to determine the initial slope of the hyperbolic
curve during the triaxial compression, while the CYSoil model does not have such
modulus; this implies that these two models may have different hyperbolic curves
during the drained triaxial compression, although the ultimate shear stresses are the
same.
 In the CYSoil model, the parameter is user-defined, while in the PH model, this
parameter can be internally calculated using other input parameters.
 A constant ratio between the elastic and plastic volumetric strain is assumed during
isotropic compression at any pressure in the CYSoil model, while the PH model does
not adopt this assumption. As a result, the hardening law provided by Equation (25) is
used in the PH model.
 Most parameters of the PH model can be calibrated through the conventional triaxial
and oedometer compression tests (see the next section on calibration), while
calibration of the CYSoil model parameters is more elaborate.

 In the CYSoil model, many parameters can be input through tables. Currently, the PH
model does not have this flexibility feature.
Calibration of Material Parameters Using Laboratory Data
This section presents information on calibration techniques for the PH model material
parameters using the conventional geotechnical laboratory tests. The calibration example
uses original test results obtained from the triaxial compression tests on Monterey sand
(Lade 1972). The triaxial test consisted of loading the specimen followed by the unloading-
reloading regimes. The original test data are provided in Figure 3 and 4. The data are based
on three sets of triaxial compression tests with confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6, and 0.3
kgf/cm2. The initial void ratios are 0.783, 0.786, and 0.781, respectively.
Figure 3: Original vs. curves for the confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6, and
0.3 kgf/cm2 of the triaxial compression tests of Monterey sand (Lade 1972).
Figure 4: Original vs. curves for confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6, and
0.3 kgf/cm2 of the triaxial compression tests of Monterey sand (Lade 1972).
break
The calibration of these two parameter has no difference from the Mohr Coulomb model.
To estimate values of friction angle and cohesion from triaxial test data using the relation
vs. , follow the procedure outlined below.
1. Plot deviatoric stress vs. using triaxial compression test lab data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.
3. The slope of the trend line is , which follows from an alternative form of
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This determines friction angle .
4. The intercept of the trend line is , which determines cohesion , as the

friction angle is already known from the previous step.
Alternatively, these two parameters can be estimated from triaxial test data using the
relation vs. by following the procedure outlined below.
1. Plot deviatoric stress vs. using triaxial compression test lab data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.
3. The slope of the trend line is , which follows from an alternative form of the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion. This determines friction angle .
4. The intercept of the trend line is , which determines cohesion , as the friction
angle is already known from the previous step.
For the Monterey sand, the slope of the trend line of the Mohr-Coulomb envelope using the
relation vs. , presented in Figure 5, is 1.403. Based on this, the friction angle is calculated
as 34.65 degrees. The intercept is approximately zero, which implies that the cohesion is
zero.
Figure 5: Determination of friction angle and cohesion from the triaxial

compression test data.
Calibration of , , and :
To estimate values of , , and from triaxial test data, follow the procedure outlined
below.
1. Plot the curve of vs. using the triaxial compression test data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the data. The slope of the line is , the intercept is , based
on the relation (derived from Equation (12) and ).
Multiple sets of triaxial compression tests with various confining pressures can be used to
produce a set of pairs of ( , ). The final can be estimated as the averaged one, and the
pairs of ( , ) determine and based on Equation (7).
Figure 6 plots the curves of vs. using triaxial compression test data of the
Monterey sand with confining pressures 1.2, 0.6, and 0.3 kgf/cm2. The slopes of these lines
are , and the intercepts are (as strain is given in percentage).
This figure determines three pairs of ( , ), summarized in Table 1. The average value for
is 0.957. Parameter needs no calibration and its value is assumed to be 0.1 kgf/cm2.
Finally, plotting parameters vs. , as shown in Figure 7, and using Equation
(7) allows for determination of and (remember that cohesion = 0 for this example).
The slope of the trend line in Figure 7 is = 0.707 and the intercept determines =
(4.63) = 102.5 kgf/cm . 2
Table 1: Determination of , , and
-0.3 0.9558 0.002459 406.7 212.3 5.358 1.099

-0.6 0.9678 0.001286 777.6 401.3 5.995 1.792
-1.2 0.9476 0.000930 1075.3 565.8 6.338 2.485
Figure 6: Determination of and from three sets of triaxial

compression tests with three different confining stresses.
Figure 7: Determination of and from three sets of triaxial

compression tests with three different confining stresses.
After the calibration of parameter , it is straightforward to obtain from Equation (5)

using the unloading-reloading modulus obtained from the original vs. data in a
triaxial compression test. The final value of can be averaged using data for different
confining pressures. For the example of Monterey sand, is determined to be 320.0
kgf/cm2. If the unloading-reloading moduli are not available, a value in the range of
can be used for most soils. The PH model uses a default value of if no input
is provided for .
Calibration of Dilation Angle, :
The ultimate dilation angle can be estimated as , where is the

maximum slope ( ) of the vs. curve in the triaxial compression tests. The slope is
found as: . For this example of the Monterey
sand, the dilation angles are 6 ~ 7° (depending on confining pressure). The values are
summarized in Table 2.
Calibration of and :
Parameters and can be calibrated from the oedometer tests. The ultimate value of
from an oedometer test is . When , the tangent modulus of the vs.
curve is .
Calibration of Poisson’s Ratio, :
Poisson’s ratio can be estimated from the initial slope (usually a negative value) of the
vs. curve, so that . In the PH model, the default value is 0.2. In this
example for Monetary Sand, the Poisson’s ratio is estimated to be 0.3.
Calibration of :
The material parameter is needed if the dilation smoothing technique (Figure 2) is

required. The value of can be determined by conducting standard laboratory tests (ASTM
D4254). If the standard ASTM D4254 laboratory test data are not available, its value can be
estimated through the trial-and-error method based on the curves of the volumetric strain
vs. axial strain of the triaxial compression tests. In this example, its value is estimated as
0.803. The default value of = 999.0 is used when it is not provided as input, which
implies that the dilation smoothing technique will not be activated.
Calibration of Other Parameters:
Such material parameters as , , , , and are known initial parameters and

should be consistent with the initial conditions. Some parameters can be estimated through
the trial-and-error method.
A summary of all material properties determined for the Monterey sand is provided in Table
2.
Table 2: Calibrated Material Parameters for Loose Monterey Sand

Parameters = -1.2 (kgf/cm2) = -0.6 (kgf/cm2) = -0.3 (kgf/cm2)
(kgf/cm2) 102.5
(kgf/cm2) 320.0
0.707
0.957
(kgf/cm2) 0.1
0.3
(degrees) 34.65
(kgf/cm2) 0.0
0.803
0.5
(degrees) 6.1 6.4 7.0
(kgf/cm2) -1.2 -0.6 -0.3
1.0 2.0 4.0
0.783 0.786 0.781
Using these parameters, the triaxial compression tests can be simulated by the PH model.
The plots presented in Figures 8 and 9 reveal a close match between the simulated results
and laboratory test data.
Figure 8: Deviatoric stress vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial
compression tests on fine Monterey sand.
Figure 9: Volumetric strain vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial
compression tests on fine Monterey sand.
Small-Strain Stiffness Option
Using the Plastic-Hardening model to simulate the unloading-reloading paths, the reloading
path will be the reverse of the unloading path. However, this elastic behavior assumes strains
that are in the very small strain range. Experiments illustrate that soil stiffness modulus is
strain-dependent — it decreases nonlinearly with increase in shear strain. The strain can be
categorized in three levels: very small strain, where the stiffness modulus is assumed
constant ( or sometimes called ); small strain, where the stiffness modulus reduces
non-linearly as the strain increases; and large strain, where the soil is in or close to failure
and the stiffness modulus is relatively small. Figure 10 illustrates, showing the normalized
stiffness modulus degradation curve with reference to geotechnical applications and
measurement accuracy from laboratory or in situ tests. It is important that the soil stiffness
modulus selected for simulation should not be associated with strain levels at the end of
geotechnical construction, or from laboratory tests with well disturbed samples, because the
soil stiffness modulus may have decreased much from its initial value. The additional option
of the small-strain stiffness modulus for the Plastic-Hardening model is expected to take
strain-dependency into account.
Figure 10: Stiffness modulus degradation curve and typical strain ranges
(Modified from Atkinson and Sallfors 1991 and Ishihara 1996).
To activate small-strain stiffness in the Plastic-Hardening model, flag-smallstrain (the

default is off) should be turned on. Only two extra properties require assignment:
stiffness-0-reference ( ) and strain-70 ( ).
The initial stiffness modulus at the reference pressure, , will determine the shear
stiffness modulus ( ) at the very small strain level. It can be estimated by the relations of
(40)
and
(41)
where , , and are defined in the standard Plastic-Hardening model. The default value of
is taken as if no specific data is available. is not allowed to be equal or smaller
than in this model. Together with the above two equations, could be estimated
from
(42)
where is the soil density, and is the measured in situ soil shear wave velocity. can be
estimated from other in-situ test data, e.g., SPT, CPT & DMT, or from some accepted
empirical relations.
The reference shear strain ( ) is selected as the value at which the secant shear stiffness
modulus is about 70% (to be exact it should be 72.2%) of . The default value for is 2e-
4. Typical values of are listed in Table 3:
Table 3: Typical Values of

Sand:
At depth 0 to 6 m 1.1e-4
At depth 150 to 300 m 7.0e-4
Clay:
Plastic Index = 30 3.5e-4
Once and are known, the small-strain secant stiffness modulus is calculated as
(43)
and its tangent stiffness modulus is
(44)
The tangent shear stiffness modulus sets a lower-bound value of in this

model.
The detailed algorithm to consider the unloading-reloading strain-dependent stiffness

modulus is presented in Benz (2007). It should be noted that this algorithm may not preform
well on nested hysteretic loops and is subjected to the so-called over-shooting problem. The
Plastic-Hardening model with small-strain stiffness is not recommended for fully dynamic
problems with random unloading-reloading paths that lead to nested hysteretic loops.
References
Atkinson, J. H., & Sallfors, G. "Experimental determination of stress/strain-time
characteristics in laboratory and in situ tests," in Proceedings, 10th ECSMFE, Florence,
Rotterdam: Balkema, 959-999 (1991).
Benz, T. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences (Vol. 5). Stuttgart:
Univ. Stuttgart, Inst. f. Geotechnik (2007).
Duncan, J. M., and C. Y. Chang. "Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils," Soil
Mechanics, 96 (SM5), 1629-1653 (1970).
Ishihara, K. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon Press (1996).
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A., & Bonnier, P. G. "The hardening soil model: formulation and
verification," in Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics, 281-296 (1999).
plastic-hardening Model Properties
Use the following keywords with the zone property command to set these properties of the
Plastic-Hardening model.
cohesion f
cohesion, . The default and cut-off
(allowable minimum) value is .
dilation f
ultimate dilation angle in degrees, .
The default is 0.0.
exponent f
exponent for elastic moduli, .
Allowable value is .
friction f
ultimate friction angle in degrees, . The
default and cut-off (allowable minimum)
value is 0.001 degrees.
stress-1-effective f
initial minimum principal effective
stress, . See the note*.
initial median principal effective stress,
. See the note*.
initial maximum principal effective
stress, . See the note*.
pressure-reference f
reference pressure, . A non-zero
value should be specified based on the
unit of stress/pressure adopted in the
model. The most commonly used and
highly recommended reference pressure
is the standard atmospheric pressure,
e.g., 100.0 kPa/1.0e5 if in Pa (or other
value compatible to the adopted
stress/pressure unit).
stiffness-50-reference f
secant stiffness, , at 50% of the
ultimate deviatoric stress, , when
in a triaxial test. A non-zero
value must be specified.
stiffness-0-reference f [a]
Initial stiffness, , at zero strain when
. It is required that .
If not specified, the default value is
. This property is needed
only when the flag for small-strain
stiffness is on, otherwise its value is
useless.
stiffness-oedometer-reference f [a]
tangent stiffness, , when
in an oedometer test. By default,
if is not specified while
has been specified.
stiffness-ur-reference f [a]
unloading-reloading stiffness, ,
when in a triaxial test. This
value must be greater than . By
default, .
coefficient-normally-consolidation f [a]
normal consolidation coefficient, . It
is not allowed to be less than ,a
range 0.5 to 0.7 is common. The default
is .
constant-alpha f [a]
dimensionless parameter in the cap yield
function, . Initialized internally. See the
note* for an alternative option.
factor-contraction f [a]
contraction factor, , allowable range is
0.0 to 0.25. The default is 0.0.
factor-cut f [a]
cut-off factor, . The default is 0.1.
flag-initialization f [a]
flag for initialization. If set to 1, the
internal variables will be recalculated.
The default is 0.
flag-smallstrain f [a]
flag for small-strain stiffness. If set on,
small-strain stiffness is activated. The
default is off.
over-consolidation-ratio f [a]
over consolidation ratio, . For
normally consolidated soil, the value
should be input as 1.0. The default is
100.0, which denotes an "apparent" non-
cap shear plastic hardening model.
poisson f [a]
Poisson's ratio, . The default is 0.2.
stiffness-cap-hardening f [a]
hardening modulus for cap hardening,
. Initialized internally. See the note*
for an alternative option.
strain-70 f [a]
Shear strain at which = 72.2%, If
not specified, the default value is
. This property is needed
only when the flag for small-strain
stiffness is on, otherwise its value is
useless.
failure-ratio f [a]
failure ratio, . The default is 0.9.
tension f [a]
tension limit, . The default is 0.0.
void-initial f [a]
initial void ratio, . If the current void
ratio is not important, or you do not
wish to activate the dilation smoothing
technique, just use the default value.
The default is 1.0.
void-maximum f [a]
allowable maximum void ratio, . The
default is 999.0, which is not realistic
but it assures that dilation smoothing
effectively will not be activated.
bulk f [r]
current loading-unloading bulk
modulus,
shear f [r]
current unloading-reloading shear
modulus,
plastic-hardening-shear f [r]
accumulated shear plastic hardening
parameter,
plastic-hardening-volume f [r]
accumulated volumetric plastic
hardening parameter,
pressure-cap f [r]
cap (preconsolidation) pressure, .
Determined by the current stress, , and
.
void f [r]
current void ratio,
Notes:
 The tension cut-off is .
 The parameters , , must be specified via commands or a
FISH function the first time the PH model is assigned because it is a
stress-dependent model. Negative values denote compressive
stresses.
 Some parameter combinations may be rejected due to: 1) one or
more parameters are out of predetermined limits; 2) internal
parameters cannot be correctly determined; or 3) numerical

instability.
 If both and are specified non-zero values by the user, the PH
model will use these user-defined parameters and , and the
internal calculation for and will not be performed.
Footnotes
[a] Advanced property. It should have a default value and should not be necessary to
specify for simpler applications of the model.
[r] Read-only property. It should not be allowed to be set by the user. Instead, it can be
listed, plotted, or accessed through FISH.

Hardening Model FLAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hardening Model FLAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plastic-Hardening Model Page 1 of 25

The main features of the PH model are:

1. hyperbolic stress-strain relationship during axial drained compression;

2. plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening);

3. plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening);

4. stress-dependent elastic stiffness according to a power law;

5. elastic unloading/reloading compared to virgin loading;

6. memory of pre-consolidation stress; and

7. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.

Incremental Elastic Law

The PH model adopts hypo-elasticity for the description of elastic behavior,

elastic strain tensor, respectively. is defined as if and if . and are

The Young’s modulus is a stress-dependent parameter:

and , , , , and are user-defined constant parameters. is the reference

Here is a material parameter, which could be estimated from a set of triaxial

Shear Yield Criterion and Flow Rule

is consistent with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (Figure 1).

Equation (12) is graphically represented in Figure 1 with the cut-off at .

Figure 1: Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary shear loading.

The mobilized friction is defined in terms of the current stress state

Figure 2: Volumetric strain curve for a standard triaxial compression test

Volumetric Cap Criterion and Flow Rule

The volumetric (cap) yield function is defined as

The volumetric hardening parameter (one of the internal variables) is defined

where is the volumetric plastic strain increment.

Evolution of the hardening parameter, , is given by the relation:

Tensile Yield Criterion and Flow Rule

The shear hardening parameter increment is obtained from Equation (13),

and the corrected internal variable is

Evolution of the hardening parameter is given by the relation:

Noting that and , and using Equation (36) we

Comparison of the PH model and CYSoil model

calibration of the CYSoil model parameters is more elaborate.

Calibration of Material Parameters Using Laboratory Data

2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.

4. The intercept of the trend line is , which determines cohesion , as the

2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.

Figure 5: Determination of friction angle and cohesion from the triaxial

Table 1: Determination of , , and

-0.3 0.9558 0.002459 406.7 212.3 5.358 1.099

Figure 6: Determination of and from three sets of triaxial

Figure 7: Determination of and from three sets of triaxial

After the calibration of parameter , it is straightforward to obtain from Equation (5)

Calibration of Dilation Angle, :

The ultimate dilation angle can be estimated as , where is the

Calibration of Poisson’s Ratio, :

The material parameter is needed if the dilation smoothing technique (Figure 2) is

Calibration of Other Parameters:

Such material parameters as , , , , and are known initial parameters and

Table 2: Calibrated Material Parameters for Loose Monterey Sand

Small-Strain Stiffness Option

To activate small-strain stiffness in the Plastic-Hardening model, flag-smallstrain (the

Table 3: Typical Values of

and its tangent stiffness modulus is

The tangent shear stiffness modulus sets a lower-bound value of in this

The detailed algorithm to consider the unloading-reloading strain-dependent stiffness

Ishihara, K. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Clarendon Press (1996).

plastic-hardening Model Properties

. See the note*.

parameters cannot be correctly determined; or 3) numerical

You might also like