Modelling of Soil Behaviour With Hypoplasticity Another Approach To Soil Constitutive Modelling

Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering
David Mašín
Modelling of Soil
Behaviour with
Hypoplasticity
Another Approach to Soil Constitutive
Modelling
Springer Series in Geomechanics
and Geoengineering
Series editor
Wei Wu, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: wei.wu@boku.ac.at
Geomechanics deals with the application of the principle of mechanics to geomaterials
including experimental, analytical and numerical investigations into the mechani-
cal, physical, hydraulic and thermal properties of geomaterials as multiphase media.
Geoengineering covers a wide range of engineering disciplines related to geomateri-
als from traditional to emerging areas.
The objective of the book series is to publish monographs, handbooks, workshop
proceedings and textbooks. The book series is intended to cover both the state-of-
the-art and the recent developments in geomechanics and geoengineering. Besides
researchers, the series provides valuable references for engineering practitioners
and graduate students.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8069

David Mašín
Modelling of Soil Behaviour

with Hypoplasticity
Another Approach to Soil Constitutive
Modelling
123
David Mašín
Faculty of Science
Charles University
Prague, Czech Republic
ISSN 1866-8755 ISSN 1866-8763 (electronic)

Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering
ISBN 978-3-030-03975-2 ISBN 978-3-030-03976-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03976-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018960755
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to my grandfather
Preface
Hypoplasticity has been around for some thirty years now. Starting from the crazy
and yet brilliant idea of Dimitrios Kolymbas in 1980s, it matured in the first half of
1990s into a powerful approach to the constitutive modelling of granular materials.
This quick evolution would not be possible without a strong team of talented
researchers working at the University of Karlsruhe at that time under the guidance
of Gerd Gudehus. Anyone interested in hypoplasticity is familiar with the names of
Ivo Herle, Andrzej Niemunis, Wei Wu, Erich Bauer, Peter A. von Wolffersdorff and
others, who made significant contributions to the development of the early models.
After extremely productive years in the 1990s, hypoplasticity development
slowed down, as members of the original group found their senior positions at
various institutions across Europe, often as distinguished professors or respected
practitioners. This is the time when I came across this modelling approach.
Influenced by my Ph.D. supervisor Ivo Herle, reading texts about hypoplasticity by
Andrzej Niemunis and educated about the clay behaviour by Sarah Stallebrass and
John Atkinson, I started to tinker with my own models for clays. In this book, I both
cover the original models, which are considered as a standard to represent the
behaviour of sands, and the new developments.
Anyone involved in advanced geotechnical modelling knows that producing a
constitutive model is only one, and arguably the easier, part of the story. The other
part is to transfer the models from scientific publications to daily geotechnical
practice. Practitioners, bound by codes of practice and various legal requirements,
are often reluctant to consider advanced material models, although it has been
shown many times that they lead to more reliable design, potentially resulting in
significant cost saving in the design process. In my opinion, the way out of this
predicament is to keep educating students and practitioners about how these
advanced models work, what is their merit and how to use them and make them
accessible in the simulation codes they use.
This book is an attempt to attain this target, along with advanced modelling
courses, that I have been teaching for many years. In fact, this book evolved in part
from the course material. Using simple scalar and vectorial examples, I try to
explain the structure of the mathematical formulation of hypoplasticity, which may
vii
viii Preface
be hard to appreciate in tensorial equations of the final models. Subsequently,

complete models are covered and explained in the detail required for their thorough
understanding.
The other task, that is easier accessibility of the advanced models, is addressed
through the SoilModels project (https://soilmodels.com). Established back in 2007,
it has since evolved into an interactive website providing tools supporting mod-
elling workflow for a geotechnical engineer. This involves selection of an appro-
priate material model, its parameter determination, providing model plugins for
various finite element packages and providing a platform to discuss potential issues
with other members of the community.
We had the original idea to write a book about hypoplasticity with Ivo Herle
back in 2010. As time went on, Ivo realised he was unable to contribute, being busy
with his position as professor, and later dean, so I continued alone. As periods of
book writing enthusiasm were followed by periods of business with other matters,
finishing the book took longer than expected, which also allowed me to include
material developed in the meanwhile. I hope the book will serve its purpose and
help to promote this elegant approach to advanced geomaterial modelling among
students, senior academics and practitioners.
Prague, Czech Republic David Mašín

September 2018
Acknowledgements
My research works, and consequently also the content of this book, have been
influenced by my teachers from the early stages of my career, who later became
respectful colleagues always willing to discuss new approaches and developments,
in particular Ivo Herle, who was my Ph.D. supervisor, and who always remained
supportive throughout the years, when we had less chance to work together due to
other commitments and Jan Boháč, my soil mechanics teacher and colleague from
our small research group at Charles University. My work on hypoplasticity was
greatly influenced by the contribution of Andrzej Niemunis, who laid down fun-
damentals, which I could build on. My thinking was influenced in many ways by
many other people with whom I had a chance to work, including the prominent
researchers like Gerd Gudehus, Nasser Khalili, Dimitrios Kolymbas, Charles W.
W. Ng, Sarah Stallebrass, Claudio Tamagnini and Cino Viggiani.
Financial support by Center for Geosphere Dynamics (UNCE/SCI/006), by
Euratom research and training programme 2014–2018 (grant No. 745942) and by
Czech Science Foundation (grant No. 17-21903S) are greatly appreciated.
ix
Contents
Part I Fundamentals
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3
1.1 Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3
1.2 Constitutive Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 5
1.3 Graphical Representation of Tangential Stiffness: Response
Envelopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Constitutive Model Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.1 Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 Elasto-Plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.3 Hypoplasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Soil Mechanical Behaviour and Its Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Stiffness Non-linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1 Local Measurement of Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2 Stiffness Measurement by Shear Wave Propagation . . . . . . 17
2.1.3 Modelling of Stiffness Non-linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Asymptotic Behaviour of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Asymptotic State Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.2 Experimental Investigation of Soil Asymptotic
Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 29
2.2.3 Discrete Element Investigation of Soil Asymptotic
Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 33
2.2.4 Constitutive Modelling of Soil Asymptotic Behaviour .... 35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 37
3 Simple Scalar and Vectorial Hypoplastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1 Scalar Models for Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.1 Elasto-Plastic Scalar Model for Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.2 Hypoplastic Scalar Model for Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
xi
xii Contents
3.1.3 Predictions of Scalar Models for Shear . . . . . . . . . . ..... 46

3.1.4 Modelling Stress-Dependency of Soil Behaviour . . . ..... 47
3.1.5 Modelling Non-linearity in Hypoplasticity . . . . . . . . ..... 48
3.1.6 Ratcheting in Hypoplasticity Versus Reversible
Response of Elasto-Plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2 Scalar Models for Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.1 Elasto-Plastic Scalar Model for Compression . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.2 Hypoplastic Scalar Model for Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.3 An Alternative Way of Formulating the Hypoplastic
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2.4 Predictions of Scalar Models for Compression . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3 Vectorial Models for Asymptotic Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.1 Elasto-Plastic Critical State Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3.2 Hypoplastic Model Predicting Asymptotic States . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.3 Predictions of Vectorial Models Incorporating
Asymptotic States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 72
4 Tensorial Hypoplastic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1 The First Hypoplastic Models Without Pyknotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2 Incorporation of Pyknotropy and Critical States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3 Explicit Incorporation of Failure Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4 Explicit Incorporation of Asymptotic States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Part II Hypoplastic Models for Soils

5 Hypoplastic Model for Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2 Material Parameters and Their Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6 Hypoplastic Model for Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2 Material Parameters and Their Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7 Advanced Modelling Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.1 Small Strain Stiffness – Intergranular Strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.1.1 Intergranular Strains in 1D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.1.2 Intergranular Strains in 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.1.3 Tensorial Formulation of the Intergranular Strain
Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.1.4 Modifications of the Intergranular Strain Concept . . . . . . . 125
7.1.5 Calibration of the Intergranular Strain Concept
Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Contents xiii
7.2 Rate Effects - Viscohypoplasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

7.2.1 Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.2.2 Viscohypoplasticity with Explicitly Defined
Asymptotic States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.2.3 Calibration of the Rate Effects-Related Parameters . . . . . . . 139
7.3 Clay Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.3.1 Mechanical Behaviour of Structured Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.3.2 Hypoplastic Modelling of Structured Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.3.3 Calibration of Material Parameters – Clays
with a Stable Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.3.4 Calibration of Material Parameters – Clays
with a Meta-Stable Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.3.5 Examples of Model Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.4 Very Small Strain Stiffness Anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.4.1 Formulation of the Clay Hypoplastic Model
with Small Strain Stiffness Anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.4.2 Model Parameters and Their Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.4.3 Model Evaluation Using Hollow Cylinder
Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.5 Partial Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.5.1 Stress State Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.5.2 Dependency of Asymptotic States on Suction . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.5.3 Water Retention Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.5.4 Coupled Hydro-Mechanical Modelling of Partially
Saturated Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.5.5 Parameters of the Coupled Hydro-Mechanical Model
for Partially Saturated Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
7.5.6 Examples of the Model Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.6 Thermal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.6.1 Influence of Temperature on Soil Mechanical
Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
7.6.2 Thermomechanical Hypoplastic Model for Saturated
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.6.3 Thermomechanical Model for Partially Saturated Soils . . . . 180
7.6.4 Model Parameters and Their Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.6.5 Demonstration of the Model Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Part I
Fundamentals
The aim of Part I of this book is to introduce hypoplasticity as a framework specifically

developed to predict the behaviour of granular materials and put it into the context
of constitutive modelling in general.
Chapter 1 introduces the general formulation of constitutive models and their
classification based on the concept of incremental nonlinearity (dependency of tan-
gent stiffness on loading direction). This classification is the best at highlighting the
differences between hypoplasticity and the more common elasto-plastic modelling
approaches.
Chapter 2 introduces two main features of the mechanical behaviour of granular
materials, distinguishing them from other engineering materials: the nonlinearity of
the stress–strain response and asymptotic properties. The content of this chapter is
crucial for development of any model; material behaviour must first be well defined
and understood, before any constitutive model development can be attempted.
In Chapter 3, hypoplasticity is introduced using a scalar 1D formulation, which is
simple to understand. Subsequently, the vectorial formulation using Roscoe’s vari-
ables p, q, εv and εs is introduced, and it is compared with an equivalent formulation
based on the principles of elasto-plasticity.
Finally, Chapter 4 presents hypoplastic models in full tensorial notation. Two pos-
sible approaches to hypoplastic model formulation are covered. First, the historical
development of hypoplastic models is traced with an explanation of how the first
models were developed. Subsequently, in Sect. 4.4, a completely different approach
is introduced, which adopts a general hypoplastic formulation, but formulates the
models directly based on the asymptotic properties.
Chapter 1
Introduction
In this chapter, constitutive models as mathematical expressions describing mechan-

ical behaviour of soils are introduced. They are classified based on the concept of
incremental non-linearity (dependency of tangent stiffness on loading direction),
with the aid of response envelope graphical representation. The classification is the
best at highlighting the differences between hypoplasticity and the more common
elasto-plastic modelling approaches.
1.1 Notation and Conventions
In 3D continuum analysis, constitutive models are inherently defined in terms of

tensorial quantities. Their definition, however, may be simplified to vectorial by
adopting vectors composed of tensor invariants, still considering 3D space, or, for
illustrative purposes only, simplified equivalents may be defined in 2D and 1D space.
Within this book, the following notation is adopted. Compact tensorial notation
is used throughout, where vectors and second-order tensors are denoted with bold
letters and symbols (e.g. n, q, T, N, ε, σ ) and fourth-order tensors with calligraphic
bold letters (e.g. , ). Symbols “·” and “:” between tensors of various orders
denote inner product with single and double contraction, respectively. The dyadic
product of two tensors is indicated by “⊗”. Using the Einstein index notation, these
operations are defined as:
D · T = Di j T jk (1.1)
: T = i jkl Dkl (1.2)
D : T = Dkl Tkl (1.3)
D ⊗ T = Di j Tkl (1.4)
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 3

D. Mašín, Modelling of Soil Behaviour with Hypoplasticity, Springer Series
in Geomechanics and Geoengineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03976-9_1
4 1 Introduction

Throughout the book, 1 and = i jkl = 21 1ik 1 jl + 1il 1 jk denote second-order
√
and fourth-order identity tensors. D = D : D represents the Euclidean norm of D,
= D/D, deviator
the trace operator is defined as tr D = 1 : D, tensor direction as D
∗
as T and normalised stress T̂. The operator x denotes the positive part of any scalar
function x, thus x = (x + |x|)/2; in the Einstein notation, these quantities read
tr D = 1kl Dkl (1.5)

D = Dkl Dkl (1.6)
= √ Di j
D (1.7)
Dkl Dkl
T
T∗ = T − tr (1.8)
3
T
T̂ = (1.9)
tr T
All the models are defined in terms of stress denoted as T, Euler stretching tensor
D and co-rotated (Jaumann–Zaremba) rates of tensorial variables (T̊ for stress rate).
However, in Part I, notation is simplified considering linear kinematics, with the
infinitesimal stress increment denoted as dσ , the stress rate as σ̇ , the stress σ , the
infinitesimal strain increment as dε, the strain rate as ε̇ and strain ε. Thus, σ̇ T̊
and ε̇ D. All stresses are considered as effective in terms of the Terzaghi principle
(without using the dash indicator), unless stated otherwise.
Following the sign convention of continuum mechanics, compression is taken as
negative. However, Roscoe’s invariants p (mean stress) and εv (volumetric strain),
and pore fluid and gas pressures u w and u a are defined to be positive in compression.
Their general definition reads
trσ
p=− (1.10)
3
εv = − trε (1.11)
In Part I, a simplified model formulation is adopted considering tensors in axisym-

metric (triaxial) space. The subscript a denotes axial components of tensors, r denotes
radial components of tensors and Roscoe’s invariants are defined as
1
p = − (σa + 2σr ) (1.12)
3
q = −(σa − σr ) (1.13)
εv = −(εa + 2εr ) (1.14)
2
εs = − (εa − εr ) (1.15)
3
where q is the deviatoric stress and εs represents shear strain.
1.2 Constitutive Models 5
1.2 Constitutive Models
A mechanical constitutive model represents the dependency of stress on deformation

within a soil element. According to the principles of determinism and local action
(Truesdell and Noll [1]), the most general expression for the constitutive equation
reads
T(X, t) = τ∞=0 F(t) (X, τ ) (1.16)
where is a functional of the history up to time t of the deformation gradient asso-

ciated with the motion x = φ(X, t) that carries the material point X in the reference
configuration to its position x in the current configuration at time t.
The above equation states that the stress tensor T is a function of the entire
deformation history, i.e. knowledge of strain at time t is not sufficient to determine
the stress state. The main consequence of this is that the functional is non-linear
and non-differentiable, which means that, unlike in elasticity, current stress cannot
be computed from current strain. Thus, constitutive equations must be defined in
incremental form, representing infinitesimal increments of stresses as a consequence
of infinitesimal increments of strain.
The incremental form is sufficient to describe the behaviour of rate independent
materials. However, to represent the rate effects, models must be defined in terms
of rates, in place of infinitesimal increments. For convenience, rate formulations
are then often also used for rate independent models, where time becomes a mere
integration quantity. In the rate form, the general formulation of a constitutive model
G reads
T̊ = G(T, q, D) (1.17)
where q represents a vector of state variables. By neglecting large displacements and

rotations, Eq. (1.17) simplifies to
Ṫ = G(T, q, ε̇) (1.18)
Throughout the book, except Sect. 7.2, rate independent constitutive models will
be considered. Rate independence may be expressed mathematically as:
G(T, q, λD) = λG(T, q, D) ∀λ > 0 (1.19)
Equation (1.19) states that, for rate independent materials, multiplication of the strain
rate by a positive factor λ leads to a proportional increase in the stress rate. Con-
sidering Eq. (1.19), the constitutive model formulation may further be simplified
to:
:D
T̊ = (T, q, D) (1.20)
where is the tangent stiffness tensor, which, in general, may depend on loading
Constitutive model classification based on the dependency of on D
direction D.
6 1 Introduction
will be introduced in Sect. 1.4. Before classifying the models, however, a method
denoted as response envelope will be presented to graphically illustrate tangent stiff-
ness.
1.3 Graphical Representation of Tangential Stiffness:

Response Envelopes
Response envelopes were introduced by Gudehus [2] for representing tangential

response of constitutive equations of rate type [3]. The response envelopes are polar
diagrams in the stress rate space for unit strain rates. For the case of axisymmetric
deformation, the Euclidean norm of the strain rate reads

D= ε̇a2 + 2ε̇r2 = 1 (1.21)
All possible combinations of ε̇a and ε̇r are then selected for which the Euclidean
norm is equal to one (satisfying (1.21)). √ For these strain rates, constitutive model
response is plotted in the plane of σ̇a vs. 2σ̇r (Fig. 1.1). Response envelopes thus
visualise the tangential stiffness predicted by a model for different ε̇ directions (the
larger the distance from the origin, the higher the stiffness); their shape, position and
size depend on the constitutive model and on the state variables (effective stress T
and void ratio e, in particular). To enhance the informative value of the envelopes,
Gudehus and Mašín[3] suggested identifying the location of the stress response to
particular strain rate directions: “i” corresponding to isotropic compression, “c” and
“-c” corresponding to constant volume compression and extension, respectively, and
“d” and “-d” corresponding to zero axial and radial strain extension paths, respec-
tively. The same directions are adopted in Sect. 2.2 (Fig. 2.14) in the definition of
asymptotic states.
Fig. 1.1 Response envelopes (figure from [3], modified)

1.3 Graphical Representation of Tangential Stiffness: Response Envelopes 7
Fig. 1.2 Mapping of response envelopes from the stress rate space onto the stress space
Response envelopes are often mapped from the stress rate space into the stress
space, which reveals the influence of the stress state on the tangential stiffness. A
deliberate scaling factor is used so that the envelope fits graphically into the stress-
space graph. Such a mapping is demonstrated in Fig. 1.2.
1.4 Constitutive Model Classification
Soil constitutive models can be classified in different ways, for example, based on
their algebraic structure, or based on their predictive capabilities and the state vari-
ables considered. Classification based on the predictive capabilities and state vari-
ables is presented together with model examples in Chap. 2. In this section, con-
stitutive model classification is adopted based on the dependency of the predicted
tangential stiffness on the strain rate direction.
This classification, known as the concept of incremental non-linearity, was pro-
posed by Darve [4]. It has also been adopted by Tamagnini and Viggiani [5] in their
constitutive modelling review paper. The explanation will be aided by the concept of
response envelopes introduced in Sect. 1.3. Rate-independent materials are consid-
ered only in this chapter; thus, the constitutive model can be defined using Eq. (1.20).
1.4.1 Elasticity
Within the concept of incremental non-linearity, elastic models are defined by

That is, the constitutive equation reads
independent of D.
T̊ = (T, q) : D (1.22)
The elastic model is denoted as incrementally linear.

8 1 Introduction
The stiffness tensor may depend on the stress T and additional state variables
q. In this case, the elastic model is denoted as non-linear (although still being incre-
mentally linear). If is constant, the model is denoted as linear. Further distinction
can be introduced depending on the internal structure of the tensor . An isotropic
tensor denotes isotropic elasticity; the structure of can also imply various
types of anisotropy. If can be derived from the elastic potential within the laws
of thermodynamics, the model is denoted as hyperelastic [6]. On the contrary, purely
phenomenologically-defined elastic models are denoted as hypoelastic.
Whichever of the above sub-classes of elastic models is considered, the stiffness
tensor in Eq. (1.22) represents, from a mathematical standpoint, linear mapping
between two second-order tensors D and T. It follows from the laws of algebra that
a linear map of a sphere centred at the origin is an ellipsoid centred at the origin.
Equivalently, in two dimensions, the linear map of a circle is an ellipse. At this
point, let us recall the definition of the response envelope, which represents, in two
dimensions, a linear map of the circle from the strain rate space into the stress rate
space. This implies that the response envelope of an elastic model is always an ellipse
centred about the reference state. An example of the response envelope of an elastic
model is shown in Fig. 1.2.
1.4.2 Elasto-Plasticity
The general rate equation of elasto-plastic models is equivalent to Eq. (1.20), that is
:D
T̊ = (T, q, D) (1.23)
However, unlike in elasticity, the stiffness tensor attains two different values
depending on the loading direction D. The elasto-plastic stiffness tensor ep is
active in the elasto-plastic loading case, whereas the elastic stiffness tensor e is
active in the elastic unloading case. Formally, we may write
⎧
⎨ ep for f = 0 ∧ ∂f >0
: e : D
∂T
= (1.24)
⎩
e otherwise
where f is denoted as the yield function. Since there are two options for the value of
, the elasto-plastic model is denoted as incrementally bi-linear.
The elasto-plastic models can further be subdivided into different classes charac-
terised by properties of f (its dependency state variables) and by the way ep is
calculated. More details on elasto-plastic model structure and predictive capabilities
are given in Chap. 2, while simple examples of elasto-plastic model structure are
outlined in Chap. 3. Irrespective of the particular form of the elasto-plastic model,
however, both cases in Eq. (1.24) represent a linear map between the strain rate and
1.4 Constitutive Model Classification 9
Fig. 1.3 Response

envelopes of the Modified
Cam-clay
Cam-clay model (figure 200
from [8]) c i
σa [kPa]
100
oc1
oc2
-c
0
0 100 200 300

σr√2 [kPa]
stress rate tensors and thus, as explained in Sect. 1.4.1, they yield elliptical response
envelopes. The response envelope of the elasto-plastic model is continuous (there
is no discontinuity between the elastic and elasto-plastic sections), thanks to the
elasto-plastic consistency condition.
To demonstrate response envelopes of the elasto-plastic model, response envelopes
of the Modified Cam-clay model [7] are shown in Figure 1.3. The figure also indi-
cates the yield surface. It may be seen that the response envelopes inside the yield
surface (in “overconsolidated” states denoted as oc1 and oc2 in Fig. 1.3) are elliptic
and centred about the stress state, which means that the response is elastic. On the
yield surface, the response envelope is composed of two elliptic sections, one cor-
responding to elasto-plastic loading and the second to the elastic unloading. Both
these sections are centred about the initial stress state. The response envelope at the
isotropic normally consolidated state (labelled as “i”) predicts a smaller stiffness
in loading (controlled by the parameter λ in the Modified Cam-clay model) than in
unloading (controlled by the parameter κ in the Modified Cam-clay model). A spe-
cial response envelope is seen at the critical state (labelled “c” and “−c” in Fig. 1.3),
where the elliptic section for elasto-plastic loading reduces to a line and the model
then predicts a zero stress rate.
1.4.3 Hypoplasticity
The general rate equation of the hypoplastic model, which will be described and
investigated in more depth in forthcoming chapters, reads:
T̊ = : D + ND (1.25)
10 1 Introduction
Fig. 1.4 Response envelope

of elastic and hypoplastic
models. The hypoplastic
response envelope is formed
from the elastic response
envelope : D by
translation, which is
specified by ND
Central in the model are two constitutive tensors and N; is a fourth-order tensor
and N is a second-order tensor.
The first part of the hypoplasticity equation : D is, in fact, equivalent to the
elastic model (1.22). Therefore, identically to the elastic model, it yields an elliptic
response envelope centred about the reference stress state. In addition to this, how-
ever, the hypoplastic model contains additively the second-order tensor part ND,
which is independent of D (for the given D). As ND is independent of D, its
net effect on the response envelope is its translation in the stress space (Fig. 1.4).
Consequently, the response envelope of the hypoplastic model is a single ellipse (as
in elasticity); however, unlike in elasticity, this ellipse is not centred with respect
to the stress state. Therefore, unlike elasticity and similar to elasto-plasticity, the
hypoplastic model predicts different stiffness in different loading directions.
In the general case, the hypoplastic model cannot be analytically re-written into
the form T̊ = : D. However, it is in principle always possible to numerically find
the corresponding for the specific value of D. Such depends continuously on

the direction D; the hypoplastic model is for this reason denoted as incrementally
non-linear.
Examples of response envelopes produced by the hypoplastic model are shown
in Fig. 1.5. The figure shows the response envelopes of the hypoplastic Cam-clay
model [8]. The asymptotic state boundary surface (more details in Chap. 2) is also
included for illustration. The properties of hypoplastic response envelopes described
above are clear from Fig. 1.5; the response envelopes are elliptic, translated with
respect to the stress state. This translation allows for modelling different stiffnesses
in different loading directions. For example, we see that the stiffness produced in the
isotropic normally consolidated state (denoted as i in Fig. 1.5) is for isotropic loading
and unloading, the same as the stiffness predicted by the elasto-plastic version of the
model (Fig. 1.3) controlled by the parameters λ and κ.
1.4 Constitutive Model Classification 11
Fig. 1.5 Response hypoplasticity

envelopes of the hypoplastic
Cam-clay model (figure 200
from [8]) c i
σa [kPa]
100
oc1
oc2
-c
0
0 100 200 300

σr√2 [kPa]
An important specific case is the response envelope at the critical state c and −c.
As mentioned in Sect. 1.4.2, elasto-plasticity achieves zero stress rate predictions at
the critical state by degenerating the elasto-plastic loading portion of the response
envelope into a line. Hypoplasticity achieves the same goal by translating the response
envelope in such a way that it touches the reference stress state.
In elasto-plasticity, the two response envelopes corresponding to the overconsol-
idated states oc1 and oc2 were elastic, that is the same stiffness was predicted in
loading and unloading. However, in hypoplasticity, both response envelopes oc1 and
oc2 are translated ellipses, such that the ellipse at a low overconsolidation ratio (oc1)
is de-centred more than the ellipse at a high overconsolidation ratio (oc2). This means
that the hypoplastic model is capable of predicting irreversibility and non-linearity
of soil behaviour even inside the asymptotic state boundary surface. This property
of hypoplasticity will be covered in subsequent chapters.
References
1. Truesdell, C., Noll, W.: The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (1965)
2. Gudehus, G.: A comparison of some constitutive laws for soils under radially symmetric load-
ing and unloading. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, pp. 1309–1323. Aachen (1979)
3. Gudehus, G., Mašín, D.: Graphical representation of constitutive equations. Géotechnique 59(2),
147–151 (2009)
4. Darve, F.: The expression of rheological laws in incremental form and the main classes of
constitutive equations. In: Darve, F. (ed.) Geomaterials: Constitutive Equations and Modelling,
pp. 123–148. Elsevier (1990)
5. Tamagnini, C., Viggiani, G.: Constitutive modelling for rate-independent soils: a review. Revue
Française de Génie Civil 6(6), 933–974 (2002)
6. Houlsby, G.T., Puzrin, A.M.: Principles of Hyperplasticity: An Approach to Plasticity Theory
Based on Thermodynamic Principles. Springer-Verlag, London Limited, London (2006)
12 1 Introduction
7. Roscoe, K.H., Burland, J.B.: On the generalised stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. In: Hey-
man, J., Leckie, F.A. (eds.) Engineering Plasticity, pp. 535–609. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1968)
8. Mašín, D.: Hypoplastic Cam-clay model. Géotechnique 62(6), 549–553 (2012)
Chapter 2
Soil Mechanical Behaviour
and Its Modelling
In this chapter, the two features of soil (and particulate material in general) mechanical
behaviour that distinguish it from most other materials are introduced: stiffness non-
linearity and asymptotic behaviour. Supporting experimental evidence is outlined,
along with various modelling concepts suggested by different researchers in the
past. The aim of this Chapter is to present the background needed for understanding
the merits of hypoplastic modelling compared to the more standard elasto-plastic
approaches.
This chapter by no means aims to provide a comprehensive review of soil mechan-
ical behaviour and its modelling; this has already been a topic of many textbooks and
research papers (more references regarding constitutive models can be found, e.g.,
in [1, 2]).
In the early days of soil constitutive modelling, researchers took plasticity models,
developed originally for extrusion of metals (Tresca [3], von Mises [4]). While these
models may be reasonable to predict the failure state of soils under undrained condi-
tions, substantial modifications of the theory were required to predict soil behaviour
in general. Soil is a frictional material. Its yield shear stress depends on its nor-
mal stress, and yielding is associated with plastic volume changes. The yield stress
dependency on mean stress was incorporated in failure conditions such as the Mohr–
Coulomb [5, 6] and Drucker–Prager [7]. Predictions of volume changes in shear
were possible thanks to the plastic potential theory of von Mises [8]. Further devel-
opments considered that the yield stress may not depend on stress alone, but also on
soil history. Incorporation of history variable into soil models is possible with the aid
of hardening laws (Melan [9], Prager [10]). Extensive work on soil yielding finally
led to the development of critical state soil mechanics (Schofield and Wroth [11],
Roscoe and Burland [12]), the basic concept of soil constitutive modelling.
The critical state models incorporate within their formulations the concept of
asymptotic states. They are discussed in more detail in Sect. 2.2. Apart from the
asymptotic behaviour, soil response is non-linear and incrementally non-linear (irre-
versible, see Sect. 1.4). Non-linearity and irreversibility is a topic addressed in
14 2 Soil Mechanical Behaviour and Its Modelling
Sect. 2.1. In a sense, these two concepts are fundamental for constructing any soil
constitutive model.
2.1 Stiffness Non-linearity
The early elasto-plastic soil constitutive models, briefly introduced above, assume
elastic behaviour up to failure. This might have been a consequence of the fact
that the early soil models were developed using the concept of plasticity originally
developed for metals, where the assumption of elasticity before yield is reasonable.
This was further stimulated by the fact that non-linearity of soil behaviour was
not precisely known in the past; correct experimental representation of non-linear
stiffness requires special laboratory techniques that were not available before the
1980s. They are briefly described in the next chapter.
2.1.1 Local Measurement of Deformation
Measurement of soil behaviour in the range of small to very small strains requires
special techniques to measure sample deformation. In the standard triaxial apparatus
of the Bishop and Wesley type [13], sample deformation is measured outside the
triaxial cell. As pointed out by Jardine et al. [14], these measurements are subject
to significant errors when interpreted as sample deformation, in particular in the
range of small strains (0.001–0.1% [15]). The most important sources of error are
the following [14] (Fig. 2.1):
• The difficulty of trimming a sample so that the end faces are perpendicular to the
axis of symmetry.
• Play in the connection between the load cell and the sample top cap.
• The inevitable “bedding down” at the ends of the sample, due to local surface
irregularities or voids.
To overcome the problems of inaccurate deformation measurements, Jardine et
al. [14] and other researchers suggested measuring sample deformation by means
of small-size transducers attached directly onto the sample within the triaxial cell.
Symes and Burland [16] adopted electrolevel gauges, originally proposed for mea-
surements of test pile deformation by Cooke and Price [17] (Fig. 2.2a). Cuccovillo and
Coop [18] and Atkinson [15] accomplished local strain measurements using minia-
ture linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) (Fig. 2.2b), which are simple
to use, relatively robust and inexpensive. Clayton and Khatrush [19] proposed the
use of Hall-effect transducers (Fig. 2.2c). More recent developments involved non-
contact sensors (Ezaoui and Di Benedetto [20], Fig. 2.2d). An alternative way of
sample deformation measurement is its evaluation using accurate image manipula-
tion (particle image velocimetry, White et al. [21]).
2.1 Stiffness Non-linearity 15
Fig. 2.1 Sources of error in

external strain measurements
of deformation in triaxial
apparatus (graphics from
[14])
Whatever method for stiffness measurement in the small strain range is used, it
turns out that the soil behaviour is highly non-linear and stiffness decreases con-
tinuously with strain. In addition, the initial stiffness is much higher than revealed
by external measurements. A typical example of measurements, demonstrating why
the researchers might have considered soil behaviour to be linear before yield in
the past, is given in Fig. 2.3. While external measurements indicate a quasi-linear
response, local measurement reveal highly non-linear behaviour. When plotted in
the logarithmic scale, local strain measurements indicate that the stiffness is more-
or-less constant until a strain level between 0.001 and 0.01% is reached. After this
threshold, stiffness gradually decreases.
Accurate stiffness measurements in the small strain range allowed details of soil
behaviour to be investigated. It has long been known that the soil response to cyclic
loading is hysteretic. That is, the soil stiffness in continuous loading is lower than the
stiffness directly after load direction reversal. A typical hysteretic stress-strain curve
is given in Fig. 2.4, showing the results of undrained triaxial test on saturated kaolin
(Roscoe and Burland [12]). Atkinson et al. [25] and Lings et al. [26] using local
deformation transducers investigated the effect of the general stress path direction
rotation on the soil stiffness. A typical result by Atkinson et al. [25] is shown in
Fig. 2.5; four different stress paths with the same main portion “0X”, but different
histories “A0”, “B0”, “C0” and “D0” are shown. While the stress path “0X” was the
Fig. 2.2 Methods of measuring local deformation. a electrolevel gauges (photo from [14]); b local
LVDTs (photo from [15]); c Hall-effect transducers (photo from [22]); d non-contact senors (sketch
from [20])
same in all cases, stiffness depended significantly on soil history (denoted as “recent
stress history”), see Fig. 2.5. Consistent with the results of cyclic loading tests, the
continuous loading (path “BOX”) yielded the lowest stiffness, while a 180◦ stress
path reversal (path “DOX”) produced the highest stiffness. Stiffness in the other cases
(path “AOX” and “COX”) was in between the two extreme cases.
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.3 a Comparison of stress-strain curves obtained from external and local deformation mea-
surement (from Jardine et al. [14], modified). b Shear stiffness versus shear strain (log-scale) curve
measured on London clay using local transducers (from Gasparre et al. [23, 24])
Fig. 2.4 A typical hysteretic

stress-strain curve (deviatoric
stress vs. shear strain) of
undrained triaxial test on
saturated kaolin (from [12])
2.1.2 Stiffness Measurement by Shear Wave Propagation
While the accuracy of stiffness measurements has been increased substantially by the
use of local strain transducers, the accuracy of this measurement method is still not
sufficient to reveal the behaviour within the very small strain range (below approx.
0.001%). See, for example, a portion of the stiffness-strain curve in the range between
strains of 0.0001 and 0.01% in Fig. 2.3b. Measurements are extremely scattered in
the range of strain below 0.001%, making it difficult to estimate the actual value of
the very small strain stiffness.
An alternative way of measuring very small strain stiffness takes advantage of the
fact that the shear wave propagation velocity vs depends on the shear modulus G:
Fig. 2.5 Measurements of the effects of recent stress history using local strain transducers [25].
Left image shows stress paths, right image shows stiffness measured in the “0X” portion of the path
G = ρvs2 (2.1)
where ρ is the soil density. Different experimental techniques exist to measure the
wave propagation velocities. The most commonly used devices are denoted as bender
elements, introduced in soil testing by Shirley and Hampton [27]. Bender elements
may be simply used for measurements of vertically propagating shear waves, or can
be assembled within a complex setup (for both transverse and in-plane wave mea-
surements) enabling the measurement of soil stiffness anisotropy, as demonstrated in
Fig. 2.6 by Ezaoui and Di Benedetto [20]. Calculation of all the transverse isotropy
parameters from the bender element measurements is detailed in Sect. 7.4. Another
way to determine of shear wave velocity is the use of the so-called resonant column
apparatus [28, 29]. The basic principle of the resonant column test is to excite a
cylindrical specimen in its fundamental mode of vibration, usually in torsion [30].
The velocity of the shear wave propagation and consequently the shear modulus is
calculated using the measured values of resonant frequency.
The strain level involved in bender element testing is of the order of 0.0001%
[26, 31]. Resonant column tests give accurate results for strain amplitudes as low
as 0.00001% [30]. Therefore, shear stiffness measurements using wave propagation
techniques are capable of supplementing measurements by local strain transducers,
which are unreliable in the range of strains below 0.001%. Extensive experimenta-
tion by different researchers has shown that the static (local strain transducers) and
dynamic (shear wave velocities) methods of stiffness measurements are consistent
with each other. That is, bender element test results are well within the range that
can be estimated from the scattered stiffness measurements using local transducers
at the low-strain limit of their accuracy. As an example, see Fig. 2.3b [23], where
bender element measurements are indicated by symbols labelled “G eq ”.
Fig. 2.6 Complex bender element setup measuring both S-wave and P-wave velocities (figure
from [20])
2.1.3 Modelling of Stiffness Non-linearity
The history of modelling soil stiffness non-linearity is directly related to the history
of understanding soil non-linearity stimulated by advances in experimental tech-
niques. As pointed out earlier, early soil constitutive models considered linear elastic
behaviour before failure. Such predictions seemed reasonable before the develop-
ment of local strain transducer methods for small strain stiffness measurements (see
Fig. 2.3a).
The following aspects of predictive capabilities of constitutive models will be
discussed in more detail:
1. Predictions of small strain stiffness non-linearity; i.e., a decrease of soil stiffness
measured by local strain transducers (approx. 0.001–0.1%).
2. Predictions of unloading non-linearity; i.e., the soil non-linear response predicted
not only in loading, but also in unloading.
3. Predictions of very small strain stiffness; i.e., the initial stiffness measured by
dynamic methods (below 0.001%).
4. Predictions of recent history effects; i.e., the dependency of soil stiffness on the
general loading history (including directions other than loading and unloading).
A straightforward modification of a linear elastic perfectly plastic model to include
stiffness non-linearity is based on replacement of linear elasticity by non-linear elas-
ticity with the stiffness depending on strain level. Such a model has been proposed,
Fig. 2.7 Prediction of stiffness degradation curve by non-linear elastic model (figure from [33])
for example, by Jardine et al. [32]. This model has been set up to closely repre-
sent the stiffness degradation curve (see Fig. 2.7 from [33]). Thanks to the inherent
properties of the non-linear elastic formulation, this model is incapable of predict-
ing stiffness dependency on loading direction (recent history effects) and, in fact,
it leads to incorrect predictions for any non-monotonous path (for example, it pre-
dicts an unrealistic increase of soil stiffness in unloading). Also, the predictions are
unreliable for stress paths different to those used for model calibration. In specific
cases, however, the model provides reasonable predictions of geotechnical problems.
These models were used in particular for predictions of ground deformation due to
tunnelling [33, 34]. The non-linear elastic model described in this paragraph pre-
dicts in monotonous loading not only small strain stiffness non-linearity, but also
very small strain stiffness as measured by dynamic methods.
Most of the other approaches to modelling soil non-linearity activate plastic strains
within the state boundary surface to predict the non-linear and irreversible response.
The first class of such models, which will be outlined in this summary chapter,
predicts plasticity and non-linearity in continuous loading, while still predicting the
elastic response in unloading. Notable examples of this class of models are radial-
mapping bounding surface plasticity models [35]. These models are typically based
on the critical state soil mechanics Cam-clay type models, which will be denoted as
single-surface models here. The yield surface of the single-surface model is contained
also in the bounding surface plasticity model, and predictions at this surface coincide
with predictions of the single-surface models. In bounding surface models, however,
this surface is not a yield surface in the elasto-plastic sense, because plastic strains
Fig. 2.8 Schematic

representation of loading
surface, bounding surface
and radial mapping rule of
the bounding surface
plasticity model (figure from
Russel and Khalili [36])
can be generated even within this surface. This surface is denoted as a bounding
surface instead.
The principle of bounding surface models can be explained with the aid of Fig. 2.8
(from Russel and Khalili [36]). The current state (σ in Fig. 2.8) is at the loading
surface. A so-called mapping rule is adopted to find a corresponding conjugated
position at the bounding surface (σ in Fig. 2.8). The elasto-plastic hardening modulus
and plastic strain increment direction is found as if the soil state was at the bounding
surface. The hardening modulus used in the model is then composed of two parts: the
hardening modulus at the bounding surface, plus an additional contribution calculated
from the distance between the current state and conjugated state at the bounding
surface (denoted as δ in Fig. 2.8). In unloading, model predictions are elastic. Radial-
mapping bounding surface plasticity models are capable of predicting stiffness non-
linearity in the small strain range. However, the lack of the “elastic nucleus” does not
allow the prediction of high elastic stiffness in the very-small-strain range. Elasticity
in unloading means the model is incapable of predictions of recent history effects and
stiffness variation in unloading. This shortcoming of the bounding surface plasticity
models has been eliminated in [37].
Different in notation but similar in principle and in predictive capabilities to the
bounding surface plasticity models are the so-called subloading surface plasticity
models by Hashiguchi et al. [38, 39], the MIT-E3 model by Whittle and Kavvadas
[40, 41] and subsequent models evolved from the MIT-E3 concept [42]. Similar in
principle (non-linear response in loading and elastic response in unloading) is the
hardening soil model of Schanz et al. [43].
An important addition to the radial mapping bounding surface plasticity models is
the consideration of a non-linear response in unloading. A concept that enabled these
predictions is the so-called generalised plasticity by Pastor et al. [44]. These models
predict plastic strains in both loading and unloading. In these models, the plastic
hardening modulus H and plastic strain increment direction m are defined for both
Fig. 2.9 Principle of the

kinematic hardening
“bubble” model (figure from
Rouainia and Muir Wood
[45], modified)
loading (HL , mL ) and unloading (HU , mU ). Loading and unloading is distinguished

by means of a tensor n, which, in classical elasto-plasticity, is calculated as a normal
to the yield surface f as n = ∂f /∂σ . In generalised plasticity, the notion of the
yield surface is abandoned, and it is sufficient to define an explicit expression for n.
Similarly, generalised plasticity models abandon the notion of the plastic potential,
and it is sufficient to provide an explicit expression for m (that is, for mL and mU ).
Classical elasto-plasticity, as well as bounding surface plasticity, may then be seen
as special cases of generalised plasticity with HU → ∞.
While generalised plasticity models predict small strain stiffness non-linearity
in both loading and unloading, they do not predict the very small strain range of
elastic behaviour (so-called “elastic nucleus”). This range is tiny – as discussed
above (Figs. 2.3b and 2.7), its size is of the order of 0.001% in the strain space, but it
turns out to be important for correctly predicting the displacement field in boundary
value problems. One of the concepts for predicting the elastic nucleus and non-
linear response in loading as well as in unloading is denoted as kinematic hardening
plasticity.
Kinematic hardening plasticity for modelling of soils was introduced by Mróz et
al. [46–48]. A typical model was proposed by Al-Tabbaa and Muir Wood [49]. This
model is based on the critical state soil mechanics Modified Cam-clay model and it
is known as the “bubble” model in the soil mechanics community. The concept will
be explained with the aid of Fig. 2.9. Kinematic hardening bubble models consider
the outer (bounding) surface, similar to the radial mapping bounding surface of plas-
ticity models. As in bounding surface plasticity models, predictions at the bounding
surface coincide with predictions by the single-surface critical state model. Unlike
generalised plasticity, but the same as bounding surface plasticity, bubble models
predict the elastic behaviour in unloading. Unlike bounding surface models, how-
ever, the elastic range is limited in the stress space to a small elastic nucleus (Fig. 2.9).
Once the stress state in unloading reaches the opposite side of the elastic nucleus,
plastic strains are generated, and the surface moves within the stress space following
the current stress point (thus “kinematic hardening”).
The plastic modulus is a sum of two components as seen in bounding surface

models. The first part is a modulus at the conjugated point at the bounding surface
(denoted as σ c in Fig. 2.9). It is not found using a mapping rule as in bounding
surface models, but is instead defined as a point having the same normal to the
bounding surface as is the normal to the elastic nucleus constructed at the current
stress σ (Fig. 2.9). To facilitate this geometrical construction, the elastic nucleus is
assumed to have the same shape (and different size) as the bounding surface. The
second component of the hardening modulus is a function of the distance between
the current stress σ and conjugated stress σ c , similar to the bounding surface mod-
els. The plastic strain increment direction is calculated from a normal to the plastic
potential surface, which moves together with the elastic nucleus (most often, asso-
ciated plasticity is assumed). Finally, the kinematic hardening law controlling the
elastic nucleus movement is introduced into the model such that the yield surface
and bounding surface never intersect each other. Kinematic hardening bubble models
represent a successful concept of soil constitutive modelling, and many variants of
it exist proposed by different researchers [50–52]. Similar concepts to the kinematic
hardening bubble models have been incorporated into the bounding surface model
of Khalili et al. [37]. To predict cyclic loading phenomena of sands, they proposed
a kinematic loading surface moving within the main bounding surface, similar to
bubble models. Instead of calculating the hardening modulus based on conjugated
points with the same normals to the loading and bounding surfaces, they proposed a
new mapping rule with a moving projection centre.
Kinematic hardening models other than the bubble models have been proposed for
modelling granular materials (such as sands or gravels). They focus on predictions
in shear and instead of considering closed “bubbles” within the stress space, they
consider the yield surface as a narrow region radiating from the origin of the stress
space (Fig. 2.10). The yield surface is subject to rotational hardening (it does not
move freely within the stress space, but rotates about the origin of the stress space).
While these models cannot represent the behaviour of sand in compression, they are
successful in predicting the response in shear, including rather complicated patterns
of behaviour of sands subjected to cyclic loading. Typical examples of this class of
models are the SANISAND model by Manzari and Dafalias [53] and the Severn-Trent
sand model by Gajo and Muir Wood [54]. A more recent version of the SANISAND
model eliminates its shortcoming by closing the yield surface in the compression
direction [55].
The kinematic hardening single-bubble models described above predict small
strain stiffness non-linearity in loading and unloading, as well as very small strain
stiffness. They, however, do not predict the effects of recent history, as described in
Sect. 2.1.1. To this aim, Stallebrass and Taylor [56] enhanced the bubble model [49]
from Fig. 2.9 by an additional kinematic “history” surface, which encloses a much
smaller elastic locus (yield surface) and sets a boundary around the current stress
state where the soil behaviour is influenced by recent history effects. Subsequently,
several modifications of this model have been developed by different authors [57–
59]. A similar concept has also been proposed by Puzrin and Burland [60, 61]. Einav
et al. [62–64] demonstrated that kinematic hardening models may be constructed
Fig. 2.10 Kinematic

hardening model for sand
(figure from Gajo and Muir
Wood [54])
Fig. 2.11 Multiple

kinematic surfaces of a
continuous hyperplastic
critical state model (figure
from Einav and Puzrin [63])
in a way consistent with thermodynamics theory, and that the number of kinematic
surfaces can, in principle, be unlimited (Fig. 2.11).
Apart from the above models based on elasto-plasticity, models exist for predicting
non-linearity based on different concepts. One approach specifically developed to
predict the effects of recent history (and consequently also soil non-linearity in the
small strain range both in loading in unloading), is a brick model concept by Simpson
[65]. In the brick model the elastic locus and soil history is defined in the strain space,
instead of the stress space as in typical elasto-plastic models. The modelling concept
has a geometrical interpretation of a man pulling bricks (Fig. 2.12); loose strings do
Fig. 2.12 Geometrical interpretation of the brick model (figure from Ellison et al. [67])
not contribute to soil stiffness, whereas each taut string decreases soil stiffness in a
pre-defined way. While the main concept of the brick model is defined in the strain
space, it incorporates a stress-space based critical state failure condition. Advantage
is taken of the fact that the area below the shear strain versus normalised shear
stiffness curve determines the critical state friction angle [65]. More recent models
based on the brick concept can be found in [66, 67].
Another approach to modelling soil non-linearity is the so-called multi-laminate
framework [68–70]. The multi-laminate model is based on the elasto-plastic theory;
calculation of the plastic strain increment is, however, different from standard elasto-
plastic models. In the multi-laminate framework, soil is assumed to be a solid block
behaving elastically, intersected by a number of randomly oriented planes where
plastic straining may occur. The actual macro stress tensor is projected onto the
micro stress vectors on every plane where the possible plastic strain increments are
calculated. The plastic contribution from all planes is then spatially summed up to
obtain the macro plastic strain [70] (Fig. 2.13). The basic multi-laminate framework
has been enhanced by Scharinger et al. [71] to predict very small strain stiffness.
An approach for incorporating small strain stiffness effects into elasto-plastic
models that do not consider soil non-linearity has been proposed by Benz et al. [72]
and applied to the hardening soil model by Benz [73]. In their model, plastic strains
are not considered. The elastic stiffness matrix depends on the loading direction with
respect to the previous loading history and the model is thus incrementally non-linear
(see Sect. 1.4). In cyclic loading, the model predicts a hysteretic response, but the
original stress is recovered in a strain cycle; such a class of models is often denoted
as paraelastic [74]. Another paraelastic model capable of improving the small strain
stiffness predictions of other models is due to Niemunis et al. [75].
One of the approaches inherently capable of modelling soil non-linearity is
hypoplasticity. When compared to other modelling approaches discussed in this
section, the basic hypoplastic models are capable of predicting non-linear soil
Fig. 2.13 Schematic representation of the multi-laminate model (figure from Cudny and Vermeer
[70])
behaviour in both loading and unloading (for a more detailed explanation, see
Chap. 3). These models are incapable of predicting very small strain stiffness and
the effects of recent history. To include these two effects, the hypoplastic models
can be enhanced. The most commonly adopted way of hypoplastic model enhance-
ment is the intergranular strain concept [76] (Sect. 7.1), but other approaches are also
possible. For example, Niemunis et al. [75, 77] proposed hypoplastic model enhance-
ment by paraelasticity and Fuentes and Triantafyllidis [78] developed so-called ISA
extension of hypoplasticity which specifically targets cyclic loading effects.
2.2 Asymptotic Behaviour of Soils
Asymptotic behaviour is a striking feature of granular materials. Specific asymptotic

states have been known since the early studies of soil mechanics. Casagrande [79],
Hvorslev [80] and Taylor [81] are among the pioneers who observed critical state
behaviour of soils – a particular asymptotic state related to constant volume shearing.
Schofield and Wroth [11] and Roscoe and Burland [12] combined the existence of
critical states and compressive asymptotic states (revealed in normal compression
behaviour) into a unified framework of critical state soil mechanics. More generally,
Gudehus et al. [82, 83] understood asymptotic states to be attractors in the behaviour
of granular materials, which are independent of the initial state. They proposed that
each direction of strain rate with a volume decrease is uniquely linked to a particular
asymptotic stress ratio and a particular path in the mean stress versus void ratio plane
(denoted as a normal compression line). Gudehus [84] later argued that the asymptotic
stress ratio should not be expected to remain constant during loading of a granular
material because of grain crushing and changing granulometry. The asymptotic state
has also been denoted as the state limit [85], or the swept-out-memory state [82].
2.2 Asymptotic Behaviour of Soils 27
(a) .
εa (b) σa
d c
c
ψ ε. i
i
d
. ψσ
2ε r
−c
−i
−c −d
−d
2 σr
Fig. 2.14 Definition of angles ψε̇ and ψσ . “i” and “-i” denote isotropic directions in loading and
unloading, “c” and “−c” denote isochoric (constant volume) direction in loading and unloading,
and “d” and “−d” denote the theoretical limit for asymptotic state behaviour. Figure from [87]
2.2.1 Asymptotic State Concept
The asymptotic state is defined as that state reached after a sufficiently long pro-
portional stretching, i.e. deforming the soil with a constant direction of the strain
rate. Conceptual representation of asymptotic states has been proposed in [85–87].
In this section, focus is given on axisymmetric stress and deformation states, where
the strain rate tensor is fully characterised by axial ε̇a and radial ε̇r components.
Similarly, the stress tensor is given by σa (axial stress) and σr (radial stress). The
strain rate direction may be characterised by an angle ψε̇ (see Fig. 2.14a), and the
stress obliquity is quantified by the angle ψσ (Fig. 2.14b).
According to the asymptotic state concept, proportional deformation (constant
ψε̇ ) will ultimately lead to an asymptotic state characterised by a constant ψσ . Not
all stretching directions will, however, lead to a unique asymptotic state. First, we
focus on compression and constant volume stretching paths, characterised by a vol-
ume decrease (constant volume in the limiting case), thus −90◦ ≤ ψε̇ ≤ 90◦ . These
directions of ψε̇ are represented in Fig. 2.15a. Isotropic compression1 ψε̇ = 0◦ is
indicated with the index ‘i’; limiting values ψε̇ = ±90◦ (constant volume shearing)
with the indices ‘c’ and ‘−c’. Each ψε̇ is related to a unique asymptotic value of
ψσ , as demonstrated in Fig. 2.15b. In the special case of isochoric deformation (±c,
critical state), the corresponding value of ψσ is directly linked to the critical state
friction angle by √ √
2 2 sin ϕc 2
tan ψσ (±c) = ± = M (2.2)
3 ∓ sin ϕc 3
that the isotropic asymptotic state is defined here by ψε̇ = 0◦ ; the corresponding asymptotic
1 Note
ψσ may then differ from 0◦ in the case of an anisotropic soil.

. ψε
(a) εa (b)
c
90° c
ψ ε. i
d i
. ψσ
2ε r
−i
−c −90°
−c
−d
(c) (d)
σa
ln(1+e) d c
isotropic normal compression line ψε
ec
normal compression line
arbitrary
initial i
state
−c
critical state line
−d
10 100 1000 p [kPa]
2 σr
Fig. 2.15 Graphical representation of compression asymptotic states. Zones relevant to asymptotic
states in compression are highlighted in grey
where M = q/p at the critical state. Each of the asymptotic states also has a unique
trace in the mean stress p versus void ratio e plane (Fig. 2.15c). Asymptotic states
in this plane are traditionally denoted as normal compression lines. In some soils
(mainly clays), they tend to be linear in the ln p versus ln(1 + e) plane [88], but this
is not a general rule. All normal compression lines are bound between the isotropic
normal compression line, attributed to ψε̇(i) , and the critical state line, linked with
ψε̇(±c) . Different measures have been defined throughout the literature to represent
the positions of the normal compression lines. The two most commonly used are the
relative void ratio re and the overconsolidation ratio OCR2
e − ed pe
re = OCR = (2.3)
ec − ed p
where ed and ec are minimum and critical state void ratios at the current mean stress
respectively. pe is the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure, defined as the mean stress at
2 OCR is traditionally defined as OCR = pc /p, where pc is the preconsolidation pressure. In this
book, definition (2.3) will be preferred, as no additional assumptions about the quasi-elastic soil
behaviour are needed for its quantification.
Fig. 2.16 Sketch of the σa

asymptotic state boundary c
surface in the stress versus d
void ratio space for the
axisymmetric case i
−c
−d
2 σr
the isotropic normal compression line at the current void ratio. It is clear that the
isotropic normal compression line is characterised by re = rei > 1 and OCR = 1,
and the critical state line by re = 1 and OCR = OCRc > 1. Each of the compression
asymptotic states can be attributed to a unique value of 1 ≤ re ≤ rei , or OCRc ≥
OCR ≥ 1.
To aid the explanation of constitutive modelling approaches, the asymptotic state
boundary surface (ASBS) [87, 89] may be defined, which is an envelope of all asymp-
totic states in stress-void ratio space. A constant void ratio cross-section through this
surface in the compression regime is sketched in Fig. 2.15d. The ASBS is in Fig. 2.16
plotted for the axisymmetric case.
As suggested in [85–87], asymptotic states can also be reached after proportional
stretching along extension (volume increase) paths. These asymptotic states have
been observed in discrete element simulations (Sect. 2.2.3). The stretching directions
that lead to extension asymptotic states are depicted in Fig. 2.17a. Limiting values
of ψε̇ and ψσ are denoted with indices ‘d’ and ‘−d’ (asymptotic σr = 0) and ‘−d’
(asymptotic σa = 0) [85]. The maximum values of |ψσ | at the limiting states ±d
correspond to mobilised friction angles equal to 90◦ . The relationship between ψε̇ and
ψσ for asymptotic extension paths is shown in Fig. 2.17b. Each extension asymptotic
state is also associated with its trace in the mean stress versus void ratio plane. In
[87], they were denoted as normal extension lines, see Fig. 2.17c.
2.2.2 Experimental Investigation of Soil Asymptotic

Behaviour
Asymptotic behaviour has been the subject of experimental investigation; critical

state and normal compression behaviour have been well documented. More generally,
compression asymptotic states have been studied, and confirmed, by Goldscheider
[90] and Chu and Lo [91], who performed true and axisymmetric triaxial tests on
. ψε
(a) εa (b) d
144.7°
c
90° c
ψ ε. i
d −35.3° i
. 54.7° ψ σ
2ε r
−i
−c −90°
−c
−d −d −125.3°
(c) (d) σa
ln(1+e) d c
isotropic normal compression line
ec
critical state line i

arbitrary
initial
state
−c
"normal extension line"
−d
10 100 1000 p [kPa]
2 σr
Fig. 2.17 Graphical representation of extension asymptotic states. Zones relevant to asymptotic
states in extension are highlighted in grey
sands with strain path control. They observed a unique relationship between the
strain path direction and asymptotic stress ratio. Figure 2.18a shows q/p versus εs
curves obtained by Chu and Lo [91] for different values of the ratio of volumetric and
axial strain. For each ratio of εv /εa , the q/p versus εa curve converges to a different
asymptotic q/p. The final values of q/p are shown in Fig. 2.18b. Chu and Lo [91] also
demonstrated that the asymptotic stress ratio was independent of the previous loading
history. Figure 2.19a shows stress paths for two tests with ratio εv /εa = −0.43. One
test was under the conditions of εv /εa = −0.43, originating from the isotropic stress
state. The second sample was first brought to the anisotropic stress ratio q/p =
1 under constant mean stress path and subsequently tested under εv /εa = −0.43
conditions. The two samples finally reached exactly the same asymptotic stress ratio
irrespective of their history. Chu and Lo [91] also demonstrated independence of the
asymptotic stress ratio of cyclic loading (2.19b).
Asymptotic behaviour has also been studied in clays, most notably by Topolnicki
et al. [92]. They investigated the behaviour of remoulded kaolin in a true triax-
ial apparatus, in which they could control/measure all three normal components of
stress and strain. Figure 2.20 shows, in the octahedral planes of strain (subset image)
and stress, that the asymptotic stress paths depend on the prescribed strain direction.
Fig. 2.18 a q/p versus εs curves for tests with different ratio εv /εa . b The dependency of the
asymptotic q/p on εv /εa (both figures from Chu and Lo [91])
Fig. 2.19 a Stress paths of εv /εa = −0.43 tests with two different stress histories. b Stress paths
of cyclic loading test with the ratio εv /εa = −0.11 (both figures from Chu and Lo [91])
Figures 2.21 and 2.22 demonstrate independence of the asymptotic stress ratio on
the loading history. In particular, in the tests shown in Fig. 2.21 the strain direction
was changed abruptly during the test; the stress path asymptotically converged to
the path obtained during monotonous loading. In Fig. 2.22, samples were first com-
pressed under various strain path directions and then sheared, undrained, to failure.
In all cases, the critical state stress ratio (being one of the asymptotic states) was
independent of the sample history.
Fig. 2.20 The dependency

of the asymptotic stress
direction on strain path
direction for kaolin
investigated in true triaxial
apparatus (figure from
Topolnicky et al. [92])
Fig. 2.21 Tests on kaolin clay demonstrating independence of the asymptotic state on the strain
path history (figure from Topolnicky et al. [92])
Fig. 2.22 Tests on kaolin clay demonstrating independence of the critical state (constant volume
asymptotic state) on the strain path history (figure from Topolnicky et al. [92])
Fig. 2.23 Periodic cubic cell

containing 150000 spherical
permanent (non-crushable)
particles with a grain size
distribution of a real sand
adopted in DEM simulations
(figure from Mašín [87])
2.2.3 Discrete Element Investigation of Soil Asymptotic

Behaviour
Another means of investigating the asymptotic state is the discrete element method
(DEM). Different authors typically focused on specific asymptotic states; the exis-
tence of the critical state was confirmed in [93–99]. Salot et al. [94] and Wang et
al. [95] demonstrated that the value of the critical state friction angle depended on
particle shape. The influence of the particle shape on the asymptotic behaviour was
also emphasized in [100–105]. A number of authors argued that the existence of
asymptotic states is directly linked to particle crushing [97, 98, 106–110]. Using
DEM simulations, the existence of normal compression lines was explained by par-
ticle crushing in References [97, 98, 106–108]. Cheng et al. [97, 98] predicted both
critical states and normal compression lines, using the same parameter sets, creating
a more complete picture of the granular material behaviour. They argued that the
particle crushing is a cause of the asymptotic behaviour.
A study of the soil asymptotic behaviour using DEM has been presented by
Mašín [87]. He adopted a periodic cubic cell in his simulations containing 150000
particles (Fig. 2.23), with the particle size distribution of a real sand. The particles
were spherical and permanent (particle crushing was not allowed for). The two hori-
zontal strain components were set as equal, and the tests were evaluated using stress
and strain measures ψε̇ and ψσ from Fig. 2.14. Mašín [87] observed unique asymp-
totic states in both the p versus ψσ plane (Fig. 2.24a) and in the p versus ln(1 + e)
plane (Fig. 2.24b). Asymptotic states were observed in compression (ψε̇ < 90◦ ),
constant volume (ψε̇ = 90◦ ) and also in extension (ψε̇ > 90◦ ). Figure 2.24b thus
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.24 Asymptotic states observed in a DEM model for constant strain direction tests for different
values of ψε̇ . a Dependency of asymptotic ψσ on mean stress; b normal compression and extension
lines (figure from Mašín [87])
(a) 50 ψε=90°, NC (b) 50

σr=const., NC
ψε=90°, OC σr=const., OC
final state NC ψε=90°, final
final state OC σr=const., final
40 40
ψσ [°]
ψσ [°]
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
p [kPa] p [kPa]
Fig. 2.25 Stress paths and asymptotic states observed in different tests starting from normally
consolidated (“NC”) and overconsolidated (“OC”) states. a ψε̇ = 90◦ (constant volume) tests;
constant horizontal stress tests. (figure from Mašín [87])
shows both normal compression and normal extension lines. The asymptotic stress
ratios were observed to depend on the mean stress level, but this was the effect of
a high Inertia number at small mean stresses, as shown in [111]. In the quasi-static
regime, the asymptotic stress ratio is independent of the mean stress and the normal
compression lines are much flatter [111].
Mašín [87] also investigated the dependency of the constant volume asymptotic
state on the loading history. Figure 2.25a shows stress paths and asymptotic states
reached by normally consolidated specimens (labelled as “NC”) and specimens
with different overconsolidation ratios (labelled as “OC”). The asymptotic state was
clearly independent of the history of loading. The same asymptotic state was also
reached in tests with a controlled stress path and constant radial stress (denoted
as drained triaxial test in soil mechanics). Figure 2.25b shows the final asymptotic
states (critical states) and Fig. 2.26 shows the stress-strain curves and strain direction
versus shear strain curves. In constant horizontal stress tests, the strain direction ψε̇
always converges to ψε̇ = 90◦ (constant volume) and critical state conditions are thus
reached. In soil mechanics terminology, DEM simulations indicated that the critical
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.26 a Stress direction versus shear strain curves and b strain direction versus shear strain
curves observed in constant horizontal stress tests starting from normally consolidated and over-
consolidated conditions (figure from Mašín [87])
state is the same when studied using drained triaxial tests (constant horizontal stress)
and undrained triaxial tests on saturated samples (ψε̇ = 90◦ tests).
2.2.4 Constitutive Modelling of Soil Asymptotic Behaviour
Asymptotic soil behaviour can be predicted using models based on critical state soil
mechanics. These predictive capabilities can be illustrated using the elasto-plastic
Modified Cam-clay model [12]. The yield surface of the Modified Cam-clay model
is shown in Fig. 2.27. Each stress ratio is associated with the given plastic strain rate
direction. Isotropic hardening of the model is constructed in such a way that each
stress ratio is also associated with the given normal compression line (for positive
plastic volumetric strain), normal extension line (negative plastic volumetric strain),
or critical state line (zero plastic volumetric strain).
Fig. 2.27 Yield surface and

flow rule of the elasto-plastic
critical state model
(Modified Cam-clay model)
Elastic behaviour inside the yield surface may be defined in different ways in
different versions of the Modified Cam-clay model. In the following, the formulation
with constant proportion of bulk modulus K and shear modulus G (that is, a model
with constant Poisson’s ratio ν’) will be adopted. In such a case, proportional loading
with the stress increment direction being the same as the stress direction is associated
with a specific ratio of elastic volumetric and shear strain increments. Consequently,
proportional loading for each stress ratio is associated with the specific direction of
the total strain increment (being the sum of elastic and plastic strain increments).
This total strain increment specifies the asymptotic state reached by the model in
asymptotic loading with a prescribed strain increment direction.
Similar predictive capabilities for asymptotic states are included in the majority of
models based on the same concept. Some of these models have been cited in Sect. 2.1;
the list includes bounding surface plasticity models, generalised plasticity models as
well as kinematic hardening bubble models. On the contrary, asymptotic behaviour
among models described in Sect. 2.1 is not properly predicted by non-linear elastic
small strain models.
Asymptotic behaviour can also be incorporated into hypoplastic models, and as
a matter of fact, the majority of the hypoplastic models are capable of such mod-
elling. A simple vectorial example on the incorporation of asymptotic behaviour into
hypoplasticity is introduced in Chap. 3 and the modelling framework is described
in detail in subsequent chapters. Similarly to the elasto-plastic models, however,
the concept of hypoplasticity itself does not guarantee predictions of asymptotic
behaviour.
A special class of constitutive models developed specifically to predict soil asymp-
totic behaviour is denoted as barodesy [112]. According to some authors, this mod-
elling framework is considered to belong to the more general group of hypoplasticity
thanks to its incrementally non-linear nature [113]. However, if hypoplasticity in a
strict sense is defined by Eq. (1.26), barodesy should be considered as a separate
class of constitutive models. Central to the barodetic model is a function R(D),
which specifies the asymptotic direction of stress depending on the given stretching
direction D, such that
T = μR(D) (2.4)
where 0 < μ < ∞. The constitutive model rate form reads

Ṫ = h f R + g T D (2.5)
where h, f and g are properly selected scalar factors. The term f R represents the
target asymptotic stress ratio, the term gT ensures that for other than asymptotic
stress ratios the stress ratio converges towards the asymptotic one in proportional
loading and the scalar h controls the soil stiffness. The principle of barodesy is
demonstrated in Fig. 2.28, examples of radiating stress paths for various directions
D are in Fig. 2.29.
References 37
Fig. 2.28 Demonstration of

asymptotic properties of
barodesy
Fig. 2.29 Stress paths

corresponding to
proportional stretching in
various directions predicted
by barodesy (from
Kolymbas [112])
References
1. Tamagnini, C., Viggiani, G.: Constitutive modelling for rate-independent soils: a review.
Revue Française de Génie Civil 6(6), 933–974 (2002)
2. Puzrin, A.: Constitutive Modelling in Geomechanics. Springer, Berlin (2012)
3. Tresca, H.: Sur l’ecoulement des corps solides soumis a de fortes pressions. C. R. Acas. Sci.
(Paris) 59, 754 (1864)
4. von Mises, R.: Mechanik der festen Korper im plastisch deformation. Zustand. Nachr. Ges.
Wiss. Gottigen p. 582 (1913)
5. Coulomb, C.A.: Essai sur une application des regeles de maximis & minimis a quelques
problemes de statique relatifs a l’architecture. Mem. de Math. et de Phys., presentes a l’Acad.
Roy des Sci., Paris 7, 343–382 (1776)
6. Mohr, O.: Welche umstände bedingen die elastizitätsgrenze und den bruch eines materials?
Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 44, 1524–1530, 1572–1577 (1900)
7. Drucker, D.C., Prager, W.: Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q. Appl. Math.
10, 157–165 (1952)
8. von Mises, R.: Mechanik der plastischen Formaenderung von Kristallen. Z. Angew. Math.
Mech. 8, 161–185 (1928)
9. Melan, E.: Ingenieur-Archiv. Zur Plastizität des räumlischen Kontinuums 9, 116–126 (1938)
10. Prager, W.: The theory of plasticity - a survey of recent achievements. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
3–19 (1955)
11. Schofield, A.N., Wroth, C.P.: Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London (1968)
Cambridge (1968)
13. Bishop, A.W., Wesley, L.D.: A hydraulic triaxial apparatus for controlled stress path testing.
Géotechnique 25(4), 657–670 (1975)
14. Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J., Burland, J.B.: The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial
apparatus. Géotechnique 34(3), 323–340 (1984)
15. Atkinson, J.H.: Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design. Géotechnique 50(5), 487–508
(2000)
16. Symes, M.J., Burland, J.B.: Determination of local displacements on soil samples. Geotech.
Test. J. 7, 49–59 (1984)
17. Cooke, R.W., Price, G.: Horisontal inclinometers for the measurement of vertical displace-
ment in the soil around experimental foundations. Field Instrumentation in Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 112–125. Butterworths, London (1974)
18. Cuccovillo, T., Coop, M.R.: The measurement of local axial strains in tiaxial tests using
LVDT’s. Géotechnique 47(1), 167–171 (1997)
19. Clayton, C.R.I., Khatrush, S.A.: A new device for measuring local axial strains on triaxial
specimens. Géotechnique 36(4), 593–597 (1986)
20. Ezaoui, A., Di Benedetto, H.: Experimental measurements of the global anisotropic elastic
behaviour of dry Hostun sand during triaxial tests, and effect of sample preparation. Géotech-
nique 57(7), 621–635 (2009)
21. White, D.J., Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D.: Soil deformation measurement using particle image
velocimetry (piv) and photogrammetry. Géotechnique 53(7), 619–631 (2003)
22. Kung, G.T.C.: Equipment and testing procedures for small strain triaxial tests. J. Chin. Inst.
Eng. 30(4), 579–591 (2007)
23. Gasparre, A.: Advanced laboratory characterisation of London clay. Ph.D. thesis, University
of London, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine (2005)
24. Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Coop, M.R., Jardine, R.J.: The stiffness of natural
London clay. Géotechnique 57(1), 33–47 (2007)
25. Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D., Stallebrass, S.E.: Effects of recent stress history on the stiffness
of overconsolidated soil. Géotechnique 40(4), 531–540 (1990)
26. Lings, M.L., Pennington, D.S., Nash, D.F.T.: Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their mea-
surement in a stiff natural clay. Géotechnique 50(2), 109–125 (2000)
27. Shirley, D.J., Hampton, L.D.: Shear-wave measurements in laboratory sediments. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 63(2), 607–613 (1978)
28. Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R., Woods, R.D.: Vibrations of Soils and Foundations. Prentice Hall Inc,
Englewood Cliffs (1970)
29. Hardin, B.O., Drnevich, V.P.: Modulus and damping of soils I: measurement and parameters
effect. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 98(7), 667–692 (1972)
30. Kumar, J., Clayton, C.R.I.: Effect of sample torsional stiffness on resonant column test results.
Can. Geotech. J. 44, 201–230 (2007)
31. Leong, E.C., Yeo, S.H., Rahardjo, H.: Measuring shear wave velocity using bender elements.
Geotech. Test. J. 28(5), 488–498 (2005)
32. Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M., Fourie, D.M., Burland, J.B.: Studies of the influence of non-linear
stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Géotechnique 36(3), 377–396 (1986)
33. Addenbrooke, T., Potts, D., Puzrin, A.: The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the
numerical analysis of tunnel construction. Géotechnique 47(3), 693–712 (1997)
34. Franzius, J.N., Potts, D.M., Burland, J.B.: The influence of soil anisotropy and K0 on ground
surface movements resulting from tunnel excavation. Géotechnique 55(3), 189–199 (2005)
References 39
35. Daffalias, Y.F.: Bounding surface plasticity. I: mathematical foundation and hypoplasticity. J.
Eng. Mech. ASCE 112(9), 966–987 (1986)
36. Russell, A.R., Khalili, N.: A unified bounding surface plasticity model for unsaturated soils.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 30(3), 181–212 (2006)
37. Khalili, N., Habte, M.A., Valliapan, S.: A bounding surface plasticity model for cyclic loading
of granular soils. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 63, 1939–1960 (2005)
38. Hashiguchi, K.: Subloading surface model in unconventional plasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct.
25(8), 917–945 (1989)
39. Hashiguchi, K., Saitoh, K., Okayasu, T., Tsutsumi, S.: Evaluation of typical conventional and
unconventional plasticity models in prediction of softening behaviour of soils. Géotechnique
52(8), 561–578 (2002)
40. Whittle, A.J.: Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique
43(2), 289–313 (1993)
41. Whittle, A.J., Kavvadas, M.J.: Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model for overconsolidated
clays. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 120(1), 173–198 (1994)
42. Pestana, J.M., Whittle, A.J.: Formulation of a unified constitutive model for clays and sands.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 23, 1215–1243 (1999)
43. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G.: The hardening soil model: formulation and verifi-
cation. In: Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics - 10 Years of PLAXIS, pp. 281–296.
Balkema, Rotterdam (2000)
44. Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O.C., Chan, A.H.C.: Generalised plasticity and the modelling of soil
behaviour. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 14, 151–190 (1990)
45. Rouainia, M., Muir Wood, D.: Implicit numerical integration for a kinematic hardening soil
plasticity model. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 25, 1305–1325 (2001)
46. Mróz, Z.: On the description of anisotropic work-hardening. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 15, 163–
175 (1967)
47. Mroz, Z., Norris, V.A., Zienkiewicz, O.C.: An anisotropic hardening model for soils and its
application to cyclic loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2, 203–221 (1978)
48. Mróz, Z., Norris, V.A., Zienkiewicz, O.C.: Application of an anisotropic hardening model in
the analysis of elasto-plastic deformation of soil. Géotechnique 29(1), 1–34 (1979)
49. Al-Tabbaa, A., Muir Wood, D.: An experimentally based “bubble” model for clay. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 3th International Conference on Numerical Models in Geomechanics. Niagara
Falls (1989)
50. Rouainia, M., Muir Wood, D.: A kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays
with loss of structure. Géotechnique 50(2), 153–164 (2000)
51. Gajo, A., Muir Wood, D.: A new approach to anisotropic, bounding surface plasticity: general
formulation and simulations of natural and reconstituted clay behaviour. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 25, 207–241 (2001)
52. Kavvadas, M., Amorosi, A.: A constitutive models for structured soils. Géotechnique 50(3),
263–273 (2000)
53. Manzari, M.T., Dafalias, Y.F.: A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 47(2), 255–272 (1997)
54. Gajo, A., Muir Wood, D.: Severn-Trent sand: a kinematic hardening constitutive model: the
q-p formulation. Géotechnique 49(5), 595–614 (1999)
55. Taiebat, M., Dafalias, Y.F.: SANISAND: simple anisotropic sand plasticity model. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32, 915–948 (2008)
56. Stallebrass, S.E., Taylor, R.N.: Prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay.
Géotechnique 47(2), 235–253 (1997)
57. Baudet, B.A., Stallebrass, S.E.: A constitutive model for structured clays. Géotechnique 54(4),
269–278 (2004)
58. Grammatikopoulou, A., Zdravković, L., Potts, D.M.: General formulation of two kinematic
hardening constitutive models with a smooth elastoplastic transition. Int. J. Geomech. 6(5),
291–302 (2006)
59. McDowell, G.R., Hau, K.W.: A simple non-associated three surface kinematic hardening
model. Géotechnique 53(4), 433–437 (2003)
60. Puzrin, A.M., Burland, J.B.: Non-linear model of small-strain behaviour of soils. Géotech-
nique 48(2), 217–233 (1998)
61. Puzrin, A.M., Burland, J.B.: Kinematic hardening plasticity formulation of small strain
behaviour of soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 24, 753–781 (2000)
62. Einav, I., Puzrin, A.M., Houlsby, G.T.: Numerical studies of hyperplasticity with single,
multiple and a continuous field of yield surfaces. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 27,
837–858 (2003)
63. Einav, I., Puzrin, A.M.: Continuous hyperplastic critical state (CHCS) model derivation. Int.
J. Solids Struct. 41, 199–226 (2004)
64. Einav, I., Puzrin, A.M.: Evaluation of continuous hyperplastic critical state (CHCS) model.
Géotechnique 53(10), 901–913 (2003)
65. Simpson, B.: Retaining structures: displacement and design. Géotechnique 42(4), 539–576
(1992)
66. Vukadin, V., Likar, J., Jovičić, V.: Development of a conceptual material model for structured
materials - S_BRICK. Acta Geotech. Slov. 2005(1), 33–43 (2005)
67. Ellison, K.C., Soga, K., Simpson, B.: A strain space soil model with evolving stiffness
anisotropy. Géotechnique 62(7), 627–641 (2012)
68. Pande, G.N., Sharma, K.G.: Multi-laminate model for clays - a numerical evaluation of the
influence of rotation of principal axes. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 7(4), 397–418
(1983)
69. Pietruszczak, S., Pande, G.N.: Multi-laminate framework of soil models - plasticity formula-
tion. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 11(6), 651–658 (1987)
70. Cudny, M., Vermeer, P.A.: On the modelling of anisotropy and destruction of soft clays within
the multi-laminate framework. Comput. Geotech. 31(1), 1–22 (2004)
71. Scharinger, F., Schweiger, H.F., Pande, G.N.: On a multilaminate model for soil incorporating
small strain stiffness. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 33, 215–243 (2009)
72. Benz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Schwab, R.: A small-strain overlay model. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
73. Benz, T.: Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of Stuttgart (2007)
74. Hueckel, T., Nova, R.: Some hysteresis effects of the behaviour of geological media. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 15(8), 625–642 (1979)
75. Niemunis, A., Prada Sarmiento, L.F., Grandas Tavera, C.E.: Paraelasticity. Acta Geotech. 6,
67–80 (2011)
76. Niemunis, A., Herle, I.: Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range.
Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 2(4), 279–299 (1997)
77. Niemunis, A., Prada Sarmiento, L.F., Grandas Tavera, C.E.: Extended paraelasticity and its
application to a boundary value problem. Acta Geotech. 6, 91–92 (2011)
78. Fuentes, W., Triantafyllidis, T.: ISA: a constitutive model for deposited sand. In: Schanz, T.,
Hettler, A. (eds.) Aktuelle Forschung in der Bodenmechanik 2015, pp. 169–187. Springer,
Berlin (2015)
79. Casagrande, A.: Characteristics of cohesionless soils affecting the stability of slopes and earth
fills. J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng. 23, 257–276 (1936)
80. Hvorslev, M.J.: Über die Festigkeitseigenschaften gestörter bindiger Böden. Ph.D. thesis,
Danmarks naturvidenskabelige samfund, Københaven (1937)
81. Taylor, D.W.: Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York (1948)
82. Gudehus, G., Goldscheider, M., Winter, H.: Mechanical properties of sand and clay and
numerical intergration methods: some sources of errors and bounds of accuracy. In: Gudehus,
G. (ed.) Finite Elements in Geomechanics, pp. 121–150. Wiley, Chichester (1977)
83. Gudehus, G.: Attractors for granular storage and flow. In: 3rd European Symposium – Storage
and Flow of Particulate Solids, Paper for the conference ‘Partec 95’, pp. 333–345 (1995)
References 41
84. Gudehus, G.: Discussion of paper “Asymptotic behaviour of a granular soil in strain path
testing” by Chu, J. and Lo, S.-C. R. Géotechnique 45(2), 337–338 (1995)
85. Gudehus, G., Mašín, D.: Graphical representation of constitutive equations. Géotechnique
59(2), 147–151 (2009)
86. Gudehus, G.: Physical Soil Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (2011)
87. Mašín, D.: Asymptotic behaviour of granular materials. Granul. Matter 14(6), 759–774 (2012)
88. Butterfield, R.: A natural compression law for soils. Géotechnique 29(4), 469–480 (1979)
89. Mašín, D., Herle, I.: State boundary surface of a hypoplastic model for clays. Comput.
Geotech. 32(6), 400–410 (2005)
90. Goldscheider, M.: True triaxial tests on dense sand. In: Gudehus, G. (ed.) Constitutive Rela-
tions for Soils, pp. 11–54. Workshop Grenoble, Balkema (1982)
91. Chu, J., Lo, S.C.R.: Asymptotic behaviour of a granular soil in strain path testing. Géotech-
nique 44(1), 65–82 (1994)
92. Topolnicki, M., Gudehus, G., Mazurkiewicz, B.K.: Observed stress-strain behaviour of
remoulded saturated clays under plane strain conditions. Géotechnique 40(2), 155–187 (1990)
93. Sitharam, T.G., Vinod, J.S.: Critical state behaviour of granular materials from isotropic and
rebounded paths: DEM simulations. Granul. Matter 11, 33–42 (2009)
94. Salot, C., Gotteland, P., Villard, P.: Influence of relative density on granular materials
behaviour: DEM simulations of triaxial tests. Granul. Matter 11, 221–236 (2009)
95. Wang, J., Yu, H.S., Langston, P., Fraige, F.: Particle shape effects in discrete element modelling
of cohesive angular particles. Granul. Matter 13, 1–12 (2011)
96. Peña, A.A., Herrmann, H.J., Lizcano, A., Alonso-Marroquín, F.: Investigation of the asymp-
totic states of granular materials using discrete element model of anisotropic particles. In:
H. García-Rojo, McNamara (eds.) Powders and Grains, pp. 697–700. Taylor and Francis,
London (2005)
97. Cheng, Y.P., Bolton, M.D., Nakata, Y.: Crushing and plastic deformation of soils simulated
using DEM. Géotechnique 54(2), 131–141 (2004)
98. Cheng, Y.P., Nakata, Y., Bolton, M.D.: Discrete element simulation of crushable soil. Géotech-
nique 53(7), 633–641 (2003)
99. Zhao, X., Evans, T.M.: Numerical analysis of critical state behaviors of granular soils under
different loading conditions. Granul. Matter 13, 751–764 (2011)
100. Kozicki, J., Tejchman, J.: Numerical simulations of sand behaviour using DEM with two
different descriptions of grain roughness. In: E. Oñate, D.R.J. Owen (eds.) II International
Conference on Particle-based Methods - Fundamentals and Applications. PARTICLES 2011
(2011)
101. Ferellec, J.F., McDowell, G.R.: A method to model realistic particle shape and inertia in DEM.
Granul. Matter 12, 459–467 (2010)
102. Lu, N., McDowell, G.R.: The importance of modelling ballast particle shape in the discrete
element method. Granul. Matter 9, 69–80 (2007)
103. Markauskas, D., Kašianauskas, R., Džiugys, A., Navakas, R.: Investigation of adequacy of
multi-sphere approximation of elliptical particles for DEM simulations. Granul. Matter 12,
107–123 (2010)
104. Stahl, M., Konietzky, H.: Discrete element simulation of ballast and gravel under special
consideration of grain-shape, grain-size and relative density. Granul. Matter 13(4), 417–428
(2011)
105. Luding, S., Alonso-Marroquín, F.: The critical state yield stress (termination locus) of adhesive
powders from a single numerical experiment. Granul. Matter 13, 109–119 (2011)
106. Walker, D.M., Tordesillas, A., Einav, I., Small, M.: Complex networks in confined comminu-
tion. Phys. Rev. E 84, 021,301–1/9 (2011)
107. Ben-Nun, O., Einav, I., Tordesillas, A.: Force attractor in confined comminution of granular
materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 108,001–1/4 (2010)
108. McDowell, G.R., Harireche, O.: Discrete element modelling of yielding and normal compres-
sion of sand. Géotechnique 52(4), 299–304 (2002)
109. McDowell, G.R., Humpreys, A.: Yielding of granular materials. Granul. Matter 4, 1–8 (2002)
110. McDowell, G.R., Bolton, M.D.: On micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Géotechnique

48(5), 667–679 (1998)
111. Jerman, J., Mašín, D.: Discrete element investigation of rate effects on the asymptotic
behaviour of granular materials. In: V. Rinaldi, M. Zeballos, J. Clari (eds.) Proceedings of
the 6th International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, IS-Buenos
Aires 2015, 15–18 November 2015, pp. 695–702. Buenos Aires, Argentina (2015)
112. Kolymbas, D.: Introduction to barodesy. Géotechnique 65(1), 52–65 (2015)
113. Kolymbas, D., Medicus, G.: Genealogy of hypoplasticity and barodesy. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 40, 2532–2550 (2016)
Chapter 3
Simple Scalar and Vectorial Hypoplastic
Models
The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the basic principles of hypoplasticity with-
out the formalism of tensorial operations. Simple 1D scalar hypoplastic models for
shear and for compression are introduced first. Subsequently, the model is defined in
terms of vectors and, finally, simple tensorial models are introduced as hypoplastic
equivalents of the standard elasto-plastic models (Modified Cam-clay model). The
hypoplastic models given in this chapter are compared with equivalent elasto-plastic
models. Intentionally, a complete formulation of the elasto-plastic models is given
along with the formulation of hypoplasticity. In this book, it is assumed that the
basic principles of elasto-plasticity are familiar to readers; however, direct compari-
son of elasto-plastic and hypoplastic approaches better clarifies the differences and
similarities between them.
3.1 Scalar Models for Shear
In Sects. 3.1 and 3.3, a simple soil element is considered subjected to normal compres-
sion and simple shear, as sketched in Fig. 3.1. Straining of the element is described
using normal strain εn (εn = dy/y using notation from Fig. 3.1) and shear strain γ
(γ = dx/y using notation from Fig. 3.1), while the stress state is described using
normal stress σn and shear stress τ .
3.1.1 Elasto-Plastic Scalar Model for Shear
A simple 1D elasto-plastic model for shear is introduced in this chapter. In the

model, the stress state is defined by the shear stress τ and strain by shear strain γ

44 3 Simple Scalar and Vectorial Hypoplastic Models
Fig. 3.1 Simple shear type

of deformation considered in
scalar and vectorial models
(see Fig. 3.1). No state variable is considered in the simplest version of the model.
The general form of the constitutive equation denoted as G() then reads
d τ = G(τ, d γ ) (3.1)
The elasto-plastic model for shear may be written as
d τ = Cd γ (3.2)
where C represents stiffness (C becomes the stiffness matrix in the 2D version of

the model and the stiffness tensor in the 3D version of the model). The C modulus
can take two different values, depending on whether the plastic loading condition
indicates elasto-plastic deformation (C = C ep ) or elastic deformation (C = C e ). To
this end, a yield limit τyield and a yield surface f are defined such that
f =Y −1 (3.3)
with τ
Y = (3.4)
τyield
The plastic loading condition may then formally be written as

C e = En if (f < 0) ∨ (f = 0 ∧ d τ e > 0)
C= (3.5)
C ep = 0 if (f = 0) ∧ (d τ e < 0)
where ∨ represents the logical expression “or”, ∧ represents the logical expression
“and”, En is the elasticity modulus and d τ e is a trial stress increment calculated as
3.1 Scalar Models for Shear 45
d τ e = Ced γ (3.6)
In elasto-plasticity, the strain increment is composed of elastic d γ e and plastic d γ p

parts such that
dγ = dγ e + dγ p (3.7)
and the constitutive equation (3.2) may also be expressed as
d τ = C e d γ e = C e (d γ − d γ p ) (3.8)
The plastic strain increment can be calculated from
d γ p = λm (3.9)
where λ is denoted as the plastic multiplier quantifying the plastic strain increment
magnitude and m is a flow rule quantifying the plastic strain increment direction. In
our simple elasto-plastic model, m is always pointing in the compression direction
(m = −1). The plastic multiplier λ is calculated from the consistency condition
requiring the stress state to remain on the yield surface during elasto-plastic loading.
It can be quantified as follows:
df = nd τ = 0 (3.10)
with
∂f
n= (3.11)
∂τ
By combining (3.10) with (3.8) one gets
nC e (d γ − d γ p ) = 0 (3.12)
nC e (d γ − λm) = 0 (3.13)
which has for the current simple model only one non-trivial solution
dγ
λ= (3.14)
m
and therefore, in elasto-plastic loading,
dγ p = dγ (3.15)
The above model requires specification of two mechanical parameters: the yield
limit τyield and the elasticity modulus En .
3.1.2 Hypoplastic Scalar Model for Shear
A hypoplastic equivalent of the elasto-plastic model from Sect. 3.1.1 is developed in

this section. The G() function (3.1) may be expressed using
d τ = Ld γ + N |d γ | (3.16)
with two moduli L and N . In hypoplasticity, the switch function distinguishing

between loading and unloading (3.5) and the strain decomposition into elastic and
plastic parts are not adopted. A scalar “modulus” N may be defined as
N = LY (3.17)
where Y is calculated using (3.4). The modulus L is specified using parameter En

such that L = En . As in the elasto-plastic model, the hypoplastic model requires two
parameters τyield and En .
3.1.3 Predictions of Scalar Models for Shear
In this section, predictions of elasto-plastic model from Sect. 3.1.1 will be com-
pared with response of hypoplastic model from Sect. 3.1.2. First of all, in both
elasto-plasticity and hypoplasticity the stiffness depends on the loading direction.
In hypoplasticity, this is thanks to the absolute value appearing in Eq. (3.16), while
in elasto-plasticity, this is thanks to the switch function in Eq. (3.5). The following
two cases are important for clarifying performance of the hypoplastic model:
1. When τ = 0, Y , calculated using Eq. (3.4), is also equal to zero. Therefore, N = 0
and thus
d τ = Ld γ (3.18)
L thus specifies the initial modulus for loading from the state τ = 0.
2. When τ = τyield , Y is equal to one. Therefore, N = L and the hypoplastic equation
reads
d τ = L(d γ + |d γ |) (3.19)
During loading, d γ < 0 and therefore d τ = 0, similar to elasto-plasticity. During

unloading, d γ > 0 and hypoplasticity predicts
d τ = 2Ld γ (3.20)
It follows from the above that for the special cases of τ = 0 and τ = τyield the
hypoplastic model predicts responses identical to the elasto-plastic model (apart from
the unloading modulus at τ = τyield , which is twice as high as the loading modulus at
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of τyield

predictions of simple scalar 100
hypoplastic and
elasto-plastic models for 2En
80
shear 1
-τ [kPa]
60
hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
40
20
En
1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-γ [-]
τ = 0). The two models thus predict the same asymptotic states (Sect. 2.2). The most
important difference in predictions of the two models is in the intermediate states
τyield < τ < 0. While elasto-plasticity predicts constant stiffness En , hypoplasticity
predicts a gradual decrease of stiffness, starting from the initial modulus En and
ending with the fully plastic state with stiffness equal to zero. The stiffness decrease
is caused by the definition of Y , whose value gradually increases from 0 to 1 and thus
forces the modulus N to vary between zero and L. Hypoplastic model thus inherently
predicts non-linearity (Sect. 2.1).
Predictions of the loading-unloading cycle using the two models are shown in
Fig. 3.2 for En = 2000 kPa and τyield = −100 kPa.
3.1.4 Modelling Stress-Dependency of Soil Behaviour
As discussed in Sect. 2, in real soils the stiffness modulus En is stress-dependent, and

the failure stress τyield depends on the normal stress σn . These two features can easily
be incorporated into the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models from Sects. 3.1.1 and
3.1.2. The models still remain within the bounds of scalar formulations, but σn is
considered as a state variable. The general expression of the function G() then reads
d τ = G(τ, σn , d γ ) (3.21)
The dependency of the yield shear stress on normal stress can be incoporated by
defining
τyield = σn tan ϕ (3.22)
where ϕ is a friction angle. The equation for the scalar Y (3.4) remains unchanged.
To incorporate stress-dependency of stiffness, the following expression for the
initial modulus En can be defined:
Fig. 3.3 Comparison of 200

predictions of scalar σn=-300 kPa
hypoplastic and
elasto-plastic models for 150
shear considering
stress-dependent soil σn=-200 kPa
-τ [kPa]
behaviour
100
σn=-100 kPa
50
hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-γ [-]
En = −E0 σn (3.23)
with the parameter E0 . Equation (3.23) can be incorporated into elasto-plasticity by

considering C e = −E0 σn . To include it into hypoplasticity, a scalar variable fs is
defined such that the hypoplastic model reads
d τ = fs (Ld γ + N |d γ |) (3.24)
with L = E0 and fs = −σn . The expression for N (3.17) remains unchanged.

The new models require two parameters E0 and ϕ. Their predictions are demon-
strated in Fig. 3.3 for three different normal stresses using parameters E0 = 10 and
ϕ = 30◦ .
3.1.5 Modelling Non-linearity in Hypoplasticity
The predictions produced by the elasto-plastic model from Sect. 3.1.4 are linear
elastic up to failure. In fact, the model response does not depend on the particular
formulation selected for the yield condition f , provided it predicts f = 0 for the same
stress state.
The situation is different in the case of the hypoplastic model. Even the simple
model from Sect. 3.1.4 predicts a non-linear decrease of stiffness with shear (see Sect.
2.1 for discussion of non-linear soil behaviour). This non-linearity depends on the
particular formulation for the variable Y and it can be controlled by the appropriate
formulation for Y . As an example, which is similar in its structure to the formulation
of vectorial and tensorial models, Y can be defined as
α
τ
Y = (3.25)
τyield
Fig. 3.4 Predictions of 60

scalar hypoplastic model for
shear, enhanced by a 50
parameter controlling
non-linearity α 40
-τ [kPa]
30 α=0.5
α=1
20 α=2
α=10
elasto-plasticity
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-γ [-]

scalar hypoplastic model for
shear for different values of 50
the initial modulus E0
40
-τ [kPa]
30 E0=5
E0=10
20 E0=20
E0=50
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-γ [-]
with a new parameter controlling soil non-linearity α. Equation (3.25) gives the
same predictions as (3.4) for the limit cases of τ = 0 (then Y = 0) and τ = τyield
(then Y = 1): the initial modulus and the failure state are thus predicted the same
irrespective of the value of the parameter α. The intermediate non-linear response is,
however, affected by α, as demonstrated in Fig. 3.4. Simulations are presented for
σn = −100 kPa and parameters from Sect. 3.1.4 (E0 = 10 and ϕ = 30◦ ).
It is clear that by simple model modification the user has the freedom to control
non-linearity. Thanks to the model formulation, the initial modulus and the yield
stress remain unchanged. It is also interesting to point out that with increasing α the
model predictions gradually converge the towards predictions of the elasto-plastic
model. Obviously, the stiffness degradation curve can also be controlled by the ini-
tial modulus E0 at a constant value of α. Figure 3.5 shows predictions using the
hypoplastic model for different values of E0 and α = 1. The difference between the
two approaches is obvious from comparison of Figs. 3.4 and 3.5.
Fig. 3.6 Comparison of 70

elasto-plastic and hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
hypoplastic response to 60
cyclic loading
50
-τ [kPa]
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
-γ [-]
3.1.6 Ratcheting in Hypoplasticity Versus Reversible

Response of Elasto-Plasticity
In this section, one fundamental property of hypoplasticity that distinguishes it

from the models elasto-plastic is demonstrated. When elasto-plastic model devel-
oped within the perfect plasticity framework is subjected to stress cycles within the
yield surface, it predicts a fully reversible elastic response. Contrarily, the hypoplastic
model predicts “ratcheting”, manifested in non-hysteretic accumulation of strain dur-
ing stress cycles of prescribed magnitude, or accumulated stress during strain cycles
of prescribed magnitude. This feature of elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models is
demonstrated in Fig. 3.6, simulated using the parameter set from Sect. 3.1.4.
As a matter of fact, soil behaviour during cyclic loading is somewhere between
the two extreme cases predicted by elasto-plasticity and hypoplasticity. While strain
during stress cycles (and vice versa) accumulates during cyclic loading in tests on real
soils, the accumulation is less than predicted by hypoplasticity and the cyclic response
is hysteretic. Both the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models require enhancements
to predict this feature of the mechanical behaviour of soils. In elasto-plasticity, the
problem can be solved by adopting the kinematic hardening approach [1–4]. In
hypoplasticity, the model can be enhanced by the concept of intergranular strains
(Niemunis and Herle [5]) or by other means mentioned in Sect. 2.1.3. The intergran-
ular strain concept is described in detail in Chap. 7, Sect. 7.1.
3.2 Scalar Models for Compression
In this section, the models are still defined in a one-dimensional space of stress
and strain, but now the models target compressive behaviour. A simple soil element
subject to normal compression is considered. Such a test is sketched in Fig. 3.1, with
3.2 Scalar Models for Compression 51
Fig. 3.7 Normal ln (1+e)

compression line of scalar
compression models
N1D
λ*
1
0 ln (σ σ
τ = 0 and γ = 0. Straining of the element is thus described solely using normal

strain εn , while the stress state is described using the normal stress σn . This test
represents oedometric compression using of soil mechanics terminology.
The model for compression has additional complexity when compared to the
model for shear. This is because the asymptotic state of the model for shear (failure
condition) has been fixed in the stress space. That is, the model did not consider any
state variables other than Cauchy stress (τ and σn ). On the other hand, the asymptotic
state of the model for compression is represented by the so-called normal compression
line (Sect. 3.2). The stress state on the normal compression line depends on the current
soil density, which must be considered as a state variable within the model. In the
following, a state variable void ratio e is adopted. The general expression for the
constitutive model thus reads
d σn = G(σn , e, d γ ) (3.26)
Any form of the normal compression line can be incorporated into the model. In
the following, normal compression line linear in the ln(1 + e) versus ln σn plane [6]
will be adopted, defined by
σn
ln(1 + e) = N1D − λ∗ ln (3.27)
σr
with the slope λ∗ and position within the ln(1 + e) versus ln σn plane defined by the
parameter N1D . σr in Eq. (3.27) is a reference stress of σr = −1 kPa. The meaning
of these parameters is clear from Fig. 3.7.
3.2.1 Elasto-Plastic Scalar Model for Compression
In this section, an elasto-plastic model predicting normal compression line formu-

lated using Eq. (3.27) is defined. The behaviour inside the yield surface is assumed
Fig. 3.8 Definition of ln (1+e)

preconsolidation stress pc of
the elasto-plastic scalar
model for compression N1D
λ*
1
*
current κ 1
state
0 pc ln (σ σ
to be elastic, governed by the unloading line of the form (see Fig. 3.8)
σn
ln(1 + e) = const. − κ ∗ ln (3.28)
σr
which can be expressed in the incremental form as
de κ∗
= − d σn (3.29)
1+e σn
Due to the definition of the void ratio, the ratio de/(1 + e) represents increments of
volumetric strain d εv , which, in this one-dimensional case, is equal to the increment
of normal strain d εn . It then follows that in the elastic range
σn
d σn = − d εn (3.30)
κ∗
and thus the elastic stiffness modulus reads
σn
Ce = − (3.31)
κ∗
The elasto-plastic stiffness modulus can be quantified using the same procedure on
the basis of Eq. (3.27) and reads
σn
C ep = − (3.32)
λ∗
The elasto-plastic model formulation is equivalent to the model for shear (3.5). The
stiffness from the general model formulation
d σn = Cd εn (3.33)
can thus be expressed using plastic loading condition as

⎧ σ
⎨ Ce = − n if (f < 0) ∨ (f = 0 ∧ d σne > 0)
κ ∗
C=
⎩ C ep = − σn
(3.34)
if (f = 0) ∧ (d σne < 0)
λ∗
where d σne represents a trial stress increment
d σne = C e d εn (3.35)
In order to fully define the elasto-plastic model, we have to express the yield surface
f and the incremental relationship for state variables. We assume f to be of the
following form:
σn
f =− −1 (3.36)
pc
where pc is so-called preconsolidation pressure (positive in compression), which can

be calculated from void ratio using Eqs. (3.27) and (3.28)
σn
N1D − ln(1 + e) − κ ∗ ln σr
pc = exp (3.37)
λ∗ − κ ∗
For the definition of pc , see Fig. 3.8

To evaluate the increment of plastic strain, the model is expressed in the form
d σn = C e d εne = C e (d εn − d εnp ) (3.38)

p
where d εne represents elastic increment of normal strain and d εn represents plastic
p
increment of normal strain. d εn can be quantified using
d εnp = λm (3.39)
where m is the flow rule and λ is the plastic multiplier. λ can be evaluated from the
plastic consistency condition, which must now consider the change of f with pc . df
is calculated from
∂f ∂f
df = 0 = d σn + dpc (3.40)
∂σn ∂pc
It follows from (3.36) that
∂f 1 ∂f σn
=− = 2 (3.41)
∂σn pc ∂pc pc
and from (3.27) for elasto-plastic loading

pc
dpc = − d εn (3.42)
λ∗
dpc = 0 during elastic loading. The elastic and elasto-plastic loading processes are
distinguished using the plastic loading condition defined in (3.34). The consistency
condition (3.40) thus reads
1 σn
0=− d σn + 2 dpc (3.43)
pc pc
σn σn
0= ∗
(d εn − λm) − d εn (3.44)
pc κ pc λ∗
Equation (3.44) can be manipulated to obtain the expression for the plastic multiplier
λ
λ∗ − κ ∗
λ= d εn (3.45)
mλ∗
where, similar to the model for shear, m = −1. The increment of plastic strain can
thus be calculated during the elasto-plastic process as
λ∗ − κ ∗
d εnp = d εn (3.46)
λ∗
p
and d εn = 0 during elastic deformation. The increment of pc can finally be expressed
in terms of the plastic strain increment as
pc
dpc = − d εp (3.47)
λ∗ − κ ∗ n
3.2.2 Hypoplastic Scalar Model for Compression
To incorporate the additional state variable (void ratio) into the hypoplastic model, it
must be enhanced by an additional factor fd [7] (this factor is traditionally denoted as
the pyknotropy factor). It is useful to start with Eq. (3.24) and enhance its non-linear
part with the factor fd in the following way:
d σn = fs (Ld εn + fd N |d εn |) (3.48)
The stiffness L can be selected arbitrarily (for example as L = 1), because it will be
later scaled by the multiplier fs to obtain the required modulus magnitude. N can be
defined as in the model for shear:
N = LY (3.49)
where Y will be quantified later. Equation (3.48) can then be expressed as
d σn = fs (d εn + fd Y |d εn |) (3.50)
Fig. 3.9 Definition of the ln (1+e)

Hvorslev’s equivalent
pressure pe of the
hypoplastic scalar model for N1D
compression
λ*
1
current
state
0 pe ln (σ σ )
The expression for fd should limit the influence of the non-linear part of the hypoplas-
tic equation with increasing distance from the normal compression line; similarly
Y limited the influence of the non-linear part of the hypoplastic equation of the
model for shear with increasing distance from the yield surface τyield . The following
expression for fd is adopted in the model for compression:
σn
fd = − (3.51)
pe
where pe is Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure (positive in compression), calculated from

(3.27)
N1D − ln(1 + e)
pe = exp (3.52)
λ∗
The definition of pe is schematised in Fig. 3.9.

The incremental form of pe follows from the void ratio definition as
pe
dpe = − d εn (3.53)
λ∗
Unlike Eq. (3.42), which is valid for the elasto-plastic loading process only, Eq.
(3.53) holds true irrespective of the overconsolidation ratio.
It follows from (3.51) that at the normal compression line fd = 1. Equation (3.50)
can be expressed in the following two forms for loading (d εn < 0) and unloading
(d εn > 0) from the normally consolidated state:

fs (1 − Y )d εn for d εn < 0
d σn = (3.54)
fs (1 + Y )d εn for d εn > 0
Equation (3.54) can then be compared with the pre-defined formulations

⎧ σ
⎪ n
⎨ − ∗ d εn for d εn < 0
d σn = λ (3.55)
⎪ σ
⎩ − n d εn for d εn > 0
κ∗
Combining of Eqs. (3.54) and (3.55) yields the following set of two equations with
two unknowns fs and Y
−σn
fs (1 − Y ) = ∗ (3.56)
λ
−σn
fs (1 + Y ) = ∗ (3.57)
κ
Eqs. (3.56) and (3.57) can be solved easily, yielding
λ∗ − κ ∗
Y = (3.58)
λ∗ + κ ∗
λ∗ + κ ∗
fs = −σn (3.59)
2λ∗ κ ∗
All the above-developed expressions can be included into the general model for-
mulation (3.48), leading to the following compact form of the hypoplastic scalar
compression model:

λ∗ + κ ∗ σn λ∗ − κ ∗
d σn = −σn d εn − |d εn | (3.60)
2λ∗ κ ∗ pe 2λ∗ κ ∗
3.2.3 An Alternative Way of Formulating the Hypoplastic

Model
An approach to formulating the scalar hypoplastic model described in Sect. 3.2.2

has traditionally been used in developing of hypoplastic models for soils, which are
based on critical state soil mechanics [8, 9]. In this section, an alternative procedure
is described, which was proposed by Mašín [10]. It leads to the same model for the
current simplified one-dimensional case, but it has advantages when dealing with
tensorial formulations in three dimensions (more details are given in Sect. 4.4 and
in Chap. 6). It allows any pre-defined asymptotic states to be implemented explicitly
(see Sect. 2.2 for discussion of asymptotic soil behaviour).
The general expression of the hypoplastic model, being the starting point of the
developments, is the same as that used in Sect. 3.2.2:
d σn = fs (Ld εn + fd N |d εn |) (3.61)
At this point, it is possible to take advantage of the fact that during compression along
the normal compression line, the stress σn normalised by the Hvorslev’s equivalent
pressure pe remains constant (equal to −1). The normalised stress σnnorm is defined
as σn
σnnorm = (3.62)
pe
The increment of normalised stress may be expressed by differentiation of (3.62) as
d σn σn
d σnnorm = − 2 dpe (3.63)
pe pe
The increment of the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure was quantified in Eq. (3.53) and
the increment of stress σn in (3.61). As for loading along normal compression line
d σnnorm = 0, we may write:
fs σn
0= (Ld εnA + fdA N |d εnA |) + d εA (3.64)
pe pe λ∗ n
Since Eq. (3.64) is only valid at the asymptotic state, fd and d εn have been replaced
by their asymptotic state values indicated by a superscript A (fdA and d εnA ). Equation
(3.64) can now be manipulated in the following way:
σn A
− d ε = fs (Ld εnA + fdA N |d εnA |) (3.65)
λ∗ n
σn A
− d = fs (Ld A + fdA N ) (3.66)
λ∗
with d A being the asymptotic strain increment direction d A = d εnA /|d εnA |; in the cur-
rent one-dimensional case equal d A = −1. It follows from (3.66) that the hypoplastic
modulus N can be calculated as
Ad A σn
N =− with A = fs L + ∗ (3.67)
fs fdA λ
A combination of (3.61) with (3.67) yields

fd Ad A
d σn = fs Ld εn − |d εn | (3.68)
fs fdA
fd σn A
d σn = fs Ld εn − f s L + d |d εn | (3.69)
fdA λ∗
L can again be selected arbitrarily (for example as L = 1) and the asymptotic strain
increment direction is given by d A = −1. For the state at the normal compression
line (where fd = fdA ) and for the assumed L = 1, Eq. (3.69) reduces to
σn
d σn = fs d εn + fs + |d εn | (3.70)
λ∗
For compression (d εn < 0), Eq. (3.70) predicts the normal compression line of the
slope λ∗ irrespective of the selected expression of the factor fs . fs can then be evaluated
to follow the unloading formulation of the form
σn
d σn = − d εn (3.71)
κ∗
For unloading (d εn > 0), a combination of (3.71) and (3.70) yields

σn σn
− ∗
= 2fs + ∗ (3.72)
κ λ
and thus
λ∗ + κ ∗
fs = −σn (3.73)
2λ∗ κ ∗
Combining all the above expressions into the general model formulation (3.68) leads
to the following compact form of the scalar hypoplastic model

λ∗ + κ ∗ σn λ∗ − κ ∗
d σn = −σn d εn − |d εn | (3.74)
2λ∗ κ ∗ pe 2λ∗ κ ∗
which is identical with Eq. (3.60) developed in Sect. 3.2.2.
3.2.4 Predictions of Scalar Models for Compression
In this section, similarities and differences in predictions obtained using the elasto-
plastic and hypoplastic formulations of the models for compression are demonstrated.
A simple loading-unloading cycle is simulated using parameters N1D = 1, λ∗ = 0.1,
κ ∗ = 0.01 and an initial void ratio of e = 1. The same parameters have been used
for both elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models. Results are shown in Fig. 3.10.
By their very definition, the models predict the same normal compression lines (of
slope λ∗ ) and the same initial slope of the unloading line (equal to κ ∗ ). Similarly to
the scalar models for shear, predictions by hypoplasticity and elasto-plasticity differ
in the overconsolidated state. While elasto-plasticity predicts both unloading and
reloading lines of the slope κ ∗ , the hypoplastic model predicts a non-linear response,
which better resembles soil behaviour. Note that, due to the model non-linearity, the
parameter κ ∗ should not be calibrated in hypoplasticity by a simple linearisation of
Fig. 3.10 Simulations of the 0.65

loading-unloading cycle hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
using scalar elasto-plastic
and hypoplastic models for 0.6
compression
ln(1+e) [-]
0.55
0.5
0.45
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln(σn/σr) [-]
Fig. 3.11 The influence of α 0.65

from Eq. (3.75) on elasto-plasticity
α=0.5
predictions of the α=1
loading-unloading cycle. The 0.6 α=5
same parameters are used for α=100
ln(1+e) [-]
the hypoplastic and

0.55
elasto-plastic models
0.5
0.45
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln(σn/σr) [-]
the experimental results, but rather by variation of κ ∗ while simulating laboratory

experiments.
The elasto-plastic response is independent of the formulation of the function f
(provided f = 0 is satisfied for −σn = pc ). The situation is different in hypoplasticity;
obviously, fd = 1 must be satisfied for −σn = pe to predict the asymptotic state. In
addition, the formulation of fd for −σn < pe also affects model predictions. As in the
model for shear, it influences the stiffness decrease during loading at overconsolidated
states. To demonstrate this effect, Eq. (3.51) can be enhanced by a parameter α in
the following way:
σn α
fd = − (3.75)
pe
Equation (3.75) is equivalent to Eq. (3.25) of the model for shear. The influence
of parameter α on the model predictions (for the parameters N1D = 1, λ∗ = 0.1,
κ ∗ = 0.01) is shown in Fig. 3.11.
Fig. 3.12 The influence of α 0.65

on predictions of the elasto-plasticity
α=0.5
loading-unloading cycle. α=1
κ ∗ = 0.01 for the 0.6 α=5
elasto-plastic model and α=100
κ ∗ = 0.0053 for the
ln(1+e) [-]
0.55
hypoplastic model
(calculated using Eq. (3.78))
0.5
0.45
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln(σn/σr) [-]
It follows from Fig. 3.11 that as the value of α increases the stiffness non-linearity
in the overconsolidated state reduces. However, even for a very high value of α the
slope of the unloading and reloading line differs from the slope predicted by elasto-
plasticity (from the slope κ ∗ ). The reason is clear from Eq. (3.60); for very high values
of α, fd → 0 for −σn < pe . Therefore, the hypoplastic model response reduces to
λ∗ + κ ∗
d σn = −σn d εn (3.76)
2λ∗ κ ∗
Equation (3.76) can be compared with Eq. (3.30) revealing that the slope of the
∗
loading line κEP predicted by the hypoplastic model for very high values of α is
∗ 2λ∗ κ ∗
κEP = (3.77)
λ∗ + κ ∗
∗
For the adopted parameters λ∗ = 0.1 and κ ∗ = 0.01, κEP is equal to 0.018. Equation
(3.77) can be inverted, which allows us to specify the parameters of elasto-plastic
and hypoplastic models in such a way that predictions converge for very high values
of α.
λ∗ κ ∗
κ ∗ = ∗ EP ∗ (3.78)
2λ − κEP
∗
The dependency of predictions on the value of α, calculated with κEP = 0.01 and
∗
κ = 0.0053 (from Eq. (3.78)) is in Fig. 3.12.
As in the case of the model for shear, the stiffness can be controlled either by
variation of α, or simply by a variation of κ ∗ . Figure 3.13 shows predictions by the
hypoplastic model for different values of κ ∗ (and constant values α = 1, N1D = 1,
λ∗ = 0.1). As a matter of fact, hypoplastic models (such as the models for clay from
[9–12]) assume pre-defined values of α yielding reasonable predictions, which are
not considered as a model parameter. The slope of the loading-unloading line should
in these cases be controlled by the parameter κ ∗ , similarly as in Fig. 3.13.
Fig. 3.13 The influence of 0.65

κ ∗ on hypoplastic κ*=0.002
κ*=0.005
predictions of the κ*=0.01
loading-unloading cycle 0.6 κ*=0.02
ln(1+e) [-]
0.55
0.5
0.45
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln(σn/σr) [-]
Fig. 3.14 Hypoplastic and 0.65

elasto-plastic response to hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
cyclic loading. Simulated 0.6
with κ ∗ = 0.018 for
elasto-plasticity and
ln(1+e) [-]
0.55
κ ∗ = 0.01 for hypoplasticity
0.5
0.45
0.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln(σn/σr) [-]
The hypoplastic model for compression has a similar property when subject to
cyclic loading as the model for shear. Cyclic loading induces accumulation of strain
in the stress cycles of fixed magnitude (and vice versa), see Fig. 3.14. On the contrary,
the elasto-plastic model predicts purely elastic response inside the yield surface. To
incorporate cyclic hysteresis into hypoplasticity, it can be enhanced by the intergran-
ular strain concept (Sect. 7.1) or by other means mentioned in Sect. 2.1.3.
3.3 Vectorial Models for Asymptotic Behaviour
In Sect. 3.1 it was demonstrated that the hypoplastic formulation is, similarly to the
formulation elasto-plastic, capable of simulating shear failure of materials. Subse-
quently, in Sect. 3.2, an additional state variable was implemented into the hypoplas-
ticity and the model was defined to simulate the asymptotic response in compression
(see Sect. 2.2 for discussion of asymptotic soil behaviour). In this section, it is demon-
strated that equivalent elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models can be developed for
predicting both compression and shear behaviour. It is shown that, as in the simple
1D models, hypoplasticity inherently predicts a non-linear soil response inside the
asymptotic boundary surface.
Instead of defining the models in the tensorial stress and strain space, stress invari-
ants p and q and strain invariants εv and εs are adopted in this section to simplify the
notation. Thus, in this section, the stress state is characterised by a vector:
p
σ = (3.79)
q
and the strain increment is characterised by a vector:
d εv
dε = (3.80)
d εs
Note that the models could equivalently be developed using stress measures σn and
τ and strain measures εn and γ , which were used in Sect. 3.1.
The developments in this section are limited to axisymmetric deformation, in
which
1
p = − (σa + 2σr ) (3.81)
3
q = −(σa − σr ) (3.82)
d εv = −(d εa + 2d εr ) (3.83)
2
d εs = − (d εa − d εr ) (3.84)
3
where σa and σr are axial and radial stresses, respectively and d εa and d εr are axial
and radial strain increments, respectively. Notice that the invariants are, following
the soil mechanics tradition, defined to be positive in compression.
3.3.1 Elasto-Plastic Critical State Model
An elasto-plastic model based on critical state soil mechanics will be defined first,
before moving on to the hypoplastic formulation. The model described is basically the
classical Modified Cam-Clay model [13], adjusted such that the normal compression
line is defined as linear in the ln(1 + e) versus ln p plane (following [6]), instead of
e versus ln p plane, which was adopted in the original publication [13].
The general model formulation reads
d σ = Ce d ε e = Ce (d ε − d ε p ) (3.85)
3.3 Vectorial Models for Asymptotic Behaviour 63
where d ε e represents the elastic strain increment and d εp represents the plastic strain
increment. d ε p can be quantified using
d ε p = λm (3.86)
where the scalar multiplier λ quantifies the magnitude of the plastic strain increment
and the vector m defines its direction.
The elastic and elasto-plastic deformation modes are distinguished by means of
a plastic loading condition, such that

0 if (f < 0) ∨ (f = 0 ∧ nd σ e < 0)
λ= (3.87)
λEP if (f = 0) ∧ nd σ e > 0)
where f is a yield function, n = ∂f /∂σ is its partial derivative with respect to stress
and d σ e is a trial stress increment defined as
d σ e = Ce d ε (3.88)
The elastic stiffness matrix is defined by isotropic elasticity, in which the bulk
modulus K is specified by means of a parameter κ ∗ , such that
p
K= (3.89)
κ∗
The meaning of the parameter κ ∗ is the same as in Sect. 3.2.1 (with σn /σr replaced
by p/pr , where pr is a reference pressure of 1 kPa). The shear modulus G is specified
by means of Poisson’s ratio ν:
3(1 − 2ν)
G=K (3.90)
2(1 + ν)
The elastic stiffness matrix reads
K 0 p 1 0
Ce = = 9(1−2ν) (3.91)
0 3G κ∗ 0 2(1+ν)
The yield function f has an elliptic shape, shown in Fig. 2.27. It is specified by
f = q2 + M 2 p2 − M 2 ppc (3.92)
where M represents the stress ratio q/p at the critical state and pc is the isotropic
preconsolidation pressure. Similarly to Sect. 3.2.1 (with σn /σr replaced by p/pr ), pc
is related to the void ratio e through

N − ln(1 + e) − κ ∗ ln p
pr
pc = exp (3.93)
λ∗ − κ ∗
with parameter N specifying the position of the isotropic normal compression line
and λ∗ specifying its slope.
The plastic strain increment is assumed to be normal to the yield surface. That is,
the vectors n and m are equal, and they may be quantified from (3.92)
∂f 2M 2 p − M 2 pc
n=m= = (3.94)
∂σ 2q
As in the case of the scalar model for compression (Sect. 3.2.1), λEP is evaluated
from the plastic consistency condition:
∂f ∂f ∂f ∂pc p ∂f
df = 0 = dσ + dpc = nd σ + d ε = nd σ + p d ε p (3.95)
∂σ ∂pc ∂pc ∂εp ∂ε
∂f
0 = n Ce (d ε − λEP m) + p λEP m (3.96)
∂ε
∂f
0 = nCe d ε − λEP nCe m + λEP m (3.97)
∂ε p
and thus
nCe
λEP = dε (3.98)
H + nCe m
with
∂f
H =− m (3.99)
∂εp
All components of (3.98) have already been defined, except of ∂f /∂ε p . This partial
derivative follows from the definition of the isotropic normal compression line.
p
ln(1 + e) = N − λ∗ ln (3.100)
pr
de λ∗
= −d εv = − dpc (3.101)
1+e pc
Because
d εv = d εve + d εvp (3.102)
we have
λ∗ κ∗
dpc = dpc + d εvp (3.103)
pc pc
and thus
dpc pc
p = ∗ (3.104)
d εv λ − κ∗
To quantify ∂f /∂εp , advantage is taken of the fact that
∂f ∂f ∂pc
= (3.105)
∂εp ∂pc ∂εp
∂f /∂pc follows from (3.92):

∂f
= −M 2 p (3.106)
∂pc
p
and, because ∂f /∂εs = 0, the vector ∂pc /∂ε p reads
∂pc pc
λ∗ −κ ∗
= (3.107)
∂ε p 0
3.3.2 Hypoplastic Model Predicting Asymptotic States
In this section, a simple hypoplastic model, equivalent to the elasto-plastic model

from Sect. 3.3.1, will be developed. Both the models will be formulated to equiv-
alently predict asymptotic states, but their response will differ for states inside the
asymptotic state boundary surface: hypoplasticity will predict a non-linear response
and elasto-plasticity will predict an elastic response (see Chap. 2 for discussion of
soil non-linear and asymptotic behaviour).
The same approach as the one described in 1D in Sect. 3.2.3 will be followed.
By assuming that the asymptotic state boundary surface differs for different void
ratios in size only, not in shape, then the asymptotic loading (loading with a constant
direction of the strain increment) will produce a zero increment of stress normalised
by the asymptotic state boundary surface size. The asymptotic state boundary surface
size is measured by the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure pe (see Chap. 2 and Fig. 3.15).
The normalised stress σ norm is defined as
σ
σ norm = (3.108)
pe
The increment of normalised stress can be expressed by differentiation of (3.108) as
dσ σ
d σ norm = − 2 dpe (3.109)
pe pe
The increment of stress d σ is calculated by the hypoplastic model. In the vectorial

space of σ and ε, it is given by
d σ = fs (Ld ε + fd Nd ε) (3.110)
with
d ε = d εv2 + d εs2 (3.111)
Inserting (3.110) into (3.109), considering the asymptotic loading assumption

d σ norm = 0 and isotropic normal compression line definition from Eq. (3.100) leads
to
1 σ
0 = fs (Ld ε A + fdA Nd ε A ) + d εA (3.112)
pe pe λ∗ v
A superscriptA has been added to different variables in Eq. (3.112) to highlight the
fact that this equation is only valid for loading along asymptotic states. Equation
(3.112) can be rearranged in the following way
σ A
− d ε = fs (Ld ε A + fdA Nd ε A ) (3.113)
λ∗ v
σ
− d ε A 1 = fs (Ld ε A + fdA Nd ε A ) (3.114)
λ∗
where the vector 1 is defined as
Fig. 3.15 Asymptotic state boundary surface, corresponding asymptotic strain increment direction
and definition of pA adopted in the vectorial hypoplastic model
1
1= (3.115)
0
such that
1 d εv
1d ε = = d εv (3.116)
0 d εs
Equation (3.114) may further be divided by d ε A to give

σ A
− d 1 = fs (LdA + fdA N) (3.117)
λ∗
where dA is the asymptotic strain increment direction dA = d ε A /d ε A (see Fig.

3.15). Finally, Eq. (3.117) can be rearranged, yielding an expression for N
AdA σ ⊗1
N=− with A = fs L + (3.118)
fs fdA λ∗
where the outer product “⊗” in X = σ ⊗ 1 between two vectors is defined as Xij =
σi 1j .
Equations (3.110) and (3.118) represent the general equations of a specific
hypoplastic model characterised by linear normal compression lines in the ln(1 + e)
versus ln p plane and asymptotic state boundary surface whose shape (but not size)
is independent of the void ratio. At this point, individual model components will be
defined to make the model capable of predicting asymptotic states of the Modified
Cam-clay model. The elastic stiffness matrix of the Modified Cam-clay model (3.91)
can be adopted as an expression of L:
1 0
L= 9(1−2ν) (3.119)
0 2(1+ν)
Note that in hypoplasticity L specifies the ratio of bulk and shear stiffness, their
magnitude is quantified by fs , which will be defined later. We assume the following
expression for fd , similar to the 1D model:
p
fd = (3.120)
pe
where pe is the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure, calculated from the expression of the
isotropic normal compression line
N − ln(1 + e)
pe = exp (3.121)
λ∗
fdA is the value of fd at the asymptotic state. The asymptotic state boundary surface
shape is elliptical, governed by (3.92), that is
0 = q2 + M 2 p2 − M 2 ppe (3.122)
Note that pc adopted in (3.92) is replaced by pe in (3.122). The consequence is as

follows: The state boundary surface of the Modified Cam-clay model has an elliptic
shape for a constant preconsolidation pressure pc ; that is, for loading-unloading along
the line with κ ∗ slope. Contrarily, the shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface
of the hypoplastic model is elliptical for constant pe ; that is, for a constant void ratio
(see Figs. 3.7 and 3.9). As the value of κ ∗ is typically low, the two models predict
a similar shape for the asymptotic state boundary surface, but an exact comparison
will reveal some differences.
It follows from (3.122) that
M2
pA = pe (3.123)
M 2 + η2
where pA is a value of mean stress at the asymptotic state boundary surface corre-
sponding to the current stress ratio η = q/p and current value of pe (see Fig. 3.15).
Combining (3.123) and (3.120) yields the expression for fdA :
M2
fdA = (3.124)
M 2 + η2
The asymptotic strain increment direction d ε A will be considered as equal to the

plastic strain increment m of the elasto-plastic model (3.94); that is
2M 2 p − M 2 pc
d εA = (3.125)
2q
Predictions of the asymptotic states will therefore differ slightly between the elasto-
plastic and hypoplastic models, as the hypoplastic model specifies directly the asymp-
totic strain increment direction, whereas the elasto-plastic model specifies the plastic
strain increment direction (total asymptotic strain increment direction of the elasto-
plastic model follows as the sum of the elastic and plastic strain increments).
The factor fs can finally be evaluated using an isotropic formulation of the above
hypoplastic model (that is, when q = 0 and d εs = 0). At the isotropic normally
consolidated state, dA = [1, 0]T , fd = 1 and fdA = 1. The isotropic form of the model
reads
p
dp = fs d εv − 1 + ∗ |d εv | (3.126)
λ fs
It may be shown from Eq. (3.126) that, irrespective of the value of fs , the model
predicts a normal compression line of the slope λ∗ . In compression, d εv > 0, the
equation thus reduces to

p
dp = d εv (3.127)
λ∗
The factor fs can then be quantified using the isotropic formulation in unloading. In
unloading d εv < 0, and the Eq. (3.126) thus reads
p
dp = fs 2d εv + d εv (3.128)
λ ∗ fs
Comparing (3.128) with the unloading line formulation dp = d εv p/κ ∗ yields

λ∗ − κ ∗
fs = p (3.129)
2λ∗ κ ∗
3.3.3 Predictions of Vectorial Models Incorporating

Asymptotic States
It is straightforward to show that the vectorial models presented in Sects. 3.3.1 and
3.3.2 are for isotropic conditions (q = 0 and d εs = 0) equal to the scalar models
for compression from Sect. 3.2 (with −σn replaced by p and −εn replaced by −εv ).
Therefore, evaluation of predictions presented in Sect. 3.2.4 will not be repeated here.
At this point, the shear test with d εv = 0 (undrained triaxial test on saturated soil)
will be analysed first. Predictions of the hypoplastic model from Sect. 3.3.2 will be
compared with predictions of the elasto-plastic model from Sect. 3.3.1. The following
parameters were adopted: M = 1; λ∗ = 0.1; κ ∗ = 0.01; N = 1 and ν = 0.2. The
void ratio in all cases was e = 0.715. This void ratio implies that the Hvorslev’s
equivalent pressure pe is equal 100 kPa. The tests have always been run from the initial
conditions of q = 0 kPa and different initial mean stresses equal to p = 10, 25, 50, 75
and 100 kPa.
Figure 3.16 shows the stress paths predicted by the hypoplastic and elasto-plastic
models. The predictions show both similarities and differences. The stress paths pre-
dicted by both the models lead to a unique asymptotic state, which differs slightly in
the two cases. They are different because the hypoplastic model assumes an elliptical
shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface for constant Hvorslev’s equivalent
pressure, whereas the elasto-plastic model assumes an elliptical shape for constant
preconsolidation pressure pc . While the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure is constant
during the constant volume test, the preconsolidation pressure pc varies with variable
overconsolidation ratios (this is clear from Fig. 3.8). As a consequence, asymptotic
states predicted by the two models differ slightly.
The second difference in predictions by the two models is in the shape of the
stress paths before the asymptotic state is reached. The elasto-plastic model predicts
constant mean stress paths before reaching the yield surface due to the adoption of
isotropic elasticity. It follows from the stiffness matrix (3.91) that the model predicts
dp = 0 for d εv = 0 (undrained test) in the elastic range, and the stress paths is
thus vertical initially in the p versus q diagram. However, the hypoplastic model
predicts stress path deviating from the vertical at the very beginning of the shear
test. In addition, the direction of the stress path depends on the overconsolidation
ratio. These predictions, which are in better qualitative agreement with experimental
observations, are caused by the non-linear term appearing in the hypoplastic equation.
Figure 3.17 shows predictions of shear strain versus deviatoric stress for constant
volume (undrained) shear experiments. The following observations on the stress-
strain curves are to be emphasized: First of all, the hypoplastic model predicts a
non-linear response with a gradual decrease of the shear stiffness from the very
beginning of the shear test. On the other hand, the elasto-plastic model predicts a
constant shear stiffness before it reaches the yield point. Both the models predict the
dependency of shear stiffness on mean stress.
Fig. 3.16 Stress paths 60

predicted by the vectorial hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
hypoplastic and 50 asympt. state
elasto-plastic models
incorporating asymptotic 40
states
q [kPa]
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
p [kPa]
Fig. 3.17 Shear strain 60

versus deviatoric stress
curves for undrained triaxial 50
tests predicted by the
elasto-plastic and 40
q [kPa]
hypoplastic models
30
initial mean stress increase
OCR decrease
20
10
hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
εs [-]
Fig. 3.18 Shear strain 60

versus deviatoric stress
curves for undrained triaxial 50
tests predicted by the
elasto-plastic and 40
q [kPa]
hypoplastic models for
∗ = κ ∗ and ν
κEP HP EP 30
initial mean stress increase
calculated from Eqs. (3.131) OCR decrease
and (3.130) so that the two 20
models predict the same
shear moduli at high 10
overconsolidation ratios hypoplasticity
elasto-plasticity
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
εs [-]
In Fig. 3.17, the shear stiffness predicted by the hypoplastic model is gener-
ally lower than the shear stiffness predicted using elasto-plasticity, although the
same value of ν was adopted in both the models. To investigate this difference, an
experiment on highly overconsolidated soil will be analysed. In this case, fd of the
hypoplastic model is very small (fd → 0). The shear modulus G EP predicted by the
elasto-plastic model reads (from (3.91))

p 3(1 − 2νEP )
G EP = ∗ (3.130)
κEP 2(1 + νEP )
∗
where κEP and νEP are the values of the parameters κ ∗ and ν adopted in the elasto-
plastic model. The shear modulus predicted for a very high overconsolidation ratio
by the hypoplastic model reads (using (3.110), (3.119) and (3.129)):
∗ ∗
3(1 − 2νHP ) λ − κHP 3(1 − 2νHP )
G HP = fs =p ∗ ∗ (3.131)
2(1 + νHP ) 2λ κHP 2(1 + νHP )
∗
where κHP and νHP are the values of the parameters κ ∗ and ν adopted in the hypoplastic
model. It follows that for the parameters adopted in the simulations of the undrained
∗ ∗
triaxial tests, considering κEP = κHP = 0.01 and νHP = 0.2, Eqs. (3.130) and (3.131)
imply that the value of νEP needed for the two models to predict the same shear
stiffness at overconsolidated states is νEP = 0.348. Comparison of the stress-strain
curves for different overconsolidation ratios (tests from Fig. 3.17 recalculated with
νEP = 0.348) is shown in Fig. 3.18. Predictions by the two models are now much
closer to each other, but hypoplasticity still retains the advantage over elasto-plasticity
in predicting the non-linear stiffness decrease that occurs from the beginning of
the experiment. As the derivations neglected the effect of fd , stiffness predicted by
elasto-plasticity and hypoplasticity are similar for the lowest mean stresses (highest
overconsolidation ratios) only.
The above example demonstrates that the parameter ν can be calculated so that
the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models predict a comparable initial shear stiff-
ness. This, together with examples from Sect. 3.2.4 demonstrating how parameter κ ∗
can be calculated so that the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models predict a com-
parable slope of the isotropic unloading line, indicate the following: In calibrating
the hypoplastic models, we need to strictly distinguish between the parameters that
define the asymptotic states (M , N and λ∗ in the vectorial model from this chapter)
and the parameters that control the non-linear response inside the asymptotic state
boundary surface (ν and κ ∗ in the vectorial model from this chapter). The asymptotic
state parameters have a strictly defined meaning; they must be calibrated uniquely
for both the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic models. The parameters controlling
non-linear response are model-specific and may, in general, take different values
in elasto-plasticity and hypoplasticity and should preferably be calibrated by direct
fitting of experimental data.
References
1. Mroz, Z., Norris, V.A., Zienkiewicz, O.C.: An anisotropic hardening model for soils and its
application to cyclic loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 2, 203–221 (1978)
2. Al-Tabbaa, A., Muir Wood, D.: An experimentally based “bubble” model for clay. In: Proceed-
ings of 3th International Conference on Numerical Models in Geomechanics. Niagara Falls
(1989)
3. Stallebrass, S.E., Taylor, R.N.: Prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay.
Géotechnique 47(2), 235–253 (1997)
4. Dafalias, Y.F., Manzari, M.T.: Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects.
J. Eng. Mech. 130(6), 622–634 (2004)
Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 2(4), 279–299 (1997)
7. Gudehus, G.: A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials. Soils Found. 36(1),
1–12 (1996)
8. von Wolffersdorff, P.A.: A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a predefined limit
state surface. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 1(3), 251–271 (1996)
9. Mašín, D.: A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
29(4), 311–336 (2005)
11. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity with explicitly defined asymptotic states. Acta Geotechnica
8(5), 481–496 (2013)
12. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity model including stiffness anisotropy. Géotechnique 64(3), 232–
238 (2014)
Cambridge (1968)
Chapter 4
Tensorial Hypoplastic Models
In Chap. 3 of this book, the basic principles of hypoplastic models were described.
Obviously, for the models to be applicable in numerical modelling tools, models
must be formulated in full tensorial notation. To explain the mathematical structure
of hypoplastic models, their historical development is traced back in this chapter,
starting with the trial-and-error models based on rational mechanics and ending with
approaches explicitly enabling the incorporation of the most important features of
soil behaviour into the model structure.
The constitutive model then represents a tensorial function that relates the objec-
tive (Jaumann–Zaremba) stress rate T̊ with the Euler stretching tensor D:
T̊ = G(T, q, D) (4.1)
In Eq. (4.1), G is a general representation of a constitutive model and q is a set of state

variables. More details on constitutive model classification was given in Sect. 1.4.
4.1 The First Hypoplastic Models Without Pyknotropy
The first hypoplastic equations, developed at the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s
at the University of Karlsruhe, considered Cauchy stress as the only state variable.
The general form of a constitutive equation then reads
T̊ = G(T, D) (4.2)
Kolymbas [1–3] adopted a rational mechanics approach and expressed properties that
a constitutive equation of the general form (4.2) should obey to predict the behaviour
of sand. The following requirements and constitutive equation properties have been
emphasized:

74 4 Tensorial Hypoplastic Models
1. According to the third postulate by Truesdell and Noll [4], denoted as the princi-
ple of material frame-indifference (principle of material objectivity), constitutive
equations must be invariant under changes of frame of reference. That is, two
observers, even in a relative motion, must observe the same stress in a body.
Objectivity requires G() from Eq. (4.2) to be an isotropic function of both argu-
ments T and D. That means
Q · G(T, D) · QT = G(Q · T · QT , Q · D · QT ) for ∀ Q (4.3)
where Q is an arbitrary orthogonal tensor, which quantifies rotation.

2. To represent asymptotic behaviour (see Chap. 2), function G() from Eq. (4.2)
should be positively homogeneous with respect to stress
G(λT, D) = λm G(T, D) for ∀λ > 0 (4.4)
Note that later on, Niemunis [5] demonstrated that (4.4) is not necessary to predict
asymptotic behaviour (so-called directional homogeneity is sufficient).
3. Rate-independence requires Eq. (4.2) to be positively homogeneous of degree
one in D, that is
G(T, λD) = λG(T, D) for ∀λ > 0 (4.5)
The above three properties pose restrictions on G(). The general representation
theorem of isotropic tensor-valued functions of two symmetric tensorial arguments
has been proposed by Wang [6]. He has shown that G() can be, under full generality,
written as
G(T, D) = φ1 1 + φ2 T + φ3 D + φ4 T2 + φ5 D2 + φ6 (T · D + D · T)+
(4.6)
φ7 (T · D2 + D2 · T) + φ8 (T2 · D + D · T2 ) + φ9 (T2 · D2 + D2 · T2 )
where the operation X2 is defined as X2 = X · X, where the scalars φ1 , φ2 …φ9 are

joint invariants of T and D. Considering the other two restrictions on G(), Kolymbas
[2] expressed the first hypoplastic model (by that time denoted as the “generalised
hypoelastic equation”) as
D2
G(T, D) = C1 T tr D + C2 tr(T) tr(D)1 + C3 T √ +
tr D2 (4.7)
√
C4 (T · D + D · T) + C5 T tr D2 + . . .
The summands on the right-hand side of Eq. (4.7) have been termed “generators” and
their series is infinite. Ci in (4.7) are material constants. Kolymbas [2] pointed out
that this infinite sum is not endowed with a hierarchy, as is the case with, for example,
a Taylor series. Instead, any generator can be equally important or unimportant in
contributing to the description of the material behaviour. Kolymbas [2] developed
4.1 The First Hypoplastic Models Without Pyknotropy 75
a computer code, which tested different combinations of the generators and, by a

trial-and-error procedure, selected a minimal set of generators that best represented
the known behaviour of granular materials. For each version of the model, he tested
the following predictive capabilities:
1. Response envelopes (see Chap. 1).
2. Stress paths predicted for proportional strain paths (paths with constant D).
3. Predictions of typical laboratory tests on soils (drained triaxial test, oedometric
test, simple shear test).
4. Limit surface (equivalent of yield surface in elasto-plasticity).
Illustrative examples of the selection process are given in Figs. 4.1 (response
envelopes) and 4.2 (proportional stress paths). The following hypoplastic version
has been selected as the most suitable by Kolymbas [2]:
Fig. 4.1 Response envelopes predicted by two choices of generators in the first hypoplastic equation
development by Kolymbas [2]. a accepted, b rejected
Fig. 4.2 Proportional stress paths predicted by two choices of generators in the first hypoplastic
equation development by Kolymbas [2]. a accepted, b rejected

T·T √
T̊ = C1 (T · D + D · T) + 1C2 T : D + C3 T + C4 D:D (4.8)
tr T
with material parameters C1 to C4 . These can be related to the more familiar soil
characteristics like friction angle, dilatancy angle and Young’s modulus [1].
Equation (4.8) was taken over by Wu [7, 8], who proposed an alternative version
based on the quantitative analysis of the model performance:

T tr(T · D) T·T T∗ · T∗ √
T̊ = C1 D tr T + C2 + C3 + C4 D:D (4.9)
tr T tr T tr T
where T∗ = T − (tr T)1/3 is the deviatoric stress tensor. Wu [7] also pointed out
that Eq. (4.9) can be recast in the following more convenient form:
T̊ = : D + ND (4.10)
with the fourth- and second-order moduli and N defined as

= tr T C1 + C2 T̂ ⊗ T̂ (4.11)

N = tr T C3 T̂ · T̂ + C4 T̂∗ · T̂∗ (4.12)
where T̂ = T/ tr T. Later on, Lanier et al. [9] proved that any other hypoplastic
equation based on (4.6) and combined with the other requirements stated above
can be expressed in the form of Eq. (4.10). The properties of Eq. (4.9) have been
thoroughly studied in the subsequent literature. For example, Wu and Bauer [10]
specified a procedure allowing the calibration of each of the four model parameters
using standardized laboratory experiments.
4.2 Incorporation of Pyknotropy and Critical States
The important limitation of the hypoplastic model from Eq. (4.9) is that Cauchy
stress is the only state variable. Therefore, the model must be calibrated separately
for each soil state (each relative density), similar to, for example, the Mohr–Coulomb
model. This limitation was overcome by Gudehus [11], who incorporated the critical
state concept into hypoplasticity. A similar procedure for incorporating the critical
states based on the earlier hypoplastic model has been developed by Wu et al. [12]
and Kolymbas et al. [13].
It the following, the developments by Gudehus [11] will be described. At yield
(defined as T̊ = 0), the hypoplastic model is expressed as
0 = : D + ND (4.13)
4.2 Incorporation of Pyknotropy and Critical States 77
and thus for any D = 0

+N
0= :D (4.14)
= D/D. Equation (4.14) can be manipulated to

where D
= − −1 : N = −B
D (4.15)
with B = −1 : N. By taking the norm of Eq. (4.15), a requirement is obtained for

the hypoplastic model to predict yield
−1 : N = B = 1 (4.16)
To predict the critical state, yield must be accompanied by zero volume change
(tr D = 0). Taking the trace of (4.15) leads to the second requirement
= tr( −1 : N) = tr B = 0
tr D (4.17)
Bauer [14] noticed that the critical state conditions are satisfied by Eq. (4.9)
when C3 = −C4 . This condition was used in subsequent models. To incorporate the
basic notions of critical state soil mechanics, however, it is not sufficient to predict
the critical state failure condition only. Gudehus [11] proposed the inclusion of the
pressure-dependent limiting void ratio curves (denoted as normal compression lines
in the compression regime, Sect. 2.2) as shown in Fig. 4.3. Here,
• ei is the maximum void ratio, which represents the theoretical isotropic normal
compression line of a loose soil skeleton in a gravity-free space.
• ec is the void ratio at the critical state.
• ed is the void ratio at a state of maximum density.
An equation describing the limiting void ratio curves was proposed by Bauer [14]:

ei ec ed − tr T n
= = = exp − (4.18)
ei0 ec0 ed0 hs
Fig. 4.3 Limiting

pressure-dependent void
ratio lines by Gudehus [11];
Figure from Herle and
Gudehus [15]
where h s , n, ei0 , ec0 and ed0 are model parameters.

To incorporate the limiting void ratios and asymptotic state concept in general,
Gudehus [11] enhanced the hypoplastic equations by scalar factors f s and f d in the
following way:
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) (4.19)
The factor f s is calculated from two variables f b and f e such that f s = f b f e .

f s contains common parts of tensors the and N from Eq. (4.10). In addition,
f b modifies the positive homogeneity of the equation with respect to stress. This
is needed, as Eq. (4.10) is homogeneous of degree one in stress, which is not in
agreement with Eq. (4.18). The factor f b is traditionally denoted as the barotropy
factor.
The factor f s controls soil stiffness. The expression for f e reads [14]
e β
c
fe = (4.20)
e
f e thus causes an increase of stiffness with a decrease in the void ratio. This increase
is controlled by the parameter β.
The new Eq. (4.19) contains an additional scalar factor f d . The critical state
condition can still be evaluated using the procedure outlined above (Eqs. (4.13)–
(4.17)). With the new formulation, the condition for T̊ = 0 reads:
f d B = 1 (4.21)
The function B itself satisfies the requirement trB = 0 at the critical state stress
deviator, thanks to the adopted equality C3 = −C4 . This means that for the model to
predict the critical state, f d must be equal to one at e = ec . The following formula
proposed by Gudehus [11] satisfies this requirement
α
e − ed
fd = = reα (4.22)
ec − ed
where α is a parameter and re is the relative void ratio.

One important property of Eq. (4.19) will be analysed in the following. As men-
tioned previously, T̊ = 0 is predicted by the model when f d B = 1. During triaxial
tests, T̊ = 0 is satisfied not only at the critical state, but also at the peak state. It
follows from (4.21) that at the peak state B = 1/ f d . Because B increases with
an increase in the stress deviator, Eq. (4.22) implies that a decrease of the relative
void ratio causes an increase in the peak friction angle. The peak friction angle is
then controlled by the parameter α appearing in (4.22).
The model by Gudehus [11] is capable of correctly predicting the overall non-
linear behaviour of granular materials, including the critical state conditions. It does
not, however, predict properly the shape of the critical state locus in other than
axisymmetric stress conditions. This shortcoming was eliminated by von Wolffers-
4.2 Incorporation of Pyknotropy and Critical States 79
Fig. 4.4 Matsuoka–Nakai

[17] critical state locus
compared with
Mohr–Coulomb failure
envelope (from [16])
dorff [16], who modified the Lode angle dependency of B and enforced the critical
state locus to coincide with the yield condition of Matsuoka and Nakai [17]. This
surface agrees with the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion at triaxial compression and
extension and predicts slightly higher friction angles otherwise (Fig. 4.4). It is con-
trolled by a single parameter: the critical state friction angle ϕc .
The model by von Wolffersdorff is often considered as a reference model for
predicting the behaviour of granular materials. Its complete mathematical formula-
tion and procedures for parameter calibration are presented in Chap. 5. The model
has also been subject to further developments. For example, Niemunis et al. [18]
enhanced it by a consistency condition for maximum and minimum void ratio limits.
4.3 Explicit Incorporation of Failure Surface
After the development of the model for sands, research focused on representation in
clay behaviour. Two lines of thought have been followed. The first type of models,
denoted as viscohypoplasticity, considered rate-dependency of clay behaviour. One
such model (Niemunis [5]) is described in detail in Sect. 7.2. The second type of
models evolved directly from the rate independent model for sand. These models are
described in this subsection.
Herle and Kolymbas [19] identified the main drawbacks of the sand model for
predicting clay behaviour. The model does not allow the independent calibration of
stiffness in compression and in shear. While their ratio is predicted properly when
adopted for predicting the behaviour of granular materials (which are characterised
by higher critical state friction angles), when used for clays the stiffness in shear is
significantly underpredicted. This model property is illustrated in Fig. 4.5, showing
response envelopes predicted by the sand model for ϕc = 20◦ and ϕc = 30◦ . The
response envelope for ϕc = 20◦ is remarkably “slender” (ratio of shear and bulk
stiffnesses is low).
Fig. 4.5 Response envelope

of the von Wolffersdorff [16]
sand hypoplastic model for
ϕc = 20◦ and ϕc = 30◦
(from Herle and Kolymbas
[19])
Fig. 4.6 Response

envelopes by the Herle and
Kolymbas [19] model for
soils with low friction angles
(label “improved”) compared
with response envelopes by
the original sand model of
von Wolffersdorff [16] (label
“original”). Figure from
[19]
The shape of the response envelope is controlled in hypoplasticity by the tensor

(see Chap. 3). To overcome the shortcoming of the sand model, Herle and Kolymbas
[19] introduced a new parameter into the tensor (denoted as r ) controlling the ratio
of bulk and shear stiffness. As discussed in Sect. 4.2 (Eq. (4.16)), the tensor in
hypoplasticity, together with the tensor N, controls the failure condition. Therefore,
in order to retain predictions of the critical state locus, Herle and Kolymbas [19] made
their modification of to fade-away with increasing mobilised friction angles, such
that at the critical state stress ratio the original of the sand hypoplasticity model
was recovered (see Fig. 4.6).
As pointed out by Mašín [20] the variability of with the stress ratio had some
undesired effects on the model performance: the shear stiffness changed unrealisti-
cally with variable stress ratio. A way around this problem was developed by Niemu-
nis [5], who proposed a method for an explicit incorporation of the failure surface
into hypoplasticity, such that it was independent of the selected form of the tensor
. In fact, Niemunis [5] took advantage of the method for extracting hypoplastic
equivalents of the yield surface and plastic potential from hypoplastic models [21,
22], and inverted the procedure such that the yield surface and plastic potential could
be pre-defined and hypoplastic model components (in particular the tensor N) could
4.3 Explicit Incorporation of Failure Surface 81
be back-calculated. Niemunis [5] proposed a new variable Y based on Eq. (4.16):
−1 : N = B = Y (4.23)
based on Eq. (4.15):

and a direction m
= − −1 : N = −B = m
D (4.24)
The variable Y has similar properties to the failure condition in elasto-plasticity

(see the formulation of 1D model in Sect. 3.1.2). When Y = 1, the model predicts
represents strain rate direction at the
the failure state, that is T̊ = 0. The direction m
failure state; it thus has a similar function within the model as the plastic flow rule
in elasto-plasticity. Niemunis [5] realised that the tensor N is, in fact, not needed for
the definition of hypoplastic models. It follows from (4.23) and (4.24) that
−1 : N = −Y m
(4.25)
The basic hypoplastic equation (4.19) can then be manipulated as follows:
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) (4.26)
T̊ = f s : (D + f d ( −1 : N)D) (4.27)

T̊ = f s : (D − f d Y mD) (4.28)
Equation (4.28) represents an alternative formulation of hypoplasticity, equivalent

to (4.19) with
N = −Y ( : m) (4.29)
Equation (4.28) brings more freedom into the model development, as the yield condi-
tion can be incorporated into the model explicitly. The situation is still not equivalent
to elasto-plastic models, however, as the model performance is governed by the
dependency of Y and m on the stress ratio (see 1D version of the model in Sect.
3.1.5). Note that in elasto-plasticity f = 0 specifies the yield surface, while the
dependency of the functional value of f on the state outside the yield surface does
not affect the model properties. Similarly, the stress derivative of the plastic potential
∂g/∂T is only relevant for f = 0 states.
The approach by Niemunis [5] was adopted by Mašín [20] in the development
of the rate independent model for clays. He adopted the expression by Herle and
Kolymbas [19], the failure condition Y of Matsuoka and Nakai [17] and retained m
in the sand hypoplastic model of von Wolffersdorff [16]. The factor f s was specified
so that the model predicted the linear compression law in the ln p versus ln(1 + e)
plane, which better represented clay behaviour [23] than the Bauer [14] Eq. (4.18).
Finally the factor f d was calculated so that the isotropic unloading line had an initially
pre-defined slope controlled by the parameter κ ∗ .
(a)
0.6 (b)
0.4
0.4
0.2 κ*=0.002, rat.=0.964

0.2 ϕc =15° κ*=0.006, rat.=0.897
ϕc =20° κ*=0.010, rat.=0.833
q/(Mp*e)
ϕc =22.6°
q/p*e
κ*=0.014, rat.=0.774
0 ϕc =25° 0
κ*=0.018, rat.=0.719
ϕc =30° κ*=0.022, rat.=0.667
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
p/p*e p/p*e
Fig. 4.7 The dependency of the shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface of the model by
Mašín [20] on model parameters. Figures from Mašín and Herle [24]
4.4 Explicit Incorporation of Asymptotic States
The model by Mašín [20] predicted critical state thanks to the proper specification of
Y and m and the isotropic normal compression line, included in the formulation of
factors f s and f d . These two states are specific asymptotic states (see Chap. 2). Mašín
and Herle [24] studied the model properties and demonstrated that the model also
predicted other asymptotic states, and, in fact, a complete asymptotic state boundary
surface (see Chap. 2). In the model, the critical and isotropic states were specified
explicitly, but the other asymptotic states were dependent on the model parameters;
the user could not control them specifically. This dependency of the asymptotic state
boundary surface on model parameters is demonstrated in Fig. 4.7.
It is clear from Fig. 4.7 that for certain model parameters (high value of the
parameter κ ∗ , in particular) the asymptotic state boundary surface had an unrealistic
non-convex shape. In addition, the shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface
depended on the tensor, similar to the critical state surface of the von Wolffersdorff
[16] model. This posed major limitations for subsequent developments of the model.
This problem was solved by Mašín [25], who developed a procedure for the
incorporation of the asymptotic state boundary surface of the pre-defined shape into
hypoplasticity. In fact, Mašín [25] inverted the procedure from Mašín and Herle
[24] such that the asymptotic state boundary surface could be pre-defined and the
hypoplastic model components back-calculated. The general rate formulation of the
model is the same as that proposed by Gudehus [11] (Eq. (4.19)), that is
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) (4.30)
To incorporate the asymptotic state boundary surface, Mašín [25] assumed that it
changes its size with variable void ratios, but not its shape. As explained in Sect. 3.2.2,
the size of the asymptotic state boundary surface is measured by the Hvorslev’s
4.4 Explicit Incorporation of Asymptotic States 83
equivalent pressure pe . As in the hypoplastic model from Ref. [20], the following
formulation of the isotropic normal compression line was assumed:
ln(1 + e) = N − λ∗ ln( p/ pr ) (4.31)
where N and λ∗ are parameters and pr = 1 kPa is a reference stress. pe can thus be
calculated from
N − ln(1 + e)
pe = pr exp (4.32)
λ∗
At this point, the procedure introduced in Sect. 3.3.2 in 2D will be repeated in full
tensorial notation. As the the asymptotic state boundary surface does not change its
shape during proportional asymptotic loading, the stress normalised by the Hvorslev’s
equivalent pressure Tn = T/ pe remains constant. Therefore,
T̊ T
T̊n = − 2 ṗe = 0 (4.33)
pe pe
ṗe follows from (4.32)

pe ė pe
ṗe = − ∗ =− tr D (4.34)
λ 1+e λ∗
Combining of (4.34), (4.33) and (4.30) implies that
fs T
T̊n = ( : D + f d ND) + tr D = 0 (4.35)
pe p e λ∗
and thus
T
− ∗
tr D A = f s : D A + f dA ND A (4.36)
λ
where f dA is the value of f d at the asymptotic state boundary surface and D A is the
asymptotic strain rate corresponding to the given stress state. Equation (4.36) can be
manipulated in the following way:

T
− tr D A + f s : D A = f s f dA ND A (4.37)
λ∗
− : D A = f s f dA ND A (4.38)
− : d = f s f dA N (4.39)
where
T
= fs + ⊗1 (4.40)
λ∗
DA
d= (4.41)
D A
Equation (4.39) implies that
:d
N=− (4.42)
f s f dA
Combining (4.42) with (4.30) yields an alternative expression for the hypoplastic
model:
fd
T̊ = f s : D − A : dD (4.43)
fd
An arbitrary shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface can be incorporated

into hypoplasticity with the aid of Eq. (4.43), by appropriate specification of the
dependence of f dA on the void ratio and stress ratio. The corresponding asymptotic
direction of the strain rate is then specified by d.
The model with the explicit asymptotic state boundary surface is defined using the
following components: , f d , d, f dA and f s . The constitutive model development
now resembles the set up for elasto-plastic models: different features of the soil
behaviour can be specified explicitly so that they best suit the soil for which the
model is being developed. The explicit approach has been used by Mašín [26] in
the development of a rate independent model for clays. Its complete mathematical
formulation and the procedures for parameter calibration are presented in Chap. 6.
References
1. Kolymbas, D.: A generalised hypoelastic constitutive law. In: Proceedings of the 11th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, p. 2626
(1985)
2. Kolymbas, D.: Computer-aided design of constitutive laws. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 15, 593–604 (1991)
3. Kolymbas, D.: An outline of hypoplasticity. Arch. Appl. Mech. 61, 143–151 (1991)
4. Truesdell, C., Noll, W.: The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics, pp. 1–541. Springer,
Berlin (1965)
5. Niemunis, A.: Extended hypoplastic models for soils. Habilitation thesis, Ruhr-University,
Bochum (2003)
6. Wang, C.C.: A new representation theorem for isotropic tensor functions. Arch. Rat. Mech.
Anal. 36, 166–223 (1970)
References 85
7. Wu, W.: Hypoplastizität als mathematisches Modell zum mechanischen Verhalten granularer
Stoffe. Publication Series of the Institute of Soil Mechanics and Rock Mechanics, No. 129,
Karlsruhe University (1992)
8. Wu, W.: On a simple critical state model for sand. In: Pande, G.N., Pietruszczak, S. (eds.) Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Symposium Numerical Models in Geomechanics, NUMOG
VII, pp. 47–52. Balkema, Rotterdam (1999)
9. Lanier, J., Caillerie, D., Chambon, R., Viggiani, G., Bésuelle, P., Desrues, J.: A general formu-
lation of hypoplasticity. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 28, 1461–1478 (2004)
10. Wu, W., Bauer, E.: A simple hypoplastic constitutive model for sand. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
11. Gudehus, G.: A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials. Soils Found. 36(1),
1–12 (1996)
12. Wu, W., Bauer, E., Kolymbas, D.: Hypoplastic constitutive model with critical state for granular
materials. Mech. Mater. 23, 45–69 (1996)
13. Kolymbas, D., Herle, I., von Wolffersdorff, P.A.: Hypoplastic constitutive equation with internal
variables. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 19, 415–436 (1995)
14. Bauer, E.: Calibration of a comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials. Soils
Found. 36(1), 13–26 (1996)
15. Herle, I., Gudehus, G.: Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive model from
properties of grain assemblies. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 4, 461–486 (1999)
state surface. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 1(3), 251–271 (1996)
17. Matsuoka, H., Nakai, T.: Stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soil under three
different principal stresses. Proc. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 232, 59–70 (1974)
18. Niemunis, A., Nübel, K., Karcher, C.: The consistency conditions for density limits of hypoplas-
tic constitutive law. Task Q. 4(3), 412–420 (2000)
19. Herle, I., Kolymbas, D.: Hypoplasticity for soils with low friction angles. Comput. Geotech.
31(5), 365–373 (2004)
29(4), 311–336 (2005)
21. Wu, W., Niemunis, A.: Failure criterion, flow rule and dissipation function derived from
hypoplasticity. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 1, 145–163 (1996)
22. Wu, W., Niemunis, A.: Beyond failure in granular materials. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 21, 153–175 (1997)
24. Mašín, D., Herle, I.: State boundary surface of a hypoplastic model for clays. Comput. Geotech.
32(6), 400–410 (2005)
26. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity with explicitly defined asymptotic states. Acta Geotech. 8(5),
481–496 (2013)
Part II
Hypoplastic Models for Soils
In Part I, the basic principles of hypoplastic models were introduced, starting from
the simple 1D models and ending with an explanation of the structure of hypoplastic
models in full tensorial notation.
The aim of the first two chapters of Part II (Chaps. 5 and 6) is to introduce two basic
hypoplastic models for soils: a model for sand and a model for clay. In these chapters,
only a brief overview of the model formulations is given; for a detailed explanation
of the model’s structure, the reader is referred to Part I. The main emphasis is put on
explaining the experimental procedures needed to calibrate the model parameters,
which is the main task for an engineer if the model is to be used in applications.
The two primary models cover the behaviour of a variety of common soils under
standard conditions. However, specific applications or specific soil types require
enhancements of these models to achieve the predictive goal. The structure of the
hypoplastic models is hierarchical, in the sense introduced by Muir Wood and Gajo
[1]. That is, the basic models of Chaps. 5 and 6 can be enhanced with various addi-
tions, without the need to redevelop the base models. A selection of such enhance-
ments is described in Chap. 7. Here, the readers are introduced to methods for predict-
ing small strain stiffness, rate effects, effects of structure, partial saturation, thermal
effects and stiffness anisotropy within the theory of hypoplasticity. Obviously, other
enhancements to hypoplastic models have been developed. Throughout Chap. 7, the
readers are referred to various journal publications describing other possible direc-
tions for the advancement of hypoplasticity-based modelling.
Reference
1. Muir Wood, D., Gajo, A.: Hierarchical critical state models. In: Yamamuro, J.A., Kaliakin V.N.
(eds.) Soil Constitutive Models, Evaluation, Selection, and Calibration (Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 128), pp. 459-482. ASCE (2005)
Chapter 5
Hypoplastic Model for Sand
In this chapter, the hypoplastic model developed by von Wolffersdorff [1] is intro-
duced. This model is often considered as a reference hypoplastic model for predict-
ing the behaviour of granular materials. To clarify the model structure, the model
development was followed step by step in Chap. 4. In this chapter, its mathematical
formulation is summarised first, and emphasis is then put on the material parameters
and procedures for their calibration.
5.1 Model Formulation
The tensor reads

1
cal = F 2I + a 2 T̂ ⊗ T̂ (5.1)
T̂ : T̂
Fa
N= T̂ + T̂∗ (5.2)
T̂ : T̂

where 1 is a second–order identity tensor, Ii jkl = 1
2
1ik 1 jl + 1il 1 jk is a fourth-
order identity tensor and
trT = T : 1, T̂ = T/trT T̂∗ = T̂ − 1 /3 (5.3)
√
3 (3 − sin ϕc ) 1 2 − tan2 ψ 1
a= √ F= tan2 ψ + √ − √ tan ψ
2 2 sin ϕc 8 2 + 2 tan ψ cos 3θ 2 2
(5.4)

90 5 Hypoplastic Model for Sand
with

∗ ∗ ∗
√ √ tr T̂ · T̂ · T̂
tan ψ = 3T̂∗ , cos 3θ = − 6 3/2 (5.5)
T̂∗ : T̂∗
The scalar factors f s (barotopy factor) and f d (pyknotropy factor) take into account
the influence of mean pressure and density,
h s ei β 1 + ei −trT 1−n √ ei0 − ed0 α −1

fs = 3 + a2 − a 3 (5.6)
n e e hs ec0 − ed0
α
e − ed
fd = (5.7)
ec − ed
The characteristic void ratios ei , ec and ed decrease with the mean pressure according
to the relation
ei ec ed −trT n
= = = exp − (5.8)
ei0 ec0 ed0 hs
The model requires eight parameters: ϕc , h s , n, ed0 , ec0 , ei0 , α and β.
5.2 Material Parameters and Their Calibration
Parameter calibration for the von Wolffersdorff [1] hypoplastic model has been thor-
oughly been discussed by Herle and Gudehus [2]. In the following, their approach
will be adopted, subject to certain modifications that will be described in the text.
The aim is to define the most simple calibration procedure suitable for practical
applications of hypoplasticity.
Critical State Friction Angle ϕc : The critical state friction angle ϕc is a primary
parameter controlling stress obliquity at the critical state. In hypoplasticity, its phys-
ical meaning coincides with its interpretation within critical state soil mechanics
[3].
The simplest way of calibrating ϕc is to measure the angle of repose. This principle
is based on an ordinary stability analysis of an infinite slope (Fig. 5.1). A simple
device for measuring the angle of repose is shown in Fig. 5.2.
Herle and Gudehus [2] demonstrated that the angle of repose measured on a dry
granular soil agrees well with shear box measurements. Measurement of the angle
of repose has also been thoroughly discussed by Miura et al. [4]. They demonstrated
that, regardless of the apparent simplicity of the testing procedure, care is needed
as the results depend on a number of factors. The most important are the amount of
sand, lifting rate and roughness of the base (Fig. 5.3).
5.2 Material Parameters and Their Calibration 91
Fig. 5.1 Ordinary stability

analysis of an infinite slope
(sketch from [4])
Fig. 5.2 Simple funnel

device for measuring the
angle of repose (Herle [5])
While performing the angle of repose test, several conditions should be obeyed.
The funnel should be lifted slowly to ensure quasi-static conditions. A small excava-
tion at the toe of the slope is recommended to erase the eventual influence of lifting
rate. The base should be rough to prevent non-planar sliding surfaces within the heap.
The funnel used to supply the material should always be in contact with the mound
of soil (Fig. 5.2) to ensure a loose material state.
Fig. 5.3 The influence of the angle of repose on various factors for four different sand types (from
Miura et al. [4])
Parameters h s and n: Parameters h s and n control the shape of the limiting void
ratio curves. They have been sketched in Fig. 4.3, and they are described by
n
ei ec ed − tr T
= = = exp − (5.9)
ei0 ec0 ed0 hs
The parameters h s and n specify not only the limiting void ratio curves, but also
any other normal compression line followed in asymptotic compression, such that
n
3p
e p = e p0 exp − (5.10)
hs
e p0 controls the position of the normal compression lines for different strain rate
directions, and it is bound by the following inequality: ec0 < e p0 < ei0 . Of the pos-
sible proportional strain path tests, the oedometric test is the most accessible and
easy to perform. This test will be adopted in the explanation of h s and n calibration.
To follow the normal compression line, the oedometric test must be performed on a
loose soil sample, either dry or fully saturated. It is not recommended that h s and n be
calibrated by direct regression of experimental data. Instead, the following approach
based on interpretation of the experimental data is suggested:
1. The slope of the oedometric curve plotted in the ln σa versus e space is charac-
terised by the compression index Cc defined as:
Δe
Cc = (5.11)
Δ ln σa
where σa is the axial (vertical) stress.

2. During proportional loading along the normal compression line, the coefficient
of earth pressure K 0 is constant. We thus can write
Fig. 5.4 Illustration of

calibration of the parameter
n based on the compression
indices at two different mean
stress values [2]
3 3
ln σa = ln p = ln + ln p (5.12)
1 + 2K 0 1 + 2K 0
3. Therefore, for oedometric loading of a loose soil, the index Cc also describes the
slope of the normal compression line in the ln p versus e plane.
Δe
Cc = (5.13)
Δ ln p
4. Time-differentiation of Eq. (5.10) yields

n
ne 3p
ė = − ṗ (5.14)
p hs
5. Comparing (5.14) with (5.13) and replacing finite increments by rates, we have
1/n
ne
hs = 3 p (5.15)
Cc
where Cc is a tangent compression index.

6. Considering the value of Cc at two different values of p (see Fig. 5.4), Eq. (5.15)
yields
ln ee12 CCc2c1
n= (5.16)
ln ( p2 / p1 )
7. h s can then be calculated from the secant compression index in the range p1 to
p2 .
The limiting values p1 and p2 should be selected to encompass the stress range
relevant for the engineering project of interest. The influence of h s and n on the
normal compression line is demonstrated in Fig. 5.5. h s influences its slope, whereas
n controls its curvature.
Fig. 5.5 The influence of h s and n on the predicted normal compression lines [2]
Fig. 5.6 ec0 calibration

using results of undrained
triaxial shear tests
Parameter ec0 : The parameter ec0 specifies the position of the critical state line in the
p versus e plane through Eq. (4.18). The most appropriate way for its determination is
thus based on shear test results; undrained triaxial shear tests are best for the purpose
as the samples are less susceptible to shear banding than in drained tests. This is
demonstrated in Fig. 5.6. In principle, these results could be used for calibration of
all three parameters ec0 , h s and n. Due to the expected experimental error, however, it
Fig. 5.7 Results of 0.84

oedometric test on loose experiment
0.82 calibration
sand together with a curve a
produced by model 0.8 b
calibration
void ratio e [-]

0.78 c
0.76
d
0.74
0.72 e
0.7
0.68 f
0.66
100 1000
mean stress p [kPa]
is advisable to calibrate h s and n using oedometric tests, and adjust only the position
of the critical state line along the e-axis by parameter ec0 .
A simplified way of ec0 calibration is based on the following logic. The soil in
a heap formed during the angle of repose test is in the loosest possible state, which
corresponds to the critical state. Its stress state is close to zero thanks to the small
amount of soil used. The void ratio of a soil in this loose heap thus approximates ec0 .
In principle, the same void ratio is in the oedometric sample used for calibration of
h s and n (recall that the sample was created in the loosest possible state). The initial
void ratio of the oedometric test thus reasonably approximates ec0 ; in principle, no
additional experiment is needed for ec0 calibration.
Example of h s , n and ec0 calibration using oedometric test data: In this section,
an example is given of the calibration of parameters h s , n and ec0 using one particular
oedometric test on sand. The oedometric specimen was prepared by air pluviation
of the dry sand without any compaction and it was subsequently flooded - the aim
was to prepare a specimen with a minimum relative density that is considered most
suitable for asymptotic state quantification. The experiment was performed with six
loading steps by vertical stresses 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 320 kPa.
Firstly, the mean effective stress p was calculated from the vertical stress σa using
the Jáky [6] equation
2
p = 1 − sin ϕc σa
3
The oedometric test results are shown in the mean stress p versus void ratio e graph in
Fig. 5.7. The graph also shows the results of a calibration obtained using the procedure
described below. The six loading steps are denoted by letters a (100 kPa), b (200
kPa), c (400 kPa), d (800 kPa), e (1600 kPa) and f (3200 kPa). Corresponding values
of the void ratio and mean stress are then denoted using these letters as subscripts,
such as ea and pa (a stands for loading step 100 kPa).
The parameters h s and n may be calibrated using Eqs. (5.15) and (5.16), where
the variables e, p, Cc , e1 , p1 , Cc1 , e2 , p2 and Cc2 are calculated using:
eb − ea
Cc1 = − (5.17)
ln pb − ln pa
e f − ee
Cc2 = − (5.18)
ln p f − ln pe
ed − ec
Cc = − (5.19)
ln pd − ln pc
e1 = (ea + eb )/2 (5.20)
e2 = (ee + e f )/2 (5.21)
e = (ec + ed )/2 (5.22)
ln pa + ln pb
p1 = exp (5.23)
2
ln pe + ln p f
p2 = exp (5.24)
2
ln pc + ln pd
p = exp (5.25)
2
Once h s and n have been found, ec0 can be calibrated. ec0 controls the vertical position
of the p versus e curve and it may be calibrated using a trial-and-error procedure by
fitting the experimental data with the equation
n
3p
e = ec0 exp − (5.26)
hs
While the calibration procedure described by Eqs. (5.17)–(5.25) gives an apparent

perfect fit (Fig. 5.7), it should be pointed out that the calibration is only approximate,
as the K 0 normal compression line is approximated here by a critical state line.
Figure 5.8 shows hypoplastic simulations for various data sets on a Kolny sand [7,
8]. For each of the parameter sets, two curves are shown: one is a direct plot of Eq.
(5.26) (denoted as “direct calibration”), the second one represents a simulation of the
K 0 test using the hypoplastic model with parameters calibrated from the procedure
described in this section (denoted as “simulation”). While the curves are very close in
most cases, there is a difference in a few simulations, in particular at higher stresses.
Figure 5.7 indicates the possible level of confidence when the calibration procedure
of Eqs. (5.17)–(5.25) is used. In most cases, calibrations using (5.17)–(5.25) would
be sufficient, but for the most accurate results, the parameters should be adjusted by
actual single element simulations of the oedometric test.
Parameter ei0 : Parameter ei0 specifies the position of the theoretical isotropic nor-
mal compression line. In clays, this line may easily be determined experimen-
tally using isotropic compression experiments. In granular soils, however, its direct
Fig. 5.8 Comparison of 0.95

direct fit of Eq. (5.26) simulation
0.9 direct calibration
(“direct calibration”) with
simulated oedometric test 0.85
results (“simulation”) for 0.8
void ratio e [-]

several data sets on Kolny 0.75
sand [7, 8]
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
100 1000
mean stress p [kPa]
Fig. 5.9 Idealised packing

of spherical particles at a
state of minimum density [2]
experimental investigation is difficult, as the initial void ratio is typically below ec0
and the state converges towards ei -line very slowly during isotropic compression.
In fact, ei -line is a theoretical limit of the maximum void ratio corresponding to the
loosest assembly of grains in the gravity-free space (for its determination using the
discrete element method, see [9]). An empirical equation for ei0 was investigated by
Herle and Gudehus [2], who studied idealised packing of spherical particles at a state
of minimum density (Fig. 5.9). They proposed the following empirical relationship
for ei0 , which is recommended for ei0 calibration:
ei0 = 1.2ec0 (5.27)

Fig. 5.10 Experimental identification of ed [2]
Fig. 5.11 The influence of

the parameter α, which
controls peak friction angle
[2]
Parameter ed0 : ed0 specifies the position of the minimum void ratio line. As discussed
by Herle and Gudehus [2], the best densification of a granular material can generally
be reached by means of cyclic shearing of small amplitude under constant pressure
(Fig. 5.10). ed0 can then be obtained by extrapolation using h s and n evaluated from
the procedure described above.
Herle and Gudehus [2] performed cyclic densification tests on a number of dif-
ferent sandy and gravely soils. At this point, the ratio ed0 /ec0 which they obtained
will be studied. In all cases, the ratio ed0 /ec0 varied within a relatively narrow range
of 0.52–0.64. Advantage will be taken of this finding and, in the absence of cyclic
densification tests, the following empirical relationship for ed0 is proposed:
ed0 = 0.5ec0 (5.28)
A slightly lower multiplier (0.5) than the one from the experimentally-determined
range 0.52 to 0.64 is selected to ensure that the soil state does not fall out of the
admissible bounds defined by ed < e.
Parameter α: As discussed in Sect. 5.1, the peak friction angle ϕ p determined by
the hypoplastic model is implied from the value of the relative void ratio re . For the
given re , the actual value of ϕ p is controlled by the parameter α. This is schematically
shown in Fig. 5.11.
The parameter α can, in general, be calibrated using drained triaxial tests on
densely compacted soil samples. If available, however, experiments with the relative
Fig. 5.12 Calibration of the 900

parameter α using the experiment
800 α=0.05
stress-strain curve from a α=0.10
drained triaxial tests on 700 α=0.20
dense Komorany sand 600 α=0.26
α=0.30
q [kPa]
500 α=0.40
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
εs [-]
void ratio present in the soil deposit to be simulated are more suitable (the same
recommendation holds true for calibration of the parameter β). Calibration of the
parameter α using drained triaxial test on Komorany sand is demonstrated in Fig.
5.12. The experiment was performed at a cell pressure of 100 kPa. Figure 5.12
demonstrates that an increase of the α value increases the predicted peak friction
angle. This parameter is typically calibrated by fitting the experimental data using a
trial-and-error procedure.
Parameter β: Parameter β is an exponent in Eq. (4.20). As discussed in Sect. 5.1,
it enters the formulation of the barotopy factor f s . This factor scales the whole
hypoplastic equation (4.19), it thus controls both the bulk and shear stiffness. The
most relevant way to determine of β adopts the results of drained triaxial tests on
densely compacted soil samples; the same tests as those used to calculate the param-
eter α can be adopted. Calibration of β using a drained triaxial test is demonstrated
in Fig. 5.13 (the same experiment as in Fig. 5.12). It is clear that an increase of β
increases the soil stiffness. Similar to α, parameter β is typically calibrated using a
trial-and-error procedure by fitting the experimental data to the model.
Specification of the initial value of the void ratio: The void ratio is an important
variable controlling the response of the hypoplastic model, in particular the predicted
stiffness, peak strength and also the volumetric response in compression and in shear.
For this reason, care must be taken while specifying its initial value in the finite
element simulations. Most finite element implementations of hypoplasticity (such as
the one available from [10]) allow for two ways to specify the initial void ratio:
1. Specify a constant void ratio within the given soil layer.
2. Specify the void ratio e0 corresponding to zero mean effective stress. The void
ratio within the soil layer is then calculated separately for each integration point
from the mean effective stress using Eq. (5.10) with e p = e and e p0 = e0 . This
method of void ratio initialisation implies a constant relative void ratio re across
the soil layer.
Fig. 5.13 Calibration of the 600

parameter β using the
stress-strain curve from a 500
drained triaxial test on dense
Komorany sand 400
q [kPa]
300 experiment
β=0.5
β=1
200 β=2
β=3
100 β=4
β=5
β=6
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
εs [-]
Fig. 5.14 Two methods of e

initialisation of void ratio of ei
the sand model in finite initialise e
element simulations: the first
method labelled “initialise e” initialise e 0
and the second “initialise e0 ”
ed
0
10 100 1000 p’ [kPa]
The two methods are schematically represented in Fig. 5.14 (The first method is
labelled “initialise e” and the second “initialise e0 ”). It should be pointed out that
care must be taken when using the first method (initialising a constant value of e)
as, potentially, the void ratio may fall outside the physical bounds ed < e < ei . For
most soil deposits, initialisation of e using the method No. 2 (constant re ) is suitable.
Summary: In this section, simple and practically applicable procedures for calibrat-
ing the hypoplastic model for granular materials have been put forward. In general,
it is always advisable to base the calibration on many different tests to eliminate, as
much as possible, the influence of experimental scatter (see [7]). However, if pos-
sibilities for experimental investigation are limited, the following experiments are
required to calibrate the model; this experimental programme is denoted as “mini-
malistic experimental programme” and has been adopted, e.g., in [7, 8]:
1. Angle of repose test (used for calibration of ϕc ).
2. Oedometric test on a soil at its loosest possible state. The test is used to calibrate
h s , n and ec0 . ei0 and ed0 can subsequently be estimated using ec0 by means of
the empirical relationships (5.27) and (5.28).
3. Drained triaxial test on densely compacted soil. The experiment is used to calibrate
α and β using a trial-and-error procedure, as demonstrated in Figs. 5.12 and 5.13.
Table 5.1 Typical values of parameters of the hypoplastic model for granular materials with ref-
erences to the original calibrations
parameter → ϕc hs n ed0 ec0 ei0 α β
soil ↓ [◦ ] [GPa] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
Hochstetten gravel [2] 36 32 0.18 0.26 0.45 0.5 0.1 1.9
Hochstetten sand [2] 33 1.5 0.28 0.55 0.95 1.05 0.25 1.5
Hostun sand [2] 31 1.0 0.29 0.61 0.96 1.09 0.13 2
Karlsruhe sand [2] 30 5.8 0.28 0.53 0.84 1 0.13 1
Lausitz sand [2] 33 1.6 0.19 0.44 0.85 1 0.25 1
Toyoura sand [2] 30 2.6 0.27 0.61 0.98 1.1 0.18 1.1
Toyoura sand [11] 30 2.6 0.27 0.61 0.98 1.1 0.14 3
Zbraslav sand [2] 31 5.7 0.25 0.52 0.82 0.95 0.13 1.0
Komorany sand 35 0.05 0.2 0.35 0.87 1.04 0.26 4.0
Kolny sand, set 1 [7]
(median values) 35 0.48 0.26 0.33 0.87 1.04 0.06 1.47
Kolny sand, set 2 [7]
(median values) 36 0.12 0.49 0.28 0.74 0.89 0.03 1.41
Values of the hypoplastic model parameters from different sources are summarised
in Table 5.1.
References
state surface. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 1(3), 251–271 (1996)
properties of grain assemblies. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 4, 461–486 (1999)
3. Schofield, A.N., Wroth, C.P.: Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London (1968)
4. Miura, K., Maeda, K., Furukawa, M., Toki, S.: Physical characteristics of sands with different
primary properties. Soils Found. 37(3), 53–64 (1997)
5. Herle, I.: Personal communication. Technische Universität Dresden (2012)
6. Jáky, J.: The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (in hungarian). J. Soc. Hung. Arch. Eng. 7,
355–358 (1944)
7. Mašín, D.: The influence of experimental and sampling uncertainties on the probability of
unsatisfactory performance in geotechnical applications. Géotechnique (in print) 65 (2015)
8. Suchomel, R., Mašín, D.: Probabilistic analyses of a strip footing on horizontally stratified
sandy deposit using advanced constitutive model. Comput. Geotech. 38(3), 363–374 (2011)
9. Mašín, D.: Asymptotic behaviour of granular materials. Granular Matter 14(6), 759–774 (2012)
10. Gudehus, G., Amorosi, A., Gens, A., Herle, I., Kolymbas, D., Mašín, D., Muir Wood, D., Nova,
R., Niemunis, A., Pastor, M., Tamagnini, C., Viggiani, G.: The soilmodels.info project. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32(12), 1571–1572 (2008)
11. Ng, C.W.W., Boonyarak, T., Mašín, D.: Three-dimensional centrifuge and numerical modeling
of the interaction between perpendicularly crossing tunnels. Can. Geotech. J. 50(9), 935–946
(2013)
Chapter 6
Hypoplastic Model for Clay
In this chapter, a rate independent hypoplastic model for clays, formulated by Mašín
[1], is described. It is based on an explicit asymptotic state boundary surface approach,
which has been introduced in Chap. 4. The model, in its basic form, requires speci-
fication of five parameters ϕc , N , λ∗ , κ ∗ and ν. These are standard critical state soil
mechanics parameters, which are equivalent (but not identical) to the parameters of
the Modified Cam-clay model [2]. Advanced parameters are also introduced which
allow for finer tuning of the model fit to experimental data. Calibration procedure
and the effect of individual parameters on the model response are introduced in this
chapter.
The advanced parameters, denoted as α f , Oc and a y , enhance the fitting capa-
bilities of the model and may be utilised by advanced users to reach a better repre-
sentation of their experimental data; in standard applications, however, calibration
of these parameters is not needed and it is possible to adopt standard values instead
(these values have implicitly been assumed in [1]). The formulation of the model is
described in Sect. 6.1. Material parameters and a description of their calibration is
given in Sect. 6.2.
The model from this chapter does not allow the representation of the influence
of the soil structure. This important aspect of fine-grained soil behaviour is treated
separately in Sect. 7.3. Chapter 7 further describes enhancements of this model to
predict the effects of small strain stiffness, behaviour of partially saturated soils,
thermal effects and the effects of stiffness anisotropy.
6.1 Model Formulation
As explained in Sect. 4.4, the general expression of the hypoplastic model with
explicit incorporation of the asymptotic state boundary surface reads

104 6 Hypoplastic Model for Clay
fd
T̊ = f s : D − : dD (6.1)
f dA
The model is thus defined by the following components: , f d , d, f dA and f s . Their

derivation is described below.
The tensor is represented by an isotropic elasticity
ν
= + 1⊗1 (6.2)
1 − 2ν
where the parameter ν controls the proportion of bulk and shear stiffness. Effectively,
ν regulates the shear stiffness (for the given bulk stiffness), because bulk stiffness is,
in the model, controlled by the parameters λ∗ and κ ∗ (as shown later). In this chapter,
an isotropic formulation of has been adopted. To enhance the predictive capabil-
ities of the model, Mašín [3] developed a model that uses a transversely isotropic
formulation from [4]. This model is described in the next chapter (Sect. 7.4).
f d formulation reads:
α f α f
p Oc
fd = Oc = (6.3)
pe OC R
Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure pe has already been defined in Sect. 4.4 (Eq. (4.32)),
and the variable OC R = pe / p was introduced in Eq. (2.3). There are two other
factors in Eq. (6.3), α f and Oc .
The exponent α f controls the irreversibility of the deformation inside the asymp-
totic state boundary surface (see explanation in Sect. 3.1.5). In fact, for high values
of α f the response of the basic model is practically reversible inside the asymptotic
state boundary surface with f being the stiffness matrix. The model predictions
then resemble predictions by the critical state elasto-plastic models. In the reference
model publication by Mašín[1], a fixed value of α f = 2 has been proposed. Further
evaluations of the model predictions, however, indicated that the α f value in the
model from [5] is more suitable. The α f formulation then reads

λ∗ − κ ∗ 3 + a 2f
ln ∗ √
λ + κ∗ af 3
αf = (6.4)
ln Oc
with √
3 (3 − sin ϕc )
af = √ (6.5)
2 2 sin ϕc
If needed, α f can be considered as a separate model parameter controlling soil non-

linearity. Its calibration is described in Sect. 6.2.
The value of Oc controls the position of the critical state line in the ln p versus
ln(1 + e) plane relative to the isotropic normal compression line. Oc thus represents
6.1 Model Formulation 105

d c
Oc on the shape of the
asymptotic state boundary 0.6
surface. The critical state and
tension limit lines in triaxial 0.4
compression and extension Oc=1.4
0.2 Oc=1.6
q/pe
are also plotted
Oc=1.8
0 Oc=2.0
Oc=2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-d -c
-0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
p/pe
the value of OC R at the critical state line. In a standard model usage and in the
original publications [1, 3] a fixed value of Oc = 2 has been adopted. This value is
also consistent with the elliptic shape of the yield surface predicted by the Modified
Cam-clay model. Since Oc controls the position of the critical state line, it obviously
affects the shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface, as shown in Fig. 6.1. This
figure has been plotted for a y = 0.3 (a y is introduced later in Eq. (6.11)) and for
ϕc = 25◦ . In addition to the asymptotic state boundary surface, Fig. 6.1 contains four
straight lines: critical state lines for triaxial compression and extension (c and −c)
and tension limit lines in triaxial compression and extension (d and −d). It may be
seen from careful investigation of Fig. 6.1 that 1/Oc is the value of p/ pe at the cross-
section of the critical state line and the asymptotic state boundary surface, which is
consistent with the fact that the parameter Oc represents the value of OC R at the
critical state.
f dA follows from the pre-defined shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface.
It was developed in [1] to satisfy the following properties considered as reasonable
for representation of clay behaviour:
1. Deviatoric (constant mean stress) cross-sections through the asymptotic state
boundary surface correspond to the failure criterion by Matsuoka and Nakai [6].
2. Mobilised friction angle ϕm should be equal to the critical state friction angle
ϕc at pe / p = Oc . This specifies the position of the critical state line in the ln p
versus ln(1 + e) plane.
3. ϕm for pe / p = 1 should be equal to zero to predict the isotropic asymptotic state.
4. ϕm for pe / p → ∞ should limit ϕm → 90◦ . This ensures that the asymptotic state
boundary surface is bound within the compression quadrant of the principal stress
space.
The following formulation satisfies these properties:
ω
p
f = 0 = Fm + −1 (6.6)
pe
Fig. 6.2 The influence of a y

on the shape of the
asymptotic state boundary
surface [1]
where Fm is the Matsuoka–Nakai factor, which may be seen as an equivalent to the

mobilised friction angle ϕm (with Fm = sin2 ϕm ) corresponding to the Matsuoka–
Nakai failure criterion
9I3 + I1 I2
Fm = (6.7)
I3 + I1 I2
with stress invariants I1 , I2 and I3 :
I1 = trT (6.8)
1
I2 = T : T − (I1 )2 (6.9)
2
I3 = detT (6.10)
ω in (6.6) is given by
ln cos2 ϕc
ω=− + a y Fm − sin2 ϕc (6.11)
ln Oc
Mašín[1] suggested a fixed value of a y = 0.3. Alternatively, a y can be considered as

a model parameter controlling the shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface and
thus the peak strength of overconsolidated clays. The influence of a y on the asymp-
totic state boundary surface shape is shown in Fig. 6.2. The shape of the asymptotic
state boundary surface in the principal stress space is presented in Fig. 6.3.
Equation (6.6) can be used to calculate the mean stress at the asymptotic state
boundary surface p A
p A = pe (1 − Fm )1/ω (6.12)
Combining (6.3) and (6.12) yields
f dA = (Oc )α f (1 − Fm )α f /ω (6.13)
6.1 Model Formulation 107
Fig. 6.3 The shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface of the rate independent model for
clays in the principal stress space [1]
The next component of the model to be specified is the asymptotic strain rate
direction d. Its formulation is developed in [1] satisfying the following properties:
1. For prediction of the isotropic state, zero shear strains (d∗ = 0) should be pre-
dicted for ϕm = 0◦ .
2. For prediction of the critical state, zero volumetric strains (tr d = 0) should be
predicted for ϕm = ϕc .
3. For prediction of the K 0 state, K 0 is assumed to agree with the empirical formula
by Jáky [7]: K 0 = 1 − sin ϕc
4. d should have a radial deviatoric direction. This is supported by experimental
studies from Refs. [8–11].
The proposed expression for d is based on d = d A /d A , where:
d A = −T̂∗ +
ξ/2
2 cos 3θ + 1 1/4 Fm − sinξ ϕc (6.14)
1 − Fm
3 4 1 − sinξ ϕc
with cos 3θ defined in (5.5) and
ξ = 1.7 + 3.9 sin2 ϕc (6.15)
Finally, f s is formulated to ensure that the slope of the isotropic unloading line
starting from the isotropic normally consolidated state is controlled by the parameter
κ ∗:
3p 1 1 1 − 2ν
fs = + ∗ (6.16)
2 λ∗ κ 1+ν
Fig. 6.4 Definition of

parameters N and λ∗ [5] ln (1+e)
N
Isotr. normal compression line
Isotr. unloading line

current state
κ* 1
Critical state line λ*

1
pcr p*e ln p
6.2 Material Parameters and Their Calibration
In this section, parameter calibration of the hypoplastic model is described for soils
that are not influenced by the effects of structure. When the effects of structure are
present, model calibration is more complex: readers are referred to Sect. 7.3. This
model also does not include viscous effects such as creep and relaxation, and rate-
dependent shear strength. Its parameters are thus relevant for the particular loading
rate only (for more details see Sect. 7.2).
The clay hypoplastic model in its basic form requires the following parameters:
ϕc , N , λ∗ , κ ∗ and ν. In principle these correspond to the parameters of the Modified
Cam-clay model, but some specific properties of hypoplasticity apply, which are
described below (see also the vectorial model from Sect. 3.3.2). The user may gain
additional fitting freedom by modifying parameters α f , Oc and a y . Their influence
on model predictions is also demonstrated in this section.
Critical State Friction Angle ϕc : Although the physical meaning of this parameter
of the clay hypoplastic model is the same as that of the model for sands (Sect. 5.2),
its calibration differ. In clays, ϕc cannot be calibrated using the simple angle of
repose test; shear testing is thus needed for ϕc calibration. The preferable test is the
undrained triaxial shear test (CIUP). To stipulate homogeneous sample deformation,
normally consolidated (soft) reconstituted clay should be used and, if available, the
triaxial device should be equipped with frictionless end platens.
Parameters N and λ∗ : Parameter N defines the position of the isotropic normal
compression line, whereas the parameter λ∗ defines its slope in the ln p vs ln(1 + e)
plane, as shown in Fig. 6.4.
Parameters N and λ∗ are best calibrated using an isotropic compression test, but the
oedometric compression test may also be used for this purpose, as λ∗ also represents
a slope of the K 0 normal compression line in the ln σa vs ln(1 + e) plane (where σa
is vertical stress). λ∗ can be calibrated using the oedometric test thanks to the fact
Fig. 6.5 Offset of the 0.65

isotropic and oedometric
normal compression lines 0.6
0.55
0.5
ln (1+e)
0.45 ΔN
0.4
0.35
0.3 isotropic compression
oedometric compression
0.25
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
ln p/pr
that during loading along the normal compression line K 0 remains constant and Eq.
(5.12) applies. The parameter N can also be estimated using the oedometric normal
compression line in the ln(1 + e) versus ln σa plane, but its calibration requires
consideration of different positions of oedometric and isotropic normal compression
lines. This offset of normal compression lines is demonstrated in Fig. 6.5 (indicated
as ΔN ). It can be quantified by simulation of the oedometric test, or approximated
using the following expression derived from the asymptotic state boundary surface
equations:
λ∗
ΔN = − ln 1 − FmK 0 (6.17)
ω
with 2 2
1 − K0 sin ϕc
FmK 0 = (6.18)
1 + K0 2 − sin ϕc
ω is calculated using Eq. (6.11) adopting Fm = FmK 0 .

Parameter κ ∗ : In the Modified Cam-clay model, the parameter κ specifies the slope
of the isotropic unloading line. The hypoplastic parameter κ ∗ also controls this slope;
due to the non-linear model formulation, however, the slope of the unloading line
is not constant in the ln p vs ln(1 + e) plane and it varies with the overconsolida-
tion ratio. It is thus preferable to calibrate the parameter κ ∗ by direct simulation of
the unloading test or by simulation of the compression test starting from the over-
consolidated state. Both isotropic (preferable) and oedometric tests can be adopted
for this purpose. Calibration of the parameter κ ∗ using an isotropic unloading test
on Weald clay is shown in Fig. 6.6 (data from Henkel [12]). Another example in
Fig. 6.7 shows the case when an oedometric compression experiment starting from
the overconsolidated state is adopted to calibrate κ ∗ (data from Svoboda et al. [13]).
In clay hypoplasticity, the parameter κ ∗ controls the size of the response envelope
in the isotropic unloading direction, as shown in Fig. 6.8. This figure also demon-
strates that, as a side-effect, the parameter κ ∗ influences the undrained stress paths.
Fig. 6.6 Calibration of the 1.75

parameter κ ∗ using an experiment
κ*=0.005
isotropic unloading test on 1.7 κ*=0.01
Weald clay. Experimental κ*=0.017
κ*=0.02
data by Henkel [12] 1.65 κ*=0.03
1+e [-]
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
100 1000
p [kPa]

parameter κ ∗ using the normal compression line
0.6 experiment
oedometric compression test κ*=0.005
on Brno clay. Experimental 0.55 κ*=0.010
data from Svoboda et al. [13] κ*=0.015
0.5 κ*=0.020
ln (1+e) [-]
κ*=0.030
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
ln σa/pr [-]
Fig. 6.8 The effect of κ ∗ on 240

response envelopes (plotted 220
for normally consolidated 200
-σa [kPa]
state) and its influence on 180

undrained stress paths 160
140 κ*=0.007
120 κ*=0.010
κ*=0.015
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-σr√2 [kPa]
This is different from standard elasto-plastic models and should be considered while
optimising calibration of the model.
Parameter ν: Parameter ν has the standard meaning of the Poisson’s ratio within the
isotropic elastic tensor . However, its influence on model predictions is different
compared to elasto-plastic models, because in hypoplasticity the radial strains are
also always influenced by the non-linear part of the model involving the N tensor.
(a) (b)
500 500
experiment
450 450 ν=0.1
ν=0.2
400 400 ν=0.3
350 350 ν=0.33
ν=0.4
300 300
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
250 250
200 experiment 200
150 ν=0.1 150
ν=0.2
100 ν=0.3 100
50 ν=0.33 50
ν=0.4
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
εs [-] p [kPa]
Fig. 6.9 Calibration of the parameter ν using undrained triaxial test on Dortmund clay. a stress-
strain curves, b stress paths. Experimental data by Herle et al. [14]
Fig. 6.10 The effect of ν on 240

response envelopes (plotted 220
for normally consolidated 200
-σa [kPa]
state) and its influence on 180

undrained stress paths 160
140 ν=0.10
120 ν=0.27
ν=0.34
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-σr√2 [kPa]
As in the Cam-clay model, however, ν regulates the shear stiffness. Similarly to the
parameter κ ∗ , ν should be calibrated by means of simulation of triaxial shear tests.
An example of such a calibration is shown in Fig. 6.9, where results of an undrained
triaxial test on Dortmund clay (experimental data from [14]) are compared with the
model predictions obtained using different values of ν. An increase of ν decreases
the predicted shear modulus (Fig. 6.9a). The parameter ν also affects the evolution
of excess pore water pressures in the undrained test and thus the undrained effective
stress paths (Fig. 6.9b).
Figure 6.10 demonstrates that the parameter ν controls the aspect ratio of the
response envelope, which is the reason why it affects both the shear stiffness and
undrained stress path direction.
Specification of the initial value of the void ratio: As in the case of the sand model,
the void ratio is an important state variable controlling the response of the model. In
the clay model, the following two approaches to void ratio initialisation can be used:
1. Specify a constant void ratio within the given soil layer.
2. Specify a constant value of the overconsolidation ratio (OC R) within the soil
layer. The void ratio is then calculated separately for each integration point from
the mean effective stress using
Fig. 6.11 Two methods of

initialisation of the void ratio ln(1+e)
of the clay model in finite
element simulations: the first iso
method labelled as “initialise
tro
pic
e” and the second method no
labelled as “initialise OC R” rm
al
co
m
pr
Initialise e es
sio
n
lin
e
Initialise OCR
10 100 pe 1000 p [kPa]

e = exp N − λ∗ ln (OC R ∗ p) − 1 (6.19)
The two methods are schematically represented in Fig. 6.11 (the first method labelled
as “initialise e” and the second method labelled as “initialise OCR”). It should be
pointed out that care must be taken when the first using method (initialising a constant
value of the void ratio) as, potentially, the void ratio may fall outside the physical
bounds as defined by the asymptotic state boundary surface.
Note that due to the definition of OC R, calculated in hypoplasticity from OC R =
pe / p, each asymptotic state is associated with a specific value of OC R. For this
reason, the value of OC R of a K 0 normally consolidated soil is higher than 1. As
soil in the ground is (most often) under K 0 conditions, this must be considered
when initialising the void ratio using the second method, in particular for soils that
are close to normally consolidated conditions. Considering the offset between the
normal compression lines ΔN indicated in Fig. 6.5, the value of OC R corresponding
to the K 0 normally consolidated state is given by

ΔN
OC R = exp (6.20)
λ∗
Both methods of void ratio initialisations are applicable for clays, and they can be
selected depending on their character. In general, OC R-based initialisation is more
suitable for softer clays. In stiff clays, it is often more relevant to specify a constant
void ratio in the clay layer. This is supported by measurements of water content
variation with depth: stiff clay deposits often show minor variations in water content
and thus void ratio with depth (see data on London clay in Ref. [15]).
Table 6.1 Typical values of parameters of the hypoplastic model for clays
Soil [data ref., calib. ref.] ϕc λ∗ κ∗ N ν
[◦ ] [-] [-] [-] [-]a
Brno clay [13, 16] 22 0.128 0.015 1.51 0.33
Kaolin [16, 17] 27.5 0.065 0.01 0.918 0.35
Koper silty clay [16, 18] 33 0.103 0.015 1.31 0.28
Dortmund clay [14, 16] 27.9 0.057 0.008 0.749 0.38
Weald clay [12, 16] 24 0.059 0.014 0.8 0.3
London clay [5, 19] 22.6 0.11 0.016 1.375 0.24a
Fujinomori clay [20, 21] 34 0.045 0.011 0.887 0.36a
Bothkennar silt [22, 22] 35 0.119 0.003 1.344 0.22a
Pisa clay [11, 22] 21.9 0.14 0.01 1.56 0.31a
Beaucaire clay [23, 23] 33 0.06 0.01 0.85 0.21a
London clay [24, 25] 21.9 0.1 0.02 1.26 0.23a
Trmice clay [26, 26] 18.7 0.09 0.01 1.09 0.09a
a indicates that ν was calculated from r of the [5] model using Eq. (6.21)
Sumary of the model basic parameters: To calibrate the model for clays, at least two
experiments are sufficient: isotropic or oedometric compression test and undrained
triaxial shear test. The isotropic or oedometric test is used to calibrate N , λ∗ and κ ∗ ,
while the shear test is used for calibration of ν and ϕc . Obviously, it is advisable to
have more experiments available to verify the accuracy of the calibration. Typical
values of the hypoplastic model parameters from different sources are summarised
in Table 6.1. Note that in many cases the parameters were obtained for the earlier
hypoplastic model from Ref. [5]. Parameter ν given in Table 6.1 was calculated from
the parameter r of the model from [5] using an equation proposed in Ref. [1]:
3r (λ∗ + κ ∗ ) − 4κ ∗
ν= (6.21)
6r (λ∗ + κ ∗ ) + 4κ ∗
Calibration of the advanced parameter α f : As already discussed in Sect. 3.1.5

using the simple 1D hypoplastic model for shear, stiffness in hypoplasticity can
be affected in two ways: either by controlling the shape and size of the response
envelope, or by controlling its translation with respect to pure elastic response. The
shape and size of the response envelope is given by f s , whereas the translation of
response envelope is controlled by f d N.
More specifically, in the clay hypoplastic model, there are two parameters con-
trolling the non-linear stiffness evolution in shear: ν and α f . The parameter ν affects
the aspect ratio of the response envelope (see Fig. 6.10). It thus controls shear stiff-
ness for the given bulk stiffness (bulk stiffness is controlled by λ∗ and κ ∗ ). On the
other hand, the parameter α f controls translation of the response envelope without
modifying its shape (it affects f d ).
(a) (b)
500 500
experiment
450 450 αf=0.20
αf=0.50
400 400 αf=0.88 (default)
350 350 αf=1.00
αf=2.00
300 300
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
250 250
200 experiment 200
150 αf=0.20 150
αf=0.50
100 αf=0.88 (default) 100
50 αf=1.00 50
αf=2.00
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
εs [-] p [kPa]
Fig. 6.12 The effect of α f on stress-strain curves (a) and stress paths (b) of undrained triaxial
tests. Experimental data by Herle et al. [14]. The “default” value of α f = 0.88 is calculated for the
Dortmund clay parameters (Table 6.1) using Eq. (6.4)
The influence of α f on the stress-strain curves and stress paths of the undrained
triaxial test is shown in Fig. 6.12. At first glance, the effect of α f (Fig. 6.12) and ν
(Fig. 6.9), look practically identical. More detailed investigation of Figs. 6.12 and
6.9, however, reveals differences. The parameter α f decreases the rate of stiffness
degradation in shear, but it does not affect the initial shear stiffness. Contrary, the
parameter ν changes the initial stiffness, and although the rate of stiffness decrease
is identical for different values of ν, the overall stress-strain response is softer during
loading for higher values of ν.
The difference between the effect of α f and ν can be considered in advanced
calibration of the model. In standard calibration, without having advanced laboratory
tests available, it is usually not possible to accurately identify the initial stiffness
and the overall stress-strain response is then controlled by ν for the fixed value of
α f calculated from (6.4). In advanced calibration, ν can be set based on accurate
stiffness measurements in the very-small and small strain stiffness range, and the
stress-strain response at larger strains can be then controlled by α f . Note that, in this
case, the model is typically used in combination with the intergranular strain concept
(Sect. 7.1).
Calibration of the advanced parameter Oc : The parameter Oc controls the position
of the critical state line relative to the position of the isotropic normal compression
line (which is fixed by N and λ∗ ). In short, Oc is the value of OC R in the critical
state.
It follows from the Oc definition that, for the given void ratio (OC R) and for
the given isotropic normal compression line, Oc affects the volumetric response in
drained shear and the excess pore water pressure evolution in undrained shear. The
most important effect is the influence of Oc on the undrained shear strength. From the
shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface, it may be deduced that the undrained
shear strength cu predicted by the model is:
(a) (b)
0.8 d c 200
0.6
150
0.4
q [kPa]
q/pe
100
0.2
Oc=1.4 Oc=1.4
Oc=1.6 50 Oc=1.6
0 Oc=1.8 Oc=1.8
Oc=2.0 Oc=2.0
Oc=2.5 Oc=2.5
-0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
p/pe εs [-]
Fig. 6.13 a The effect of Oc on undrained stress paths, plotted together with the asymptotic state
boundary surface. b The effect of Oc on the stress-strain response
M M
cu = pe =p OC R (6.22)
2Oc 2Oc
where M = 6 sin ϕc /(3 − sin ϕc ).

The effect of Oc on predictions of undrained tests on moderately overconsolidated
soil with OC R = 1.25 is shown in Fig. 6.13. The simulations were obtained using an
artificial parameter set ϕc = 25◦ , λ∗ = 0.1, κ ∗ = 0.01, N = 1 and ν = 0.2. Clearly,
Oc affects the undrained shear strength, and its effect on predictions is visible at
higher stress deviator only: it does not influence the initial direction of the stress path
and the initial shear stiffness.
By default, Oc = 2 is considered in the model and this value is most often cor-
rectly representing clay behaviour. However, in the case when experimental indicate
it, the user can improve model response using calibration of Oc . It can also be used
to fine-tune predictions of the undrained shear strength for soils with known over-
consolidation ratios.
Calibration of the advanced parameter a y : As explained in the model formulation
part of the current chapter (Sect. 6.1), the parameter a y controls the shape of the
asymptotic state boundary surface, without affecting the critical state and the isotropic
normal compression line (Fig. 6.2).
The parameter a y has only a small influence on the predictions for clays with a
lower overconsolidation ratio than Oc (“wet of critical”), as the strength is not affected
and the effect on the stress path is minor. There is a more significant effect on the
predictions of clays with higher overconsolidation ratio than Oc (“dry of critical”).
In this case, the parameter a y controls the peak friction angle without affecting the
critical state friction angle. This is demonstrated in Fig. 6.14 using undrained triaxial
test simulations with an artificial parameter set (ϕc = 25◦ , λ∗ = 0.1, κ ∗ = 0.01,
N = 1 and ν = 0.2), OC R = 5 and default values of Oc and α f .
It is clear from Fig. 6.14 that a decrease in the a y value increases the peak fric-
tion angle for the given ϕc and OC R. The undrained stress path is affected by the
(a) (b)
40
d c
0.5
35
0.4 30
25
ϕmob[°]
0.3
q/pe
20
0.2 15
ay=0.3 10 ay=0.5
0.1 ay=-0.3 ay=0.3
5 ay=0.1
ay=-0.3
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
p/pe εs [-]
Fig. 6.14 The effect of a y on stress paths (a) and mobilised friction angle versus shear strain curves
(b) for an overconsolidated clay (OC R = 5). Only two curves are shown in (a) for clarity
shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface, but it does not follow it closely.
Therefore, unlike in basic elasto-plastic models, the peak friction angle cannot be
simply extracted from the known shape of the asymptotic state boundary surface for
the given OC R, but instead it is necessary to estimate it based on single element
simulations of the shear experiment.
References
1. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity with explicitly defined asymptotic states. Acta Geotechnica
8(5), 481–496 (2013)
Cambridge (1968)
3. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity model including stiffness anisotropy. Géotechnique 64(3), 232–
238 (2014)
4. Mašín, D., Rott, J.: Small strain stiffness anisotropy of natural sedimentary clays: review and
a model. Acta Geotechnica 9(2), 299–312 (2014)
29(4), 311–336 (2005)
different principal stresses. Proc. Jpn. Soc. Civil Eng. 232, 59–70 (1974)
7. Jáky, J.: Pressures in silos. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference Soil Mechanics,
vol. 1, pp. 103–107. Rotterdam (1948)
8. Wood, D.M.: Some aspects of the mechanical behaviour of kaolin under truly triaxial conditions
of stress and strain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge (1974)
9. Bardet, J.P.: Lode dependences for isotropic pressure-sensitive elastoplastic materials. J. Appl.
Mech. 57, 498–506 (1990)
10. Kirkgard, M.M., Lade, P.V.: Anisotropic three-dimmensional behaviour of a normally consol-
idated clay. Can. Geotech. J. 30, 848–858 (1993)
11. Callisto, L., Calabresi, G.: Mechanical behaviour of a natural soft clay. Géotechnique 48(4),
495–513 (1998)
References 117
12. Henkel, D.J.: The effect of overconsolidation on the behaviour of clays during shear. Géotech-
nique 6, 139–150 (1956)
13. Svoboda, T., Mašín, D., Boháč, J.: Class A predictions of a NATM tunnel in stiff clay. Comput.
Geotech. 37(6), 817–825 (2010)
14. Herle, I., Mašín, D., Kostkanová, V., Karcher, C., Dahmen, D.: Experimental investigation and
theoretical modelling of soft soils from mining deposits. In: Chung, C.K., Jung, Y.H., Kim,
H.K., Lee, J.S., Kim, D.S. (eds.) Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Deformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, Seoul, Korea, vol. 2, pp. 858–864 (2011)
15. Hight, D.W., Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Jardine, R.J., Coop, M.R.: Characteris-
tics of the london clay from the Terminal 5 site at Heathrow airport. Géotechnique 57(1), 3–18
(2007)
16. Mašín, D.: Double structure hydromechanical coupling formalism and a model for unsaturated
expansive clays. Eng. Geol. 165, 73–88 (2013)
17. Hattab, M., Hicher, P.Y.: Dilating behaviour of overconsolidated clay. Soils Found. 44(4),
27–40 (2004)
18. Mašín, D., Boháč, J., Tůma, P.: Modelling of a deep excavation in a silty clay. In: Proceedings
of 15th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 3, pp.
1509–1514 (2011)
19. Mašín, D.: Laboratory and Numerical Modelling of Natural Clays. M. Phil. Thesis, City Uni-
versity, London (2004)
20. Huang, W.X., Wu, W., Sun, D.A., Sloan, S.: A simple hypoplastic model for normally consol-
idated clay. Acta Geotechnica 1(1), 15–27 (2006)
21. Mašín, D., Herle, I.: Improvement of a hypoplastic model to predict clay behaviour under
undrained conditions. Acta Geotechnica 2(4), 261–268 (2007)
22. Mašín, D.: A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays with meta-stable structure. Can. Geotech.
J. 44(3), 363–375 (2007)
23. Mašín, D., Tamagnini, C., Viggiani, G., Costanzo, D.: Directional response of a reconstituted
fine grained soil. Part II: performance of different constitutive models. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 30(13), 1303–1336 (2006)
24. Gasparre, A.: Advanced laboratory characterisation of London Clay. Ph.D. thesis, University
25. Mašín, D.: 3D modelling of a NATM tunnel in high K 0 clay using two different constitutive
models. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 135(9), 1326–1335 (2009)
26. Hájek, V., Mašín, D., Boháč, J.: Capability of constitutive models to simulate soils with different
OCR using a single set of parameters. Comput. Geotech. 36(4), 655–664 (2009)
Chapter 7
Advanced Modelling Approaches
The two reference models for sand and clay, introduced in Chaps. 5 and 6, cover the
behaviour of a variety of common soils under standard conditions. However, specific
applications or specific soil types require enhancements of these models to achieve
the predictive goal. A selection of such enhancements is described this chapter. The
readers are introduced to methods for predicting small strain stiffness, rate effects,
effects of structure, partial saturation, thermal effects and stiffness anisotropy within
the theory of hypoplasticity.
7.1 Small Strain Stiffness – Intergranular Strains
Soil mechanical behaviour is non-linear, with high stiffness in the very small strain
range and a gradual stiffness decrease up to failure. This feature of soil mechan-
ical behaviour was thoroughly described in Sect. 2.1. Subsequently, in Sects. 3.1.6
and 3.2.4, it has been demonstrated that basic hypoplastic models are not capable
of predicting the high initial stiffness, which leads to the phenomenon known as
ratcheting: accumulation of strains in stress cycles, accumulation of stresses in strain
cycles and an absence of the reproduction of hysteretic behaviour upon stress or
strain reversals. Several approaches have been developed to overcome this limitation
of hypoplasticity. The first simple approach was put forward by Bauer and Wu [1].
The most widely used approach, which will be described in this chapter, is known
as the “intergranular strain concept” developed by Niemunis and Herle [2]. More
recent approaches include paraelasticity by Niemunis et al. [3, 4], ISA approach by
Fuentes and Triantafyllidis [5] and intergranular strain modification by Wegener and
Herle [6] (Sect. 7.1.4).
The idea behind the intergranular strain concept is as follows: it is assumed that
at the beginning of the loading process the grain skeleton does not rearrange, and
all the measured deformation of the soil is attributed to reversible deformation of
the so-called intergranular strain layer, combined with the elastic deformation of the
grains themselves. After a certain amount of strain, the grains start to rearrange. The
120 7 Advanced Modelling Approaches
Fig. 7.1 Intergranular strain limit values in 1D (figure from [2])
reversible deformation is described by an additional component of the model, which

will be described below. The deformation associated with the grain rearrangement
is irreversible and it predicted by the standard hypoplastic model.
7.1.1 Intergranular Strains in 1D
In the intergranular strain-enhanced hypoplasticity model, it is assumed that during

loading the intergranular layer deforms first, before rearrangement of the soil skele-
ton. The deformation of the intergranular layer is thought to be associated with the
reversible response. The skeleton starts to fully rearrange without the intergranular
layer contribution once the intergranular strain reaches its maximum value. The inter-
granular strain is a strain-like quantity, and it is an additional state variable denoted
as δ. The intergranular strain is, in general, a second-order tensor (as is the strain
rate). However, in the present 1D case the intergranular strain is a scalar (δ).
The evolution of the intergranular strain in 1D can be explained with the aid of
Fig. 7.1, which shows the evolution of δ in an unloading-reloading cycle prescribed
by the strain rate D. As the model is rate independent, the actual strain rate is
arbitrary, and it has been selected as |D| = 1. Figure 7.1a shows the initial state with
zero δ and zero strain rate. Figure 7.1b shows the intergranular strain, which reaches
its maximum value |δ| = R in unloading, and Fig. 7.1c–e show its development in
reloading.
The evolution of the intergranular strain is described by

|δ|
1− D for δ D > 0
δ̇ = R (7.1)
D for δ D ≤ 0
where the maximum value of the intergranular strain is denoted as R and it is a

parameter. Equation (7.1) is graphically represented in Fig. 7.2, which shows the
dependency of the intergranular strain rate δ̇ on the value of δ for a strain cycle of
D = ±1. Initially, the intergranular strain δ, intergranular strain rate δ̇ as well as
strain rate D are zero (state “0”). Once the sample starts to be deformed at D = −1,
the intergranular strain rate becomes equal to δ̇ = −1 (state “1”), but after that, as
δ D > 0, the intergranular strain rate decreases with its normalised value |δ|/R down
to zero (state “2”). Any further deformation in the same direction does not change the
7.1 Small Strain Stiffness – Intergranular Strains 121
Fig. 7.2 Graphical

representation of the
evolution equation (7.1) of
the intergranular strain
(figure from [2])
maximum value δ = −R. Once the strain rate is reversed to D = 1, the intergranular
strain rate is equal to δ̇ = 1 (state “3”), and it remains so as long as δ D ≤ 0. When
δ = 0 (state “4”) the intergranular strain rate starts to decrease again and it vanishes
when δ = R (state “5”). Another strain reversal then activates the intergranular strain
rate in the opposite direction δ̇ = −1 (state “6”).
In the model, the value of the intergranular strain controls the response so the
behaviour is interpolated between reversible elastic with high stiffness (when δ D ≤
0) and hypoplastic (when |δ| = R and δ D > 0).

mL D for δ D ≤ 0
σ̇ = (7.2)
(1 − ρ)m L D + ρ(L D + N |D|) for δ D > 0
where ρ is the normalised length of the intergranular strain tensor ρ = |δ|/R. The
reversible elastic response in the small strain range is governed by the stiffness m L,
where L is the stiffness tensor of the linear part of the hypoplastic equation and m is
a model parameter controlling the stiffness magnitude. When |δ| = R and δ D > 0,
the model response is hypoplastic (σ̇ = L D + N |D|). Linear interpolation between
these two cases that are controlled by the value of ρ governs the response otherwise.
7.1.2 Intergranular Strains in 2D
The situation is more complicated in 2D; instead of having just two options (load-
ing/unloading) between the intergranular strain and strain rate, the strain rate direc-
tion can by inclined at any angle between 0◦ and 180◦ to the intergranular strain
tensor. Three limiting cases will be distinguished: parallel/same direction vectors of
Fig. 7.3 Three special cases of intergranular strain and strain rate relative directions (figure from
[2])
Fig. 7.4 Rotation of the intergranular strain tensor in 2D when its magnitude is maximum and the
angle between δ and D is between 0◦ and 90◦ (figure from [2])
intergranular strain and strain rate (angle 0◦ ), perpendicular δ and D (angle 90◦ ) and
parallel/opposite direction δ and D (angle 180◦ ). The three cases are demonstrated
in Fig. 7.3, which also shows that it is only the most recent part of the intergranular
strain tensor evolution path that affects the response.
The evolution equation of the intergranular strain in 2D reads (with vectors δ =
(δ1 , δ2 ) and D = (D1 , D2 ))
⎧
⎨
Di − δ1 D√1 +δ2 2 D22 δi for δk Dk > 0
δ̇i = R δ1 +δ2 (7.3)
⎩
Di for δk Dk ≤ 0
It is a consequence of Eq. (7.3) that for angles between δ and D between 0◦ and 90◦ ,
when the magnitude of intergranular strain is maximum, δ retains the maximum size,
and it rotates towards the new direction of D. This situation is graphically represented
in Fig. 7.4.
The second difference between the intergranular strain concept in 1D and 2D is
that each of the special cases shown in Fig. 7.3 is attributed with different stiffness.
The parameter m from Eq. (7.2) now takes 2 values, denoted as m R and m T , such
that m R > m T > 1. The angle between δ and D equal to 0◦ is associated with basic
hypoplastic response σ̊ = : D + ND, angle 90◦ is associated with the elastic
Fig. 7.5 The effect of the

parameter βr on the
intergranular strain evolution
(figure from [2])
response governed by m T and angle 180◦ is associated with the elastic response
governed by m R . The interpolating equations will be discussed in full tensorial
formulation in Sect. 7.1.3.
7.1.3 Tensorial Formulation of the Intergranular Strain

Concept
Generalisation of the 2D formulation from Sect. 7.1.2 into full tensorial notation is
rather straightforward. The rate equation for the intergranular strain reads

− δ ⊗ δρ
βr : D for δ : D > 0
δ̊ = (7.4)
D for δ : D ≤ 0
where the direction of the intergranular strain δ is defined as δ = δ/δ and its
normalised length ρ reads ρ = δ/R. When compared with the basic 2D equation
(7.3), Eq. (7.4) contains an additional exponent βr , which is a model parameter
controlling the rate of intergranular strain evolution and consequently the stiffness
degradation curve (see Sect. 7.1.5). The effect of the parameter βr on the intergranular
strain evolution is seen in Fig. 7.5.
Unlike in basic hypoplasticity, in the intergranular strain formulation of the model
an explicit formulation for the stiffness tensor denoted as is always available.
Unlike in elasto-plasticity, however, and the same as in hypoplasticity, the tensor is
continuously dependent on the direction of D: the model thus remains incrementally
non-linear, as hypoplasticity (see Sect. 1.4). The general model expression reads
T̊ = : D (7.5)
The model response is found by interpolating between the following three special
cases:
deformation is elastic
= −δ),
1. When ρ = 0 or ρ = 1 with strain path reversal (D
governed by the stiffness tensor
= m R (7.6)
where m R is a model parameter.

2. When ρ = 1 with 90◦ rotation of the strain path (D : δ = 0), deformation is elastic,
but the stiffness is lower than for the full strain path reversal described in the item
above:
= mT (7.7)
where m T > m R is a model constant.

3. For continuous loading (ρ = 1 and D the model should yield a response
= δ)
identical to the basic hypoplastic model. This is achieved by setting the tensor
to be equal to
= : (δ ⊗ δ) + N ⊗ δ (7.8)
Substituting (7.8) into (7.5) leads to
T̊ = : (δ ⊗ δ)
: D + (N ⊗ δ)
:D (7.9)
and thus
= δ,
As the loading does not involve change of D direction, D
⊗ D)
T̊ = : (D : D + (N ⊗ D)
:D (7.10)
which is identical to
D
T̊ = : D( : D) + N(D
: D) (7.11)
: D = D2 /D = D, the equation above reads

Because D
T̊ = : D + ND (7.12)
which is the expression of the basic hypoplastic model (note that, in this section,
the scalar factors f s and f d are considered to be included in the hypoplastic tensors
and N).
The interpolation between the three special cases above is achieved using the
following expression, which is a generalisation of the 1D equation (7.2):
Fig. 7.6 Response envelopes of the intergranular strain model for ρ = 0 (state “A”) and for ρ = 1
(state “B”) (figure from [2])
⎧ χ
⎪
⎪ ρ (1 − m T ) : (δ ⊗ δ) + ρ χ N ⊗ δ
⎨
for δ : D > 0
= ρ χ m T + (1 − ρ χ ) m R +
⎪ ρ (m R − m T ) : (δ ⊗ δ)
⎪
χ
⎩

for δ : D ≤ 0
(7.13)
In Eq. (7.13), there is an additional exponent χ that does not appear in Eq. (7.13).
This exponent is a model parameter controlling the interpolation function and, in the
end, controls the stiffness degradation curve. More details are given in Sect. 7.1.5.
The Eq. (7.13) modifies the response envelopes of the basic hypoplastic model,
and this modification depends on the loading direction. This is demonstrated in
Fig. 7.6, which shows two response envelopes, one for ρ = 0 (state “A”) and one
for ρ = 1 (state “B”). For ρ = 0, the stiffness is elastic and controlled by m R
for any direction of loading. For ρ = 1, the stiffness is equal to m R for reverse
loading, to m T for neutral loading (90◦ rotation of the strain path) and the response
corresponds to basic hypoplasticity in continuous loading, which does not involve
change in D direction.
7.1.4 Modifications of the Intergranular Strain Concept
The intergranular strain concept as described in Sect. 7.1.3 has been subject to several
modifications since its development.
Fig. 7.7 Accumulation of pore water pressure (expressed in terms of mean effective stress) during
undrained cyclic loading of sand. Predictions with the original intergranular strain model from
Niemunis and Herle [2] (a) and updated model by Wegener and Herle [6, 7] (b) (figure from [6])
Wegener and Herle [6, 7] noticed that the hypoplastic model with the intergranular
strain concept overpredicted the accumulation of strains in drained cyclic loading
and the accumulation of excess pore water pressures in undrained cyclic loading.
They proposed the following modification of Eq. (7.13):
⎧ χ
⎪
⎪
+ ρ ϑ N ⊗ δ
ρ (1 − m T ) cal : (δ ⊗ δ)
⎨
for δ : D > 0
= ρ χ m T + (1 − ρ χ ) m R cal +
⎪ ρ (m R − m T ) cal : (δ ⊗ δ)
⎪
χ
⎩

for δ : D ≤ 0
(7.14)
In Eq. (7.14), the exponent χ in the non-linear part of the hypoplastic equation (the
part containing the tensor N) is replaced by another exponent ϑ. As the non-linear
part of the equation is responsible for cyclic accumulation of stresses and strains, an
increase of ϑ with respect to χ limits cyclic accumulation (Fig. 7.7). At the same
time, it has only a marginal effect on the stiffness degradation curve in monotonous
loading, as this is predominantly controlled by the portions of the model containing
the original value of χ . When ϑ = χ , the original model is recovered.
Another modification has been proposed by Mašín [8]. It reflects the fact that, in
the basic version of the intergranular strain concept, the very small strain stiffness is
controlled by the tensor multiplied by a constant m R . Then, state-dependency of
stiffness (such as its dependency on stress) is inherited from , and the user cannot
control it through a parameter. The clay hypoplastic model from Chap. 6 can be given
as an example. Its formulation implies that the stiffness , and thus also the very
small strain shear modulus G 0 , are linearly dependent on the mean effective stress.
However, experimental data show a non-linear dependency of the form [9]
ng
p
G 0 = pr A g (7.15)
pr
where pr is the reference stress (often considered as 1 kPa) and A g and n g are
parameters. To include such a dependency, it is possible to consider m R to be a
variable back-calculated from the predefined values of A g and n g , see [8] and Sect. 7.4
for more details. Then, it is also convenient not to consider m T as a constant, but
instead to calculate it from m T = m rat m R , with a parameter m rat .
7.1.5 Calibration of the Intergranular Strain Concept

Parameters
Parameters m R or A g and n g : Parameters m R (sand model) and parameters A g and

n g (clay model) control the magnitude of the very small strain shear modulus in the
initial loading and upon a 180◦ change in the direction of the strain path. They are
best calibrated using shear wave propagation experiments, such as bender element
tests (see Sect. 2.1.2). The shear modulus can also be measured using static shear
tests with local measurements of sample deformation, but these measurements are
less reliable due to the limit of accuracy of the strain transducers (Sect. 2.1.1).
A typical dependency of the very small strain shear modulus on the mean effective
stress measured by bender elements on sand at isotropic stress conditions is shown in
Fig. 7.8a. The data are for Komorany sand. Figure 7.8b shows evolution of the void
ratio in the same experiment. The sand model has the following property: Without
the effects of the void ratio, the very small strain shear modulus is proportional to
p (1−n) , where n is the sand model parameter controlling the curvature of the normal
compression line. One of the lines G 0 ∝ p 0.8 (Komorany sand is characterised by n =
0.2, see Table 5.1) is shown in Fig. 7.8a and it is compared with G 0 predicted by the
sand model for m R = 3.4, which is the value of m R representing best Komorany sand
behaviour. The predicted value of G 0 deviates from the G 0 ∝ p 0.8 curve, because
the relative void ratio increases during isotropic compression. The value of m R in
the sand model should thus be calibrated by numerical simulation of the shear test
considering the current value of the void ratio, as shown in Fig. 7.8a for different
values of m R . Increasing the value of m R increases the predicted value of G 0 .
Calibration of the G 0 of the clay model is simpler in that the dependency of
G 0 on p is known explicitly (Sect. 7.1.4), given by Eq. (7.15). The parameter A g
controls the stiffness magnitude and n g the curvature of the G 0 versus p line. A
typical calibration of parameter A g and n g using bender element tests on Brno clay
(data and calibration from [10]) is shown in Fig. 7.9.
Parameters m T or m rat : The value of the parameter m T (or, equivalently, of the ratio
m rat = m T /m R , Sect. 7.1.4) is difficult to identify experimentally. The ratio m rat
represents the ratio G 90 /G 0 , where G 90 is the initial shear stiffness after a 90◦ change
in the strain path direction. G 90 cannot be measured by wave propagation techniques,
so G 90 and the corresponding G 0 must be found using accurate measurements with
local strain transducers. If such experiments are not available for the given soil (which
is most often the case), the user must resort to a “standard” value of m rat .
(a) 300 (b) 0.465 experiment

0.46
250
0.455
200 0.45
G0 [MPa]
e [-]
0.445
150
0.44
100 experiment 0.435
mR=2 0.43
50 mR=3.4
mR=5 0.425
G0∝p(1-n)
0 0.42
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 1000
p [kPa] p [kPa]
Fig. 7.8 a The dependency of G 0 on p for Komorany sand, predictions by sand model for different
values of m R and one of the curves characterised by G 0 ∝ p (1−n) . b evolution of void ratio during
isotropic compression in the bender element test
Fig. 7.9 The dependency of 160

G 0 on p measured by bender
140
elements on Brno clay used
for calibration of the 120
parameters A g and n g clay
100
Gvh0 [MPa]
model (data and calibration

from [10]) 80
60
40
experiment
20 G0=Ag (p/pr)ng
linear dependency
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
p [kPa]
One of few experimental data sets in the literature which allows for m rat quan-
tification is the data on reconstituted London clay by Atkinson et al. [11]. They
tested four samples under constant mean effective shear stress (path 0X) with dif-
ferent stress histories denoted as A0, B0, C0 and D0 (see Fig. 7.10a). Under the
assumption that a 90◦ stress path reversal represents an approximately 90◦ strain
path reversal, the value of m rat may be quantified as follows. The value of the ref-
erence shear modulus for continuous loading (B0X in Fig. 7.10b) is approx. 9 MPa.
The value of G 0 at the full stress path reversal (D0X) is approx. 38 MPa, leading to
m R ≈ 38/9 ≈ 4.2. The average value of G 90 measured in two tests with 90◦ stress
path reversal (A0X and B0X) is approx. 26 MPa, leading to m T ≈ 26/9 ≈ 2.9. There-
after, m rat = m T /m R ≈ 2.9/4.7 ≈ 0.7. The value m rat = 0.7 is recommended as a
“default” value unless experimental data on the soil of interest are available. See [12,
13] for more experimental data regarding this effect.
Parameters R, βr and χ : The parameters R, βr and χ appear at different places
within the formulation of the intergranular strain concept model and they have thus
different physical meanings. The parameter R represents the size of the elastic range
(b)
(a)
Fig. 7.10 G measurements on reconstituted London clay for four different stress histories. Figures
from Atkinson et al. [11]. a stress paths, b G versus shear strain curves for the “0X” portion of the
experiment
(a) 140 exp., 226gUC (b) 140 exp., 226gUC

120 exp., 25gUC 120 exp., 25gUC
exp., 23gUE exp., 23gUE
R=1.e-5 βr=0.033
100 R=5.e-5 (orig.) 100 βr=0.1 (orig.)
βr=0.3
G [MPa]
G [MPa]
R=1.e-4
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
εs [-] εs [-]
Fig. 7.11 The influence of parameters R and βr on the stiffness degradation curve of undisturbed
London clay. Experimental data by Gasparre [14, 15], predictions from Mašín [16]
(in the strain space), the parameter βr controls the rate of evolution of the intergranular
strain tensor and the parameter χ controls interpolation between the reversible elastic
response and non-linear hypoplastic response. Regardless their different meaning,
however, the net effect of these three parameters on the model predictions is similar:
they control the rate of stiffness decrease with strain. They are typically calibrated
using the shear modulus versus shear strain curves obtained in triaxial shear experi-
ments with local measurement of deformation.
The influence of the parameters R and βr on the predicted stiffness degradation
curve is shown in Fig. 7.11. The model-generated curves are compared with exper-
imental data on undisturbed London clay by Gasparre [14, 15]. Interestingly, the
effect of R and βr on the stiffness degradation curves is, to all practical purposes,
indistinguishable. An increase of R is equivalent to a decrease of βr and the two
parameters control the horizontal position of the stiffness degradation curve within
the G versus ln εs diagram. Independent calibration of R and βr would require quite
elaborate non-standard experiments. For practical purposes, one of the parameters
can be assumed as a constant (for example, R = 10−4 ) and the position of the curve
(a) 140 exp., 226gUC (b) 140 exp., 226gUC

120 exp., 25gUC 120 exp., 25gUC
exp., 23gUE exp., 23gUE
χ=0.5 ϑ=χ=1 (orig.)
100 χ=1 (orig.) 100 ϑ=10
χ=2
G [MPa]
G [MPa]
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1e-07 1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 1e-06 1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01
εs [-] εs [-]
Fig. 7.12 a The influence of parameter χ on the stiffness degradation curve of undisturbed London
clay. b The curve for χ = 1 predicted with different values of ϑ. Experimental data by Gasparre
[14, 15], predictions from Mašín [16]
can be controlled by βr . Obviously, it is also possible to vary both parameters by a

trial-and-error procedure for the best fit.
The parameter χ also controls the stiffness degradation curve (Fig. 7.12a), but
unlike R and βr , it controls the rate of stiffness decrease with strain. The higher the
value of χ , the larger the quasi-elastic range size and the faster the subsequent rate of
stiffness decrease. Parameter χ should be calibrated by a trial-and-error procedure
by fitting the experimental data. As explained in Sect. 7.1.4, a modification of the
model for better predicting cyclic accumulation proposed by Wegener and Herle
[6, 7] replaces χ at one position within the model formulation by the parameter
ϑ. Figure 7.12b shows the stiffness degradation curve predicted with the original
model ϑ = χ and with the modified model with high value of ϑ = 10 (this value
was calibrated in [6]). Clearly, the modification has a negligible effect on the modulus
evolution under non-cyclic conditions, and the calibration of ϑ can thus be left for
correcting the cyclic response only.
Calibration for predicting cyclic response – parameter ϑ: The parameter ϑ influ-
ences the accumulation of strains in stress-cyclic tests and accumulation of stresses
in strain-cyclic tests, without significantly affecting the stiffness degradation curves
in static loading tests. The recommended approach to ϑ calibration is thus straight-
forward. Static tests should be used to calibrate all the parameter R, m R , m T , βr and
χ , as described above, and ϑ should be fitted to adjust the cyclic response of the
model.
An example of such a calibration is given in Figs. 7.13 and 7.14. Figure 7.13 shows
the results of cyclic undrained tests on loose Niigata sand samples by Ishihara et al.
[17]. The data show that 6 full undrained cycles with the selected stress magnitude
are needed to reach cyclic mobility. These tests were adopted for calibration of ϑ. As
static loading tests with local strain measurements were not available on Niigata sand
to calibrate the sand hypoplastic model, the basic model parameters of the Toyoura
sand (Table 5.1, [18]) and intergranular strain parameters of the Komorany sand
(Table 7.1) were adopted in the simulations. The parameter ϑ was varied subsequently
to achieve the best predictions of cyclic accumulation. Clearly, ϑ has a remarkable
Fig. 7.13 Results of cyclic undrained tests on loose Niigata sand samples by Ishihara et al. [17]
(a) 100 basic hypoplasticity (b) 100 ϑ=5, χ=0.7

ϑ=χ=0.7 ϑ=8, χ=0.7
80 ϑ=2, χ=0.7 80 ϑ=10, χ=0.7
60 60
40 40
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

p [kPa] p [kPa]
Fig. 7.14 The effect of the parameter ϑ on predictions of cyclic undrained shear test. For qualitative
comparison, see experimental data by Ishihara et al. [17] in Fig. 7.13
effect on the accumulation of positive pore water pressures in undrained cyclic test
and it thus controls the number of cycles needed to reach cyclic mobility. In the
present case, ϑ = 8 gave the best predictions, which is close to the value ϑ = 10
recommended by Wegener and Herle [6, 7].
It is to be pointed out that rigorous calibration of the hypoplastic model with
the intergranular strain concept is difficult when cyclic loading data are available
without stiffness degradation curves from the static loading tests with local strain
measurements. This is because the net effect of the parameter ϑ is, in fact, similar
to the effects of parameters m R , R, βr and χ on the cyclic response. As an example,
Fig. 7.15 shows the effect of βr and χ (calculated for ϑ = χ ). When only cyclic data
are available, assumptions should be made about the parameter values (by example
using Table 7.1) and an extensive trial-and-error fitting should be done to achieve
(a) βr=0.02, χ=0.7 (b) χ=0.3, βr=0.12

100 βr=0.12, χ=0.7 100 χ=0.7, βr=0.12
βr=0.30, χ=0.7 χ=2.5, βr=0.12
50 50
q [kPa]
q [kPa]
0 0
-50 -50
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

p [kPa] p [kPa]
Fig. 7.15 The effect of the parameters βr and χ (calculated for ϑ = χ) on predictions of the cyclic
undrained shear test. For qualitative comparison, see experimental data by Ishihara et al. [17] in
Fig. 7.13
Table 7.1 Typical values of parameters of the intergranular strain concept with references to the
original calibrations
Sand mR − mT R βr χ ϑ
Hochstetten sand [18] 5 − 2 1 × 10−4 0.5 6 N/C
Karlsruhe sand [19] 6 − 3.5 1 × 10−4 0.2 6 N/C
Komorany sand 3.4 − 1.7 2 × 10−4 0.12 0.7 N/C
Toyoura sand [20] 8 − 4 2 × 10−5 0.1 1 N/C
Clay Ag ng m rat R βr χ ϑ
London clay [8] 270 1.0 0.5 5 × 10−5 0.08 0.9 N/C
Brno clay [10] 5300 0.5 0.5 1 × 10−4 0.2 0.8 N/C
N/C: not calibrated
satisfactory calibration. Such a procedure is also needed for cyclic loading tests with
larger amplitudes, where ϑ does not have a significant influence on the results.
Summary of the intergranular strain concept parameters: Typical values of the
intergranular strain concept parameters from different sources are given in Table 7.1.
7.2 Rate Effects - Viscohypoplasticity
In this section, incorporation of rate effects, such as creep, relaxation and rate-
dependent strength and stiffness into hypoplasticity is described. Such an enhanced
model is denoted as viscohypoplastic. Viscohypoplasticity was first developed by
Niemunis et al. [21, 22] and his approach is explained in Sect. 7.2.1. In Sect. 7.2.2, it
is explained how to incorporate the viscous effects into the hypoplastic model with
explicit state boundary surface from Chap. 6.
7.2 Rate Effects - Viscohypoplasticity 133
7.2.1 Model Formulation
A viscohypoplastic model for clays was proposed by Niemunis [21]. Subsequently,

Niemunis et al. [22] enhanced the formulation by an anisotropic shape of the state
boundary surface and non-linear behaviour inside it. For the sake of clarity of the
concept explanation, the earlier version of the model [21] will be described in this
chapter. For details of the more advanced version, the interested readers are referred
to [22]. Another way to incorporate rate-dependency into hypoplasticity has been
given in Gudehus [23].
As with the other two hypoplastic models described in previous chapters, the
model is based on the hypoplastic relationship by Gudehus [24]:
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) (7.16)
To explain the model formulation, procedure adopted in the development of sand

hypoplastic models to incorporate critical states is described in the following. The
hypoplastic equation can be rewritten as
T̊ = f s : (D + f d BD) (7.17)
with
B = −1 : N (7.18)
Recall that at the critical state B = 1 and trB = 0 (Eqs. (4.13)–(4.17)). As explained
in Sect. 4.3, Niemunis [21] suggested replacing Eq. (7.17) by

T̊ = f s : (D − f d Y mD) (7.19)
where Y = B is a hypoplastic alternative of a Yield surface and m = −B/B

is a hypoplastic alternative of a flow rule. The value of Y increases with increasing
stress deviator and Y is equal to one at the critical state surface. m is defined such
= 0 at the critical stress state and m
that tr m = 1 at the isotropic stress state.
Equation (7.19) is positively homogeneous of degree one in D, the model described
by Eq. (7.19) is thus rate independent. To implement rate dependency, Niemunis [21]

replaced the non-linear part of Eq. (7.19) f d Y mD by the so-called viscous strain
rate Dvis :
T̊ = f s : (D − Dvis ) (7.20)
the other components of its for-

Dvis inherits, from the original model direction m;
mulation are, however, unique to the viscohypoplastic model. It reads
1/Iv
1

Dvis = Dr m (7.21)
OC R +
Fig. 7.16 Definition by

OC R + employed in the
viscohypoplastic model
(from Niemunis [21],
modified)
where the reference rate Dr and viscosity index Iv are model parameters (their phys-
ical meaning will be explained later) and OC R + is the overconsolidation ratio.
Niemunis [21] defined OC R + in such a way that it specified the distance from the
state boundary surface, calculated using
pe
OC R + = (7.22)
pe+
pe+ represents the size of the state boundary surface passing through the current
stress state, whereas pe represents the size of the reference SBS (which corresponds
to OC R + = 1), both evaluated at the current void ratio (see Fig. 7.16). In this section,
for consistency with the original publications, the OC R + definition from Eq. (7.22)
is adopted. It is equivalent to the ratio p A / p introduced in Sect. 3.3.2 (Fig. 3.15):
pA
OC R + = (7.23)
p
Unlike the non-linear part of the original model, Eq. (7.21) is independent of
the strain rate D. Its combination with the strain rate-dependent linear part f s : D
then allows a prediction of viscous effects. At this point, properties of Eq. (7.20)
will be discussed. First, the states at the state boundary surface will be considered,
which means the states with OC R + = 1 using the model-specific OC R + definition.
Equations (7.20) and (7.21) reduce to

T̊ = f s : (D − Dr m) (7.24)
Equation (7.24) implies the following predictions for different scenario:

1. When T̊ = 0, then Eq. (7.24) predicts D = Dr m. The model therefore predicts
creep (non-zero strain rate at zero stress rate). Dr represents the reference rate of
creep, which is associated with the reference yield surface (i.e., with OC R + = 1).
2. When D = 0, the model predicts, for OC R + = 1, a stress rate T̊ = − f s Dr : m.
The model thus predicts relaxation (non-zero stress rate at zero strain rate).
3. When D = Dr , the model predicts

T̊ = f s : (D − mD) (7.25)
= 0. The model thus predicts

Recall that at the critical state stress ratio tr m
trD = 0 for T̊ = 0. Critical state is therefore predicted by the model, in the same
way as in rate independent hypoplasticity.
At this point, a complete version of the model will be considered. It is formed by
a combination of (7.20) and (7.21):

1/Iv
1

T̊ = f s : D − Dr m (7.26)
OC R +
Again, performance of (7.26) will be explained for a few specific cases:

1. The first test type is a constant rate of strain test, defined by constant D. An
important reference state to be studied is the critical state. For the purpose of
explanation of critical state predictions, it is instructive to compare Eq. (7.26)
with (7.19), giving
1/Iv
1
Dr = f d Y D (7.27)
OC R +
Note that at the critical state f d = 1 and Y = 1. Equation (7.27) in this case yields
Iv
Dr
OC R + = (7.28)
D
As Eq. (7.28) is representative of the critical state, it may be used to calculate the
OC R + corresponding to the critical state conditions for the given strain rate D.
Clearly, the increase of the strain rate means that the critical state is achieved at
lower OC R + and vice versa. Note that, unlike in classical elasto-plasticity and
hypoplasticity, OC R + < 1 is acceptable within this model. The actual value of
OC R + at the critical state is controlled by both parameters Dr and Iv . The model
therefore predicts an increase of shear strength with increasing strain rate, as
shown in Fig. 7.17. Indeed, when D = Dr the model predicts the critical state
at OC R + = 1, as already discussed above. The dependency of the critical state
on D is controlled by the parameter Iv , and this can be used for Iv calibration.
2. During asymptotic loading under constant strain rate (loading along the normal
compression line with D and D constant), the basic hypoplastic equation (7.19)
predicts constant values of f d and Y . In this case,
Iv
Dr
OC R + = (7.29)
f d Y D
We can adopt similar reasoning as in the discussion of critical state conditions,

revealing that the positions of the normal compression lines depend on the strain
rate. This property of the model, which agrees with the experimentally observed
Fig. 7.17 Demonstration of

predicted increase of
undrained shear strength
with increasing strain rate
[21]
behaviour, is demonstrated in Fig. 7.18. As in the case of the critical state, Iv can
be calibrated from the known dependency of the normal compression line of D.
3. The creep test is defined by T̊ = 0. Equation (7.26) yields
1/Iv
1

D = Dr m (7.30)
OC R +
which through its formulation

The creep strain rate direction is controlled by m,
implies compressive strains for stress ratios lower than critical. Creep thus leads
to a decrease in the void ratio, and consequently to an increase of OC R + . The
increase of OC R + causes the creep strains to vanish with time due to a decrease
of the ratio (1/OC R + )1/Iv (Eq. (7.30)). The dependency of the creep rate on
OC R + is controlled by Iv and it can be used for its calibration.
4. The relaxation test is specified by D = 0. The stress rate is then given by
1/Iv
1
T̊ = −Dr f s
:m (7.31)
OC R +
For reasons similar as in the explanation of the creep test, the relaxation stress
rate diminishes with time thanks to an increase of OC R + . In this test the void
ratio is constant while the mean stress decreases, which means that OC R + is
increasing, with Iv the controlling parameter of this process; this fact can again
be used in Iv calibration.
One of the properties of the viscohypoplastic model is that its response at higher
OC R + is very close to elastic. This is because realistic values of the exponent Iv
are high (of the order of 20). With the OC R + value only slightly larger than 1
the factor (1/OC R + )1/Iv diminishes and the response of the model is then solely
controlled by the stiffness tensor f s . This issue was addressed by Niemunis et al.
[22], who modified the Dvis formulation to include irreversible behaviour inside the
state boundary surface.
In the above, the basic principles of the viscohypoplastic model were explained.
To complete the mathematical formulation of the model, it is necessary to specify
its components , m, f s , pe+ and pe . Niemunis started with and m of the model
for granular materials (Sect. 5.1). was modified to
Fig. 7.18 Dependency of

normal compression line on
the strain rate (from
Niemunis [21], modified)
= F 2 + a 2 T̂ ⊗ T̂ (7.32)
= m/m was taken from the von Wolffersdorff

with F and a defined in Eq. (5.4). m
[25] model:
a ∗ T̂ 6 T̂ : T̂ − 1
m=− T̂ + T̂ − (7.33)
F 3 (F/a)2 + T̂ : T̂
f s was defined to enforce the slope of the isotropic unloading line in the ln(1 + e)
versus ln p space to coincide with the parameter κ ∗ :
trT
fs = − (7.34)
(1 + a 2 /3)κ ∗
pe+ controls the state boundary surface shape within the model. The model from
Ref. [21] adopts an elliptical SBS shape of the Modified Cam-clay model. It thus
follows that
2
q
pe+ = p 1 + (7.35)
Mp
√
where q = 3/2T∗ and M = 6 sin ϕc /(3 − sin ϕc ) for triaxial compression.
Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure pe is given by the same equation as in the rate inde-
pendent hypoplastic model (Chap. 6):

N − ln(1 + e)
pe = pr exp (7.36)
λ∗
where N and λ∗ are parameters and pr = 1 kPa is a reference stress.

The more advanced model by Niemunis [22] adopts an anisotropic shape of the
state boundary surface with a Matsuoka and Nakai [26] deviatoric cross-section and
enhanced Dvis formulation (described above). The enhanced model is outside the
scope of this book and the interested reader is referred to Ref. [22].
The viscohypoplastic model requires six parameters M, λ∗ , κ ∗ , N , Dr and Iv .
Calibration of M, λ∗ , κ ∗ and N is described below, calibration of the viscous effects-
related parameters Dr and Iv is outlined later in Sect. 7.2.3.
M, λ∗ , κ ∗ and N : These parameters coincide with parameters of the rate independent
model, the reader is thus referred to Sect. 6.2 for details of their calibration. Only the
differences are pointed out here:
1. If M is calculated from the critical state friction angle using
6 sin ϕc
M= (7.37)
3 − sin ϕc
then the two models to predict the same critical state stress ratio in the triaxial
axisymmetric compression. For other Lode angles, the viscohypoplastic model
predicts a higher critical state friction angle due to the circular octahedral cross-
section through the state boundary surface. This shortcoming was overcome in
[22].
2. The viscohypoplastic model predicts a practically elastic response inside the state
boundary surface. κ ∗ thus represents the slope of the isotropic unloading line
in the ln(1 + e) versus ln p space and it can be calibrated by direct evaluation
of experimental data; model simulation is not needed as is the case of the rate
independent model. As a payoff, the viscohypoplastic model does not predict soil
non-linearity inside the SBS. This shortcoming was overcome in [22].
3. There is no specific parameter to control the shear modulus in the viscohypoplastic
model from [22]. However, shear modulus can be controlled within the model
from Sect. 7.2.2.
4. The parameter N specifies the position of the isotropic normal compression line
for the reference loading rate prescribed by Dr . See the discussion in the subse-
quent paragraph describing Dr calibration.
7.2.2 Viscohypoplasticity with Explicitly Defined Asymptotic

States
Rate effects can be incorporated into the model with explicit asymptotic state bound-
ary surface from Chap. 6 similarly as in the model from Sect. 7.2. The model general
formulation (Eq. (6.1)) reads:
fd
T̊ = f s : D − : dD (7.38)
f dA
Considering the definitions of f d and f dA :

αf
p
fd = Oc (7.39)
pe
αf
pA
f dA = Oc (7.40)
pe
α
and Eq. (7.23), it follows that the ratio f d / f dA is equal to 1/OC R + f . The model
from Sect. 6.1 can thus also be written in the following form:
αf
1
T̊ = f s : D − : dD (7.41)
OC R +
Equation (7.41) has similar structure as the viscohypoplastic model from Eq. (7.26),
with D replaced by Dr , α f replaced by 1/Iv and : d appearing in place of
It thus follows that the rate effects can be included into the model from
f s : m.
Chap. 6 by considering:
1/Iv
1
T̊ = f s : D − Dr :d (7.42)
OC R +
This model retains the meaning of parameters Iv and Dr of the viscohypoplastic

model by Niemunis [21], and it also keeps the asymptotic properties of the model
from Chap. 6. Notice that the parameter α f is not considered in the model formulation
any more and it is replaced by the ratio 1/Iv . The parameter Iv is thus, in addition to
controlling the rate effects, also affecting non-linear response inside the asymptotic
state boundary surface, same as the parameter α f of the rate independent model.
The viscohypoplastic model with explicit asymptotic state boundary surface has
been proposed by Jerman and Mašín [27], who also included the effects of asymp-
totic state boundary surface anisotropy (not considered in this book). The model
was calibrated to represent experimental data on St. Herblain clay (Refs. [28, 29])
and remoulded kaolin (Refs. [22, 30]). Model parameters are given in Table 7.2.
Figure 7.19a demonstrates the effect of the parameter Iv on predictions of oedomet-
ric secondary compression test on St. Herblain clay and Fig. 7.19b demonstrates the
effect of the parameter Dr on predictions constant rate of strain oedometric test on
St. Herblain clay. The effect of strain rate on undrained triaxial test on St. Herblain
clay is demonstrated in Fig. 7.20a, predictions of staged oedometric relaxation test
followed by oedometric compression on remoulded kaolin clay are in Fig. 7.20b.
7.2.3 Calibration of the Rate Effects-Related Parameters
Calibration of the rate effects related parameters Dr and Iv is described below. The
calibration procedure has been identified by Niemunis [21] and it is relevant to both
models from Sects. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.
Table 7.2 Parameters of the viscohypoplastic model with explicitly defined asymptotic state bound-
ary surface
Soil ϕc λ∗ κ∗ N ν Dr Iv
St. Herblain clay 32 0.15 0.007 1.73 0.2 1.0 × 10−5 0.067
[28, 29]
Remoulded 20 0.09 0.025 1.077 0.2 1.3 × 10−6 0.067
kaolin [22, 30]
(a) 0 (b) 2.2

2 2.1
2
4 1.9
εV (%)
1.8
6
e
1.7
Iv = 0.067 -5
Iv = 0.083 1.6 Dr = 10
8
Iv = 0.056 Dr = 10-2
1.5 Dr = 10
-8
experiment
10 1.4 experiment, CRS
1.3
10 100 1000 10000 100000 10 100
time (sec) σ’v (kPa)
Fig. 7.19 a The effect of the parameter Iv on predictions of oedometric secondary compression test;
b the effect of the parameter Dr on predictions constant rate of strain oedometric test. Experimental
data from Refs. [28, 29]
(b) 800
(a) 100 experiment
Hypoplasticity
700
80 600
500
q, Δu (kPa)
σa (kPa)
60
400
40 300
experiment, q 200
20 experiment, Δu
hypoplasticity, q 100
hypoplasticity, Δu,
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 20 40 60 80 100
εa (%) time [h]
Fig. 7.20 a The effect of strain rate on undrained triaxial test, experimental data from Refs. [28,
29]; b predictions of staged oedometric relaxation test followed by oedometric compression, exper-
imental data from Refs. [22, 30]
Parameter Dr : Dr [s −1 ] is the reference (creep/loading) rate, which is related to the

reference surface specified by OC R + = 1. The size of the reference state boundary
surface is controlled by N through (7.36). Therefore, in fact, one of the two parameters
N or Dr is arbitrary (subject to the condition that both are positive); once one of
them is specified, however, the latter must be selected accordingly so that the model
correctly predicts the rate-dependent positions of the normal compression lines. The
most common way of Dr calibration would be to adopt a constant D isotropic
compression test. N can be calibrated from the position of the isotropic normal
compression line revealed by this test. Dr can then be calculated from
λ∗ − κ ∗ λ∗ − κ ∗
Dr = ∗
D = − √ ε̇V (7.43)
λ 3λ∗
where ε̇V is the volumetric strain rate. Note that an experiment with a constant value
of ε̇V is needed for N and Dr calibration, rather than the constant mean stress rate ṗ
test, which is more commonly performed. The model predicts that for loading along
the normal compression line, ṗ/ p must remain constant during the test to achieve
constant ε̇V . At the same time, however, ṗ must be slow enough to ensure dissipation
of excess pore water pressures (that is, it must be of the order of kPa per hour for
clayey soils), which poses quite a serious limitation to the experimental evaluation
of N and Dr .
Alternatively (and more commonly), when constant ṗ test results are available
only, N and Dr can be specified based on a single point on the normal compression
line and λ∗ can then be evaluated by a trial-and-error procedure in a numerical
simulation of the laboratory experiment.
Parameter Iv : Parameter Iv , denoted as the viscosity index, controls the following
features of the model response: the influence of OC R + on the rate-dependent position
of the isotropic and oedometric normal compression lines, rate dependent undrained
shear strength cu , as well as creep and relaxation rates. Therefore, a number of
different methods can be adopted for Iv calibration. The following ones are the most
straightforward:
1. Isotropic compression tests at variable rates: Typical results of isotropic normal
compression tests at variable rates are shown in Fig. 7.21. The parameter Iv can
then be calculated from
Fig. 7.21 Isotropic

compression tests at variable
loading rates used for
calibration of the exponent
Iv [21]
ln pe+ (a) − ln pe+ (b)

Iv = (7.44)
ln ε̇V (a) − ln ε̇V (b)
The meaning of pe+ (a) and pe+ (b) is clear from Fig. 7.21. Note that, as described
above, the isotropic compression tests must be performed at constant ε̇V and they
must be slow enough for the excess pore pressures to dissipate. These restrictions
complicate the experimental evaluation of Iv using this type of test.
2. Due to the problems described above, a more suitable way to determine Iv are
the results of undrained shear tests at different loading rates. First, these tests
are typically performed as strain controlled and so it is simpler to prescribe a
constant strain rate. Second, the tests can be performed at higher rates than the
drained isotropic compression tests. Using two experiments performed at axial
strain rates ε˙a (a) and ε˙a (b), Iv can be calculated from the respective undrained
shear strengths cu (a) and cu (b) by
ln cu (a) − ln cu (b)
Iv = (7.45)
ln ε̇a (a) − ln ε̇a (b)
3. Another experiment suitable for Iv determination is an isotropic creep test. For

its evaluation, parameters N and Dr need first to be specified using the proce-
dures described above. Then, manipulation with the model equation leads to the
following dependency of the creep volume strain on time t [21]
√
∗ 3Dr t
εV (t) = −λ Iv ln 1 + +(1/Iv )
(7.46)
Iv λ∗ OC R0
where OC R0+ is the initial value of OC R + at t = 0, calculated with respect to

the reference normal compression line specified by N . For Iv calibration, εV (t)
calculated using Eq. (7.46) can be compared with experimental data. Iv can then
be varied using a trial-and-error procedure until the best fit is achieved.
4. The final experiment mentioned here suitable for Iv calibration is the isotropic
relaxation test. For ease of calibration, it is most convenient to start the relaxation
test from the isotropic normally consolidated state. The mean stress at time t can
then be calculated explicitly using
√ −Iv
3Dr
p(t) = pe 1+t (7.47)
Iv κ ∗
Equation (7.47) can again be compared with the experimental data and used for
Iv trial-and-error calibration.
7.3 Clay Structure 143
7.3 Clay Structure
7.3.1 Mechanical Behaviour of Structured Clays
The model from Chap. 6 is suitable for predicting fine grained soils that are not
influenced by the effects of structure. The influence of structure on the behaviour of
fine-grained soils has been thoroughly studied in the past; see, in particular, Burland
[31], Cotecchia and Chandler [32] and Leroueil and Vaughan [33].
The notion of soil structure is considered to be a combination of ‘fabric’ (the
arrangement of soil particles) and ‘bonding’ (cementation of particles) [32]. By
this definition, any clay has a structure. To eliminate ambiguity in the description
of the effects of structure, standardised way for fabrication of a reference material
has been adopted in soil mechanics. The widely accepted method is the so-called
reconstitution method. As defined by Burland [31], reconstituted soil is prepared
by thorough mixing of natural soil at a water content of 1 to 1.5 times higher than
its liquid limit w L . The soil is mixed with water to form a slurry without drying
prior to mixing. After reconstitution, the samples are prepared by one-dimensional
consolidation in a high oedometer (‘consolidometer’). A reconstituted soil prepared
in this way does not show any effects of bonding and has a ‘standardised’ fabric.
The effects of fabric and bonding are best illustrated using their influence on soil
normal compression behaviour and shear strength. As illustrated in Fig. 7.22, struc-
tured soil has the normal compression line (NCL) shifted higher in the graph of ln p
versus ln(1 + e). The normal compression line represents the highest possible void
ratio the soil can exhibit for the given mean stress p. Structure thus allows the soil to
exist at a higher porosity than the corresponding reconstituted material. In other words
(see Fig. 7.22), structured soil has (for the given void ratio) a higher Hvorslev’s equiv-
alent pressure pe than the reconstituted soil. The ratio of the Hvorslev’s equivalent
pressures of structured and reconstituted soils can be denoted as ‘stress sensitivity’
sσ [32].1
Structure also influences undrained shear strength of the soil. While the critical
state friction angle appears to be unaffected by the effects of structure, structured
soil has a higher undrained shear strength than the reconstituted soil at the same void
ratio. The ratio of these undrained shear strengths has been denoted as the strength
sensitivity sus by Cotecchia and Chandler [32]. By investigation of a number of dif-
ferent structured soils, Cotecchia and Chandler [32] observed that it is reasonable to
assume that the strength sensitivity is equal to the stress sensitivity and to define a
single variable st (denoted simply as “sensitivity”), such that st = sus = sσ . Sensi-
tivity thus represents a primary variable adopted in the description of the behaviour
of structured soils.
1 Note that Cotecchia and Chandler [32] defined stress sensitivity as a ratio of the preconsolidation
stresses pc of structured and reconstituted soils. In this work, equivalent pressures pe is adopted
instead, as this notion is more suitable for the definition of hypoplastic models.
ln (1+e)
* ln st
N
current state Current NCL,

* 1 structured
Isot. unl.
NCL for st=1

ln st
*
1
pe stpe ln p
Fig. 7.22 Definition of stress sensitivity, the primary variable adopted in the description of the
structured soil behaviour (graph from Mašín [34])
Fig. 7.23 Sketch of state boundary surfaces (SBS) of reconstituted and structured soils
The position of the isotropic normal compression line determines the size of
the state boundary surface in the isotropic direction, whereas the undrained shear
strength controls its apex in the p versus q representation. Cotecchia and Chandler
[32] also studied the complete shape of the state boundary surface and found that,
within reason, the shape of the state boundary surface (that is, the shape of its constant
void ratio cross-section) is similar for reconstituted and structured soils. The state
boundary surfaces thus differ in size only, determined by st . The principle is clear
from the sketch in Fig. 7.23.
Earlier in this chapter, it was mentioned that the soil structure is composed of
the combination of fabric and bonding. These two types of structure influence the
soil behaviour in different ways. Fabric cannot be easily disturbed by loading within
the strain range applicable to most geoengineering problems. Thus, when structure
is caused by fabric only, st may be assumed to be a constant [35]. The normal
compression line of structured soil then has in the plane ln p versus ln(1 + e) the
same slope as the normal compression line of reconstituted soil (measured by the
parameter λ∗ ). Its position is controlled by the parameter Nstr , related to N and st by
Nstr = N + λ∗ ln st . The undrained shear strength of the structured soil is st -times
higher than the undrained shear strength of the reconstituted soil at the same void
ratio. Stiff sedimentary clays typically behave in this way.
Contrary to fabric, inter-particle bonding in natural soils is typically not high
enough to sustain loading relevant to geotechnical applications. Due to the bonding
degradation, st of bonded clays decreases during compression and shearing. The
normal compression line of a structured soil thus has a higher slope than the normal
compression line of a reconstituted soil, until the bonds degrade completely. The
normal compression line of a bonded material is sketched in Fig. 7.24. It demonstrates
that it is possible to represent this behaviour by assuming a constant slope of the
normal compression line λ∗ combined with variable sensitivity st . Figure 7.25 shows
two experimental examples of such a behaviour. Soft sedimentary clays typically
behave in this way.
7.3.2 Hypoplastic Modelling of Structured Clays
Modelling of structured clays using the framework presented in Sect. 7.3.1 has been
adopted by a number of authors, mostly within the framework of elasto-plasticity
[35, 38–46]. The hypoplastic model based on the same principles has been proposed
by Mašín [34]. Another effect of structure is due to inter-particle cementation. A
model for sands considering cementation has been proposed by Bauer and Wu [47].
Fig. 7.24 Normal

compression behaviour of
bonded soils
Fig. 7.25 Examples of normal compression behaviour of bonded soils. a Bothkennar clay from
[36], b Pisa clay from [37]
When the effects of structure are to be implemented into the model from Chap. 6
using the procedure proposed by Mašín [34], the following changes need to be done.
First of all, sensitivity st is considered as a state variable in the enhanced model. The
Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure, calculated in the original model using Eq. (4.32), is
expressed as in the enhanced model

N − ln(1 + e)
pe = st pr exp (7.48)
λ∗
where N and λ∗ are parameters representing the reconstituted soil behaviour.

Next, it is necessary to specify the rate equation for sensitivity st . Since the
degradation of inter-particle bonding is caused by soil deformation, the rate of st
depends on the stretching tensor D. Both the volume strains and shear strains can
cause degradation of bonding. In the model, a separate parameter is introduced to
distinguish the effect of the shear and volumetric strain components on structure
degradation. The rate equation for st reads
k
ṡt = − (st − s f )ε̇d (7.49)
λ∗
where k is a model parameter controlling the rate of structure degradation and s f is the
final sensitivity. As suggested by Baudet and Stallebrass [35], s f is not necessarily
equal to one. The value s f > 1 represents stable elements of the structure caused
purely by the soil fabric. ε̇d is the damage strain rate, defined as

A
ε̇ =
d
(ε̇v )2 + (ε̇s )2 (7.50)
1− A
√
where ε̇v = − trD is the volume strain rate, ε̇s = 2/3D∗ is the shear strain rate
and A is a parameter controlling their relative influence on the structure degradation.
Further, it is necessary to modify the formulation so that the model properly
predicts the softer response in normal compression. It is clear from Fig. 7.24 that
while pe is calculated using the theoretical normal compression line of the slope
λ∗ corresponding to the current void ratio (i.e., Eq. (7.48)), the model predicts a
softer response in normal compression thanks to the decrease of sensitivity. Let us
denote the actual slope of the normal compression line of a structured soil as λ∗str . It
can be evaluated using the following procedure: the normal compression line of the
structured soil can be expressed as (see Fig. 7.22)
p
ln(1 + e) = N + λ∗ ln st − λ∗ ln (7.51)
pr
Its time differentiation results in
ė ṡt ṗ
= λ∗ − (7.52)
1+e st p
The rate equation (7.52) can alternatively be written using the actual slope λ∗str as
ė ṗ
= −λ∗str (7.53)
1+e p
To evaluate λ∗str , the isotropic form of the structure degradation law is needed. It
reads (from (7.49))
k ė
ṡt = ∗ (st − s f ) (7.54)
λ 1+e
A combination of (7.52), (7.53) and (7.54) leads to the following expression for λ∗str :
λ∗ s
λ∗str = (7.55)
s − k(s − s f )
In the structured model, λ∗str enters the expression of the tensor :
T
= fs + ⊗1 (7.56)
λ∗str
and factor f s
3p 1 1 1 − 2ν
fs = + ∗ (7.57)
2 λ∗str κ 1+ν
The slope of the unloading line is controlled by κ ∗ and it is assumed to be independent

of the value of st .
The above approach is needed to predict the behaviour of bonded clays. In the
case where the sensitivity st is constant during loading (most stiff clays), N of the
original model may be simply replaced by N + λ∗ ln st and the original model can
be used without any modification.
7.3.3 Calibration of Material Parameters – Clays with a

Stable Structure
The calibration procedure of the model parameters ϕc , κ ∗ and ν is the same for
the structured clay model and the basic model from Chap. 6. Calibration of the new
parameters k, A and s f , together with parameters controlling normal compression
behaviour N and λ∗ , will thus only be discussed here. Calibration of parameters will
be discussed separately for clays with a stable structure (constant st caused primarily
by fabric) and a meta-stable structure (variable st caused by fabric and bonding).
As explained in Sect. 7.3.2, calibration of the model for clays with a stable structure
is simpler. In principle, we may adopt the basic hypoplastic model for the modelling.
The following two identical alternatives are available:
• Evaluate the parameters N and λ∗ based on tests on reconstituted soils. Then adopt
the basic model with the parameter N replaced by Nstr = N + λ∗ ln st .
• Evaluate the parameters N and λ∗ based on tests on reconstituted soils. Then
adopt the model for structured clays with the calibrated value of sensitivity st ,
while assuming k = 0 and any A = 1.
In both cases, isotropic (or oedometric) tests on reconstituted soil should be per-
formed. This is because clays with a stable structure (typically stiff clays) often have
very high preconsolidation pressures. Calibration of the true slope of the normal
compression line λ∗ is complicated in this case, as it is often not clear whether the
normal compression line has already been reached; see Fig. 7.26. Once the parameter
λ∗ is known from the test results on a reconstituted soil, the value of Nstr or st can
be evaluated using the compression tests on the structured clay.
The sensitivity value can be evaluated as the ratio of the Hvorslev’s equivalent
pressures of structured and reconstituted soils (see Fig. 7.22). Alternatively, it can also
be evaluated as a ratio of the undrained shear strengths of structured and reconstituted
soils. Note, however, that the reconstituted soil must be consolidated to the same void
ratio as the equivalent structured soil prior to undrained shear strength testing in this
case.
(a) (b)
NCL NCL
reconst. reconst.
NCL
NCL
structured
structured ?
Fig. 7.26 Typical problem in calibration of the parameter λ∗ using compression test on undisturbed
stiff clay samples. a correct calibration leading to the same value value of λ∗ for reconstituted and
undisturbed samples. b possible incorrect calibration using tests on an undisturbed sample which
would have been stopped at σv = 2500 kPa. Experimental data on Calabria clay and the background
graph (retouched) from [48]
7.3.4 Calibration of Material Parameters – Clays with a

Meta-Stable Structure
To calibrate the model for clays with a meta-stable structure, the initial value of sen-
sitivity st needs to be evaluated using the same procedure as described in Sect. 7.3.3.
Also, similarly to the stiff clay behaviour, the parameters N and λ∗ need to be cali-
brated using tests on reconstituted soils.
The parameter k represents the rate of structure degradation and it controls the
actual slope of the normal compression line λ∗str predicted by the model (Eq. (7.55)).
For calibration of k, the isotropic compression test is more suitable than the oedomet-
ric test as in the latter case structure degradation is also influenced by the parameter
A. The influence of the parameter k on the normal compression line is demonstrated
in Fig. 7.27. The value of k = 0 implies a model with constant st (stable structure).
Increasing the value of k increases the rate of structure degradation. The parame-
ter k can be calibrated by means of simulation of the soft clay normal compression
behaviour using element test software. Alternatively, in the case of the isotropic com-
pression test, Eq. (7.49) may be integrated analytically giving a finite expression for
the dependency of st on the volume strain εv and other model parameters:

s0=1
the parameter k on the
isotropic normal s0=3.45
1
compression line of clay
with a meta-stable structure 0.9
ln (1+e) [-]
0.8
0.7
k=0
0.6
k=0.4
k=0.7
0.5 k=1
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

ln (p/pr) [-]
Fig. 7.28 The influence of 60

the parameter A on the
undrained stress path of clay 50
with a meta-stable structure
40
q [kPa]
30
20
stable structure
10 A=0.1
A=0.2
A=0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
p [kPa]

k
st = s f + (st0 − s f ) exp − ∗ εv (7.58)
λ
where st0 is the initial value of sensitivity.

The parameter A controls the influence of shear strains on structure degradation. A
should preferably be calibrated using undrained shear test results after the parameter k
has been calibrated using isotropic (or oedometric) compression tests. The parameter
A influences the stress path of the undrained shear test (see Fig. 7.28). It should be
calibrated by means of single element simulation of the shear test using element test
software.
The model also requires specification of the final sensitivity s f . Following Baudet
and Stallebrass [35], this parameter quantifies stable elements of structure solely due
to the soil fabric. While s f may be higher than one, many natural soft clays can
reasonably be represented by s f = 1. The influence of s f on the isotropic normal
Fig. 7.29 The influence of

ln (1+e)
the parameter s f
characterising stable structured clay
Nrec compression
elements of structure due to
soil fabric final NCL, structured
NCL rec.
*
1 ln sf
0 ln p
Fig. 7.30 Predictions of 1.1

oedometric test on
undisturbed and 1
reconstituted Bothkennar
clay. Experimental data from 0.9
[51], simulations from [34]
ln(1+e) [-]
0.8
0.7 K0 NCL
undisturbed, Sherbrooke
0.6 undisturbed, Laval
reconstituted
predictions
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ln(p/pr) [-]
compression behaviour of natural structured clay with both bonding and fabric is
demonstrated in Fig. 7.29.
7.3.5 Examples of Model Predictions
The model for structured clays has been valuated by Mašín2 [34] using experimental
data on Pisa clay by Callisto and Calabresi [50] and Bothkennar clay by Smith et al.
[51].
Figure 7.30 shows predictions of oedometric tests on undisturbed and reconsti-
tuted Bothkennar clay (data on samples extracted using two sampling methods). It
is clear from Fig. 7.30 that it is reasonable to assume the value of s f = 1 in the case
of Bothkennar clay.
2 Mašín [34] adopted an earlier version of the clay hypoplastic model [49] in his developments.
Simulation results are, however, similar to the model defined in Sect. 7.3.2.
(a) 2 (b) 2
hypo., reconst.
A135 A90 A60
A135 A90 hypo., nat.
1.5 1.5 A60
A30 A30
SOMS nat.
1 A180 1 A180
A0 A0
0.5 R90 R60 R30 0.5 R90 R60 R30
R0 R0
q/p*e
q/p*e
0 0 SOMS rec.
R315 R315
-0.5 A280 A315 -0.5 A280 A315
-1 -1
experiment, reconst.
-1.5 experiment, nat. -1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
p/p*e p/p*e
Fig. 7.31 Predictions of stress probing tests on reconstituted and undisturbed Pisa clay. Experi-
mental data from [50], simulations from [34]

stress probing tests on
undisturbed Pisa clay. 1.5
Comparison of predictions 1
from Fig. 7.31b with
predictions by the same 0.5
q/p*e
model without structure stable structure (k=0)

0 meta-stable structure
degradation (k = 0)
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
p/p*e
Structure degradation in shear is best represented using stress paths plotted in

the space of stress normalised by the Hvorslev’s equivalent pressure of reconstituted
soil. Figure 7.31a shows results of two experimental data sets on Pisa clay from
[50]. The tests labeled as Ri were performed on reconstituted soil, whereas the
tests labeled as Ai were performed on undisturbed soil. The tests were performed
from the anisotropic stress state (estimated in situ stress state) with a controlled
stress path direction. This direction (in degrees, measured anti-clockwise in the p
versus q representation) is indicated as a number i in the experiment label. Structure
degradation in the experiment is manifested by bending of the normalised stress
paths when the state approaches the state boundary surface. Figure 7.31b shows
predictions of these tests using the hypoplastic model, together with the shape of
the asymptotic state boundary surface predicted by the model. The model properly
predicts this structure degradation characteristics.
To demonstrate the effects of structure degradation, Fig. 7.32 shows the same
predictions for experiments on undisturbed samples as in Fig. 7.31b, together with
predictions using the original hypoplastic model (that is, using the model with the
parameter k set to 0). This model is incapable of predicting the structure degradation
and thus the normalised stress paths are not predicted properly.
7.4 Very Small Strain Stiffness Anisotropy
Very small strain stiffness of soils is not isotropic and this anisotropy has a remark-
able effect on predictions of some boundary value problems. The most widely used
approach to predict very small strain stiffness in hypoplasticity is to enhance it by
the intergranular strain concept, discussed in Sect. 7.1. When the hypoplastic model
is combined with the intergranular strain concept, the soil stiffness in the very small
strain range is determined by the tensor m R f s , where m R is a model parameter.
Since m R f s are scalar multipliers, it follows that the anisotropy of very small strain
stiffness is controlled by the tensor in the model.
Different hypoplastic models predict anisotropy of in different ways. The
sand model from Chap. 5, the clay model from Sect. 7.2 and also the clay hypoplastic
model by Mašín [49] adopt , whose anisotropy depends on the stress state. Increas-
ing stress obliquity in these cases increases the level of stiffness anisotropy. Such
an approach is reasonable for granular materials. However, experimental investiga-
tions on clays suggest that their anisotropy is most importantly delimited by the soil
mineralogical composition and processes that took part during clay formation (sed-
imentation, compression and eventual diagenesis). The stress-induced anisotropy
plays a minor role. For a review of the anisotropic behaviour of clay, see Mašín and
Rott [52]. It turns out that it is more reasonable to specify the degree of anisotropy
directly using material parameters. The hypoplastic model from Chap. 6 has a math-
ematical structure suitable for this approach. The model, in its basic form, assumes
an isotropic tensor . Contrary to the model by Mašín [49], the asymptotic states
predicted by the model are independent of the assumed tensor. It is thus possible
to replace the isotropic of this model by an anisotropic one, without affecting the
predicted asymptotic states. For a discussion of this model property, see Kopito and
Klar [53]. The hypoplastic model for the small strain stiffness anisotropy has been
proposed by Mašín [8].
Anisotropy has also been incorporated into the models for sand. Niemunis [54]
incorporated both anisotropic stiffness and strength, and Wu [55] and Wu and Huang
[56] focused on the strength anisotropy only (the latter model aimed to predict rock
behaviour). Niemunis et al. [22] incorporated strength anisotropy into the visco-
hypoplastic model from Sect. 7.2. Jerman and Mašín [27] incorporated strength
anisotropy into the clay model from Chap. 6 by rotating the asymptotic state bound-
ary surface.
7.4.1 Formulation of the Clay Hypoplastic Model with Small

Strain Stiffness Anisotropy
It is reasonable to assume that naturally formed fine-grained soils are transversely

isotropic. That is, their behaviour is isotropic within the plane of isotropy (typically
the horizontal direction), while the stiffness is lower in the vertical direction. The
stiffness matrix of the transversely isotropic material in its general form is controlled
by five material parameters and it follows from the theory of elasticity (see [57, 58])
that
1
= a1 1 ◦ 1 + a2 1 ⊗ 1 + a3 (p ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ p) + a4 p ◦ 1 + a5 p ⊗ p (7.59)
2
where the outer tensor product “◦” is defined as
1
(a ◦ b)i jkl = aik b jl + ail b jk + a jl bik + a jk bil (7.60)
2
and pi j = n i n j , while n is a unit vector normal to the plane of symmetry. As indicated
above, in sedimentary soils this vector typically represents the vertical direction. In
this special case, it may be written as

1 for i = ver t
ni = (7.61)
0 otherwise
where the value of ver t is specifying vertical direction (ver t = 1, 2 or 3 for vertical
directions x, y or z). a1 to a5 in Eq. (7.59) represent five material constants.
Mašín and Rott [52] suggested the following parameters to specify the small
strain stiffness of fine-grained soils. Subscript “ p ” denotes direction within the plane
of isotropy and the subscript “t ” denotes direction transverse to the plane of isotropy.
1. G t p0 : Very small strain shear modulus in the transverse direction.
2. ν pp : Poisson’s ratio within the plane of isotropy.
3. αG : Ratio of the very small strain shear modulus within the plane of isotropy
G pp0 and shear modulus in the transverse direction G t p0 .
G pp0
αG = (7.62)
G t p0
4. α E : Ratio of the very small strain Young’s modulus within the plane of isotropy
E p0 and Young’s modulus in the transverse direction E t0
E p0
αE = (7.63)
E t0
7.4 Very Small Strain Stiffness Anisotropy 155
5. αν : Ratio of the Poisson’s ratio within the plane of isotropy ν pp and Poisson’s
ratio in the transverse direction νt p
ν pp
αν = (7.64)
νt p
The choice of variables is motivated by the Graham and Houlsby [59] model, and the
formulation is fully general. Procedures for material parameter evaluation and pos-
sible simplifications of the experimental programme by adopting empirical relations
are detailed in Sect. 7.4.2.
The parameters a1 to a5 of Eq. (7.59) can be rewritten in terms of ν pp , αG , α E and
αν as
αE
a1 = α E 1 − ν pp − 2 2 ν 2pp (7.65)
αν
αE
a2 = α E ν pp 1 + 2 ν pp (7.66)
αν
1 ν pp αE
a3 = α E ν pp + − 1 − 2 ν pp (7.67)
αν αν αν
αE 2 1 − αG
a4 = α E 1 − ν pp − 2 2 ν pp (7.68)
αν αG
αE 2 αE 2α E αE
a5 = α E 1 − ν pp + 1 − ν 2pp − 2 ν pp 1 + ν pp − 1 − ν pp − 2 2 ν 2pp
αν
2 αν αG αν
(7.69)
Note that G t p0 does not appear in Eqs. (7.65)–(7.69). G t p0 controls the stiffness
magnitude, rather than stiffness anisotropy, and its incorporation into the model will
be described later based on the formulation of m R . In the description of the model,
the tensor from Eq. (7.60) will first be incorporated into the basic hypoplastic
model from Chap. 6. Subsequently, the intergranular strain concept formulation will
be adjusted so that the small strain stiffness magnitude is predicted properly.
To integrate the new formulation into the hypoplastic model from Chap. 6, all
the model components remain unchanged apart of the formulation of and f s . The
factor f s in the model is quantified by comparing the isotropic model formulation
with the isotropic unloading line of the form
ė ṗ
= −κ ∗ (7.70)
1+e p
The isotropic unloading version of the model obtained by algebraic manipulations

with (4.30) is
p Am ė
ṗ = ∗
− 2 fs (7.71)
λ 9 1+e
where
4α E α2 4α E
Am = ν 2pp − 2α 2E + 2 E2 − 1 + ν pp + 2α E + 2α E + 1 (7.72)
αν αν αν
Comparing (7.71) with (7.70) then yields
3 trT 1 1
fs = − ∗
+ ∗ (7.73)
2 Am λ κ
Most components of the intergranular strain concept formulation remain unmod-

ified. The only change required is to ensure that the model correctly predicts the very
small strain stiffness magnitude, measured by G t p0 and controlled within the model
by the parameter m R . In the anisotropic model, the parameter m R becomes a variable
ensuring the following expression for G t p0 is satisfied [9]
ng
p
G t p0 = pr A g (7.74)
pr
where A g and n g are model parameters. Within the intergranular strain concept, the
very small strain stiffness matrix is given by
= m R fs (7.75)
Quantification of the G t p0 component of (7.75) reveals that
9p 1 1 αE αE 2
G t p0 = m R + ∗ 1 − ν pp − 2 ν (7.76)
2 Am λ∗ κ 2αG αν2 pp
Equation (7.76) can be used to calculate m R , ensuring the model predicts very small
strain shear stiffness G t p0 by Eq. (7.74):
p ng
4 A m αG λ∗ κ ∗ 1
m R = pr A g (7.77)
pr 9 pα E λ∗ + κ ∗ 1 − ν pp − 2 ααE2 ν 2pp
ν
Finally, instead of the parameter m T , the ratio m rat = m T /m R is considered as a

model parameter in the modified model.
7.4.2 Model Parameters and Their Calibration
The model incorporating very small strain stiffness anisotropy requires the following
parameters:
• Parameters of the basic hypoplastic model: N , λ∗ , κ ∗ , ϕc , ν pp .

• Parameters of the intergranular strain concept: R, βr , χ , A g , n g , m rat .
• Parameters characterising stiffness anisotropy: αG , α E , αν .
In this section, additional parameters with respect to the original formulations are
discussed only: that is A g , n g , m rat , ν pp , αG , α E , αν . The calibration procedure for
the other parameters can be found in the sections describing the respective original
models.
Parameters A g and n g specify the dependency of the very small strain shear
modulus G t p0 on mean stress (Eq. (7.74)). They can be calibrated using the same
procedure as parameter m R of the intergranular strain concept from Sect. 7.1; that
is, using vertically propagating shear wave velocity measurements on a vertically
trimmed soil sample. The procedure for calibration of the parameter m rat is then the
same as the procedure for calibration of the parameter m T of the intergranular strain
concept from Sect. 7.1.
Calibration of the complete set of the other parameters characterising the
anisotropic very small strain stiffness (αG , α E , αν and ν pp ) using wave propaga-
tion experiments requires a complex experimental programme involving measure-
ments of S-wave and P-wave velocities propagating through the sample in different
directions. In addition, this approach is mostly not applicable, as estimation of soil
stiffness using P-wave velocities requires that the pores are not be filled with water
– the measurements are thus practically relevant for measurements of stiffness of
dry, coarse grained materials only. This is because P-wave measurements represent
an undrained oedometric modulus, which is basically equal to the bulk modulus of
water in the case of a fully saturated soil. In any case, it follows from the theory of
transversely isotropic elasticity that the following measurements can be used to fully
characterise material anisotropy:
• VS H (0◦ ): S-wave velocity propagating in the direction normal to the plane of
isotropy.
• VS H (90◦ ): S-wave velocity propagating within the plane of isotropy with in-plane
polarisation.
• V P (0◦ ): P-wave velocity propagating in the direction normal to the plane of
isotropy.
• V P (90◦ ): P-wave velocity propagating within the plane of isotropy.
• V P (45◦ ): P-wave velocity under inclination of 45◦ with respect to the plane of
isotropy.
The material constants may then be calculated using
G t p0 = E (7.78)
C−D
αG = (7.79)
2E
AD − B 2
ν pp = (7.80)
AC − B 2
C+D
αν = ν pp (7.81)
B
Bαν2 − Cαν ν pp 1 + ν pp
αE = (7.82)
Bν 2pp
where [60]
C = ρV P2 (90◦ ) (7.83)
D= C − 2ρVS2H (90◦ ) (7.84)
A= ρV P2 (0◦ ) (7.85)
E= ρVS2H (0◦ ) (7.86)

B = −E + 4ρ 2 V P4 (45◦ ) − 2ρV P2 (45◦ ) (C + A + 2E) + (C + E) (A + E)
(7.87)
The measurements of all five wave velocities are far from being routine in geotechni-
cal laboratories, and the approach is not applicable to most soils. Mašín and Rott [52]
and Mašín [8] thus suggested the following alternative procedures for the material
parameter quantification.
Mašín and Rott [52] evaluated a large experimental data set from the literature
aiming to identify empirical relationships relating the coefficients αν , α E and αG .
For this purpose, they searched for exponents x G E and x Gν defined as
αG = α ExG E (7.88)
αG = ανxGν (7.89)
This formulation was motivated by the Graham and Houlsby [59] article, which
assumed x G E = 0.5 and x Gν = 1. Experimental data evaluated by Mašín and Rott
[52] indicated that the x G E exponent shows consistently higher values than pre-
dicted by the Graham and Houlsby [59] model. An average value of x G E = 0.8
was observed. The experimental data were not sufficiently detailed for evaluation of
x Gν and it was thus recommended to adopt the Graham and Houlsby [59] value of
x Gν = 1.
The value of ν pp may be estimated using the same procedure as for ν in the basic
hypoplastic model from Chap. 6. ν pp controls the magnitude of the large-strain shear
stiffness. It may be estimated by means of simulations of standard undrained or
drained triaxial shear tests. An example of such a calibration is shown in Fig. 7.33.
Note that hollow cylinder experiments are adopted in Fig. 7.33 instead of triaxial
shear tests. Details on these experiments are given in Sect. 7.4.3. Alternatively, if ν pp
is measured accurately using the wave propagation velocity measurement techniques,
the hypoplastic exponent α f (Eq. (6.4)) may be considered as a parameter influencing
the large-strain response, as described in Chap. 6. The value of αG is best calibrated
using bender element measurements of VS H (0◦ ) and VS H (90◦ ).

the parameter ν pp on the
ratio q/ p versus the 1
principal strain difference
ε1 − ε3 in a hollow cylinder 0.8
test with αdσ = 23◦ and
q/p’ [-]
b = 0.5. Experimental data 0.6
from Nishimura [61].
Simulations from Mašín [8] 0.4 experiment
νpp=0.05
0.2 νpp=0.1
νpp=0.2
νpp=0.3
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
ε1-ε3 [-]
7.4.3 Model Evaluation Using Hollow Cylinder Experimental

Data
Experiments in a hollow cylinder apparatus are particularly suitable for evaluating

the anisotropic constitutive model performance, as this apparatus allows the control
of both the principal stress direction and the intermediate principal stress magnitude.
The model has been evaluated using extensive experimental data on London clay
from the Imperial College project reported by Nishimura et al. [61, 62] and Gasparre
et al. [14, 15]. They tested undisturbed samples of London clay from the excavation
at Heathrow, Terminal 5. For the material description and details of the experimental
procedures, the readers are referred to the above publications. More details on the
simulations are given in [8].
The hollow cylinder test conditions are typically described in terms of variables
αdσ and b. These are defined as
1 2Δτzθ
αdσ = tan−1 (7.90)
2 Δσz − Δσθ
σ2 − σ3
b= (7.91)
σ1 − σ3
where σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are the major, intermediate and minor principal stresses, respec-
tively and σz , σθ and τzθ are rectilinear stress components in the specimen frame of
reference. The value of b represents the contribution of the intermediate principal
stress (in the standard compression experiment in a triaxial apparatus, b = 0) and
αdσ represents the principal stress inclination revealing soil anisotropy (in the stan-
dard triaxial test, αdσ = 0◦ for the vertically trimmed specimen and αdσ = 90◦ for
the horizontally trimmed specimen).
The very small strain stiffness anisotropy was studied using horizontally and ver-
tically mounted bender element tests and drained stress path probes. The αG data on
London clay from [14, 61] are shown in Fig. 7.34. The value of αG = 2 represents
(a) 3 (b) 3
Nishimura (2005)
Gasparre (2005)
model, α=2
2.5 2.5
αG
αG
2 2
1.5 1.5
Nishimura (2005)
Gasparre (2005)
model, α=2
1 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
p [kPa] η [-]
Fig. 7.34 Calibration of the parameter αG = 2 based on the very small strain stiffness anisotropy
data by Gasparre [14] and Nishimura [61]. Graphs from Mašín [8]
Fig. 7.35 Secant shear 90

stiffness degradation as 80
measured by Nishimura [61]
in a hollow cylinder test with 70
αdσ = 23◦ and b = 0.5 and 60
Gzθ [MPa]
predictions using the 50

proposed model. Simulations
40
from Mašín [8]
30
20
10
0
1e-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
γzθ [-]
the results reasonably well, and this value has been adopted in all subsequent simu-
lations. Default anisotropy exponents x G E = 0.8 and x Gν = 1 have been adopted in
the analyses.
After appropriate calibration, the model reproduced the dependency of the stiff-
ness on the strain, which is demonstrated in Fig. 7.35. It shows a graph of secant
stiffness G zθ degradation with shear strain γzθ as measured by Nishimura [61] in a
hollow cylinder test with ασ = 23◦ and b = 0.5
The soil anisotropy in the hollow cylinder test is revealed by the undrained stress
paths. These are shown for different experiments tested at b = 0.5 and different values
of αdσ in Fig. 7.36. Figure 7.36a shows the experimental data, Fig. 7.36b shows the
predictions from the anisotropic model, and Fig. 7.36c shows the predictions using
the reference model with an isotropic matrix (model from Chap. 6 enhanced by
the intergranular strain concept). Figure 7.36 demonstrates that the anisotropy con-
stants calibrated using bender element testing (Fig. 7.34) lead to reasonably correct
predictions of anisotropy revealed by the undrained stress paths in the large strain
range.
7.5 Partial Saturation 161
(a) 200 experiment

(b) 200 proposed model
IC, b=0.5, IC, b=0.5,
IC, b=0.5, IC, b=0.5,
100 IC, b=0.5, 100 IC, b=0.5,
(σz-σθ)/2 [kPa]
(σz-σθ)/2 [kPa]
IC, b=0.5, IC, b=0.5,

IC, b=0.5, IC, b=0.5,
0 AC, b=0.5, 0 AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5, AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5, AC, b=0.5,
-100 AC, b=0.5, -100 AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5, AC, b=0.5,
-200 -200
-300 -300
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
p’ [kPa] p’ [kPa]
(c) 200
IC, b=0.5,
IC, b=0.5,
100 IC, b=0.5,
(σz-σθ)/2 [kPa]
IC, b=0.5,
IC, b=0.5,
0 AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5,
-100 AC, b=0.5,
AC, b=0.5,
-200
reference model
-300
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
p’ [kPa]
Fig. 7.36 Stress paths in the p versus (σz − σθ )/2 stress space for a test series with b = 0.5,
a Experimental data by Nishimura et al. [62], b predictions made using the anisotropic model, c
predictions from the model with αG = 1. Simulations from Mašín [8]
7.5 Partial Saturation
In the ground, soil is saturated below the water table, whereas above it is in a state
of partial saturation. It may thus seem that the mechanics of partially saturated soils
should normally be applied in day-to-day engineering practice. This is not the case
for two reasons. Firstly, when the soil is partially saturated, it is more resilient (it has
higher stiffness and shear strength). Therefore, geotechnical design based on satu-
rated soil mechanics is conservative. Secondly, considering partial saturation makes
the analysis of soil behaviour more complicated than when the partial saturation is
neglected.
However, there are number of applications in which the state of partial saturation
should be considered. These start with high-priority applications of nuclear waste dis-
posal facilities and end with more routine problems of pavement design and general
construction in arid climate regions. Mechanics of partially saturated soils is a topic
for monographs and it is not possible to cover it completely in a single subsection.
The focus here is on an explanation of fundamental principles and, in particular, on
a way of incorporating partially saturated soil behaviour into hypoplasticity. In this
chapter, a procedure developed by Mašín and Khalili [63] will be followed, combined
with the water retention relationship from [64] into a single coupled hydromechanical
model.
There are other approaches available to incorporate unsaturated soil behaviour

into hypoplasticity, such as the one suggested by Gudehus [65]. Further, Bauer et al.
[66, 67] included the effects of partial saturation into the model for rockfill.
7.5.1 Stress State Description
Unlike soil saturated with water, partially saturated soil is a porous medium composed
of three phases. A water-air partially saturated soil is only considered in this section.
Such a material consists of mineral grains, water and air in a variable proportion.
The state of stress is characterised by three separate stress measures: total stress Ttot ,
describing the total external stress acting on the soil sample, pore water pressure
u w and pore air pressure u a . The development of a constitutive model in which
deformation due to a change of all these stress measures is treated separately is
possible but certainly not practical. In saturated soil mechanics, the Terzaghi effective
stress T = Ttot + 1u w is adopted to describe the soil as a single-phase continuum.
In unsaturated soil mechanics, however, the choice of a suitable stress measure is far
less straightforward and it has been the subject of long-lasting discussions among
researchers.
A popular general form of the stress measure is due to Bishop [68]
T = Tnet − 1χ s (7.92)
where s = u a − u w is the matric suction and χ is the so-called effective stress param-
eter. Many choices of χ are in principle possible. Gens [69] distinguished different
classes of constitutive models based on the selection of χ . The first class considered
T to be equal to the net stress Tnet (thus χ = 0). The second class interpreted χ as a
function of matric suction, and the third class as a function of the degree of saturation
Sr .
In fact, the definition of constitutive models in terms of Tnet and s is equivalent
to the definition of saturated soil constitutive models that consider separately the
effects of total stress Ttot and pore water pressure u w ; such a procedure is certainly
feasible and some researchers favour this approach [70]. It may be argued, however,
that such an approach is, as in saturated soil mechanics, not practical.
A typical example of the so-called class two effective stress measure has been
proposed by Khalili and Khabbaz [71]. Their expression is based on a thorough
evaluation of the critical state shear strength and volumetric response of unsaturated
soils and reads:
1 for s ≤ se
χ= se γ (7.93)
for s > se
s
where se is the air entry value of suction for the drying process (and air expulsion
value of suction for the wetting process) and γ is a parameter, identified by Khalili
Fig. 7.37 Unique

representation of critical
state line within the effective
stress space [71]
and Khabbaz [71] to be equal to γ = 0.55 for a number of different soils. Unique
representation of critical state line within the effective stress space is demonstrated
in Fig. 7.37 [71].
A similar approach to the effective stress evaluation has been followed by Alonso
et al. [72]. They considered two structural levels in unsaturated soils, which is rel-
evant to fine grained soil. Individual clay platelets form clusters or aggregates. The
aggregates are assembled together and form a structure similar to the structure of a
granular material. Alonso et al. [72] identified the parameter χ with the macrostruc-
tural degree of saturation SrM
χ = SrM (7.94)
SrM is defined as a volume of water occupying macrovoids divided by the total

macrovoid volume. Alonso et al. [72] thus defined the model within the class three
effective stress formulation in the Gens [69] nomenclature. As will be discussed later
in Sect. 7.5.4, the second and third classes of effective stress can, in fact, be unified by
considering coupled hydromechanical behaviour. For the sake of clarity, the model in
this section will be defined using Eq. (7.93), which is simpler as it does not require any
information on water retention behaviour. The coupled hydromechanical behaviour
will be introduced at a later stage.
The hypoplastic model for unsaturated soils developed in this section is based
on the rate independent clay hypoplasticity model described in Chap. 6. To imple-
ment the effective stress for partially saturated soils into this model, the saturated
effective stress in the model formulation is replaced by the stress measure defined
by Eqs. (7.92) and (7.93). It must be emphasised that while the effective stress itself
is calculated using Eq. (7.93), its rate is given by

net 1 for s ≤ se
T̊ = T̊ − ṡ (7.95)
1(1 − γ )χ for s > se
where (1 − γ )χ is obtained from ∂(χ s)/∂s.

7.5.2 Dependency of Asymptotic States on Suction
The air present in the soil structure and associated capillary menisci influence the
critical state strength and volumetric response of overconsolidated soils. These two
effects can be captured by replacing the saturated effective stress in the model by
its partially saturated counterpart (two choices were presented in Sect. 7.5.1). In
addition, however, the unsaturated soil when compared to the saturated one has a
different asymptotic state boundary surface. Tackling this problem was first proposed
by Alonso et al. [73], who considered the size of the asymptotic state boundary surface
to be dependent on suction. In this way, it was possible to predict the wetting-induced
compaction (sometimes denoted as “collapse”) of loose partially saturated soil and
the swelling behaviour of a dense one by a unified concept, known as a Barcelona
basic model.
Two modifications of the hypoplastic model based on the partially saturated effec-
tive stress from Sect. 7.5.1 are needed to incorporate the suction-dependent size of the
asymptotic state boundary surface. First, the isotropic normal compression line needs
to be defined as suction-dependent. Second, an additional term must be included in
the hypoplastic equation to ensure that the soil state does not surpass the asymptotic
state boundary surface during wetting (decrease of suction).
A suction-dependent normal compression line can be included by considering
N and λ∗ as functions of suction. Mašín and Khalili [63] proposed the use of the
classical relationship
p
ln(1 + e) = N (s) − λ∗ (s) ln (7.96)
pr
with a suction-dependent position of the normal compression line N (s) and slope
λ∗ (s):

s s
N (s) = N + n s ln λ∗ (s) = λ∗ + ls ln (7.97)
se se
Parameters N and λ∗ now prescribe the isotropic normal compression line for the
state of full saturation, while parameters n and l define its dependency on suction.
The second step is to incorporate consistency of the model predictions with the
suction-dependent state boundary surface. An approach is adopted that is based on
the concept of the explicit asymptotic state boundary surface used in Chap. 6. As in
the basic clay model development, the normalised stress rate Tn = T/ pe is required
to vanish during asymptotic loading. That is
T̊ T
T̊n = − 2 ṗe = 0 (7.98)
pe pe
and thus
T
T̊ = ṗe (7.99)
pe
In the case of partially saturated soil model, however, ṗe does not depend on D only,
but also on suction. Therefore, instead of Eq. (4.34) in the saturated model, ṗe is
given by
pe ∂ pe
ṗe = − ∗ trD + ṡ (7.100)
λ (s) ∂s
and therefore (combining (7.99) and (7.100))
T T ∂ pe
T̊ = − trD + ṡ (7.101)
λ∗ (s) pe ∂s
−T trD/λ∗ (s) represents the stress rate of the basic hypoplastic model (Eq. (4.36))
during asymptotic loading. It is thus possible to write
T ∂ pe
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) + ṡ (7.102)
pe ∂s
where f s , , N and f d are calculated in the same way as in the saturated model
(Chap. 6) with the saturated effective stress replaced by (7.92). The dependency of
pe on s follows from (7.96) and (7.97). For s > se
∂ pe pe pe
= ∗ n s − ls ln (7.103)
∂s sλ (s) pr
and ∂ pe /∂s = 0 otherwise.

Equation (7.102) holds true for wetting paths and states at the asymptotic state
boundary surface. For general states and loading conditions, Eq. (7.102) is enhanced
in the following way:
T̊ = f s ( : D + f d ND) + f u Hs (7.104)
where
• The tensor Hs incorporates consistency at the asymptotic state boundary surface,
it therefore allows the prediction of wetting-induced compaction. It is calculated
for s > se by
T ∂ pe T pe
Hs = −ci −ṡ = −ci ∗ n s − ls ln −ṡ = ci HsA (7.105)
pe ∂s sλ (s) pr
and Hs = 0 otherwise. The added Macaulay bracket x = (x + |x|)/2 makes the

Hs term active for wetting only, to prevent unphysical predictions of expansion
during drying. The factor ci is detailed below.
• The factor f u reduces the wetting-induced compaction for increasing overconsol-
idation ratios. Mašín and Khalili [63] proposed
m
p
fu = (7.106)
pA
where p A is is the effective mean stress at the asymptotic state boundary surface
corresponding to the current stress ratio and void ratio e defined in Eq. (6.12). m
is a model parameter controlling the influence of overconsolidation on wetting-
induced compaction. Its influence on the value of f u is demonstrated in Fig. 7.38.
• The model with Hs calculated using Eq. (7.105) with ci = 1 correctly predicts
wetting-induced compaction for states at the state boundary surface. As the over-
consolidation ratio increases, however, the wetting-induced compaction strains
may become underpredicted. This problem was identified by Mašín and Khalili
[74]. They introduced the factor ci , calculated to ensure that for f u = 1 the wetting-
induced compaction strains are independent of the overconsolidation ratio. Without
ci , compaction decreases with increasing overconsolidation and as a consequence
wetting-induced compaction may be underpredicted irrespective of the value of
parameter m.
For f u = 1 and constant effective stress the hypoplastic model reads
− ci HsA = f s ( : D + f d ND) (7.107)
The model formulation rewritten for the isotropic stress states for compaction
(ė < 0) reads
α

1+ν Oc f − f d 3 p fd ė
− ci trHsA = fs α + ∗ α (7.108)
1 − 2ν Oc f λ (s)Oc f 1+e
Equation (7.108) may be compared with its specific version for normally consol-
idated states, where f d = f dA and ci = 1. After substitution of the expression for
f s (Eq. (6.16)) the following expression is finally obtained
α
(λ∗ (s) + κ ∗ ) Oc f − f d + 2κ ∗ f d
ci = ∗ α (7.109)
λ (s) + κ ∗ Oc f − f dA + 2κ ∗ f dA
With Eq. (7.109), the formulation of the mechanical hypoplastic model for unsat-
urated soils is complete. Figure 7.39 shows examples of the model predictions. The
model predicts properly the influence of suction on wetting-induced compaction and
the position of normal compression lines (Fig. 7.39a), while still reproducing the
non-linear stress-strain response in shear tests (Fig. 7.39b). More evaluations may
be found in [63]. Note that the graphs in Fig. 7.39 were generated using the earlier
version of the model, which adopted the model from [49] as a saturated base model
and considered ci = 1.
1
m=1
m=2
m=5
0.8 m=10
m=100
0.6
fu
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
p/pA
Fig. 7.38 The influence of the parameter m on the value of factor f u [63]
3
(a) 0.86 (b)
0.84
0.82 2.5
0.8
ln (1+e)
0.78
R [-]
2
0.76
0.74
0.72 1.5
0.7
measured measured
0.68 predicted predicted
1
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
ln (p/pref) -εa [-]
Fig. 7.39 a Experimental results and predictions of isotropic compression tests at constant suction
and wetting tests at a constant net stress plotted in the effective stress space. b Results of triaxial
shear tests, interrupted by wetting at a constant value of R (ratio of axial and radial net stress).
Experimental data by Sun et al. [75], predictions by Mašín and Khalili [63]
7.5.3 Water Retention Behaviour
Due to the coupled hydromechanical nature of the unsaturated soil behaviour

(described later in Sect. 7.5.4), the water retention model forms an inseparable part
of the unsaturated soil constitutive model. The water retention curve represents a
relationship between soil suction and water content (mass of water divided by mass
of solids) or degree of saturation (volume of water divided by volume of voids).
The water retention curve depends on soil grain size distribution. In particular,
decreasing the particle size increases the air entry value of suction. In addition, for
the given soil type, the following two characteristics are the most important from a
modelling point of view:
• The water retention curve, for the particular soil, depends on its void ratio. Decreas-
ing the void ratio increases the air entry value of suction, while only slightly affect-
Fig. 7.40 The dependency

of the water retention curve
of sandy clay till on the void
ratio (Vanapalli et al. [76])
Fig. 7.41 Water retention

curve hysteresis (data from
Viaene et al. [77], model
representation by Zhou et al.
[78])
ing the water retention curve slope. Figure 7.40 from Vanapalli et al. [76], shows
the water retention curve of a sandy clay till from Canada measured at different
void ratios.
• The water retention curve is hysteretic. That is, it is different for drying (suction
increase) and wetting (suction decrease) processes. The main drying and wetting
curves can be distinguished, along with scanning curves connecting the two during
suction path reversals. As a demonstration, see Fig. 7.41 with experimental data
by Viaene et al. [77] and model representation by Zhou et al. [78].
In the following, a simple bi-linear representation of the water retention curve is
adopted, motivated by the work of Brooks and Corey [79]. The main drying portion
of the water retention curve is represented by

1 for s < sen
Sr = s λ p (7.110)
en
for s ≥ sen
s
where λ p is the slope of the water retention curve and sen represents the air entry
value of suction for the main drying process. As discussed above (see Fig. 7.40),
the value of sen (and less significantly also the value of λ p ) depends on the void
ratio. A model for this dependency has been proposed by Mašín [64]. The void ratio
dependencies of sen and λ p are calculated by
γ sen
ṡen = − ė (7.111)
eλ psu
with

λ p0 (γ −1)
γ e
λ psu = ln χ0su − χ0su
γ
+ χ0su (7.112)
ln χ0su e0
where χ0su = (sen0 /sen )γ . sen0 and λ p0 are values of sen and λ p corresponding to the
reference void ratio e0 . The dependency of λ p on the void ratio and suction is then
given by

λ p0 (γ −1)
γ e
λp = ln χ0 γ
− χ0 + χ0 (7.113)
ln χ0 e0
with χ0 = (sen0 /s)γ .

Equations (7.111)–(7.113) represent a state surface in the Sr versus s versus e
space, depicted in Fig. 7.42 [64]. To demonstrate the predictive capabilities of this
approach, calibration of the model with respect to water retention curves of HPF-
type quartz silt is shown in Fig. 7.43 (experimental data by Jotisankasa et al. [80]).
The obtained parameters (sen0 = 3 kPa, λ p0 = 0.18 and e0 = 0.7) have subsequently
been used for predictions of the Sr variation in suction-monitored oedometric tests at
constant water content [80]. Experimental data and model predictions of these tests
are shown in Fig. 7.44, leading to a good fit. In the evaluation, hydraulic hysteresis
effects have been neglected and the main wetting branch of the water retention curve
was used to estimate the soil parameters. More evaluation of the model can be found
in [64].
Different approaches can be used to predict the hysteresis of water retention
curves, including elasto-plastic [81] or hypoplastic [82] type of models. In this work,
a simple step-wise approach is adopted, which is demonstrated in Fig. 7.45. This
approach has, for example, been used in [83, 84]. As introduced in Fig. 7.45, ae is a
parameter used to calculate the air expulsion value of suction from the air entry value
of suction by sex p = ae sen . In this way, the position of the main wetting branch of
the water retention curve is calculated from the main drying branch, whose depen-
dency on the void ratio is characterised using Eqs. (7.111)–(7.113). The slope of the
scanning curve λ pscan can typically be considered as a hidden parameter, calculated,
for example, by λ pscan = λ p /10.
Fig. 7.42 Predicted water

retention state surface in the Sr [-]
s versus e versus Sr space 1
[64] 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.5
1
0.3 e [-]
0 50 1.5
100 150 200 2
s [kPa]
Fig. 7.43 Wetting branch of experiment

water retention curve of HPF 100 λp0=0.10
quartz silt predicted by the λp0=0.18
90 λp0=0.25
model [64]; experimental
data by Jotisankasa et al. 80
[80]
Sr [%]
70
60
50
40
30
1 10 100 1000
s [kPa]
To incorporate the hydraulic hysteresis, a state variable ascan can be defined [84],
which is equal to one at the main drying curve and equal to zero at the main wetting
curve:
s − sW
ascan = (7.114)
s D − sW
In Eq. (7.114), s D is suction at the main drying curve and sW at the main wetting
curve corresponding to current Sr . It follows from (7.114) and the ae definition that
s D may be expressed as
sen
sD = s (7.115)
se
with
se = sen (ae + ascan − ae ascan ) (7.116)
The hysteretic model can then be defined using the rate equation for ascan , such that
for s > ae sen
1 − rλ
ȧscan = ṡ (7.117)
s D (1 − ae )
(a) 1.8
(b) 1000
7-10-T
900 7-10-H
7-10-D
1.7 800 7-10-K
700 experiment 7-10-G
1.6 experiment 600
s [kPa]
e [-]
500
1.5 400
7-10-T 300
1.4 7-10-H 200
7-10-D
7-10-K 100
7-10-G
1.3 0
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
σtot
ax [kPa] σtot
ax [kPa]
(c) 100 (d) 100
80 80
60 60
Sr [%]
Sr [%]
40 40
7-10-T 7-10-T
20 7-10-H 20 7-10-H
experiment 7-10-D model 7-10-D
7-10-K 7-10-K
7-10-G 7-10-G
0 0
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
tot tot
σax [kPa] σax [kPa]
Fig. 7.44 Results of suction-monitored oedometric tests at constant water content by Jotisankasa
et al. [80] (a, b, c) compared with model predictions of Sr using parameters calibrated solely using
the water retention curve (d) [64]
Fig. 7.45 Hysteretic

representation of water
retention curve [83]
where the ratio rλ is defined as

⎧
⎨1 for s = s D and ṡ > 0
rλ = 1 for s = ae s D and ṡ < 0 (7.118)
⎩ λ pscan
λp
otherwise
If s ≤ ae sen then ascan = 0. Note that ∂ascan /∂e = 0 is assumed. Thus, the posi-
tion along the scanning curve does not influence the dependency of Sr on the void
ratio calculated using the model from Mašín [64]. A finite expression for Sr of the
hysteretic model then reads simply:

1 for s ≤ ae sen
Sr = s λ p (7.119)
e
for s > ae sen
s
7.5.4 Coupled Hydro-Mechanical Modelling of Partially

Saturated Soils
The mechanical and hydraulic behaviour of partially saturated soils are coupled. The
effective stress, which enters mechanical constitutive model equations, depends on
the air-entry (or expulsion) value of suction se (7.93), which is a quantity representing
the water retention curve (the hydraulic model). Also, the water retention curve
depends on the void ratio and thus on the volume strain rate, which is a mechanical
quantity.
This cross-coupling allows us to unify the second and third classes of effective
stress formulations. Combining Eqs. (7.93) and (7.110) leads to a direct relationship
between the effective stress parameter χ and the degree of saturation Sr :
γ /λ p
χ = Sr (7.120)
Note that the experiments by Khalili and Zargarbashi [85] indicated that the unifi-
cation of the two effective stress classes is possibly not correct along the hydraulic
scanning curves. Equation (7.120) is, however, also used in this work for the hys-
teretic water retention model. It is identical to expressing χ using Eq. (7.93), with
(7.116) being the equation for se .
From the constitutive modelling point of view, consideration of hydromechanical
coupling requires re-evaluation of the effective stress rate equation (7.95) and calcu-
lation of the effective slope of the normal compression line. In the coupled model, χ
depends on the void ratio through the dependency of sen on e. For states with Sr < 1,
the effective stress rate is given by

net ∂(χ s) net ∂(χ s) ∂(χ s)
T̊ = T̊ −1 = T̊ − 1 ṡ + ė (7.121)
∂t ∂s ∂e
Additional modification is required when considering the hysteretic water retention

curve. The derivative ∂(χ s)/∂e is considered to be independent of the hydraulic state,
that is its value is the same at the main drying curve, main wetting curve and scanning
curve, thanks to the assumption ∂ascan /∂e = 0. The factor ∂(χ s)/∂s is calculated
differently at the main drying and wetting curves and at the scanning curve. It can
be shown that for s > se
∂(χ s)
= (1 − γ rλ ) χ (7.122)
∂s
and ∂(χ s)/∂s = 1 otherwise.

Equations (7.110) and (7.111) for s > se lead to the following formulation for
∂(χ s)/∂e:
∂(χ s) sγ 2 sen γ
=− (7.123)
∂e eλ psu s
and ∂(χ s)/∂e = 0 otherwise. Equation (7.123) can be incorporated into the model
by transferring the ∂(χ s)/∂e term to the right-hand side of the hypoplastic equation
and including it in the modified tensor denoted as H M . For Sr < 1 (and thus
for s > se ), the model formulation reads
net
T̊ − 1 (1 − γ rλ ) χ ṡ = f s H M : D + f d ND + f u Hs (7.124)
with
s(1 + e)γ 2 sen γ
HM = − 1⊗1 (7.125)
f s eλ psu s
and, for Sr = 1 (for s < se ):

net
T̊ − 1ṡ = f s ( : D + f d ND) (7.126)
The Hs term also needs to be enhanced to reflect the hydraulic scanning states. It
turns out that
ci rλ T pe
Hs = − ∗
n s − ls ln −ṡ (7.127)
sλ (s) pr
The last modification of the model is due to the variability of se with void ratio.
As the slope λ∗ (s) and the intercept N (s) of normal compression line depend on
s/se , variability of se causes the actual slope of the normal compression line to differ
slightly from λ∗ (s). The actual slope of the normal compression line λact ∗
may be
calculated in the following way. The time derivative of the normal compression line
formulation (7.96), accompanied by the N (s) and λ∗ (s) formulation (7.97), leads to
ė ṗ p ṡe
= −λ∗ (s) − n s − ls ln (7.128)
1+e p pr se
The ratio ṡe /se is equal to ṡen /sen , where ṡen is given by Eq. (7.111). It can be
combined with (7.128) leading to

ė (1 + e)γ [n s − ls ln( p/ pr )] ṗ
1− = −λ∗ (s) (7.129)
1+e eλ psu p
which can be compared with ė/(1 + e) = −λact ṗ/ p. For Sr < 1, the expression for
∗
λact reads:
∗ eλ psu
λact = λ∗ (s) (7.130)
eλ psu − γ (1 + e)[n s − ls ln( p/ pr )]
∗
λact = λ∗ for Sr = 1. To ensure consistent predictions of the model with the modified
compression law (and thus to ensure the state does not drift from the state boundary
∗
surface during asymptotic loading), λact enters the expression of the hypoplastic
tensor (4.40), barotropy factor f s (6.16) and scalar multiplier ci (7.109):
T
= fs + ∗ ⊗1 (7.131)
λact
3p 1 1 1 − 2ν
fs = ∗ + ∗ (7.132)
2 λact κ 1+ν
∗ α
λact + κ ∗ Oc f − f d + 2κ ∗ f d
ci = ∗ α (7.133)
λact + κ ∗ Oc f − f dA + 2κ ∗ f dA
Unlike the expressions above, the factor Hs is still calculated using the value of λ∗ (s)
to correctly predict the wetting-induced compaction.
7.5.5 Parameters of the Coupled Hydro-Mechanical Model

for Partially Saturated Soils
The complete hydromechanical hypoplastic constitutive model requires the specifi-

cation of the following parameters:
• Parameters of the basic hypoplastic model N , λ∗ , κ ∗ , N and ν.
• Additional parameters of the unsaturated mechanical model n s , ls and m.
• Parameters of the water retention model se0 , λ p0 and ae and reference void ratio
e0 .
Calibration of the basic hypoplastic model parameters N , λ∗ , κ ∗ , N and ν has already
been described in Sect. 6.2. These parameters are calibrated using the behaviour of
a saturated soil and calibration from Sect. 6.2 is also applicable for the coupled
hydromechanical model.
Fig. 7.46 Experimental data 0.86 N(s)=1.377, λ*(s)=0.105

used for calibration of
parameters n s and ls 0.84
(experimental data by Sun et 0.82
al. [86], calibration by 0.8
ln (1+e)
Mašín and Khalili [63])
0.78
0.76
0.74 N=1.003, λ*=0.05
0.72
0.7 measured, s=0 kPa
measured, s=147 kPa
0.68 assumed NCLs
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
ln (p/pref)
The parameters N and λ∗ are calibrated using isotropic (or oedometric) compres-
sion tests in saturated conditions. To calibrate the parameters n and l, at least one
additional compression test at a constant suction higher than se is required (the more
tests that are available, the more accurate the calibration). From the obtained N (0),
N (s), λ∗ (0) and λ∗ (s) one can derive values of n and l using Eq. (7.97). An example
of calibration using isotropic compression tests on Pearl clay (experimental data by
Sun et al. [86], calibration by Mašín and Khalili [63]) is demonstrated in Fig. 7.46.
The parameter m prescribes the dependency of the wetting-induced compaction
on the distance from the asymptotic state boundary surface. The most suitable type
of experiment for its calibration is the isotropic (or oedometric) constant net stress
wetting test on a slightly overconsolidated soil. The parameter m is calibrated by
means of single element simulation of such a test, focusing on the dependency of
the volume strain (void ratio) on suction. A typical example of such a calibration is
given in Fig. 7.47 (experimental data from [86], calibration from [63]). This figure
demonstrates that high m values imply that soil swelling is abruptly followed by
compaction once the state reaches the asymptotic state boundary surface. Lower
values of m allow for a more gradual swelling-compaction transition.
In calibrating the water retention model, one can freely choose the reference void
ratio e0 . se0 and λ p0 then represent the values of the air-entry value of suction se
and water retention curve slope λ p corresponding to this void ratio. An example
of calibration of se0 and λ p0 has already been presented in Fig. 7.43. Note that se0
has to be calibrated using the drying branch of the water retention curve, whereas
ae se0 has to be calibrated using the wetting branch of the water retention curve.
Finally, calibration of ae requires both the wetting and drying branches of the water
retention curve to be known. ae represents the ratio of air-expulsion and air-entry
values of suction of the bi-linear water retention curve representation by Eq. (7.110)
(see Fig. 7.45).

parameter m using results of experiment
m=1
a constant net stress wetting 0.04 m=2
test on a slightly m=5
overconsolidated soil m=10
0.03 m=100
(experimental data by Sun et
εv [-]
al. [86], calibration by
Mašín and Khalili [63]) 0.02
0.01
-0.01
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
s [kPa]
7.5.6 Examples of the Model Predictions
The model from Eq. (7.124) coupled with the water retention model from Sect. 7.5.3
has thoroughly been evaluated in a benchmark test by D’Onza et al. [87]. When
compared with the model defined in this book, the model adopted in [87] considered
ae = 1 (thus neglecting the hydraulic hysteresis), ci = 1 and used the model from
[49] as a saturated base model.
In the benchmark test, different teams were given a set of experimental data on
compacted samples of Jossigny silt. The experiments involved four triaxial com-
pression tests at constant suction at variable stress ratios, another four compression
tests at constant suction followed by shearing tests and five oedometric experiments
at constant suction. These tests were used for calibration of various hydromechani-
cal constitutive models for partially saturated soils. After calibration, the teams were
asked to predict the results of a so-called “blind test”. The blind test involved isotropic
compression at constant suction, followed by shearing at a constant water content.
Predictions of the blind test are shown in Fig. 7.48. The coupled hypoplastic
model is labelled as “CU”; for a description of the other models the reader is referred
to [87]. The predictions are scattered and all the models reproduce the blind test
reasonably well. Hypoplasticity certainly does not fall behind and in some aspects
(suction evolution, Fig. 7.48c) gives predictions better than the other models.
7.6 Thermal Effects
Soil behaviour is influenced by temperature. Samples tested at different temperatures

exhibit different stiffness and strength. Temperature variation even at a constant stress
level causes the soil to deform. In most cases in geotechnical practice, temperature
variations are not substantial and temperature effects do not need to be considered in
7.6 Thermal Effects 177
Fig. 7.48 Constant water content shear experiment “blind” predictions from the benchmark test
by D’Onza et al. [87] (coupled hypoplastic model labelled as “CU”)
simulations. However, temperature effects become important in a number of special

applications, such as nuclear waste disposal facilities, buried high-voltage cables,
pavement and geothermal energy. A model to predict temperature effects on soil
behaviour is presented in this section. As in the case of the partially saturated soil
model (Sect. 7.5), the model is based on the rate independent clay hypoplastic model
from Chap. 6.
7.6.1 Influence of Temperature on Soil Mechanical

Behaviour
The influence of temperature on soil behaviour is discussed by Mašín and Khalili

[74], who summarised the experimental evidence along with modelling approaches
suggested by various authors. The following aspects of soil thermal behaviour appear
to be the most important.
Compression behaviour under constant temperature: Temperature influences the
soil normal compression lines. A majority of the experimental data show that in
the stress range relevant to engineering applications, the normal compression lines
at different temperatures may be considered parallel to each other, while as the

temperature increases temperature the void ratio at the normal compression line for
the given effective mean stress p decreases [88–91]. Although a number of research
studies show a constant slope for the normal compression line with temperature,
exceptions have also been reported [92, 93]. In all the cases, however, an increase in
temperature leads to a decrease in the apparent preconsolidation stress.
Behaviour in shear under constant temperature: The experimental evidence of
the influence of temperature on the soil peak strength is contradictory, as is discussed
below. However, most results show that the critical state friction angle is independent
of temperature [88, 90, 92, 94–97]. Variation of the peak strength with temperature
appears to be dependent on the soil being tested. Some authors report a decrease in
the peak strength of an overconsolidated soil with increasing temperature [88, 94–
96, 98]; Contradictory to this behaviour, however, some authors have reported an
increase in the peak shear strength and a decrease of the apparent preconsolidation
pressure with temperature [90, 92, 97, 99, 100].
Soil response due to variation in temperature at high overconsolidation ratios:
It is generally agreed that the soil response to heating-cooling cycles is strongly
dependent on the apparent overconsolidation ratio. At high overconsolidation ratios,
the soil response is essentially reversible, thus, there are no permanent changes in the
soil structure. As discussed in detail by Khalili et al. [101], this type of response is
controlled solely by the thermal expansion coefficient of the solid particles and it is
independent of the soil porosity. The available experimental data also demonstrates
that the thermal expansion coefficient of the soil skeleton αs may essentially be
considered as independent of the effective stress and temperature [88, 102–104].
Soil response due to variation in temperature at low overconsolidation ratios:
As indicated in the previous paragraph, the response of a soil at high overconsoli-
dation ratios is generally reversible. At low overconsolidation ratios, however, the
mechanisms controlling the heating and cooling responses are substantially different.
Upon cooling, the state boundary surface increases in size and the soil structure is
thus stable. Consequently, the volumetric response is the result of the thermal con-
traction of the soil particles, which does not depend on the overconsolidation ratio
[88, 102, 103]. In contrast, a reduction in the size of the state boundary surface due to
heating imposes irreversible changes to the open structure of a soil at low overconsol-
idation ratios, leading to the so-called heating-induced compaction. In general, the
compaction strains due to heating of a soil at low overconsolidation ratios are signif-
icantly larger than the straining imposed by the expansion of soil particles, and they
are controlled by the relative position of the normal compression lines at different
temperatures. The compaction due to heating is not an abrupt process that activates
once the soil state reaches the state boundary surface; instead, its influence gradually
increases with decreasing overconsolidation ratios [95, 102, 103, 105, 106].
7.6.2 Thermomechanical Hypoplastic Model for Saturated

Soils
In this section, a thermomechanical model for variably saturated soils proposed by

Mašín and Khalili [74] is described. First, reversible strains due to thermal expansion
and cooling contraction of soil particles are incorporated. These thermally-induced
strains are independent of the effective stress. The enhanced hypoplastic equation is
written as
T̊ = f s : (D − DT E ) + f d ND − DT E (7.134)
where DT E is the strain rate due to thermal volume changes of the solid particles.
In agreement with the experimental evidence cited above, DT E may be calculated
using an elastic volumetric model as
1
DT E = αs Ṫ (7.135)
3
In Eq. (7.135), T represents temperature and αs is the thermal expansion coefficient
of solid particles. Khalili et al. [101] demonstrated that the thermal expansion/cooling
contraction of solid particles alone does not lead to rearrangement of the soil skeleton.
Consequently, it does not impose any change in the void ratio. In the thermal model
the void ratio rate is calculated as
ė = (1 + e) tr (D − DT E ) (7.136)
The dependency of the normal compression line on temperature is calculated

similarly to the dependency of the normal compression line on suction in the model for
partially saturated soils (Sect. 7.5). Parameters N and λ∗ of the basic rate independent
hypoplastic model from Chap. 6 become functions of temperature. The temperature
dependent normal compression line reads:
p
ln(1 + e) = N (T ) − λ∗ (T ) ln (7.137)
pr
with
T T
N (T ) = N + n T ln λ∗ (T ) = λ∗ + l T ln (7.138)
T0 T0
where N , λ∗ , n T and l T are parameters and T0 is an (arbitrary) reference temperature.

To incorporate compaction of the soil structure due to wetting, the hypoplastic
equation is enhanced in a manner similar to how suction was incorporated into the
model for partially saturated soils. To guarantee consistency of the prediction at the
asymptotic state boundary surface, the hypoplastic equation is modified as
T ∂ pe
T̊ = f s : (D − DT E ) + f d ND − DT E + Ṫ (7.139)
pe ∂ T
For derivation of Eq. (7.139), the readers are referred to Eqs. (7.98)–(7.102). For the
general stress and overconsolidation ratio states, the equation reads
T̊ = f s : (D − DT E ) + f d ND − DT E + f u HT (7.140)
with
T ∂ pe T pe
HT = ci Ṫ = ci ∗ n T − l T ln Ṫ (7.141)
pe ∂ T T λact pr
∗
where λact = λ∗ (T ) at full saturation. Incorporation of f u , ci and the Macaulay
operator on Ṫ follows the same reasoning as in the partially saturated model. These
factors are calculated by Eqs. (7.106) and (7.109), respectively, with λ∗ (s) replaced
by λ∗ (T ).
7.6.3 Thermomechanical Model for Partially Saturated Soils
The thermomechanical model for saturated soils from Sect. 7.6.2 has the same alge-
braic structure as the mechanical model for partially saturated soils from Sect. 7.5.
It is thus possible to combine the two models into a thermomechanical model for
partially saturated soils. This combination is supported by experimental evidence
indicating that temperature affects the behaviour of fully saturated and partially sat-
urated soils in the same qualitative manner [88].
To incorporate partial saturation into the thermomechanical model for saturated
soils, the Terzaghi effective stress is replaced by the formulation from Eq. (7.92) and
the effective stress rate T̊ by Eq. (7.95). The general model equation reads
T̊ = f s : (D − DT E ) + f d ND − DT E + f u (Hs + HT ) (7.142)
All the model components have already been defined in Chap. 6 and Sects. 7.5 and
∗
7.6.2. Recall that HT and Hs are defined in terms of λact introduced in Eq. (7.130).
To incorporate the combined effect of temperature and suction on soil apparent
overconsolidation, the normal compression line is written as
p
ln(1 + e) = N (s, T ) − λ∗ (s, T ) ln (7.143)
pr
where

s T
N (s, T ) = N + n s ln + n T ln (7.144)
se T0

s T
λ∗ (s, T ) = λ∗ + ls ln + l T ln (7.145)
se T0
Note that hydromechanical coupling is not considered in this model; se used in the
calculation of the effective stress is treated as a constant. Thanks to the hierarchical
structure of hypoplasticity, however, the model can be enhanced by hydromechanical
coupling in the same way as the model from Sect. 7.5.4.
7.6.4 Model Parameters and Their Calibration
The thermomechanical model for partially saturated soils shares a number of param-
eters with the basic rate independent hypoplastic model for saturated clay (Sect. 6.2),
and with the model for partially saturated soils under constant temperature (details
of their calibration are given in Sect. 7.5.5). Here, focus is given to the calibration of
the additional parameters of the thermomechanical model only. The complete list of
model parameters is as follows:
• Parameters of the basic hypoplastic model N , λ∗ , κ ∗ , N and ν (see Sect. 6.2).
• Additional parameters of the unsaturated mechanical model n s , ls , se and m (see
Sect. 7.5.5).
• Additional parameters of the thermomechanical model: n T , l T , αs , T0 .
T0 is a reference temperature; that is, temperature in tests adopted for calibration
of the parameters N and λ∗ . n T and l T represent variability of the normal compression
line with temperature, adopting formulation from Eqs. (7.137) and (7.138).
αs controls the thermally-induced volume strains of solid grains. These volume
strains are equal to the volume strains of the soil skeleton upon cooling independent
of the soil overconsolidation and upon heating at very high overconsolidation ratios.
Since the response due to heating is often associated with compaction of the soil
structure due to particle rearrangement, the most suitable test for αs determination
is the constant net stress constant suction cooling experiment. αs may be calibrated
directly using
εv = αs (Tinit − T ) (7.146)
without the need for element test simulations. Tinit is the starting temperature of the
cooling test.
Finally, calibration of the parameter m is discussed. In the model, it is assumed
that the influence of the overconsolidation ratio is the same for compaction due to
wetting and due to heating. The parameter m can thus be calibrated using both wetting
and heating tests of a slightly overconsolidated soil. Its calibration using the wetting
test was discussed in Sect. 7.5.5 (Fig. 7.47). Calibration using the heating test is
demonstrated in Fig. 7.49. Calibration of m requires element test simulation of the
heating experiment. Figure 7.49 shows one test from the set presented in Fig. 7.51. A
decrease of the value of m increases the tendency for heating-induced compaction.
Fig. 7.49 Calibration of the -0.0012

parameter m using results of
constant net stress heating -0.0008
test on a slightly
-0.0004
overconsolidated soil
(experimental data by 0
εv [-]
Uchaipchat and Khalili [88],
predictions by Mašín and 0.0004
Khalili [74])
0.0008
m=1.5
0.0012 m=2.5
m=3.5
exp., σr=50 kPa, s=0 kPa
0.0016
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
temperature T [°C]
Note that the cooling branches of the three simulations in Fig. 7.49 do not depend
on m; their slope is controlled by the parameter αs .
7.6.5 Demonstration of the Model Predictions
The thermomechanical model for partially saturated soils has been developed and
evaluated by Mašín and Khalili [74]. Compared with the model from Eq. (7.142),
the model presented in [74] adopts the hypoplastic model from [49] as the saturated
base model. The model has been evaluated using comprehensive experimental data
on partially saturated compacted silt by Uchaipchat and Khalili [88]. Figure 7.50
shows experimental data and simulations of isotropic compression tests at different
suctions and temperatures. The model correctly predicts the increase of the apparent
preconsolidation stress with increasing suction and decreasing temperature, as well
as the non-linear stiffness decrease as the state approaches the normal compression
line. Figure 7.51 shows the volumetric strains generated by heating-cooling cycles
at different effective stresses under saturated conditions. At a low effective stress,
the model predicts a practically reversible behaviour solely controlled by the ther-
mal expansion coefficient αs which is in agreement with experimental results. As
the stress level increases, the material compacts upon heating due to structural rear-
rangements and shrinks upon cooling due to cooling-induced particle shrinkage. The
effects of suction and temperature on the behaviour in shear are shown in Fig. 7.52.
An increase in temperature and decrease of suction decreases the predicted peak
strength and dilatancy of the soil.
Finally, Fig. 7.53 shows pore water pressures generated by pure heating of a sat-
urated soil under undrained conditions and at an isotropic stress state. Unlike in
the case of constant temperature undrained tests, heating under undrained conditions
causes changes in the soil volume. This can be calculated using the thermal expansion
coefficients of the solid particles αs and water αw :
(a) (b)
0.46 0.46
0.45 0.45
T=25 °C, s=0 kPa T=25 °C, s=0 kPa
0.44 T=25 °C, s=300 kPa 0.44 T=25 °C, s=300 kPa
T=60 °C, s=0 kPa T=60 °C, s=0 kPa
ln (1+e)
ln (1+e)
0.43 T=60 °C, s=300 kPa 0.43 T=60 °C, s=300 kPa
0.42 experiment 0.42 model
0.41 0.41
0.4 0.4
0.39 0.39
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
ln p/pr ln p/pr
Fig. 7.50 Constant suction and constant temperature isotropic compression and unloading tests.
Experimental data a by Uchaipchat and Khalili [88], predictions b by Mašín and Khalili [74]
(a)-0.001 (b)-0.001
0 0
0.001 0.001
0.002 0.002
εv [-]
εv [-]
0.003 0.003
0.004 0.004
0.005 0.005
net net
0.006 p=50 kPa 0.006 p =50 kPa
pnet=100 kPa pnet=100 kPa
0.007 experiment net 0.007 model net
p =150 kPa p =150 kPa
net net
p =200 kPa p =200 kPa
0.008 0.008
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
temperature T [°C] temperature T [°C]
Fig. 7.51 Volume changes generated by drained heating experiments of saturated soil. Experimental
data a by Uchaipchat and Khalili [88], predictions b by Mašín and Khalili [74]
trD = [αw n + αs (1 − n)] Ṫ (7.147)
where n is the porosity n = e/(1 + e). The development of pore water pressures
is then controlled by the hypoplastic model. The coefficient αw depends on both
temperature and pressure. An empirical expression by Baldi et al. [105] was adopted
in the simulations:
αw = α0 + (α1 + β1 T ) ln mu w + (α2 + β2 T )(ln mu w )2 (7.148)
where u w is the pore water pressure in kPa and the constants have the following values:
α0 = 4.505 × 10−4 ◦ C−1 , α1 = 9.156 × 10−5 ◦ C−1 , β1 = −1.2 × 10−6 ◦ C−2 , α2 =
6.381 × 10−6 ◦ C−1 , β2 = −5.766 × 10−8 ◦ C−2 and m = 1.5 × 10−6 kPa−1 . The
model properly predicts the pore water pressure development and its dependency on
the initial effective stress.
(a) 250 (b) 250

200 200
experiment, σr=50 kPa model, σr=50 kPa

q [kPa]
q [kPa]
150 150
100 100
s=0 kPa, T=25 °C s=0 kPa, T=25 °C

50 s=0 kPa, T=60 °C 50 s=0 kPa, T=60 °C
s=300 kPa, T=25 °C s=300 kPa, T=25 °C
s=300 kPa, T=60 °C s=300 kPa, T=60 °C
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
εs [-] εs [-]
(c) -0.01
(d) -0.01
s=0 kPa, T=25 °C
s=0 kPa, T=60 °C
0 s=300 kPa, T=25 °C 0
s=300 kPa, T=60 °C
s=0 kPa, T=25 °C
s=0 kPa, T=60 °C
0.01 0.01 s=300 kPa, T=25 °C
εv [-]
εv [-]
s=300 kPa, T=60 °C
0.02 0.02 model, σr=50 kPa
experiment, σr=150 kPa
0.03 0.03
0.04 0.04
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
εs [-] εs [-]
Fig. 7.52 Triaxial drained shear tests at different temperatures and suctions. Experimental data a,
c by Uchaipchat and Khalili [88], predictions b, d by Mašín and Khalili [74]
(a) 0
σinit=50 kPa (b) 0
σinit=50 kPa
σinit=100 kPa σinit=100 kPa
20 σinit=150 kPa 20 σinit=150 kPa
40 40
du [kPa]
du [kPa]
60 60
80 80
100 experiment 100 model
120 120
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
temperature T [°C] temperature T [°C]
Fig. 7.53 Pore water pressures generated during undrained heating of saturated soils. Experimental
data a by Uchaipchat and Khalili [88], predictions b by Mašín and Khalili [74]
References
1. Bauer, E., Wu, W.: A hypoplastic model for granular soils under cyclic loading. In: Kolymbas,
D. (ed.) Modern Approaches to Plasticity, pp. 247–258. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
(1993)
Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 2(4), 279–299 (1997)
3. Niemunis, A., Prada Sarmiento, L.F., Grandas Tavera, C.E.: Paraelasticity. Acta Geotech. 6,
67–80 (2011)
References 185
4. Niemunis, A., Prada Sarmiento, L.F., Grandas Tavera, C.E.: Extended paraelasticity and its
application to a boundary value problem. Acta Geotech. 6, 91–92 (2011)
5. Fuentes, W., Triantafyllidis, T.: ISA: a constitutive model for deposited sand. In: Schanz, T.,
Hettler, A. (eds.) Aktuelle Forschung in der Bodenmechanik 2015, pp. 169–187. Springer,
Berlin (2015)
6. Wegener, D., Herle, I.: Prediction of permanent soil deformations due to cyclic shearing with
a hypoplastic constitutive model. Geotechnik 37(2), 113–122 (2014)
7. Wegener, D.: Numerical investigation of permanent soil displacements due to dynamic loading
(in german). Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Dresden (2013)
8. Mašín, D.: Clay hypoplasticity model including stiffness anisotropy. Géotechnique 64(3),
232–238 (2014)
9. Wroth, C., Houlsby, G.: Soil mechanics - property characterisation, and analysis procedures.
In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, San Francisco, vol. 1, pp. 1–55. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1985)
10. Rott, J., Mašín, D., Boháč, J., Krupička, M., Mohyla, T.: Evaluation of k0 in stiff clay by back-
analysis of convergence measurements from unsupported cylindrical cavity. Acta Geotech.
(in print) 10 (2015)
11. Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D., Stallebrass, S.E.: Effects of recent stress history on the stiffness
of overconsolidated soil. Géotechnique 40(4), 531–540 (1990)
12. Clayton, C.R.I., Heymann, G.: Stiffness of geomaterials at very small strains. Géotechnique
51(3), 245–255 (2001)
13. Hong, Y., Koo, C.H., Zhou, C., Ng, C.W.W., Wang, L.: Small strain path-dependent stiffness
of toyoura sand: laboratory measurement and numerical implementation. Int. J. Geomech.
17(1), 291–302 (2017)
14. Gasparre, A.: Advanced laboratory characterisation of London Clay. Ph.D. thesis, University
15. Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Coop, M.R., Jardine, R.J.: The stiffness of natural
London Clay. Géotechnique 57(1), 33–47 (2007)
16. Mašín, D.: 3D modelling of a NATM tunnel in high K 0 clay using two different constitutive
models. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. ASCE 135(9), 1326–1335 (2009)
17. Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F., Yasuda, S.: Undrained deformation and liquefaction of sand under
cyclic stresses. Soils Found. 15(1), 29–44 (1975)
properties of grain assemblies. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 4, 461–486 (1999)
19. Sturm, H.: Numerical investigation of the stabilisation behaviour of shallow foundations under
alternate loading. Acta Geotech. 4, 283–292 (2009)
20. Ng, C.W.W., Boonyarak, T., Mašín, D.: Three-dimensional centrifuge and numerical modeling
of the interaction between perpendicularly crossing tunnels. Can. Geotech. J. 50(9), 935–946
(2013)
21. Niemunis, A.: Extended Hypoplastic Models for Soils. Habilitation thesis, Ruhr-University,
Bochum (2003)
22. Niemunis, A., Grandas Tavera, C.E., Prada Sarmiento, L.F.: Anisotropic visco-hypoplasticity.
Acta Geotech. 4(4), 293–314 (2009)
23. Gudehus, G.: A visco-hypoplastic constitutive relation for soft soils. Soils Found. 44(4), 11–25
(2004)
24. Gudehus, G.: A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials. Soils Found.
36(1), 1–12 (1996)
state surface. Mech. Cohesive-Frict. Mater. 1(3), 251–271 (1996)
different principal stresses. Proc. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 232, 59–70 (1974)
27. Jerman, J., Mašín, D.: Hypoplastic and viscohypoplastic models for soft clays with strength
anisotropy (submitted) (2018)
28. Rangeard, D.: Identification des caracteristiques hydro-mecaniques d’une argile par analyse
inverse des essais pressiometriques. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Centrale de Nantes et l’Universite de
Nantes (2002)
29. Yin, Z.Y., Chang, C.S., Karstunen, M., Hicher, P.Y.: An anisotropic elastic-viscoplastic model
for soft clays. Int. J. Solids Struct. 47, 665–677 (2010)
30. Topolnicki, M.: Observed stress-strain behaviour of remoulded saturated clay and examina-
tion of two constitutive models. Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Bodenmechanik und
Felsmechanik der Universität Fridericiana in Karlsruhe (1987). Heft 107
31. Burland, J.B.: On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40(3),
329–378 (1990)
32. Cotecchia, F., Chandler, J.: A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of clays.
Géotechnique 50(4), 431–447 (2000)
33. Leroueil, S., Vaughan, P.R.: The important and congruent effects of structure in natural soils
and weak rocks. Géotechnique 40(3), 467–488 (1990)
34. Mašín, D.: A hypoplastic constitutive model for clays with meta-stable structure. Can.
Geotech. J. 44(3), 363–375 (2007)
35. Baudet, B.A., Stallebrass, S.E.: A constitutive model for structured clays. Géotechnique 54(4),
269–278 (2004)
36. Nash, D.F.T., Sills, G.C., Davison, L.R.: One-dimensional consolidation testing of soft clay
from Bothkennar. Géotechnique 42(2), 241–256 (1992)
37. Callisto, L., Rampello, S.: An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays.
Can. Geotech. J. 41, 392–407 (2004)
38. Liu, M.D., Carter, J.P.: A structured Cam Clay model. Can. Geotech. J. 39, 1313–1332 (2002)
39. Wheeler, S.J., Näätänen, A., Karstunen, M., Lojander, M.: An anisotropic elastoplastic model
for soft clays. Can. Geotech. J. 40, 403–418 (2003)
40. Mróz, Z., Norris, V.A., Zienkiewicz, O.C.: Application of an anisotropic hardening model in
the analysis of elasto-plastic deformation of soil. Géotechnique 29(1), 1–34 (1979)
41. Rouainia, M., Muir Wood, D.: A kinematic hardening constitutive model for natural clays
with loss of structure. Géotechnique 50(2), 153–164 (2000)
42. Kavvadas, M., Amorosi, A.: A constitutive models for structured soils. Géotechnique 50(3),
263–273 (2000)
43. Gajo, A., Muir Wood, D.: A new approach to anisotropic, bounding surface plasticity: general
formulation and simulations of natural and reconstituted clay behaviour. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
44. Cudny, M., Vermeer, P.A.: On the modelling of anisotropy and destruction of soft clays within
the multi-laminate framework. Comput. Geotech. 31(1), 1–22 (2004)
45. Rocchi, G., Fontana, M., Da Prat, M.: Modelling of natural soft clay destruction processes
using viscoplasticity theory. Géotechnique 53(8), 729–745 (2003)
46. Asaoka, A.: Compaction of sand and consolidation of clay: a super/subloading yield surface
approach. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference IACMAG, vol. 4, pp. 121–140.
Turin, Italy (2005)
47. Bauer, E., Wu, W.: Extension of hypoplastic constitutive model with respect to cohesive
powders. In: Siriwardane, Z. (ed.) Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, pp.
531–536. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1994)
48. Gullà, G., Mandaglio, M.C., Moraci, N.: Effect of weathering on the compressibility and
shear strength of a natural clay. Can. Geotech. J. 43, 618–625 (2006)
29(4), 311–336 (2005)
50. Callisto, L., Calabresi, G.: Mechanical behaviour of a natural soft clay. Géotechnique 48(4),
495–513 (1998)
51. Smith, P.R., Jardine, R.J., Hight, D.W.: The yielding of Bothkennar clay. Géotechnique 42(2),
257–274 (1992)
52. Mašín, D., Rott, J.: Small strain stiffness anisotropy of natural sedimentary clays: review and
a model. Acta Geotech. 9(2), 299–312 (2014)
References 187
53. Kopito, D., Klar, A.: Discussion: hypoplastic Cam-clay model. D. Mašín (2012) Géotechnique
62(6), 549–553. Géotechnique 63(10), 889–890 (2013)
54. Niemunis, A.: Anisotropic effects in hypoplasticity. In: Di Benedetto et al. (ed.) Deformation
Characteristics of Geomaterials, pp. 1211–1217 (2003)
55. Wu, W.: Rational approach to anisotropy of sand. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
22, 921–940 (1998)
56. Wu, W., Huang, W.: Rational approach to anisotropy of rocks. In: Proceedings of EUROCK
Symposium, pp. 623–628. Aachen, Germany (2000)
57. Spencer, A.J.M.: The formulation of constitutive equation for anisotropic solids. In: Boehler,
J.P. (ed.) Mechanical Behaviour of Anisotropic Solids. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The
Hague (1982)
58. Lubarda, V.A., Chen, M.C.: On the elastic moduli and compliences of transversely isotropic
and orthotropic materials. J. Mech. Mater. Struct. 3(1), 153–171 (2008)
59. Graham, J., Houlsby, G.T.: Anisotropic elasticity of a natural clay. Géotechnique 33(2), 165–
180 (1983)
60. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J.: The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis
of Porous Media, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2009)
61. Nishimura, S.: Laboratory study on anisotropy of natural London clay. Ph.D. thesis, University
62. Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Jardine, R.J.: Shear strength anisotropy of natural London Clay.
Géotechnique 57(1), 49–62 (2007)
63. Mašín, D., Khalili, N.: A hypoplastic model for mechanical response of unsaturated soils. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32(15), 1903–1926 (2008)
64. Mašín, D.: Predicting the dependency of a degree of saturation on void ratio and suction using
effective stress principle for unsaturated soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 34,
73–90 (2010)
65. Gudehus, G.: A comprehensive concept for non-saturated granular bodies. In: Alonso, D.
(eds.) 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, France, vol. 2, pp. 725–737.
Balkema, Rotterdam (1995)
66. Bauer, E., Cen, W., Zhu, Y., Kast, K., Tantono, S.F.: Modelling of partly saturated weathered
broken rock. In: Schweiger, H.F. (ed.) Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics (NUMGE06), Graz, Austria, pp. 87–92. Taylor & Francis Group,
London (2006)
67. Bauer, E.: Hypoplastic modelling of moisture-sensitive weathered rockfill materials. Acta
Geotech. 4(4), 261–272 (2009)
68. Bishop, A.W.: The principle of effective stress. Teknisk Ukeblad 106(39), 859–863 (1959)
69. Gens, A.: Constitutive modelling, application to compacted soil. In: Alonso, D. (eds.) 1st
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, France, vol. 3, pp. 1179–1200. Balkema,
Rotterdam (1996)
70. Fredlund, D.G., Morgernstern, N.R.: Stress state variables for unsaturated soils. J. Geotech.
Eng. Div. ASCE 103(5), 447–466 (1977)
71. Khalili, N., Khabbaz, M.H.: A unique relationship for χ for the determination of the shear
strength of unsaturated soils. Géotechnique 48(2), 1–7 (1998)
72. Alonso, E.E., Pereira, J.M., Vaunat, J., Olivella, S.: A microstructurally based effective stress
for unsaturated soils. Géotechnique 60(12), 913–925 (2010)
73. Alonso, E., Gens, A., Josa, A.: A constitutive model for partially saturated soils. Géotechnique
40(3), 405–430 (1990)
74. Mašín, D., Khalili, N.: A thermo-mechanical model for variably saturated soils based on
hypoplasticity. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 36(12), 1461–1485 (2012)
75. Sun, D.A., Sheng, D., Xu, Y.F.: Collapse behaviour of unsaturated compacted soil with dif-
ferent initial densities. Can. Geotech. J. 44(6), 673–686 (2007)
76. Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E.: The influence of soil structure and stress history
on the soil - water characteristics of a compacted till. Géotechnique 49(2), 143–159 (1999)
77. Viaene, P., Vereecken, H., Diels, J., Feyen, J.: A statistical analysis of six hysteresis models
for the moisture retention characteristic. Soil Sci. 157(6), 345–355 (1994)
78. Zhou, A.N., Sheng, D., Sloan, S.W., Gens, A.: Interpretation of unsaturated soil behaviour
in the stress - saturation space, I: volume change and water retention behaviour. Comput.
Geotech. 43, 178–187 (2012)
79. Brooks, R., Corey, A.: Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology paper No. 3, Colorado
state University (1964)
80. Jotisankasa, A., Ridley, A., Coop, M.: Collapse behaviour of compacted silty clay in suction-
monitored oedometer apparatus. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. ASCE 133(7), 867–877
(2007)
81. Wheeler, S.J., Sharma, R.S., Buisson, M.S.R.: Coupling of hydraulic hysteresis and stress-
strain behaviour in unsaturated soils. Géotechnique 53, 41–54 (2003)
82. Fuentes, W., Triantafyllidis, T.: Hydro-mechanical hypoplastic models for unsaturated soils
under isotropic stress conditions. Comput. Geotech. 51, 72–82 (2013)
83. Mašín, D.: Double structure hydromechanical coupling formalism and a model for unsaturated
expansive clays. Eng. Geol. 165, 73–88 (2013)
84. Wong, K.S., Mašín, D.: Coupled hydro-mechanical hypoplastic model for partially saturated
soils incorporating small strain stiffness. Comput. Geotech. 61, 355–369 (2014)
85. Khalili, N., Zargarbashi, S.: Influence of hydraulic hysteresis on effective stress in unsaturated
soils. Géotechnique 60(9), 729–734 (2010)
86. Sun, D.A., Matsuoka, H., Xu, Y.F.: Collapse behaviour of compacted clays in suction-
controlled triaxial tests. Geotech. Test. J. 27(4), 362–370 (2004)
87. D’Onza, F., Gallipoli, D., Wheeler, S., Casini, F., Vaunat, J., Khalili, N., Laloui, L., Mancuso,
C., Mašín, D., Nuth, M., Pereira, M., Vassallo, R.: Benchmark of constitutive models for
unsaturated soils. Géotechnique 61(4), 283–302 (2011)
88. Uchaipchat, A., Khalili, N.: Experimental investigation of thermo-hydro-mechanical
behaviour of an unsaturated silt. Géotechnique 59(4), 339–353 (2009)
89. Campanella, R.G., Mitchell, J.K.: Influence of temperature variations on soil behaviour. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 94(3), 709–734 (1968)
90. Cekerevac, C., Laloui, L.: Experimental study of thermal effects on the mechanical behaviour
of a clay. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 28, 209–228 (2004)
91. Burghignoli, A., Desideri, A., Miliziano, S.: A laboratory study on the thermomechanical
behaviour of clayey soils. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 764–780 (2000)
92. Tanaka, N., Graham, J., Crilly, T.: Stress-strain behaviour of reconstituted illitic clay at dif-
ferent temperatures. Eng. Geol. 47, 339–350 (1997)
93. Romero, E., Gens, A., Lloret, A.: Suction effects on a compacted clay under non-isothermal
conditions. Géotechnique 53(1), 65–81 (2003)
94. Hueckel, T., Pellegrini, R., Del Olmo, C.: A constitutive study of thermo-elasto-plasticity of
deep carbonatic clays. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 22, 549–574 (1998)
95. Hueckel, T., Baldi, G.: Thermoplasticity of saturated clays: experimental constitutive study.
J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 116(12), 1778–1796 (1990)
96. Lingau, B.E., Graham, J., Yarechewski, D., Tanaka, N., Gray, M.N.: Effects of temperature
on strength and compressibility of sand-bentonite buffer. Eng. Geol. 41, 103–115 (1996)
97. Abuel-Naga, H.M., Bergado, D.T., Bouazza, A., Pender, M.: Thermomechanical model for
saturated clays. Géotechnique 59(3), 273–278 (2009)
98. De Bruyn, D., Thimus, J.F.: The influence of temperature on mechanical characteristics of
Boom clay: the results of an initial laboratory programme. Eng. Geol. 41, 117–126 (1996)
99. Houston, S.L., Houston, W.N., Williams, N.D.: Thermo-mechanical behaviour of seafloor
sediments. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 111(11), 1249–1263 (1985)
100. Kuntiwattanakul, P., Towhata, I., Ohishi, K., Seko, I.: Temperature effects on undrained shear
characteristics of clay. Soils Found. 35(1), 147–162 (1995)
101. Khalili, N., Uchaipichat, A., Javadi, A.A.: Skeletal thermal expansion coefficient and thermo-
hydro-mechanical constitutive relations for saturated porous media. Mech. Mater. 42, 593–598
(2010)
References 189
102. Del Olmo, C., Fioravante, V., Gera, F., Hueckel, T., Mayor, J.C., Pellegrini, R.: Thermome-
chanical properties of deep argillaceous formations. Eng. Geol. 41, 87–101 (1996)
103. Sultan, N., Delage, P., Cui, Y.J.: Temperature effects on the volume change behaviour of
Boom clay. Eng. Geol. 64, 135–145 (2002)
104. Aversa, S., Evangelista, A.: Thermal expansion of Neapolitan yellow tuff. Rock Mech. Rock
Eng. 26(4), 281–306 (1993)
105. Baldi, G., Hueckel, T., Pellegrini, R.: Thermal volume changes of the mineral - water system
in low-porosity clay soils. Can. Geotech. J. 25, 807–825 (1988)
106. Demars, K.R., Charles, R.D.: Soil volume changes induced by temperature cycling. Can.
Geotech. J. 19, 188–194 (1982)
Chapter 8
Concluding Remarks
The objective of this book is to present hypoplasticity as a geomaterial modelling

framework in a form understandable to an ordinary engineer, while remaining rele-
vant for researchers who wish to gain a deeper insight into the subject and who wish
to pursue further developments and enhancements.
When hypoplasticity first emerged, it appeared to be a crazy idea of few dream-
ers; years later, it has become an accepted alternative approach to soil constitutive
modelling. Most users, however, still consider its mathematical formulation to be
the magic of tensor calculus, accessible to only a few educated researchers. I hope
this book has demonstrated that hypoplasticity can be viewed differently now; it has
evolved into a form fully equivalent to elasto-plasticity. It is possible to explic-
itly specify all components of the model, such as the yield surface (denoted as
the asymptotic state boundary surface in hypoplasticity), flow rule (denoted as the
asymptotic strain rate direction in hypoplasticity) and stiffness. Consequently, it is
now possible to develop equivalent models in elasto-plastic and hypoplastic frame-
works. As an example, readers are invited to compare the Elasto-Plastic Critical
State Model (Sect. 3.3.1) with the Hypoplastic Model Predicting Asymptotic States
(Sect. 3.3.2). The complexity of the mathematical formulation of the elasto-plastic
model is arguably not much different from the complexity of the mathematical for-
mulation of the hypoplastic model. Still, the hypoplastic version better represents
granular material behaviour when compared with the elasto-plastic version, thanks
to the incorporation of the non-linear stress-strain response. Elasto-plasticity assumes
the soil is elastic and then it yields. Hypoplasticity assumes the soil state gradually
approaches the asymptotic state; the model is providing a means for smooth inter-
polation between the initial state and the asymptote.
The similarity between the elasto-plastic and hypoplastic formulations can be used
in formulating various advanced versions of hypoplastic models. As demonstrated in
Chap. 7, it is possible to take advantage of the existing approaches, often developed
within the elasto-plastic framework, and adopt them to incorporate more advanced
effects into hypoplasticity, such as the effects of soil structure, rate effects, stiffness
anisotropy, partial saturation and thermal effects.

192 8 Concluding Remarks
One of the appealing features of hypoplasticity is the simplicity of its numerical

implementation. Obviously, for a software to be sufficiently robust, advanced time
integration strategies have to be adopted. However, thanks to the identical algebraic
structure of most hypoplastic models (it is merely necessary to provide two constitu-
tive tensors and N), it is simple to switch from one model to the other within the
calculation routine. This is no doubt one of the reasons for the model implementations
to be widely available nowadays.
Wide availability, centralised into the SoilModels online platform (https://
soilmodels.com), is possibly one of the key components of the engineers interest in
hypoplasticity. Online tools are now available to calibrate the models automatically;
the engineer provides experimental data and gets soil parameters for the calculation,
without having to run the element test drivers manually. In fact, I believe that the time
is approaching when the software will allow for a complete bypass of the constitu-
tive model selection and calibration; the most suitable model will be automatically
selected from a model library, calibrated and used in the simulation, based on the
experimental data provided by the user.
Of course, there is still a room for further development, which is yet to come. In
my personal opinion, the fine-tuning of various details of the model response is not
the primary development direction. Inherent variability and uncertainty in the ground
properties will cause the positive effect of these additions to be hardly noticeable in
the engineering design, which should always be kept in mind as the final outcome
of the modelling effort. There are still, however, important effects that should be
addressed in future models and which cannot be reliably predicted with the present
state of knowledge, in particular the effects of cyclic loading and the effects of various
coupled multi-physics phenomena.
I hope that this book will become one of the foundations to build upon in the
application and further development of the hypoplastic modelling framework, and
soil constitutive modelling in general.

Modelling of Soil Behaviour With Hypoplasticity Another Approach To Soil Constitutive Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling of Soil Behaviour With Hypoplasticity Another Approach To Soil Constitutive Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8069

Modelling of Soil Behaviour

ISSN 1866-8755 ISSN 1866-8763 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018960755

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

be hard to appreciate in tensorial equations of the ﬁnal models. Subsequently,

Prague, Czech Republic David Mašín

3.1.3 Predictions of Scalar Models for Shear . . . . . . . . . . ..... 46

Part II Hypoplastic Models for Soils

7.2 Rate Effects - Viscohypoplasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

The aim of Part I of this book is to introduce hypoplasticity as a framework specifically

In this chapter, constitutive models as mathematical expressions describing mechan-

1.1 Notation and Conventions

In 3D continuum analysis, constitutive models are inherently defined in terms of

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 3

tr D = 1kl Dkl (1.5)

In Part I, a simplified model formulation is adopted considering tensors in axisym-

1.2 Constitutive Models

A mechanical constitutive model represents the dependency of stress on deformation

where  is a functional of the history up to time t of the deformation gradient asso-

where q represents a vector of state variables. By neglecting large displacements and

Ṫ = G(T, q, ε̇) (1.18)

G(T, q, λD) = λG(T, q, D) ∀λ > 0 (1.19)

1.3 Graphical Representation of Tangential Stiffness:

Response envelopes were introduced by Gudehus [2] for representing tangential

Fig. 1.1 Response envelopes (figure from [3], modified)

1.4 Constitutive Model Classification

Within the concept of incremental non-linearity, elastic models are defined by 

The elastic model is denoted as incrementally linear.

Fig. 1.3 Response

0 100 200 300

Fig. 1.4 Response envelope

Fig. 1.5 Response hypoplasticity

0 100 200 300

2.1 Stiffness Non-linearity

2.1.1 Local Measurement of Deformation

Fig. 2.1 Sources of error in

Fig. 2.4 A typical hysteretic

2.1.2 Stiffness Measurement by Shear Wave Propagation

2.1.3 Modelling of Stiffness Non-linearity

Fig. 2.8 Schematic

Fig. 2.9 Principle of the

loading (HL , mL ) and unloading (HU , mU ). Loading and unloading is distinguished

The plastic modulus is a sum of two components as seen in bounding surface

Fig. 2.10 Kinematic

Fig. 2.11 Multiple

2.2 Asymptotic Behaviour of Soils

Asymptotic behaviour is a striking feature of granular materials. Specific asymptotic

2.2.1 Asymptotic State Concept

ψσ may then differ from 0◦ in the case of an anisotropic soil.

Fig. 2.16 Sketch of the σa

2.2.2 Experimental Investigation of Soil Asymptotic

Asymptotic behaviour has been the subject of experimental investigation; critical

critical state line i

Fig. 2.20 The dependency

Fig. 2.23 Periodic cubic cell

2.2.3 Discrete Element Investigation of Soil Asymptotic

(a) 50 ψε=90°, NC (b) 50

2.2.4 Constitutive Modelling of Soil Asymptotic Behaviour

Fig. 2.27 Yield surface and

where 0 < μ < ∞. The constitutive model rate form reads

Fig. 2.28 Demonstration of

where is a functional of the history up to time t of the deformation gradient asso-

Within the concept of incremental non-linearity, elastic models are defined by