Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-00951-7 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Granular soils: from DEM simulation to constitutive modeling

Mingjing Jiang1,2,3,4 • An Zhang1,2,3 • Zhifu Shen5

Received: 6 March 2019 / Accepted: 24 February 2020 / Published online: 6 March 2020
Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
In this study, the distinct element method (DEM) was employed to numerically explore the mechanical responses of
granular soils and to extract key components for an elastoplastic constitutive model for them. Considering the irregular
shapes of real particles, a contact model considering rolling and twisting resistances was used in the DEM simulations. It is
shown that this contact model can successfully capture the density-dependent, pressure-dependent behavior of granular
soils as well as stress–dilatancy behavior. A critical state-based, double yielding surface constitutive model was used to
describe the mechanical behavior of the DEM numerical material. A marked feature of the proposed constitutive model is
the incorporation of a flow rule that defines the relationship between the stress Lode angle and strain Lode angle in the
deviatoric plane. The model parameters were completely determined from DEM simulation results. The agreement
between the DEM simulation results and the constitutive model prediction indicates that realistic complex mechanical
behavior of granular soils in generalized loading paths can be reproduced well in both discrete and continuum ways. This
will allow effective coupling of discrete–continuum modeling (such as DEM–FEM) in solving geotechnical boundary
value problems with large deformation, where a consistent representative of soil is required for the near-field DEM
modeling and far-field FEM modeling.

Keywords Constitutive model  Critical state  Distinct element method  Flow rule  Granular soils

1 Introduction load is highly complex and is found to be dependent on

The modeling of the mechanical behavior of granular soils
is of great important in geotechnical engineering problems,
such as slope stability, bearing capacity and embankment
settlement. Due to its particulate nature, the mechanical
behavior of granular soil responding to an applied external
& Zhifu Shen
zhifu.shen@njtech.edu.cn
1 method (FDM), have higher efficiency and remain the
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2 far. However, difficulties are encountered by continuum
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground
Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
3
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University,
Tianjin 300072, China
5
College of Transportation Science and Engineering, Nanjing
Tech University, Nanjing 210009, China
various factors, such as initial packing density, fabric ani-
sotropy, stress state and loading path [8, 23, 37, 39].
The discrete element method (DEM) has been widely
used as a powerful tool to study the mechanical behavior of
granular soils since it was first proposed by Cundall and
Strack [4]. However, due to the high computational cost, it
is currently a challenge for DEM to solve a practical
engineering problem where the number of granular parti-
cles is usually huge. Alternatively, continuum methods,
such as finite element method (FEM) and finite different
commonly used approaches to engineering applications so
methods when handling large deformation and fracture in
engineering materials. A solution is to couple FEM or
FDM method with DEM method to take advantages of
each method and to avoid their shortcomings [41, 45]. In
this approach, the near-field region of interest can be
simulated by DEM and the remaining far-field region can
be simulated by a continuum model. This allows better
modeling of large deformation or fracture in the interesting

123
1724 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

part while maintaining the overall high efficiency. In area contact instead of a point contact was assumed
addition, DEM can expand the experimental database to between particles due to the grain angularity. A shape
aid the parameter calibration for the continuum model [25]. parameter b was introduced to define the contact radius Rc
As a first step of this approach, a consistent representative such that Rc ¼ br where r ¼ 2R1 R2 =ðR1 þ R2 Þ and R1 and
of soil is required between the DEM modeling and con- R2 are particle radii.
tinuum modeling. This model consists of four components, i.e., normal,
In previous DEM studies, simplified particle shapes such tangential, rolling and twisting contact components. Fig-
as disks and spheres were usually used without considering ure 1 presents the mechanical responses of the contact
the non-spherical shape and interlocking effects of solid model. An elastic behavior is considered in the normal
grains, which leads to significantly lower peak and residual direction, and only a compressive force can be transmitted.
friction angles of the disk/sphere assembly compared with In the tangential, rolling and torsional directions, an elastic
those obtained experimentally. It has been revealed that behavior with a limited strength (Mohr–Coulomb type) is
particle rotation plays a dominant role in controlling the assumed in each direction. The normal force Fn, incre-
dilatancy inside the shear bands [29]. Therefore, in order to mental tangential force DFs , incremental moment DMr and
reproduce the mechanical behavior of granular soils more incremental torque Mt are calculated as:
accurately, the particle rotation must be properly modeled. 
k n un ; un  0
To address this problem, there are mainly two approaches: Fn ¼ ð1aÞ
0; un \0
(1) one directly uses non-disk/non-sphere particles such as
polygonal/polyhedral particles [7, 22, 26], ellipses/ellip- DFs ¼ ks Dus ð1bÞ
soids [14, 15, 19, 28, 31, 36] and aggregates/clumps
DMr ¼ kr Dhr ð1cÞ
[5, 6, 16, 18, 42] and (2) the other still uses disk/sphere
particles, but the contact moments between particles are DMt ¼ kt Dht ð1dÞ
incorporated [3, 10, 12, 13, 17, 27, 32, 33, 43, 46]. Compared
where un , Dus , Dhr and Dht are the overlap, incremental
with the first method, the second one has simpler contact
tangential displacement, incremental relative rolling and
detection algorithm and higher computational efficiency and
twisting angles, respectively; kn , ks , kr and kt are the nor-
is effective to reproduce the bulk behavior of granular soils.
mal, tangential, rolling and twisting stiffnesses, respec-
In this study, the contact model incorporating rolling
tively, and defined as:
and twisting resistances [13] was adopted. First, a series of
numerical simulations of elementary tests were carried out kn ¼ 2rE ð2aÞ
to study the mechanical behavior of granular soils, ks ¼ kn =n ð2bÞ
including conventional triaxial compression tests, isotropic
2
compression tests and true triaxial shear tests. Then, the kr ¼ kn Rc =4 ð2cÞ
critical state, yield surface and stress–dilatancy were 2
investigated based on the DEM simulation data. Then, a kt ¼ ks Rc =2 ð2dÞ
double yield surface constitutive model was used to sim- where E is a representative modulus of the particle material
ulate the mechanical behavior of the numerical sand. This and n is the ratio of normal to tangential contact stiffness.
constitutive model combines the yield surface and hard- The peak resistances in the shear, rolling and twisting
ening laws suggested by Wan and Guo [39], the stress– directions are calculated as:
dilatancy relation in meridian plane suggested by Li and
Fsmax ¼ lFn ð3aÞ
Dafalias [23] and the stress–dilatancy relation in deviatoric
plane suggested by Thornton and Zhang [35], in light of Mrmax ¼ fc Fn Rc =4 ð3bÞ
their good descriptions of mechanical behavior of granular
Mtmax ¼ 0:65lFn Rc ð3cÞ
soils in different aspects. Finally, details of the determi-
nation of model parameters were presented and the model where l is the inter-particle frictional coefficient and 1c
performance was assessed. describes the effect of local asperity crushing (fc = 4 if
local crushing is not considered).

2 Contact model used in DEM

The contact model incorporating rolling and twisting
resistances developed from Jiang’s 2D rolling resistance
model [12] was employed in this paper. Details of the
contact law have been introduced in [13]. In this model, an
3 DEM simulation tests
In this study, three types of DEM simulations were carried
out: conventional triaxial compression tests, isotropic
compression tests and true triaxial shear tests. The same

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744
Fig. 1 Mechanical responses of the implemented contact model: a normal direction; b tangential direction; c rolling direction; d twisting
direction. [13]
contact model parameters were used for all simulations,
and they are E = 0.7 Gpa, n = 5, l = 0.5, b = 0.15, fc = 4.
Each specimen consisted of totally 20,000 spheres. Fig-
ure 2 presents the particle size distribution and a specimen
with an initial void ratio e0 = 0.82 under an effective
confining pressure of 100 kPa. In this paper, all stress is
considered effective.
3.1 Conventional triaxial compression tests
In order to study the mechanical behavior of granular soils
in conventional triaxial compression tests, three specimens
with initial void ratios of 0.67, 0.82 and 0.92 (under zero
stress) were generated first and then isotropically com-
pressed to different target confining pressures (50, 100, 200
and 400 kPa) by servo control of the walls. Then, the
conventional triaxial compression tests were conducted on
these specimens by keeping the confining pressures con-
stant. For brevity, only the numerical simulation results
under the confining pressures of 50, 100 and 200 kPa were
presented in this section. The one under the confining
pressure of 400 kPa will be presented in Sect. 4.2 to vali-
date the constitutive model proposed later in this paper.
1725
Figure 3 presents the effect of initial density on the
mechanical behavior of the specimens in conventional
triaxial compression tests. Under the same confining pres-
sure, the specimen with e0 = 0.92 shows strain hardening
with volumetric compression, which is the typical
mechanical behavior of loose granular soils. With the
decrease in e0,the stress–strain relationship changes from
strain hardening to strain softening and the volumetric
strain of the soil changes from contraction to dilation.
When the axial strain reaches approximately 45%, the
critical state can be reached and the deviatoric stress and
void ratio are the same for the specimens with different
initial void ratios. Therefore, the DEM simulations pre-
sented in this paper can successfully capture the density-
dependent behavior and critical state of sand.
Figure 4 presents the effects of confining pressure on the
mechanical behavior of the specimens with different initial
void ratios. As the confining pressure increases, the dila-
tancy and peak strength of the soil decrease. Therefore, the
DEM simulations can also capture the pressure-dependent
soil behavior.
The peak and critical friction angles derived from the
simulation results are plotted against the initial confining
123
1726 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

100

Percentage smaller than by weight (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Particle diameter (mm)

Fig. 2 Numerical specimen and its particle size distribution

pressure in Fig. 5. The frictional angle is defined as
u ¼ sin1 ½ðr1  r3 Þ=ðr1 þ r3 Þ, and the peak friction
angle and critical friction angle are denoted as up and ucs ,
respectively. As shown in Fig. 5, the peak friction angle of
the specimen with e0 = 0.67 decreases from 36.6° to 35.3°
with the confining pressure changing from 50 to 200 kPa.
For the specimen with e0 = 0.82, the peak friction angle
decreases from 32.8° to 30.9°. Since the stress–strain curve
is not smooth, the critical friction angle ucs is calculated by
averaging the frictional angles for axial strain beyond 35%.
In addition, the values of the critical frictional angle
obtained from the specimens with different initial void
ratios are averaged. It is shown that the critical friction
angle decreases from the 30.5° to 29.4°, but the change is
small.
3.2 Isotropic compression tests
Two specimens with initial void ratios of 0.80 and 0.92
(under zero stress) were generated first and then isotropi-
cally compressed to 10 MPa. Figure 6 shows the isotropic
consolidation lines (ICLs) plotted in the e-logp plane. It is
clear that the curved ICLs are not unique, which is the
typical behavior of real sands [11]. It is worthy of noting
that grain crushing can occur when the granular soils are
under high stress level. However, this is not taken into
consideration in the present simulation. Therefore, the
DEM simulation result for the specimens under high stress
level can be only be viewed as qualitative.
3.3 True triaxial shear tests
In order to study the mechanical behavior of granular soils
in true triaxial shear tests, two specimens with initial void
ratios of 0.67 and 0.82 (under zero stress) were generated
first and then isotropically compressed to 100 kPa. The true
triaxial shear tests were then conducted on these specimens
by keeping the mean stress (100 kPa) constant using the
stress control method. In this paper, the value of interme-
diate principal stress ratio, specified by
b = ðr2  r3 Þ=ðr1  r3 Þ, is set to 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 0.8 and
1.0, respectively.
Figure 7 presents the mechanical behavior of the spec-
imen with the initial void ratio e0 = 0.67 for different b
values. The shear strain es in Fig. 7 is defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
es ¼ 2eij eij =3, where eij is the deviatoric strain tensor. As
shown in Fig. 7a, the variations of deviatoric stress against
shear strain are similar to each other for different b values,
but the deviatoric stress q decreases with the increasing b at
the same shear strain. This agrees with the previous DEM
simulations using spherical particles [1, 9, 46]. Figure 7b
shows the variations of normalized deviatoric stress against
shear strain. The normalized deviatoric stress is defined as
the ratio of deviatoric stress q to residual deviatoric stress
qcr under each b value. As shown in Fig. 7b, when the
shear strain ed is smaller than 10%, the variation of the
normalized deviatoric stress with the shear strain is inde-
pendent of the intermediate principal stress ratio. However,
when the shear strain is beyond 10%, there are discrepan-
cies between the curves, which can be attributed to the
formations of shear bands in some specimens. Figure 8
presents the sample deformation patterns of the specimens
with e0 = 0.67 in the major–minor principal stress plane.
As shown, the deformations of the specimens at b = 0.0
and 1.0 are generally uniform, and their normalized devi-
atoric stress curves are very close to each other in Fig. 7b.
However, obvious localized deformation can be observed
for the other b values, which leads to a stronger strain

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1727

0.7 0.95
0.6
0.90
0.5
(σ 1−σ3 )/(σ 1 +σ3 )
0.85

Void ratio
0.4
0.80
0.3 σ 3 = 50 kPa
e0 = 0.67 0.75
0.2
e0 = 0.82
0.1 0.70
e0 = 0.92
0.0 0.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(a)

0.7 0.95
0.6
0.90
0.5
(σ 1−σ3 )/(σ1+σ3 )

0.85

Void ratio
0.4
0.80
0.3 σ 3 = 100 kPa
e0 = 0.67 0.75
0.2
e0 = 0.82
0.1 0.70
e0 = 0.92
0.0 0.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(b)
0.7 0.95
0.6
0.90
0.5
(σ 1−σ 3)/(σ1+σ 3 )

0.85
Void ratio

0.4
0.80
0.3 σ3 = 200 kPa
e0 = 0.67 0.75
0.2
e0 = 0.82
0.1 0.70
e0 = 0.92
0.0 0.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(c)
Fig. 3 Effect of initial density on the mechanical behavior of the specimens under different confining pressures: a r3 = 50 kPa; b r3 = 100 kPa;
c r3 = 200 kPa

softening compared with the tests at b = 0 and 1.0 in
Fig. 7b. Similar observations can also be obtained from the
simulation results of the specimens with e0 = 0.82 as
shown in Fig. 9b. As the looser specimen can have a lower
tendency of strain localization, the discrepancies between
the normalized deviatoric stress curves for different b val-
ues in Fig. 9b are less significant than those in Fig. 7b.
Based on the above observations, it can be concluded that
for granular soils, its hardening rule can be accurately and
uniquely described by the shear strain when it is sheared in
the true triaxial paths monotonically, and the influence of
b value on the critical state strength needs to be considered.
Figure 7c shows the variations of void ratio with devi-
atoric strain. When the shear strain is smaller than 10%, the
variation of void ratio with the shear strain is independent
of the value of b. This is in line with the DEM results
presented by Barreto and O’Sullivan [1]. However, the
curves differ when the shear strain is beyond 10%, which is

123
1728 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

0.7 0.90

0.6
0.85
0.5
(σ1 − σ 3 )/(σ 1+σ3 )

Void ratio
0.4 0.80

0.3 0.75
σ3
0.2 50kPa
100kPa 0.70
0.1
200kPa
0.0 0.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(a)

0.6 0.90

0.5
(σ 1−σ3 )/(σ1 + σ3)

0.4 0.85

Void ratio
0.3

0.2 σ3 0.80
50kPa
0.1 100kPa
200kPa
0.0 0.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) (b) ε1 (%)

0.6 0.95

0.5
(σ1−σ 3)/(σ1+σ3 )

0.4 0.90
Void ratio

0.3

0.2 σ3 0.85
50kPa
0.1 100kPa
200kPa
0.0 0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(c)
Fig. 4 Effect of initial pressure on the mechanical behavior of the specimens with different initial void ratios: a e0 = 0.67; b e0 = 0.82;
c e0 = 0.92

associated with the occurrence of strain localization. Note
that although both the specimens at b = 0 (triaxial com-
pression) and b = 1 (triaxial extension) deform uniformly,
the critical void ratio of the specimen at b = 0 is slightly
larger than that at b = 1. Similar observations can also be
obtained from the simulation results of the specimens with
e0 = 0.82 as shown in Fig. 9c, as well as the DEM simu-
lations employing spherical particles presented by Zhao
and Guo [44] and Huang et al. [9]. However, Zhao and Guo
[44] and Zhou et al. [46] proposed that the influence of the
intermediate principal stress ratio on critical state line
(CSL) in the e-p plane can be ignored, mainly considering
the particularities and uncertainties of DEM simulations.
Although Huang et al. [9] indicate that CSL shows a
dependency on b, they also find that the difference between
the different b cases becomes less significant with the
increase in mean stress. In addition, Yang and Wu [42]
investigated the critical state behavior of both the isotropic

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1729

40 nonlinear, especially for the specimen with e0 = 0.82. This

nonlinearity has also been found for real sands [20, 34].
35
The peak and residual deviatoric stresses obtained from
the true triaxial shear tests presented above are plotted in
Fig. 12. It is shown that the peak deviatoric stress
ϕp (ϕcs)

30 decreases with the increase in b, and its variation can be

well approximated by Lade–Duncan criteria
ϕp , e0= 0.67
25 (I13 =I3  27 ¼ k ), where I1 and I3 are the first and third
ϕp , e0= 0.82
ϕcs stress invariants of the stress tensor, respectively, and k is
a fitting parameter which equals to 27.05 and 18.76 for the
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 specimen with e0 = 0.67 and 0.82, respectively. The
σ3 (kPa) residual deviatoric stress is the same for the specimens with
two different initial void ratios, corresponding to a fitted k
Fig. 5 Variations of peak and critical friction angles against confining equal to 15.49.
pressure
3.4 Critical state, yield surface and stress–
1.0 dilatancy

0.9 The black squares in Fig. 6 denote the critical void ratios
obtained from conventional triaxial compression tests,
which shows that the critical state void ratio is mean stress
e

0.8
dependent. For the specimen with e0 = 0.92, the void ratio
after isotropic compression is larger than the critical void
0.7 ratio at the same mean effective stress. Therefore, the
specimen shows a contractive behavior as shown in
0.6 Fig. 4c. However, for the specimens with e0 = 0.82 and
0.01 0.1 1 10 e0 = 0.67, since the void ratios after isotropic compression
p (MPa) are smaller than the corresponding critical void ratio, the
dilatancy behavior can be observed as shown in Fig. 4a, b.
Fig. 6 Isotropic compression curves
As discussed in Sect. 3.3, the intermediate principal stress
ratio b has limited influence on the critical void ratio.
and anisotropic granular soils and found that a unique CSL
In the q–p plane, the critical state strength envelope can
can be approximately obtained, irrespective of the initial
be regarded as a straight line, and the critical friction angle
fabrics (isotropic or anisotropic) and shear modes (triaxial
is approximately 30° as shown in Fig. 5. The critical
compression or triaxial extension). Li and Dafalias [24]
strength envelope in deviatoric plane can be described by
identified the uniqueness of CSL from the perspective of
Lade–Duncan failure criteria, as shown in Fig. 12.
thermodynamics as well. Therefore, a unique relationship
Granular soils are commonly regarded as a shear
of CSL in the e-p’ plane for different b values was also
yielding material, and the plastic shear strain is generally
adopted in the following constitutive modeling.
adopted as hardening variable. In order to analyze the
Figure 10 presents the relationships between the prin-
shape of yield surface in the q–p plane, the contours of
cipal strains for the specimen with e0 = 0.67. All the
shear strain under different confining pressures obtained
specimens show an extensive response along the e3 direc-
from the conventional triaxial compression tests are plotted
tion (minor principal stress direction). A higher b value
in Fig. 13. When the stress ratio and shear strain are small,
yields a stronger extensive response along the e3 direction.
the contour of shear strain is actually a curve and bends
In the e2 direction (intermediate principal stress direction),
slightly toward the p-axis. With the increase in shear strain,
the response of the specimens at b = 0 and 0.2 is extensive.
it gradually becomes straight. When the shear strain is
When b = 0.4, the response is very close to plane strain
large (e.g., larger than 30%), the contour of shear strain
(e2 = 0). When b exceeds 0.4, it changes to a compression
tends to coincide with the critical state envelope. There-
response along the e2 direction. Similar observations can
fore, the DEM simulation results prove that the granular
also be obtained from the simulation results of the speci-
soils can indeed be regarded as a shear yielding material.
mens with e0 = 0.82 as shown in Fig. 11. Note that the
However, a proper way is needed to deal the curving
relationships between the principal strains tend to be

123
1730 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

160 1.6

120 1.2
q (kPa)

q/qcr
80 0.8
b = 0.0 b = 0.0
b = 0.2 b = 0.2
b = 0.4 b = 0.4
40 b = 0.6 0.4 b = 0.6
b = 0.8 b = 0.8
b = 1.0 b = 1.0
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%) εs (%)
(a) (b)
0.90

0.85
Void ratio

0.80
b = 0.0
0.75 b = 0.2
b = 0.4
b = 0.6
0.70 b = 0.8
b = 1.0
0.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%)
(c)
Fig. 7 Mechanical behavior of the specimen with e0 = 0.67 for different b values: evolutions of a deviatoric stress; b normalized deviatoric
stress; c void ratio

characteristic of the yield surface, which will be given in DEM simulations in an increment way. From a macro-
Sect. 4.1.1. perspective, a proper definition of elastic strain should
Based on the simulation results of the true triaxial shear ensure that the external force work done on the elastic
tests, the variation of the normalized deviatoric stress q/qcr strain increment equals to the variation of elastic energy
with shear strain is independent of coefficient of the stored at contacts. Therefore, in an increment from step N
intermediate principal stress ratio b. In addition, as shown to step N ? 1, we have
in Fig. 12, the relationship between the qcr and b can be dp ¼ pjNþ1 pjN ¼ KjNþ1 deev ð4aÞ
2
approximated by the Lade–Duncan failure criteria; hence,
at a given shear strain, the relationship between the devi- dq ¼ qjNþ1 qjN ¼ 3GjNþ1 dees ð4bÞ
2
atoric stress and b can also be described by an equation
pjNþ1 þpjN e qjNþ1 þqjN e
similar to the Lade–Duncan failure criteria. Therefore, the dEe ¼j dev þ des ð4cÞ
yield surface in the deviator plane can take the same form 2 2
as the Lade–Duncan failure surface. where pjNþ1 and pjN are the mean stress at step N ? 1 and
The stress–dilatancy relation is used to describe the step N, respectively. qjNþ1 and qjN are the deviatoric stress at
plastic volumetric change caused by shearing. However, in step N ? 1 and step N, respectively. dEe is the increment of
this study, the total strains instead of plastic strains are used elastic energy. These variables can be readily obtained from
to derive the stress–dilatancy relation, considering the DEM simulations. The relationship between elastic shear
minimal effect of inclusion of elastic strains as shown moduli GjNþ1 and elastic bulk moduli KjNþ1 is assumed to
2 2
below. follow the equation GjNþ1 ¼ 3ð1  2mÞ=½2ð1 þ mÞKjNþ1 ,
2 2
Following a phenomenological way, we calculate the
where m is the Poisson’s ratio. It is found below that the value
elastic strain by measuring the variation of elastic energy in

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744
(a) b=0.0 ε 1=30%
(c) b=0.4 ε 1=25.3%
(e) b=0.8 ε 1=20.39%
Fig. 8 Sample deformation patterns for different b values (e0 = 0.67) in the major–minor principal stress plane
of m has only slight influence on the stress–dilatancy curves.
The elastic strain deev and dees can be calculated by solving
Eq. (4), and the plastic strain can then be obtained by sub-
tracting the elastic strain from the total strain.
Figure 14 compares the stress–dilatancy curves derived
from the total strain and the calculated plastic strain. There
are some differences between the curves based on the total
strain increment and the plastic strain increment with three
values of Poisson’s ratio when the stress ratio is less than
0.5. However, when the stress ratio is beyond 0.5, the
differences become much less significant and be covered
by the fluctuations. Therefore, the usage of total strain
instead of plastic strain can be acceptable when dealing
with the DEM simulation data.
Figure 15 presents the stress–dilatancy curves in the
conventional triaxial compression tests and true triaxial
shear tests. In Fig. 15, d ¼ dev =deq is the dilation rate
where dev and deq are the increments of the volumetric and
deviatoric strains, respectively. The positive value of dila-
tion rate denotes compression, while the negative value
denotes dilation. Figure 14a shows that the stress ratio
increases nonlinearly with the increase in dilatancy rate and
1731
(b) b=0.2 ε 1=30.3%
(d) b=0.6 ε 1=20.6%
(f) b=1.0 ε 1=18.78%
fluctuates at the critical state eventually for the loose
specimens. Figure 15b, c presents the stress–dilatancy
curves for the medium dense and dense specimens,
respectively. The stress ratio first increases nonlinearly with
the increase in dilatancy rate until a peak value is reached
and then drops to the critical stress ratio. The maximum
dilatancy rate corresponds to the peak stress ratio. The curve
after the peak state does not follow the rising path but
presents a hook. Figure 15d shows the stress–dilatancy
curves of the specimens with different densities in the true
triaxial shear tests. It clearly shows that the stress–dilatancy
relationship is influenced by soil density.
4 Constitutive modeling
4.1 Framework of constitutive model
A double yield surface model (shear and compaction yield
surfaces) was proposed to describe the mechanical behav-
ior of the DEM numerical material. The evolution of the
shear yield surface can be either hardening or softening and
123
1732 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

140 1.2

120 1.0
100
0.8
q (kPa)

80

q/qcr
0.6 b = 0.0
60 b = 0.0
b = 0.2
b = 0.2
0.4 b = 0.4
40 b = 0.4
b = 0.6
b = 0.6
b = 0.8
20 b = 0.8 0.2 b = 1.0
b = 1.0
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%) εd (%)
(a) (b)
0.92

0.88
Void ratio

0.84
b = 0.0
0.80 b = 0.2
b = 0.4
b = 0.6
0.76 b = 0.8
b = 1.0
0.72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%)
(c)
Fig. 9 Mechanical behavior of the specimen with e0 = 0.82 for different b values: evolutions of a deviatoric stress; b normalized deviatoric
stress; c void ratio

0 30

20
-20
10
-40
ε2 (%)

0
ε3 (%)

b = 0.0
-60 b = 0.2 -10
b = 0.4
b = 0.6 -20
-80 b = 0.8
b = 1.0
-30

-100 -40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(a) (b)

Fig. 10 Relationships between the principal strains for different b values: a e3 versus e1; b e2 versus e1 (e0 = 0.67)

the cap yield surface considers the volumetric hardening The elastic strain increment is calculated using the gener-
behavior. The model framework is depicted in Fig. 16. alized Hooke’s law based on stress increment. In the iso-
The total strain increment de is the sum of the elastic tropic compression, based on the elasticity theory, the
strain increment dee and the plastic strain increment dep .

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1733

0 40

30
-40
20
ε3 (%)

ε2 (%)
-80 10
b = 0.0
-120 b = 0.2 0
b = 0.4
b = 0.6 -10
-160 b = 0.8
b = 1.0 -20

-200 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(a) (b)

Fig. 11 Relationships between the principal strains for different b values: a e3 versus e1; b e2 versus e1 (e0 = 0.82)

160 2ð 1 þ m Þ
K¼ G ð5Þ
3ð1  2mÞ
120 where v denotes the Poisson’s ratio.
The elastic shear moduli G is a function of void ratio e
q (kPa)

80 and mean stress p:

G ¼ G0 fe ðeÞðp=pref Þ0:5 ð6Þ
Lade-Duncan criterion
40 Peak strength, e0=0.67
Peak strength, e0=0.82
where G0 is a material constant and pref ¼ 1 kPa.
Residual strength The function fe(e) suggested by Richart et al. [30] is
0 expressed as:
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b ð2:97  eÞ2
fe ðeÞ ¼ : ð7Þ
1þe
Fig. 12 Variations of peak and residual deviatoric stress with
b values But in the present DEM simulations, the function fe(e)
can be better fitted as
elastic bulk moduli K is a function of elastic shear moduli
fe ðeÞ ¼ e5 : ð8Þ
G:

600
600
30.0% 10.0%
3.0% 500
500
5.0%
q = σ 1 −σ 3 (kPa)

Critical state
q = σ1 −σ3 (kPa)

400 Critical state 30.0%

400
strength strength 10.0%
50.0% 300 5.0%
300

200 3.0%
200
1.0%
100 0.5% 100 1.0% 0.5%
0.3% 0.3%
εd=0.1% εd=0.1%
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
p = (σ 1 +2σ 3 )/3 (kPa) p = (σ 1 +2σ 3 )/3 (kPa)
(a) (b)
Fig. 13 Contours of shear strain under different confining pressures obtained from the conventional triaxial compression tests: a e0 = 0.67;
b e0 = 0.92

123
1734 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

1.5 1.5
Total strain Total strain
Plastic strain, v=0.35 Plastic strain, v=0.35
Plastic strain, v=0.15 Plastic strain, v=0.15
Plastic strain, v=0.25 Plastic strain, v=0.25
1.0 1.0

q/p
q/p

0.5 0.5
(σ 3 =200kPa) (σ3 =200kPa)

0.0 0.0
-1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
− d ε vp / d ε sp ( − d ε v / d ε s ) − d ε vp / d ε sp ( − d ε v / d ε s )
(a) (b)
Fig. 14 Comparison of stress dilatancy relations derived from total strain and plastic strain: a conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.92);
b conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.82)

1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0 1.0

0.8
η /Mcr 0.8
η /Mcr

0.6 0.6

0.4 σ 3 =50kPa 0.4 σ 3 =50kPa

σ 3 =100kPa σ 3 =100kPa
0.2 0.2
σ 3 =200kPa σ 3 =200kPa
0.0 0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
−d −d
(a) (b)

1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8
η/Mcr

0.8
η/Mcr

0.6 0.6

0.4 σ 3 =50kPa 0.4

σ m =100kPa,e0 =0.82
σ 3 =100kPa 0.2 σ m =100kPa,e0 =0.67
0.2
σ 3 =200kPa
0.0 0.0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
−d −d
(c) (d)
Fig. 15 Stress dilatancy relations: a conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.92); b conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.82);
c conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.67); d true triaxial tests (e0 = 0.82, 0.67)

Figure 17 compares the fitting results of Eqs. (7) and
(8). Equation (8) gives a much better fit than Eq. (7) for the
DEM simulation data.
The total plastic strain increment is decomposed into:
dep ¼ depðcÞ þ depðsÞ
where depðcÞ and depðsÞ are the plastic strain increments
caused by the compaction yield and shear yield,
respectively.
ð9Þ 4.1.1 Shear yield function and hardening law

The shear yield surface fs is expressed as:

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1735

Fig. 16 Framework of the constitutive model (modified from [39])

150 150

p = 400 kPa
e=0.69 e=0.79
100 100
G (MPa)

G (MPa)

p = 200 kPa
e=0.89
p = 100 kPa
50 50
p = 50 kPa

0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0 100 200 300 400 500
e p (kPa)
(a)

250 200
p = 400 kPa
200
150
e=0.69
p = 200 kPa
G (MPa)

G (MPa)

150
p = 100 kPa 100 e=0.79
100
p = 50 kPa
50
50 e=0.89

0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0 100 200 300 400 500
e p (kPa)
(b)
Fig. 17 Comparison of the fitting results by (a) Eq. (7) and (b) Eq. (8)

fs ¼ q  Mm qðhr Þp ¼ 0 ð10Þ where a, b are model parameters, e is the current void ratio,
where Mm is the mobilized stress ratio and evolves with the ecr is the critical void ratio at the current mean stress p, and
plastic shear strain eps [39]: Mcr is the critical stress ratio defined as
 b Mcr ¼ 6 sin ucr =ð3  sin ucr Þ, in which ucr is the critical
eps e state friction angle obtained from conventional triaxial
Mm ¼ p Mcr ð11Þ
a þ es ecr compression tests.

123
1736 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

cos3αε
0.05%
cos3αε
0.05%
0.1% 0.1%
0.0 0.2% 0.0 0.2%
0.5% 0.5%
1.0% 1.0%
-0.4 5.0% -0.4 5.0%
15% 15%
30% 30%
-0.8 -0.8

-1.2 -1.2
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
cos3ασ cos3ασ
(a) (b)
Fig. 18 Relationship between the Lode angles for stress and strain: a true triaxial shear tests (e0 = 0.67); b true triaxial shear tests (e0 = 0.82)

p 1
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.6 sin 3  3 asin k =ðk þ 27Þ
qð h r Þ ¼  p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð13Þ
e0 =0.67 sin p
 1
k =ðk þ 27Þ  sin 3hr
0.5 3 3 asin
e0 =0.82 .
Fitting curve where k ¼ ð2 þ 1Þ3 1  27, 1 ¼ ð2Mcr þ 3Þ=ð3Mcr Þ,
0.4
3/2
1 - I *3=1.303*(1/R) and hr is the Lode angle:
 pffiffiffi
1 - I*3

0.3 
1 1 3 3 3  
hr ¼ sin J3 J2 2  30  hr  30 ð14Þ
0.2 3 2
where J2 and J3 are the second and third invariants of
0.1
deviatoric stress tensor, respectively.
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 4.1.2 Cap yield function and isotropic hardening
3/2
(1/R)
Under isotropic stress condition, the evolution of void ratio
Fig. 19 Relationship between the size of the stress response envelope with mean stress can be described by an exponential
and the curvature of the circular arc flow rule equation [39]:
  nl 
e pc
¼ exp  ð15Þ
e0 hl
The relationship between the critical void ratio ecr and
mean stress p can be expressed by the following equation where e0 , hl and nl are model parameters.
[39]: The cap yield surface is a vertical cutoff surface defined
  ncr  as:
ecr p
¼ exp  ð12Þ f c ¼ p  pc : ð16Þ
ecr0 hcr
where ecr0 is the reference critical state void ratio and hcr
and ncr are model parameters. 4.1.3 Flow rule
qðhr Þ in Eq. (10) is an interpolation function describing
the shape of failure surface in deviatoric plane. In this The stress–dilatancy relation in meridian plane suggested
study, the Lade–Duncan failure criteria [21] are employed by Li and Dafalias [23] is used in general stress condition
as follows: here:

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1737

Table 1 Constitutive model parameters

Parameter Symbol Value (DEM specimen) Value (Toyoura sand) Test used for parameter calibration

Elastic parameters G0 (MPa) 0.50 0.125 Conventional triaxial compression tests

v 0.25 0.05
Critical state ucr 30° 31°
Mcr 1.2 1.25
ecr0 0.86 0.934
hcr (MPa) 71.81 17.0
ncr 0.74 0.82
Yield surface a 0.0053 0.005
b 1.93 2.0
Flow rule d0 0.96 0.88
m 3.66 3.5
A 1.303 1.303 True triaxial tests
Isotropic compression hl (MPa) 62.0 180.0 Isotropic compression tests
nl 0.82 0.583

and Md ¼ Mcr expðmwÞ is the dilatancy stress ratio. The

Table 2 Fitted values of the hardening parameters a and b
state parameter w can also be expressed by e=ecr which is
Confining pressure 50 100 200 Average used in Eq. (11), and consequently Eq. (17) can take a
(kPa) value
different form using e=ecr , but this will not be discussed in
a 0.00399 0.00512 0.00694 0.0053 detail here.
b 1.882 1.931 1.989 1.93 To obtain the plastic strain increment direction in
deviatoric plane, a deviatoric flow rule suggested by
Thornton and Zhang [35] is incorporated in this model:
0.90 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
½cos 3ae  ð0:5R2  1Þ2 þ ½cos 3ar þ ð0:5R2  1Þ2
0.85 ¼ R2
ð18Þ
0.80
where ae and ar are the Load angles for plastic strain
ecr

0.75 increment and stress, respectively, defined as:

pffiffiffi p
3ðde2  d3p Þ
0.70 DEM simulation data tan ae ¼ ð19Þ
2dep1  dep2  dep3
Fitting curve
0.65
pffiffiffi
0.01 0.1 1 10 3ðr2  r3 Þ
tan ar ¼ ð20Þ
p (MPa) 2r1  r2  r3
and R is the radius of a circular arc passing the data points.
Fig. 20 DEM simulation data and theoretical fitting of the critical
state line in ecr-p space Figure 18 shows the relations between the Lode angles
for stress and strain increments for the two specimens with
  e0 = 0.67 and 0.8 under different deviatoric strains. It is
depvðsÞ g
d¼ ¼ d0 expðmwÞ  worth note that the total stain was used instead of plastic
deps Mcr qðhr Þ
strain considering that the elastic part is relatively small. It
d0
¼ ½Md qðhr Þ  g ð17Þ shows that the curvature increases with accumulated
Mcr qðhr Þ
deviatoric strain. For the specimen with e0 = 0.67
where depvðsÞ is the plastic volumetric strain increment (Fig. 18a), the DEM simulation results (represented by the
caused by shearing, deps is the plastic deviatoric strain solid points) can be fitted well by the circular arches of
increment, d0 and m are model parameters, w ¼ e  ecr is Eq. (18) under the deviatoric strains ranging from 0.05 to
the state parameter [2], g ¼ q=p denotes the stress ratio, 5%. However, at large deviatoric strains (15% and 30%),
Eq. (18) is not applicable, which is attributed to the

123
1738 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

1.2 1.2
σ 3=50kPa
1.0 σ 3=200kPa 1.0

0.8 σ 3=400kPa 0.8

0.6 0.6
d

d
0.4 0.4
σ 3=50kPa
0.2 0.2 σ 3=200kPa
σ3=400kPa
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
ψ η /M cr
(a)

0.8 0.8
σ 3=50kPa
0.6 σ 3=200kPa 0.6
σ 3=400kPa
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
d

d
0.0 0.0
σ 3=50kPa
-0.2 -0.2 σ 3=200kPa
σ 3=400kPa
-0.4 -0.4
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
ψ η /M cr
(b)

Fig. 21 Fitting of the parameters d0 and m: a conventional triaxial compression tests (e0 = 0.92); b conventional triaxial compression tests
(e0 = 0.82)

0.95 Fig. 23 Comparisons between conventional triaxial compression test c

results (DEM) and model simulations: a r3 = 50 kPa; b r3-
0.90
= 100 kPa; c r3 = 200 kPa; d r3 = 400 kPa
0.85
0.80
0.75
ð1  I3 Þ ¼ Að1=RÞ3=2 ð21Þ
e

0.70
0.65 where A is a model parameter and I3 is the third invariant
of the normalized stress tensor defined as:
0.60 DEM simulation data
0.55 Fitting curve r1 r2 r3 27
I3 ¼ ¼ : ð22Þ
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 p p p 27 þ k
p (MPa) Figure 19 shows that Eq. (21) can fit the DEM data well
with A = 1.303, independent of the initial soil density.
Fig. 22 Fitting of the parameters hl and nl
Only the data under the deviatoric strains ranging from
0.05 to 5% are used in Fig. 19. In the DEM simulations
occurrence of strain localization. Since the specimen with
performed by Thornton and Zhang [35], a contact model
e0 = 0.8 has a lower tendency to strain localization,
without incorporating contact moments was used and their
Fig. 18b shows that Eq. (18) can yield good fitting results
A equals to 1. It is believed that the parameter A can
even when the deviatoric strain is large.
capture the particle shape effects. Its microscopic coun-
A scaling law relating R to the size of the mobilized
terpart is the shape parameter b.
shear yield envelope is given as follows:

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1739

1.0
1.6
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.0 e0 =0.67, DEM
e0 =0.67, DEM 0.8

e
η
0.8 e0 =0.67, Model e0 =0.67, Model
0.6 e0 =0.82, DEM e0 =0.82, DEM
e0 =0.82, Model 0.7 e0 =0.82, Model
0.4
e0 =0.92, DEM e0 =0.92, DEM
0.2 e0 =0.92, Model e0 =0.92, Model
0.0 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ε s (%) ε s (%)
(a)

1.0
1.6
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.0 e0 =0.67, DEM
e0 =0.67, DEM 0.8

e
0.8
η

e0 =0.67, Model e0 =0.67, Model

0.6 e0 =0.82, DEM e0 =0.82, DEM
e0 =0.82, Model 0.7 e0 =0.82, Model
0.4
e0 =0.92, DEM e0 =0.92, DEM
0.2 e0 =0.92, Model e0 =0.92, Model
0.0 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ε s (%) ε s (%)
(b)

1.6 1.0
1.4
1.2 0.9
1.0
e0 =0.67, DEM e0 =0.67, DEM
0.8 0.8
η

e0 =0.67, Model e0 =0.67, Model

0.6 e0 =0.82, DEM e0 =0.82, DEM
0.4 e0 =0.82, Model 0.7 e0 =0.82, Model
e0 =0.92, DEM e0 =0.92, DEM
0.2 e0 =0.92, Model e0 =0.92, Model
0.0 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ε s (%) ε s (%)
(c)

1.4 0.92
e0 =0.82, DEM
1.2
e0 =0.82, Model
1.0 0.88 e0 =0.92, DEM
e0 =0.92, Model
0.8
η

0.84
e

0.6 e0 =0.82, DEM

e0 =0.82, Model
0.4 0.80
e0 =0.92, DEM
0.2 e0 =0.92, Model

0.0 0.76
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ε s (%) ε s (%)
(d)

123
1740 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

160 1.4

1.2
120
1.0

q (kPa) 0.8

q/qcr
80 b = 0.0
b = 0.0
0.6 b = 0.2
b = 0.2
b = 0.4
b = 0.4 0.4
40 b = 0.6
b = 0.6
b = 0.8
b = 0.8 0.2 b = 1.0
b = 1.0
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%) εd (%)

20 0

-10
10
ε2 (%)

ε3 (%)
-20
0
b = 0.0
-30 b = 0.2
b = 0.4
-10 b = 0.6
-40 b = 0.8
b = 1.0
-20 -50
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(a)

160 1.2

1.0
120
0.8
q (kPa)

q/qcr

80 0.6 b = 0.0
b = 0.0 b = 0.2
b = 0.2 b = 0.4
b = 0.4 0.4
40 b = 0.6
b = 0.6 b = 0.8
b = 0.8 0.2 b = 1.0
b = 1.0
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
εs (%) εd (%)

20 0

-10
10
ε2 (%)

ε3 (%)

-20
0
b = 0.0
-30 b = 0.2
b = 0.4
-10 b = 0.6
-40 b = 0.8
b = 1.0
-20 -50
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
ε1 (%) ε1 (%)
(b)
Fig. 24 Comparisons between true triaxial shear test results and model simulations: a e0 = 0.67; b e0 = 0.82

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744 1741

300 300
e0=0.996, Test
250 250 e0=0.917, Test
e0=0.831, Test
200 200 Model simulations

q(kPa)

q(kPa)
150 e0=0.996, Test 150

100 e0=0.917, Test 100

e0=0.831, Test
50 Model simulations 50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
ε1 (%) e
(a)

1600 1600
e0=0.960, Test
e0=0.886, Test
1200 1200 e0=0.810, Test
Model simulations
q(kPa)

800 e0=0.960, Test 800

q
e0=0.886, Test
400 e0=0.810, Test 400
Model simulations

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
ε1 (%) e
(b)
Fig. 25 Comparisons between drained triaxial compression test results [38] and model simulations: a r3 = 100 kPa; b r3 = 500 kPa

4.2 Model parameters determination and model
validation
There are totally 14 parameters in the proposed model,
which are summarized in Table 1. The detail calibration
procedure with the DEM simulation test is introduced
below.
The parameters a and b in the hardening law Eq. (11)
can be determined in the following ways [39]. At the peak
stress state, oM=oeps p ¼ 0 and M ¼ Mp ; hence, Eq. (11)
yields:
 b
Mp eps;p ep
¼ ð23aÞ
M cr a þ eps;p ecr
 2
bð1 þ e0 Þ eps:p dp
a¼ : ð23bÞ
ep  bð1 þ e0 Þeps;p dp
Except for a and b, the parameters in the above
expressions can be directly determined from the peak state
of DEM simulation. Then, a and b can be obtained by
solving the nonlinear equation system of Eq. (23). The
simulation results of the conventional triaxial compression
tests on the dense specimen with e0 = 0.67 were used to
calculate a and b. As listed in Table 2, the fitted values of a
and b under different confining pressures show some
variations, and therefore, their average values are taken as
the model parameters.
The critical state parameters ecr , hcr and ncr in Eq. (12)
can be calibrated based on the ecr  p curve. The critical
state points presented in Fig. 20 are obtained from the
conventional triaxial compression tests on the DEM spec-
imens. It is shown that Eq. (12) can fit the data points very
well with ecr0 ¼ 0:86, hcr ¼ 71:81 MPa, ncr ¼ 0:74.
The dilatancy parameters d0 and m in Eq. (17) are
determined by fitting the conventional triaxial compression
test data. The state parameter w ¼ e  ecr in Eq. (17) can
be calculated using the critical void ratio obtained from the
fitting curve in Fig. 20.
In order to determine the dilatancy parameters d0 and m,
we first calculate depv =deps , w and g=Mcr for the specimens
with different initial void ratios (e0 = 0.92 and 0.82) and
confining pressures (50, 200 and 400 kPa), and then, the
parameters d0 = 0.96 and m = 3.66 can be obtained by
fitting the DEM data as shown in Fig. 21.
The parameter A in Eq. (21) is determined by fitting the
true triaxial shear test data in ð1  I3 Þ  ð1=RÞ3=2 plot,
which has been discussed in Sect. 4.1.3 in detail.
The isotropic compression parameters hl and nl in
Eq. (15) can be calibrated based on the isotropic

123
1742 Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744

4000 4000
p0 =100kPa, Test
p0 =1000kPa, Test
3000 3000 p0 =2000kPa, Test
p0 =3000kPa, Test

q(kPa)
q(kPa) 2000
2000
Model simulations
p0 =100kPa, Test
p0 =1000kPa, Test
1000
p0 =2000kPa, Test
1000
p0 =3000kPa, Test
0 Model simulations
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
ε1 (%) p(kPa)
(a)

2500 2500
p0 =100kPa, Test p0 =2000kPa, Test p0 =100kPa, Test p0 =2000kPa, Test
2000 p0 =1000kPa, Test p0 =3000kPa, Test 2000 p0 =1000kPa, Test p0 =3000kPa, Test
Model simulations Model simulations
1500 1500

q(kPa)
q(kPa)

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
ε1 (%) p(kPa)
(b)
Fig. 26 Comparisons between undrained triaxial compression test results [38] and model simulations: a e0 = 0.735; b e0 = 0.833

compression curves. As shown in Fig. 22, Eq. (15) can fit
the DEM data well when the mean stress is less than 1 MPa
with hl= 62 MPa and nl= 0.82. Note that grain crushing
can occur in granular soils when the mean stress exceeds
1 MPa. However, the DEM simulations presented in this
paper have not taken this into account. Therefore, fitting
the data precisely under high stress level is not sought for
here in Fig. 22.
Table 1 summarizes the 14 model parameters calibrated
for the numerical granular soils in this paper. Advanced
techniques such as the machine learning method (Wang
et al. [40]) can be used to calibrate the model, which can
take care of the global characteristics of the test results, i.e.,
behavior at each and every point in stress or strain path.
Figures 23 and 24 show comparisons of the model pre-
dictions with the results of DEM simulations. As shown in
Fig. 23a–c, a satisfactory reproduction of conventional
triaxial compression tests can be achieved under different
confining pressures (50, 100 and 200 kPa) and initial void
ratios (0.67 and 0.8). Moreover, the proposed model is also
successful in prediction of the expected mechanical
behavior under the confining pressure of 400 kPa, as shown
in Fig. 23d. Figure 24 shows the comparisons between the
DEM simulation results of true triaxial shear test and
model simulations. For the specimen with e0 = 0.67, the
model predictions do not match completely with DEM
results at large deviatoric strain, which is attributed to the
occurrence of strain localization. However, for the speci-
men with e0 = 0.8, a good agreement can be achieved,
which indicates a good applicability of the deviatoric flow
rule by Thornton and Zhang [35]. Note that
To further examine the performance of the model, the
experimental data on Toyoura sand reported by Verdugo
and Ishihara [38] were used. The material parameters are
also listed in Table 1. Note that Eq. (7) was used to cal-
culate the elastic shear moduli G for the real sand. As
shown in Figs. 25 and 26, the proposed model showed
good agreement with experimental data over a range of
initial void ratios, confining pressures.
5 Conclusions
This paper first presents the DEM modeling of the
mechanical behavior of granular soils over various densi-
ties, stress levels and loading paths. A contact model
considering rolling and twisting resistance was employed
in the DEM simulations. The critical state, yield surface
and shear dilatancy obtained from the DEM simulations are
carefully investigated. The responses of the numerical soil
are consistent with those of real granular soils in the

123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744
examined aspects. Main features obtained from the DEM
simulations can be concluded as follows:
1. The coefficient of the intermediate principal stress ratio
b has slight influence on the critical void ratio. The
critical state strength envelope can be regarded as a
straight line in the q–p plane.
2. The variations of both the peak and critical deviatoric
stress with the intermediate principal stress ratio b can
be described by the Lade–Duncan failure criteria.
3. The DEM simulation results prove that the granular
soils can indeed be regarded as a shear yielding
material, and the yield surface can take the same form
as the Lade–Duncan failure surface.
4. The stress dilatancy relation obtained from the present
simulation is found to be independent of intermediate
principal stress ratio, but be influenced by the soil
density.
Finally, a critical state-based, double yielding surface
constitutive model was proposed for the DEM numerical
sand based on the above observations. The key feature of
the proposed constitutive model is the adoption of a stress–
dilatancy relation in deviatoric plane suggested by Thorn-
ton and Zhang [35]. The stress–strain behavior of granular
soils in true triaxial stress conditions can be modeled
conveniently with only one additional material parameter.
The model parameters can be determined directly via a few
element tests. Results show that the continuum constitutive
model predictions agree well with the DEM simulation
results under different stress paths. In particular, the devi-
atoric plastic flow is perfectly reproduced.
Acknowledgements The research was funded by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51639008 and 51890911), State
Key Lab. of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (Grant No.
SLDRCE14-A-04) and Foundation for Research Initiation at Nanjing
Tech University with Grant No. 3827401759 whose supports are
greatly appreciated. The support provided by China Scholarship
Council (CSC) during a visit of ‘An Zhang’ to UC Davis is also
acknowledged.
References
1. Barreto D, O’Sullivan C (2012) The influence of inter-particle
friction and the intermediate stress ratio on soil response under
generalised stress conditions. Granul Matter 14(4):505–521
2. Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) State parameter for s ands. In:
International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences and
geomechanics abstracts, vol 22, no 6. Elsevier Science,
pp 198–198
3. Belheine N, Plassiard JP, Donzé FV, Darve F, Seridi A (2009)
Numerical simulation of drained triaxial test using 3D discrete
element modeling. Comput Geotech 36(1):320–331
4. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29(30):331–336
1743
5. Gao G, Meguid MA (2018) Effect of particle shape on the
response of geogrid-reinforced systems: insights from 3D discrete
element analysis. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):685–698
6. Hong J, Xu M (2020) DEM study on the undrained mechanical
behavior of gassy sand. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-019-00910-x
7. Hosseininia ES (2012) Discrete element modeling of inherently
anisotropic granular assemblies with polygonal particles. Partic-
uology 10(5):542–552
8. Hu N, Yu HS, Yang DS, Zhuang PZ (2019) Constitutive mod-
elling of granular materials using a contact normal-based fabric
tensor. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00811-
z
9. Huang X, Hanley KJ, O’Sullivan C, Kwok CY, Wadee MA
(2014) Dem analysis of the influence of the intermediate stress
ratio on the critical-state behavior of granular materials. Granul
Matter 16(5):641–655
10. Iwashita K, Oda M (1998) Rolling resistance at contacts in
simulation of shear band development by DEM. J Eng Mech
124(3):285–292
11. Jefferies M, Been K (2000) Implications for critical state theory
from isotropic compression of sand. Géotechnique 50(4):419–429
12. Jiang MJ, Yu HS, Harris D (2005) A novel discrete model for
granular material incorporating rolling resistance. Comput Geo-
tech 32(5):340–357
13. Jiang MJ, Shen ZF, Wang JF (2015) A novel three-dimensional
contact model for granulates incorporating rolling and twisting
resistances. Comput Geotech 65:147–163
14. Jiang MJ, Li T, Chareyre B (2016) Fabric rates applied to kine-
matic models: evaluating elliptical granular materials under
simple shear tests via discrete element method. Granul Matter
18(3):1–15
15. Jiang MJ, Li T, Shen ZF (2016) Fabric rates of elliptical particle
assembly in monotonic and cyclic simple shear tests: a numerical
study. Granul Matter 18(3):1–14
16. Jiang MJ, Zhang A, Fu C (2018) 3-D DEM simulations of drained
triaxial tests on inherently anisotropic granulates. Eur J Environ
Civ Eng 22(sup1):s37–s56
17. Jiang MJ, Zhang A, Li T (2019) Distinct element analysis of the
microstructure evolution in granular soils under cyclic loading.
Granul Matter 21(2):39
18. Kozicki J, Tejchman J, Mróz Z (2012) Effect of grain roughness
on strength, volume changes, elastic and dissipated energies
during quasi-static homogeneous triaxial compression using
DEM. Granul Matter 14(4):457–468
19. Kuhn MR, Sun W, Wang Q (2015) Stress-induced anisotropy in
granular materials: fabric, stiffness, and permeability. Acta
Geotech 10(4):399–419
20. Lade PV, Duncan JM (1973) Cubical triaxial tests on cohesion-
less soil. J Soil Mech Found Div 99:793–812
21. Lade PV, Duncan JM (1975) Elastoplastic stress-strain theory for
cohesionless soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 101:1037–1053
22. Lee SJ, Hashash YM, Nezami EG (2012) Simulation of triaxial
compression tests with polyhedral discrete elements. Comput
Geotech 43:92–100
23. Li XS, Dafalias YF (2000) Dilatancy for cohesionless soils.
Géotechnique 50(4):449–460
24. Li XS, Dafalias YF (2012) Anisotropic critical state theory: role
of fabric. J Eng Mech 138(3):263–275
25. Liu Y, Sun W, Fish J (2016) Determining material parameters for
critical state plasticity models based on multilevel extended
digital database. J Appl Mech 83(1):011003
26. Mahmood Z, Iwashita K (2010) Influence of inherent anisotropy
on mechanical behavior of granular materials based on DEM
simulations. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 34(8):795–819
123
1744
27. Mohamed A, Gutierrez M (2010) Comprehensive study of the
effects of rolling resistance on the stress–strain and strain local-
ization behavior of granular materials. Granul Matter
12(5):527–541
28. Ng TT (2009) Discrete element method simulations of the critical
state of a granular material. Int J Geomech 9(5):209–216
29. Oda M, Kazama H (1998) Microstructure of shear bands and its
relation to the mechanisms of dilatancy and failure of dense
granular soils. Géotechnique 50(4):465–481
30. Richart FE, Wood RD, Hall JR (1970) Vibrations of soils and
foundations/F. E. Richart, R. D. Woods, J. R. Hall. Princ Neu-
rodyn Spartan 209(5019):137
31. Rothenburg L, Bathurst RJ (1992) Micromechanical features of
granular assemblies with planar elliptical particles. Géotechnique
42(1):79–95
32. Shen ZF, Jiang MJ (2016) Dem simulation of bonded granular
material. part ii: extension to grain-coating type methane hydrate
bearing sand. Comput Geotech 75:225–243
33. Shen ZF, Jiang MJ, Thornton C (2016) Dem simulation of bon-
ded granular material. part i: contact model and application to
cemented sand. Comput Geotech 75:192–209
34. Suzuki K, Yanagisawa E (2006) Principal deviatoric strain
increment ratios for sand having inherent transverse isotropy. Int
J Geomech 6(5):356–366
35. Thornton C, Zhang L (2010) On the evolution of stress and
microstructure during general 3D deviatoric straining of granular
media. Géotechnique 60(5):333–341
36. Ting JM, Meachum L, Rowell JD (1995) Effect of particle shape
on the strength and deformation mechanisms of ellipse-shaped
granular assemblages. Eng Comput 12(2):99–108
37. Vairaktaris E, Theocharis AI, Dafalias YF (2018) Correlation of
fabric tensors for granular materials using 2D DEM. Acta Geo-
tech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0755-1
123
Acta Geotechnica (2020) 15:1723–1744
38. Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils.
Soils Found 36(2):81–91
39. Wan RG, Guo PJ (1998) A simple constitutive model for granular
soils: modified stress-dilatancy approach. Comput Geotech
22(2):109–133
40. Wang K, Sun WC, Du Q (2019) A cooperative game for auto-
mated learning of elasto-plasticity knowledge graphs and models
with AI-guided experimentation. Comput Mech 64(2):467–499
41. Xiao SP, Belytschko T (2004) A bridging domain method for
coupling continua with molecular dynamics. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 193(17–20):1645–1669
42. Yang ZX, Wu Y (2016) Critical state for anisotropic granular
materials: a discrete element perspective. Int J Geomech
17(2):04016054
43. Zhang A, Jiang MJ, Thornton C (2020) A coupled CFD-DEM
method with moving mesh for simulating undrained triaxial tests
on granular soils. Granul Matter 22(1):1–13
44. Zhao JD, Guo N (2013) Unique critical state characteristics in
granular media considering fabric anisotropy. Geotechnique
63(8):695–704
45. Zhao X, Xu J, Zhang Y, Xiao Z (2018) Coupled DEM and FDM
algorithm for geotechnical analysis. Int J Geomech
18(6):04018040
46. Zhou W, Liu J, Ma G, Chang X (2017) Three-dimensional DEM
investigation of critical state and dilatancy behaviors of granular
materials. Acta Geotech 12(3):527–540
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.