11/24/2019

Behaviour of Soils &

Rocks (CIE4361)
Hardening Soil model

Dr. Ronald B.J. Brinkgreve

1

Learning objectives
• To formulate the Hardening Soil model, incorporating
shear and compression hardening
• To explain the meaning of the model parameters
• To show the response of the model under particular
stress-strain conditions
• To highlight the possibilities and limitations of the model

1
 11/24/2019

Characteristics
• Stress-dependent stiffness behaviour according to a
power law
• Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in axial compression
• Plastic strain by mobilising friction (shear hardening)
• Plastic strain by primary compression (compaction
hardening)
• Elastic unloading / reloading
• Failure behaviour according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
• Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall model only)

Hardening Soil model

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in (tri)axial loading:
(Duncan-Chang model) q

−𝜀 qult E0 Et
𝑞= qf
1/𝐸 − 𝜀 /𝑞

𝑞/𝐸
−𝜀 = qf=Rf qult
1 − 𝑞/𝑞 Eur

E0 = initial stiffness
Eur = unloading / reloading stiffness 1,f
-1
qult = asymptotic value of q 𝑞 /𝐸
Rf = ‘failure ratio’ (standard value 0.9) −𝜀 , =
1−𝑅 4

2
 11/24/2019

Hardening Soil model

Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in (tri)axial loading:
2𝑐 cos 𝜙 − 2𝜎′ sin 𝜙
𝑞 =𝑅 𝑞 =
1 − sin 𝜙

𝜎′
𝐸 =𝐸 pref = 100 kPa (1 Bar)
𝑝

𝜎′
𝐸 =𝐸 Unloading / reloading
𝑝
𝑑𝜎′ 𝑞
Tangential stiffness: 𝐸 = = 𝐸 1− 𝑞
𝑑𝜀
5

Shear hardening
Elastoplastic formulation of hyperbolic q-1 relationship:

Yield function: 𝑓 = 𝑓∗ − 𝛾 (non-associated)

1 𝑞 2𝑞
𝑓∗ = − 𝛾 = − 2𝜀 − 𝜀
𝐸 1 − 𝑞 ⁄𝑞 𝐸

𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝜎′ 𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝜎′
𝐸 =𝐸 𝐸 =𝐸
𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝑝 𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝑝

1 1
𝑓 = (𝜎 − 𝜎 ) + (𝜎 + 𝜎 ) sin 𝜙 ′ − 𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ (MC failure)
2 2

3
 11/24/2019

Shear hardening
Elastoplastic formulation of hyperbolic q-1 relationship:

Yield function: 𝑓 = 𝑓∗ − 𝛾 (non-associated)

1 𝑞 2𝑞
𝑓∗ = − 𝛾 = − 2𝜀 − 𝜀
𝐸 1 − 𝑞 ⁄𝑞 𝐸

𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ − 𝜎′ sin 𝜙 ′ 𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ − 𝜎′ sin 𝜙 ′

𝐸 =𝐸 𝐸 =𝐸
𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ − 𝑝 sin 𝜙 ′ 𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ − 𝑝 sin 𝜙 ′

1 1
𝑓 = (𝜎 − 𝜎 ) + (𝜎 + 𝜎 ) sin 𝜙 ′ − 𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′ (MC failure)
2 2

Shear hardening
Elastoplastic formulation of hyperbolic q-1 relationship:

Elastic
q MC failure line q MC failure line

plastic
3p,shear
m

2p,shear

1p,shear

p’ 
8

4
 11/24/2019

Shear hardening
Flow rule: 𝑑𝜀
,
= 𝑑𝛾 , sin 𝜓 with

sin 𝜙 − sin 𝜙
sin 𝜓 =
q 1 − sin 𝜙 sin 𝜙
MC failure line

sin 𝜙 ′ − sin 𝜓
sin 𝜙 =
3p,shear 1 − sin 𝜙 ′ sin 𝜓
m
𝜎′ − 𝜎′
2p,shear sin 𝜙 =
𝜎′ + 𝜎′ − 2𝑐 cos 𝜙 ′

1p,shear

p’
9

Shear hardening
Flow rule: 𝑑𝜀
,
= 𝑑𝛾 , sin 𝜓 with

sin 𝜙 − sin 𝜙
sin 𝜓 =
q 1 − sin 𝜙 sin 𝜙
MC failure line

sin 𝜙 ′ − sin 𝜓
m>0 sin 𝜙 =
cv 1 − sin 𝜙 ′ sin 𝜓
m
m<0
Note:
(in principle)
m < 0 is not taken
into account
p’
10

5
 11/24/2019

Compaction (Cap) hardening

Yield function (associated): q
MC failure line
𝑞
𝑓 = +𝑝 −𝑝
𝛼
Hardening rule:
Cap
, 𝛽 𝑝  pc
𝜀 = fcap = 0
1−𝑚 𝑝
pc p’
 is determined by K0nc
 is determined by Eoed c 1

𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝜎′
𝐸 =𝐸
𝑐 cot 𝜙 ′ − 𝑝
v
11

Compaction and Shear hardening

Cap

Cone

12

6
 11/24/2019

Compaction and Shear hardening

Relevance of Compaction (cap) hardening:
• Plastic compaction in primary compression
• Distinction between primary loading and unloading/reloading

Relevance of Friction (or Shear) hardening:

• Decreasing stiffness (increasing plastic shear strain) in deviatoric loading
(shearing, principal stress difference)

13

Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall)

Strain(path)-dependent elastic overlay model:

𝐺
𝐺 =
1 + 0.385𝛾/𝛾 .

𝐺
𝐺 = ≥𝐺
1 + 0.385𝛾/𝛾 .

Gt starts again at G0
after full strain reversal

14

7
 11/24/2019

Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall)

mob  Gt
Cyclic loading leads to
Hysteresis
G0
Gs
 Energy dissipation
-c
  Damping
+c

G0
G0
mob

15

Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall)

(Excel sheet)
G0 0.7

Gt Gs

Gur

16

8
 11/24/2019

Small-strain stiffness (HSsmall)

Relevance of Small-strain stiffness:
• Very stiff behaviour at very small strains (vibrations)
• Reduction of stiffness with increasing strain; restart after load reversal
• Hysteresis in cyclic loading:
– Energy dissipation
– Damping

Also relevant for applications like:

• Excavations (settlement trough behind retaining wall)
• Tunnels (settlement trough above tunnel)

17

Parameters of the HS(small) model

Parameters:
E50ref Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure
Eoedref Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref
Eurref Reference stiffness in unloading / reloading
G0ref Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall only)
0.7 Shear strain at which G has reduced to 72.2% (HSsmall)
m Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour
pref Reference pressure (100 kPa)
ur Poisson’s ratio in unloading / reloading
c’ Cohesion
’ Friction angle
 Dilatancy angle
Rf Failure ratio qf /qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
K0nc Stress ratio ’xx/’yy in 1D primary compression
18

9
 11/24/2019

Parameters of the HS(small) model

Stiffness parameters:
q
3=pref
qult c 1=pref 1
(, c) E50ref qf=Rf qult
Eurref

0.5 qf
1
Eoedref

1 v
Triaxial test Oedometer test 19

Parameters of the HS(small) model

Eoed [MPa] for NC-soils and ´ = 100 kPa

105
rock After Janbu (1963):
104 𝜎
Janbu: 𝐸 =𝐸 ⋅
𝑝
103
sandy gravel
More general:
102
sand 𝜎 +𝑎
𝐸 =𝐸 ⋅
10 𝑝 +𝑎
Norwegian
clays with a = c´ cot´
1
Mexico City Clay
0.1
0 50 100 20
porosity n [%]

10
 11/24/2019

Parameters of the HS(small) model

For normally-consolidated clays (m=1):

1
𝐸 ≈ 𝐸 Order of magnitude (very rough)
2

50000𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐸 ≈ Correlation with Ip for pref=100 kPa
𝐼

500𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐸 ≈ Correlation by Vermeer
𝑤 − 0.1

𝐸 =𝑝 ⁄𝜆∗ Relationship with Soft Soil model

21

Parameters of the HS(small) model

For sands (m0.5):

𝐸 ≈𝐸 Order of magnitude (Schanz, 1998)

𝐸 ≈ 𝑅𝐷 • 60𝑀𝑃𝑎 Correlation by Lengkeek for pref = 100 kPa

(Schanz, 1998)
22

11
 11/24/2019

Parameters of the HS(small) model

Eur , G0 and 0.7:

𝐸 = (3𝑡𝑜5)𝐸

𝐺 = (2.5𝑡𝑜10)𝐺

𝐸
𝐺 =
2(1 + 𝜈 )

𝛾 . = (1𝑡𝑜2) ⋅ 10

(Vucetic & Dobry, 1991)

23

Initial conditions
Initial isotropic pre-consolidation stress pc based on vertical pre-c stress c:

’yy0 c ’yy0 c
Over-consolidation ratio Pre-Overburden Pressure
OCR = c /’yy0 POP = c - ’yy0
24

12
 11/24/2019

Initial conditions
Initial stresses:
’yy
’yy0 follows from soil weight and
Prestress pore pressure
’c
Initial ’xx0 = K0 ’yy0
CAP
POP 1
 ur 𝐾 𝜎′ + 𝑃𝑂𝑃 −
𝜈
𝑃𝑂𝑃
1 ur 1−𝜈
’yy0 𝐾 =
Initial stress 𝜎′
1
𝜈
K0nc 𝐾 = 𝑂𝐶𝑅𝐾 − 𝑂𝐶𝑅 − 1
1−𝜈

’xx0 ’xx
25

Initial conditions
Initial stresses:

q
MC failure line

K0nc line
Output:
 pc Cap 𝑝
′𝑂𝐶𝑅′ = 𝑂𝐶𝑅 =
𝑝
p’0, q0
𝑝 = 𝑝 + 𝑞 /𝛼
peq0 pc,0 p
26

13
 11/24/2019

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Parameters HS: Parameters MC:

E50ref 25000 kPa E 25000 kPa

Eoedref 25000 kPa  0.30
Eurref 75000 kPa c’ 0.1 kPa
pref 100 kPa ’ 35°
m 0.5  5°
ur 0.2
c’ 0.1 kPa
’ 35°
 5°
Rf 0.9
K0nc 0.426
27

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Isotropic compression test:
Custom

1000 MC
HS.vlt
900

800

700
p' [kN/m²]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
v
28

14
 11/24/2019

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Drained triaxial test at 3 = 100 kPa:
E1DS

MC
HS.vlt

200
| 1 -  | [kN/m²]
3

100

0
0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08
1
29

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Drained triaxial test at 3 = 100 kPa:

Custom
0.009 MC
HS.vlt
0.006

0.003
v


-0.003

0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08

1
30

15
 11/24/2019

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Undrained triaxial test at 3 = 100 kPa:
E1DS
500
MC
HS.vlt

400
| 1 -  | [kN/m²]

300
3

200

100

0
0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08
1
31

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Drained and undrained triaxial test at 3 = 100 kPa:
E1DS
500
MC(u)
HS(u).vlt
MC.vlt
400 HS.vlt
| 1 -  | [kN/m²]

300
3

200

100

0
0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08
1
32

16
 11/24/2019

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

Drained and undrained triaxial test at 3 = 100 kPa:
PQ
500
MC(u)
HS(u).vlt
MC.vlt
400 HS.vlt

300
q [kN/m²]

200

100

0
0 -100 -200 -300
p' [kN/m²] 33

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):
Custom

1000 MC
HS.vlt
900

800

700
' 1 [kN/m²]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
1
34

17
 11/24/2019

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

S3S1
-1100

One-dimensional MC
HS.vlt
-1000

compression test
(oedometer):
-900

-800

-700

' 1 [kN/m²]
-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0
0 -200 -400
' 3 [kN/m²]
35

HS vs. MC in standard lab tests

One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):
Stress state after unloading
HS MC

36

18
 11/24/2019

Hardening Soil model

Possibilities and advantages compared to MC:

• Better non-linear formulation of soil behaviour in general (both soft soils

and harder types of soil)
• Distinction between primary loading and unloading / reloading
• Memory of preconsolidation stress
• Different stiffnesses for different stress paths based on standard tests
• Well suited for unloading situations with simultaneous deviatoric loading
(excavations)
• Large stiffness at small strain levels (vibrations) (HSsmall only)

37

Hardening Soil model

Limitations and disadvantages:

• No peak strength and softening (immediate residual strength)

• No accumulation of strain or pore pressure in cyclic loading
• No secondary compression (Creep)
• No anisotropy
• E50 / Eoed > 2 difficult to input

38

19
 11/24/2019

References
• Benz T (2007). Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. PhD thesis.
Stuttgart University.
• Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970). Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. ASCE J. of the
Soil Mech. and Found. Div. 96, 1629-1653.
• Kondner RL (1963). Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils. ASCE J. of the Soil
Mech. and Found. Div. 89, 115-143.
• Lengkeek HJ (2003). Estimation of sand stiffness parameters from cone resistance. Plaxis
Bulletin No. 13, 15-19.
• Rowe, P. W. (1962). The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of
particles in contact. Proc. Roy. Soc., London, A269, 500-527.
• Schanz T (1998). Zur modellierung des mechanishen verhaltens von reibungsmaterialen.
Habilitation. Stuttgart University.
• Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG (1999). The Hardening Soil model: Formulation and
verification. In: Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics – 10 years of PLAXIS. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 281-296.
• Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. ASCE J. of
Geotechnical Engineering 117 (1), 89-107.

39

20