Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Meshfree modeling of cyclic behavior of sands within large strain T

Generalized Plasticity Framework
Pedro Navas , Diego Manzanal, Miguel Martín Stickle, Manuel Pastor, Miguel Molinos
⁎

ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politéctnica de Madrid, c. Prof. Aranguren 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this publication the u w finite strain formulation is enhanced with a Generalized Plasticity model for sands.
Generalized plasticity The new model is numerically solved using an Optimal Transportation Meshfree approach that is best suited for
u w formulation numerical analysis at finite strains. This new model allows to capture the hydro-mechanical response under large
Optimal transportation Meshfree deformations of a saturated sand like soils where acceleration of water with respect the solid skeleton is not
Soil dynamics
negligible. To the authors’ knowledge, no attempt has been previously devoted to include in the u w finite
Cyclic
strain approach an elastoplastic behavior from the Generalized Plasticity theory. In order to assess the validity of
the proposed model, four standard laboratory tests are numerically reproduced: i) an undrained triaxial test
under monotonic loading, ii) a triaxial consolidation test under monotonic loading with drained boundary
conditions, iii) an undrained cyclic triaxial test and iv) a drained cyclic triaxial test. The observed results are
qualitatively correct and in agreement with numerical solutions previously obtained by other researchers and
with related experimental data.

1. Introduction
Generalized Plasticity Theory introduced by Mroz and Zienkiewicz
[1] provides a general framework to develop hierarchical models to
describe the material behavior under monotonic and cyclic loading. The
first generalized plasticity model was proposed by Pastor, Zienkiewicz
and Chan in 1990 [2] without requiring an explicit definition of yield
and plastic potential surfaces, nor consistency conditions in order to
determine plastic modulus. Complex monotonic and cyclic loading
paths for granular materials can be simulated within the Generalized
Plasticity Framework as: static and cyclic liquefaction, cyclic mobility
and densification. Several contributions were made in order to improve
the original model in different ways. It is worth mentioning works on
anisotropic soils (Pastor et al. [3]), degradation phenomena (Fernandez
Merodo et al. [4]), unsaturated soils (Bolzon et al. [5], Tamagnini and
Pastor [6]) and more recently the implicit integration of the plastic
state [7], the unified approach based on state parameter for saturated
[8] and unsaturated [9] soils and crushable granular materials (Ja-
vanmardi et al. [10], Manzanal et al. [11,12]).
These Generalized Plasticity models have been implemented within
the u pw formulation in Finite Element codes like GeHoMadrid
(Fernandez Merodo et al. [4]) and used to study several boundary value
problems in small strain setting as marine foundation (Mira et al. [13],
Stickle et al. [14]), slope stability (Pastor et al. [15,16]) and dynamic
problems (López-Querol et al. [17], Manzanal et al. [18]).
Catastrophic failure of geostructures involve large masses of soils
which fluidize and develop large deformations (Seed et al. [19], Olson
and Stark [20], Pastor et al. [15]). Most of them involve saturated sands
or silty sands subjected to a static loading or cyclic loading such as
earthquake-induced loading. It is well known that the stress–strain
behavior of granular soils is different depending on initial conditions:
relative density and confinement pressure; velocity and type of load:
static, cyclic or dynamic; and conditions of drainage: drained, partially
drained or undrained. Drainage conditions are conditioned by the re-
lative permeability of soils and their variation during post failure. When
permeability tends to be high, the relative movement of the water and
solid phase would take relevance such as dynamic problem with a high
frequency loading (López-Querol et al. [17]) or diffuse failures of loose
granular materials with high mobility (Pastor et al. [15], Stickle et al.
[14]).
Thus, the employment of the traditional u pw formulation of the
governing equations, even in the dynamic form, is not sufficient the
hydro-mechanical response in saturated soils requiring the complete
formulation u w [21]. Zienkiewicz et al. [22] made an assessment of
the suitability of the usage of the complete formulation depending on
the frequency of the loading and the permeability. The dynamic

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pedro.navas@upm.es (P. Navas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103538
Received 29 October 2019; Received in revised form 15 January 2020; Accepted 9 March 2020
Available online 19 March 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

consolidation problems studied in that research were analyzed by 1 n n

1
Q= + .
Navas et al. [23,24] in the elastic range and also by López-Querol et al. Ks Kw (5)
[17] within the Generalized Plasticity model for small strains. When a
soil element is deformed up to 3% or more, the small strain approach In all the cases considered in this paper, the employment of
lacks of non linear behavior related with finite strains.Taking into ac- Kw = 1e 4 MPa, Ks = 1e36 MPa, s = 2600 kg/m3 and s = 1000 kg/m3
count that such range of deformations is not unusual in practical geo- has been considered. Eq. (4) can be integrated over time to obtain the
technical engineering, the extension of the u w formulation to a large pore pressure as
deformation framework seems to be required. Although this u w fi- pw = Q [div(u) + div(w )] + pw0 , (6)
nite strain approach has been considered in previous researches
[25,26], to the authors’ knowledge, no attempt has been devoted to where pw0 is the initial pore pressure.
include an elastoplastic behavior from the Generalized Plasticity Lewis and Schrefler [27] also provide the linear momentum balance
theory, suitable for modeling sands under both monotonic and dynamic equation for the multiphase system under saturated conditions as the
loads. This is the main contribution of the present work. The new model summation of the dynamic equations for the individual constituents
is numerically solved using an Optimal Transportation Meshfree ap- relative to the solid.
proach that is known to provide excellent results when there are large div u¨ ww
¨ + g = 0. (7)
deformations.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 the methodology is where, taking into account Terzaghi’s effective stress theory [29], the
presented, being divided in three subsections where the u w for- total Cauchy stress tensor, can be written in terms of the effective
mulation, the time integration scheme and the spatial discretization. In stress, , and the pore pressure, pw , as follows:
Section 3 the constitutive model is described; the validation of the = + pw I, (8)
numerical approach is presented in Section 4, being analyzed the
monotonic compressive triaxial sand behavior under drained and un- where I is the second order unit tensor.
drained boundary conditions. The performance of the implementation Finally, the third Biot’s equation is derived from the general form of
on cyclic behavior is analyzed in Section 5 for both conditions also. Darcy’s law for any fluid phase:
Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 6. w
¨
grad pw µ w k 1w + g u¨ = 0.
w
n (9)
2. Governing equations, weak form and discretization procedures
where ü denotes the solid phase acceleration, w ¨ / n is the relative ac-
celeration of the fluid respect to the solid phase, g represents the ex-
2.1. The u w formulation
ternal acceleration vector, µ w denotes the dynamic viscosity of the
water and k is the intrinsic permeability tensor, which becomes a unit
The main idea of this formulation is the employment of the dis-
tensor multiplied by the scalar k, intrinsic permeability, when isotropic
placement of the solid and the relative displacement of the fluid as
permeability is assumed.
nodal variables. In the literature [27] uws , the relative motion of the
Both linear momentum balance equations of the mixture and the
fluid with respect to the solid, is defined as (U u) , where u and U
fluid were presented by Zienkiewicz et al. [28] with the convective
respectively stand for displacement vectors of the solid skeleton and the
terms, which can be neglected in the present research as the vorticity is
absolute displacement of the fluid phase. The rearrangement of these
relatively small compared to the rest of the terms.
two gives us the relative displacement of the fluid phase, w , with re-
spect to the solid skeleton through the porosity as follows [17],
2.2. Weak form for the u w formulation
w = n (U u ). (1)
The weak form of the system equations for the u w formulation is
being the porosity, n calculated as
obtained applying the principle of virtual displacements to the linear
Vh momentum equation of both the solid and fluid phases, Eqs. (7) and (9).
n= ,
Vh + Vs (2) Taking u and w as the virtual displacement vector for the solid
where Vh and Vs are the volumes of the voids and solid grains respec- and fluid phase respectively, the weak form of the linear momentum
tively. Note that in the current work, totally saturated porous medium balance equations, once the definition of the pore pressure, pw , of the
is assumed, i.e., Vh coincides with the water volume, which results in a Eq. (6) is introduced in both Eqs. (7) and (9) and Green’s Theorem is
saturation degree, Sw , equal to 1 [27]. Thus, similarly, the mixture applied, yields:
density, , is derived from the ones of the fluid and solid particles, w : grad ( u) dv
B
and s , as follows:
B
Q div (u) I : grad ( u ) dv B
Q div (w ) I : grad ( u ) dv
= (1 n) + n w. (3) + [ u¨ ¨ + g ]· u dv +
ww t · u ds = 0. (10)
s
B B
The mass balance equation of the liquid water phase in a isothermal µw
totally saturated media, being compressible water and soil grains and B
Q div (u ) div ( w ) dv B
Q div (w ) div ( w ) dv B k
w · w dv
constant the water density, yields [27] ¨
w w
· w dv +
B n B w (g u¨)· w dv B
tw· w ds = 0.
pw (11)
+ divu + divw = 0.
Q (4)
where B is the volume of the spatial domain and B the boundary where
where u and w represent the velocity of the solid phase and the relative the traction t and tw , both traction of the solid and fluid phase, are
velocity of the fluid respectively, taking into account that is the applied.
material time derivative of a general magnitude with respect to the
solid; Q represents the volumetric compressibility of the mixture, taking 2.3. Implicit time integration scheme: Newton–Raphson algorithm
into account that the solid grains are much less compressible than the
porous skeleton, is expressed in terms of the bulk modulus of the solid In the u w formulation each node contains both solid and fluid
grains, Ks , and the compressive modulus of the fluid phase (water), Kw , degrees of freedom, u and w , whereas the pore pressure, pw is not
[28] i.e., considered as a degree of freedom, being calculated at the material

2
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

point employing Eq. (6), in contrast with the more traditional for- B
: grad ( u ) dv B
Q div (u) div ( u) dv
mulation, where is considered directly as an additional nodal unknown. Q div (w ) div ( u ) dv [ u+
1 w w ]· u dv
On the one hand, considering both the classic approach u pw and the B B

u w , the latter presents the advantage of much simpler imposition of + B

g· u dv + 8 B
t · u ds = 0 (18)
the impervious boundary conditions, and the disadvantage of providing
an initial value for w, when an initial field of pw is given. The required B
Q div (u ) div ( w ) dv B
Q div (w ) div ( w ) dv
calculation is further explained in Appendix A. 4
µw
w· w dv 1
w
w· w dv
B k B n
In this study, we use axisymmetric 2D representations for classical
1 w u · w dv + w g · w dv
triaxial tests. The nodal vectors of unknown can be expressed as: B B

B
tw· w ds = 0. (19)
u = [ux uy wx wy ]T .
The results of the linearization process for Eqs. (18) and (19) are given
After assembling the elementary matrices, the final system of equations in Eqs. (B.1) and (B.2) respectively in Appendix B. More details of the
can be written as linearization process are given in [26].
Rk + 1 + C uk + 1 + M u¨ k + 1 = Pk + 1, (12)
2.4. A note on spatial discretization
where R, C and M respectively denote the internal forces vector and
damping and mass matrices, whereas P is the external forces vector, The shape function employed is based on the proposed by Arroyo
which contains both gravity acceleration and external nodal forces. and Ortiz [32], who defined exponential functions based on the prin-
k + 1 represents the current step. ciple of the local maximum entropy (LME). For a node a, it reads,
In order to solve Eq. (12) in an implicit way, a traditional Newmark exp[ x x a 2 + ·(x x a)]
time integration scheme with = 0.6 and = 0.325 (suitable for Na (x) = ,
Z (x, (x)) (20)
dynamic problems [30]) is employed. Inserting this scheme into Eq.
(12), the equations for the unknowns can be re-written as: where
Nb
Gk + 1=M [ 1 uk + 1 2 uk 3u ¨ k]
Z x, = exp[ x x a 2 + ·(x x a)].
+C [ 4 uk + 1 + 5 uk + 6 u¨ k ]
a=1 (21)
+Rk + 1 Pk Pk + 1 = 0 , (13)
Nb represents the neighborhood size. The parameter defines the shape
or in a compact form: of the neighborhood and (x) comes from the minimization of the
function g ( ) = logZ (x, ) to guarantee the maximum entropy. The
G ( , ) = 0, (14)
first derivatives of the shape function are then obtained from differ-
u, w ]T
entiating the shape function itself to get the Hessian matrix J in the
where =[ is the deformation mapping following expression:
and =[ u, w]T , u = [ u, w]T .
Na = Na J 1 (x x a). (22)
where the -parameters are listed in Table 1 similarly to the ones
A modified Nelder-Mead algorithm developed by Navas et al. [33] is
proposed by Wriggers [31]. These coefficients can be easily extended to
used for the minimization process in the current work.
any other time integration schemes.
According to Wriggers [31], to solve the above non-linear equa-
3. A Generalized Plasticity model for sands in a finite strain
tions, any Newton method can be cast, after the linearization of , as:
setting
G ( , )ik + 1 + DG ( , )ik + 1· uk +i +11 0, (15)
As it was mentioned above, the main contribution of the present
where is the already linearized deformation mapping. Thus, the work is to adjust for the first time a Generalized Plasticity constitutive
iterative scheme which results, taking into account the matrices that are model within a large deformation framework. The main strain mea-
involved in our problem, can be written as: surements are the deformation gradient tensor F and F w of the solid
skeleton and pore fluid, respectively, calculated in an incremental way
[ 1M + 4C + Kki + 1 ] uki++11 = G (uki + 1), (16) thanks to the updated lagrangian approach [34]. For both phases, the
increments of the deformation gradient tensor are calculated by means
where uki++11 = uki + 1 + uki++11. of the gradient of the Local Max-Ent shape functions, Eq. (22), as fol-
lows:
where K is the tangential stiffness matrix:
Nb
R Fk + 1 = I + uka+ 1 N a (xkp),
K (uki + 1) = Kki + 1 = . a=1 (23)
u uki + 1 (17)
Nb
and i depicts the iteration index. The iteration finishes when Gki + 1 is Fkw+ 1 = I + wka+ 1 N a (xkp)
smaller than a given tolerance. a=1 (24)
After applying the integration in time, Eqs. (10) and (11) are written
where the superscript p represents the material point where is calcu-
at time k + 1 and result on:
lated and Nb the neighbor nodes of this material point. The deformation
gradient can be calculated as:
Table 1
The -parameters of the Newmark scheme. Fk + 1 = Fk + 1Fk (25)

1 =
1
2 =
1
3 =
1
1 where k and k + 1 refer to the previous and the current step, respec-
t2 t 2
tively.
4 =
t 5 =1
6 = 1 ( 2 ) t The methodology that is employed in this research is that proposed
by Navas et al. [26] for the pore pressure and stress update. Therefore,

3
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

following the work of Cuitiño and Ortiz [35], the small strain measures while J2 and J3 are the second and third invariant of the deviatoric
= 2 logb and w = 2 logbw are considered for each phase, where Kirchhoff stress tensor s = pI . The negative sign in Eq. (34) stands
1 1

b = FFT and bw = F wF wT are the left Cauchy-Green strain tensors for
the solid skeleton and pore fluid, respectively.
Regarding the pore pressure, which comes from the mass con-
servation equation, Eq. (6), it is calculated as:
pw = Q (divu + divw ) (26)
where the divergences of the displacements of both phases can be ex-
pressed as:
1 2 J2 3/2
div(u ) = tr( ) = tr logb ,
2 (27)
1 strain tensor dev , respectively. Negative sign in Eq. (37) stands for po-
div(w ) = tr( w ) = tr logbw .
2 (28)
The stress state update of the solid skeleton through a generalized
plasticity model within a finite strain setting is clarify hereafter.
In order to develop a thermodynamically consistent finite de-
formation constitutive relation in the current configuration [36], the
effective Kirchhoff stress tensor is chosen as stress measure, as is the
work-conjugate of the elastic left Cauchy-Green strain tensor be . The
effective Kirchhoff stress tensor is defined as =J where
J = det (F) while is the effective Cauchy stress tensor. Moreover, the
small strain increment that induces the stress state update is defined by
for positive values of p in compression. The strain invariants v , s,
are defined by
= tr ( ) (37)
v
2
s = dev
3 (38)
1 3 3 J3
= sin
(39)
where J2 and J3 denote the second and third invariants of deviatoric
sitive values of v in compression. However, the sign of s is closely
related to the orientation in the triaxial space, i.e., the Lode’s angle of
the strain path: if sin is lower than 0, we consider the load in tension
and the sign of s negative, meanwhile s is positive on any other si-
tuation. Working in the triaxial space is an aspect that allows as to
reduce the computational effort since only three variables define the
state of the material point.
The isotropic assumption also allows to define a two invariant
stored energy function ( ve, se) . In this work, the hyperelastic HAR
model [37] has been employed, with the reduced version (nHAR = 1).
This free Energy function is represented by the following equation:

1 pa 3G0 K 0 ( se )2
= logbk + 1 logbk ( ve, e
s) = ·exp K 0· e
v +
2 (29) K0 2 (40)

The update driven by from ( k , kp) to ( k + 1, kp+ 1) can be per- Invariants p and q can be calculated from this function by differ-
formed within the standard generalized plasticity framework [7] by the entiation with respect to the strain invariants ve and se , i.e., p = e and
v
following incremental constitutive equations: q = e . Moreover, the effective Kirchhoff stress tensor and the elastic
s
= e + p (30) tangent tensor D e can be written as
p = ng (31) 2
=pI+ qn
3 (41)
n: De :
=
HL / U + n: D e : n g (32) De = De11 I I+ 2
De12 I ^ +
n 2 ^
De21 n I
3 3
2 q q
+ 2
M1 + 2 2
De22 ^
n ^
n
= , De = e e
e e2 (33) 3 dev 3 3 dev
(42)
where n and ng are the loading and plastic flow tensor directions, re- where I is the second order identity tensor and n is the normalized
spectively, HL / U are the scalar functions defined as the plastic moduli e
deviatoric elastic strain tensor, i.e., n = dev
. Moreover, the compo-
for loading and unloading, is a free energy function while is the
e
dev
2
effective Kirchhoff stress tensor and D e is the elastic tangent tensor. An nents Dije appearing in (42) are defined as Dije = e e with
appropriate selection of n, ng , HL / U and will lead to different models
i j
{i , j} = {1, 2} = {v, s} , while M1 is defined by:
within the generalized plasticity framework.
Once the plastic strain increment p is computed by (31), then the 1
M1 = 1 (I I)
free energy function is updated with the new elastic small strain ke+ 1, 3 (43)
which is computed by (30). Then, by differentiation of the free energy where 1 is the fourth order identity tensor.
function, the current effective stress k + 1 is obtained. Finally, as the Once more by the isotropic assumption, the loading direction n and
internal forces in (18) are computed through the effective Cauchy stress the plastic flow tensor direction ng are defined in the Kirchhoff stress
tensor, this one is computed by k + 1 = J k + 1.
1
invariant space p , q, by the expressions:
Under the assumption of frame indifference and isotropy, the con-
n = (n p, nq, n )T (44)
stitutive equation can be written in the Generalized Plasticity frame-
work in terms of the effective Kirchhoff stress tensor invariants p , q, ng, L = (ngp, L, ngq, ng )T (45)
and the work-conjugate strain invariants v , s, . These invariants are
defined in the usual way as ng, U = (ngp, U , ngq, ng )T (46)
1
p = I1
(34) where the components are described in Table 2.
3
Similar expressions are derived for dg and df . The former is obtained
q = (3J2 )1/2 (35) from laboratory tests as a function of dilatancy, represented by
dg = (1 + g )(Mg ) and, df has a similar expression, represented by
1 1 3 3 J3 df = (1 + f )(Mf ) . The parameter Mg is the slope of the critical state
= sin
3 2 J23/2 (36) lines in the q-p plane. Mf is a parameter related to Mg through the re-
lative density Dr = Mf / Mg . g and f are model parameters. depicts
where I1 is the first invariant of the effective Kirchhoff stress tensor , the current relation between q/p . As we see in Table 2, the deviatoric

4
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

Table 2 where:
ng and n components.

np =
df
ngp,L =
dg f (
= 1+
1
f )M f

{ ( ) }
1 + d2 1 + dg2 1/ g
f g
=p 1
ngp,U = ngp, L 1+ g Mg
(50)
±1 ±1
nq = ngq =
1 + d2
f 1 + dg2 max is the maximum value of along the computation and is the
qMf cos3 qMg cos3 cumulative deviatoric plastic strain, |d sp|. On the other hand, if the
n = ng = Mg
2 1 + d2
f 2 1 + dg2 process lies on the unloading, HU depends on the relation , being u
u
the value of in the turning point (loading to unloading) as follows:

component can take positive or negative sign, which depends on the

sign of the invariant q, if it is in extension (negative) or compression
HU = HU 0 ( )
Mg
u
u
if
Mg
u
>1

(positive).
Mg
HU = HU 0 if 1
On the other hand, the plastic moduli, HL / U , are defined in a dif- u (51)
ferent way depending on the loading or unloading conditions. For
loading HL the following applies: 4. Numerical Application: triaxial soil testing
H = p H0 Hf (Hv + Hs ) HDM (47)
We will validate the proposed formulation by using a series of
where H0 is a material parameter that Schrefler and coworkers [38] benchmark tests consisting of (i) a consolidated undrained triaxial
related to the traditional slopes of the plastic and elastic curves in the compression test, (ii) a consolidation test under different loading rates,
p e curve: and (iii) two cyclic tests. The methodology we propose is based on a
formulation allowing for large relative displacements between soil and
1 + e0 1
H0 = = water, where the rate at which load is applied plays a paramount role.
k k (48)
We will run our model and compare the results obtained in computa-
The rest of the parameters are defined as: tions with those of classical triaxial tests. These results are presented
next.
( )
4
Hf = 1
f
4.1. Monotonic consolidated triaxial compression test: undrained boundary
Hv = (1 / Mg ) conditions
Hs = 0 1exp( 0 )
HDM = ( ) max DM
(49)
A triaxial test with dynamic conditions is proposed since there are
several results of this kind of test in literature [2,28]. In Fig. 1 a scheme

Fig. 1. Scheme of the geometry employed in modeling the triaxial test.

5
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

Table 3 p p
G = Geso , K = K evo
Material properties employed in the different studied problems. f = g = 0.45 p0 p0
4.1 A 4.1 B 4.1 C 4.1 D 4.2-4.3 5.1-1 5.1-2 5.2
being Geso and K evo two constants of the material. Nevertheless, in the
K 0 [MPa] 35 35 35 35 35 35 65 40 proposed research the elastic law is based on the one presented by
G0 [MPa] 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 65 52.5 30 16 Houlsby et al. [37], employing the elastic strain energy function de-
Mf 0.4 0.545 0.57 0.72 0.5 0.4 0.71 0.6 picted in Eq. (40). Since the model was firstly calibrated by Pastor and
Mg 1.5 1.32 1.12 1.03 1.03 1.5 1.5 1.4 coworkers, obviously the agreement is closer in that research although
H0 350 350 350 350 350 350 800 800 the ones calculated in this research are closely related.
0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.8 5.0
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.16 0.2
4.2. Consolidation test
1
– – – – – 4 1 1
Hu0 – – – – – 600 250 2000
u – – – – – 2 5 2 Once the behavior of the constitutive model implemented is vali-
dated, it is time to verify the performance of the Biot’s formulation
when the displacement of the water comes into place. Thus, an isotropic
of this test is presented. Because of the symmetry only one quarter of its consolidation test, with the geometry proposed in Fig. 1, is simulated in
geometry can be modeled. Thus, boundaries 1 and 2 have to constraint order to check the consolidation time. A permeability of 1e-6 m/s and a
the displacement of the solid and fluid in the perpendicular direction. porosity of 0.43 are employed within this simulation. A pressure of
Boundary 3 is free to move, although the fluid cannot dissipate in that 200 kPa is applied to the soil during 0.05 s, point that we consider the
boundary since there is a membrane to avoid it. consolidation starts. The settlement is obtained from the beginning of
Boundary 4 will change depending on the problem to be modeled. the process. The first second of the simulation is presented in Fig. 3 for
About the soil, either the displacement can be imposed or the pressure, both pore pressure and settlement.
if we want to reach a desired value of the q. On the other hand, the If a saturated specimen under oedometer conditions is loaded with a
impermeability of this boundary will be given due to the drained or strain rate smaller than
undrained condition of the reproduced test. All simulations have been H
f
carried out with a discretization of 66 nodes and 200 material points. vload =
12.7 t100 (52)
The first test to validate is an undrained monotonic triaxial test. The
material employed within these tests was a sand studied by Castro [39] no excess pore pressures are developed during the laboratory test [40]
in 1969 that, afterwards, was calibrated for the Generalized Plasticity and, therefore, the experiment can be considered as drained.
model [2,28]. The parameters that were calibrated are presented in In (52) f H is a measurement of the shortening of the specimen and
Table 3. Four different sands are studied, depending on the density t100 is the consolidation time. Since 100% is not possible to be reached, a
state. 95% of the dissipation of the pore pressure has been considered, which
In this validation test boundary 4 is impermeable, what makes the in Fig. 3 is observed to be around 0.48 s. Since the shortening is
experiment undrained. The soil is deformed until around 8%, which can 0.08 mm, the velocity in which the whole specimen is able to dissipate
be considered a considerable deformable range. In Fig. 2 the obtained all the excess pore water pressure has to be slower than 0.013 mm/s.
results are depicted. The left image shows the comparison between the
theoretical results proposed by Pastor et al. [2] for the different results 4.3. Monotonic consolidated triaxial compression test: drained boundary
of the deviatoric stress against the ones obtained with the proposed conditions
methodology, observing very good agreement for the four studied soils.
This agreement is also achieved in the stress paths (right column). The The last monotonic test goes deeper in the drained conditions. Once
experimental results obtained by Castro [39] are also plotted. the velocity to get drained conditions is calculated, a drained triaxial
The results provided by our research does not reproduce identically test with the same soil parameters of the previous section is simulated.
the ones presented in the research of Pastor et al. [2]. However, there is The boundary 4 of Fig. 1 in this case allows the water outlet. Thus, the
an important difference with the methodology presented in this paper point to study if the drainage is reached if a loading rate of 0.013 mm/s
since the model proposed in that research was developed within a hy- is employed will be the one farther than the boundary 4 , i.e. point C of
poelastic law, where the shear and bulk moduli are calculated from the Fig. 1. The obtained stress path in that point is depicted in Fig. 4. We
variation or the pressure, p , against the initial one, p0 , through: can see that, in this point, an slope 3:1, typical of drained triaxial tests,

Fig. 2. Comparison between the experimental results obtained by Castro [39] of the undrained triaxial test for the 4 different studied soils and the ones obtained by
Pastor et al. [2] and with the proposed methodology: stress–strain (left) and stress path (right).

6
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

Fig. 3. Consolidation results: a) Pore pressure, b) Settlement.

Fig. 4. Effect of the loading rate on consolidated compressive triaxial stress

path with drained boundary conditions.

is obtained for that velocity, corroborating the hypothesis of Eq. (52). Fig. 6. Pore pressure at point C when 1.5% of the strain is reached for different
Some faster loading velocities are studied also. The stress paths for loading rates.
that loading rates cover a range between the slope 3:1 and the stress
path of 10 mm/s. We have seen the stress path is related to the relative
total drainage in point A. The reason is the excess of pore water pres-
density, which is function of the relationship Mf /Mg . This ratio, for the
sure generated when the loading velocity is high. In Fig. 5 the dis-
studied soil, is 0.49, which is similar to ratio of soil C of Section 4.1.
tribution of pore pressure along the specimen when the 1.5% of the
Thus, the stress path for undrained conditions is similar, what makes us
strain is reached is depicted also.
think that, for 10 mm/s (or faster) in the middle of the specimen un-
Finally, the pore pressure generated depending on the loading rate
drained conditions are obtained. For different locations, different paths
is assessed. In Fig. 6 the pore pressure at point C when 1.5% of the
are obtained. In Fig. 5, the stress paths of locations A, B and C are
strain is reached for different loading rates is plotted. Obviously, the
plotted. The closer is the boundary 4 , the more drained is the behavior
dissipation is low when the loading rate increases.
and the stress path tends to seek the slope 3:1. However, there is not

Fig. 5. a) Stress path of the monotonic triaxial tests under drained conditions for a loading rate of 10 mm/s at three different locations, b) Pore pressure distribution
at 1.5% of axial strain and location of different control locations.

7
P. Navas, et al.
Fig. 7. Results of the cyclic triaxial tests under undrained conditions: compression.
5. Numerical application: Cyclic behavior
The Generalized Plasticity model is well-known in the modeling of
cyclic behavior since, explicitly, the stress state is incorporated to
normal tensor direction n and ng . In the proposed methodology, the
trend is captured in advance by the angle of the strain state. The good
performance of the proposed methodology is verified following with the
simulated drained and undrained cyclic triaxial tests.
5.1. Undrained conditions
This test is simulated with the same Dirichlet boundary conditions
that the ones employed in Section 4.1. Two loading conditions are
studied, being those that were previously studied theoretically by
Pastor et al. [2].
The first only lies on the compression range, studying the loa-
ding–unloading cycle. The soil parameters are presented in Table 3,
column 5.1–1. The results fit very well with the proposed in the studied
bibliography. They can be observed in Fig. 7.
The problem shows that, after four cycles, the pore pressure increase
Fig. 8 and the soil loses stability and the material liquefy induced by the
cyclic loading. Thus, the strain increases dramatically and there is a
reduction of the effective pressure.
On the other hand, in the second test the whole compression and
extension cycle is assessed, i.e. compression loading, compression un-
loading, tension loading, tension unloading. A different soil from the
previous test is employed, being the parameters shown in Table 3,
column 5.1–2. The obtained stress path is plotted in Fig. 9.B, which is
equivalent to the obtained by Pastor et al. [2]. This path is obtained
Fig. 8. Pore water pressure results of the cyclic triaxial tests under undrained
conditions: compression.
8
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538
independently to the loading rate. However, the stress-deformation
curve is dependent on the loading rate, as it is observed in Fig. 9.A. In
dashed line it is plotted the curve obtained by increasing the angular
frequency. The reason can be that the excess pore water pressure gen-
erated in the final cycles, when the phenomena is quick, cannot be
stabilized and provoke a faster liquefaction of the material that enlarges
the strain.
5.2. Drained conditions
The typical behavior that is seen when drained conditions are im-
posed in the triaxial test shows a densification. However, the proposed
material model is unable to reproduce this behavior without multi-
plying to H, Eq. (47), the term Hd , a densification measurement, which
is calculated as follows:
Hd = exp( d
p
v) (53)
where is the cumulative volumetric plastic strain and d is a material
p
v
parameter, which is employed in this research as 400. The higher is this
parameter, the quicker the densification is obtained. This technique was
proposed by Zienkiewicz and coworkers [28].
The test consist of varying the deviatoric load between 300 kPa and
−150 kPa, what gives us a variation of = p /q , of around 0.2 and
−0.2. The employed parameters are given in Table 3, last column. In
Fig. 10 the results with and without the employment of the densifica-
tion parameter, which is equivalent to employ d = 0 , are depicted. The
goal is the reproduction of the typical behavior shown in drained sands,
already presented by Bahda [41] and Zienkiewicz and coworkers [28].
In the first raw of the Fig. 10 the results without densification are
presented. It can be seen how there is an increasing of the volumetric
strain with the increasing of the numbers of cycles of loading. However,
the increment of volumetric strain is equal in every cycle, not observing
any hardening of the material, which is not the sought behavior. Thus,
in the second raw, we can observe how the increment of v is reduced in
every cycle, since while the vp increases, the value of H and, therefore,
the stiffness of the material, grows. After the same number of cycles, a
lower value of v is obtained.
6. Conclusions
An interesting methodology to model the dynamic behavior of sa-
turated sands within large deformation is proposed in this paper.
Several tools are collected in order to reach the sought behavior of the
soil. First of all, the complete u w large strain formulation developed
within an implicit time integration scheme helps us to model the dy-
namic behavior of saturated sands. Previously, this methodology was
proposed with the Optimal Transportation Meshfree with excellent re-
sults [26]. Finally, the Generalized Plasticity is well-known to capture
P. Navas, et al.
Fig. 9. Results of the cyclic triaxial tests under undrained conditions: tension–compression.
properly the behavior of this soil when cyclic loads are involved.
However, it was necessary to adapt this model to work in the large
deformation framework, which is a big novelty of this work. The results
show excellent performance of the aforementioned tools. Different be-
haviors were studied in order to assess the suitability of the proposed
methodology.
The first one, the undrained monotonic triaxial test, help us to va-
lidate the implementation of the proposed constitutive model for large
deformation successfully. The main difference encountered in both
approaches is related to the elastic law employed.
Following, the limit of the drained-undrained condition is analyzed
for the proposed soil. The behavior of the model under drained con-
ditions is assessed, verifying that, when the relative motion of the water
is not negligible the u w formulation presents good results. With a
drained boundary condition, the effect of overcoming the theoretical
velocity of a monotonic triaxial compression test was analyzed. The
theoretical velocity was obtained from evaluating the consolidation of
the material with a pore pressure dissipation of 95%. This velocity
Fig. 10. Results of the cyclic triaxial tests under drained conditions without, a), and with, b), the densification parameter Hd.
9
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538
allows to adequately reproduce the drained stress path. The results
show that values that exceed this velocity produce generation of pore
pressures as a partially drained condition. The upper limit obtained in
these simulations for the analyzed material shows a limit value of
10 mm/s that would be equivalent to a soil in undrained boundary
conditions.
Regarding the cyclic behavior, it can be observed that the perfor-
mance of the proposed method under cyclic triaxial loads is adequate.
The results show that the implementation of the proposed constitutive
model can reproduce the undrained cyclic strain–stress behavior and
stress path for compression cyclic loading and compression and ex-
tension cyclic loading. The evolution of pore pressure and the lique-
faction phenomenon is reproduced.The increase in angular velocity
produces a larger deformability of the material and an increase in pore
pressure in the final cycles prior to liquefaction. The densification of the
material during a drained cyclic load is well reproduced.
The good results obtained in this research encourage us to extend
this work in several directions. First of all, since only triaxial tests were
P. Navas, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538

carried out, more sophisticated experimental tests as well as real field
cases have to be studied with the proposed methodology. On the other
hand, several improvements can be made to the constitutive model. The
density of the sand in Section 4 was a relationship between Mf and Mg ,
meanwhile recent developments of the Generalized Plasticity proposed
by Manzanal et al. [8,9] made the densification process in the Gen-
eralized Plasticity model more elegant, being able to reproduce the
behavior of the soil of the Section 5.2 easily. Finally, as the metho-
dology is able to capture dynamic behavior, makes sense that the
constitutive model were able to capture different behaviors depending
on the loading rate with some viscoplastic adjustment, which is some-
thing hardly explored within this model.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The financial support to develop this research from the Ministerio de
Ciencia e Innovación, under Grant No. BIA-2016-76253 is greatly ap-
preciated. The first author also acknowledges the fellowship Juan de la
Cierva FJCI-2017–31544.

Appendix A. Initial conditions in the u w formulation

Some of the triaxial tests have, as starting points, initial stress states. In the Generalized Plasticity, it is also necessary to provide this state. Indeed,
the stress of this initial point comes from a strain state. The Updated Lagrangian configuration employed within this research needs the previous
Deformation Gradient and the current increment in order to situate in the current state. Thus, for the first step we need the tensor F of the initial
state. Since no tangential stress takes place we can assume:
Fij = exp ij (A.1)
where ij comes from the iterative calculation:

ij = Dijkl1 ( ij ) ij ( ij ) (A.2)
The imposition of the initial pore pressure in the u w formulation is not so straightforward as in the u pw , where it is a degree of freedom. In
the proposed methodology, since it is calculated in the material points with the Eq. (6), and the strain state of the soil is defined by the material
model, the deformation mapping of the water has to be defined for the initial step, even if there is no initial pore pressure since an equilibrium of Eq.
(6) has to be reached. Fw can be calculated as exp[tr( w )/3], where:
pw0
tr( w ) = div(w ) = div(u )
Q (A.3)

Appendix B. Consistent linearization

Following, the two main equations of the u w formulation are presented since these are the equations that are implemented in order to be
solved:

• Linear momentum of for the solid phase

B
grad ( u ): c ep: grad ( u ) dv

B
: gradT ( u) grad ( u ) dv

B
grad( u ): (Q [ div ( u) + div ( w )] I ) dv

B
grad( u ): pw gradT ( u ) dv
1 n
B
grad( u ): pw n
div ( u ) Idv
1 B
u·[ u+ w w+ w div ( u )(u + w )] dv
+ B w u· g div ( u ) dv (B.1)

• Linear momentum for the fluid phase:

B
grad( w ): (Q [ div ( u ) + div ( w )] I ) dv

B
grad( w ): pw gradT ( u) dv
1 n
B
grad( w ): pw n
div ( u) Idv

4 B
µw
k
w· w + div ( u) 1 ( 1
k
n k
n )w dv
w 2n 1
1 B n
w· w+ n
div ( u ) w dv

1 B w w·[ u + div ( u ) u] dv
+ B w w· g div ( u) dv (B.2)

10
P. Navas, et al.
References
[1] Mroz Z, Zienkiewicz O. Uniform formulation of constitutive equation for clays and
sands. In: Desai CS, Gallagher RH, editors. Mechanics of Engineering Materials;
1984. p. 415–49.
[2] Pastor MT, Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC. Generalized plasticity and the modelling of
soil behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1990;14:151–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.02.008.
[3] Pastor M, Zienkiewicz O, Guang-Duo X, Peraire J. Modelling of sand behaviour:
cyclic loading, anisotropy and localization. In: KolymbasGudehuseditors. Modern
approaches to plasticity. Springer - Verlag; 1993.
[4] Fernandez Merodo JA, Pastor M, Mira P, Tonni L, Herreros MI, Gonzalez E, et al.
Modelling of diffuse failure mechanisms of catastrophic landslides. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 2004;193(27-29):2911–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cma.2003.09.016.
[5] Bolzon G, Schrefler B, Zienkiewicz O. Elasto-plastic constitutive laws generalised to
partially saturated states. Géotechnique 1996;46(2):279–89.
[6] Tamagnini R, Pastor M. A thermodinamically based model for unsaturated soils: a
new framework for generalized plasticity. In: Mancuso, editor. 2nd International
Workshop on Unsaturated Soils. Naples, Italy; 2004. p. 1–14.
[7] Mira P, Tonni L, Pastor MT, Fern JA. A generalized midpoint algorithm for the
integration of a generalized plasticity model for sands. Int J Num Meth Eng
2009;77:1201–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.
[8] Manzanal DG, Fernández Merodo JA, Pastor MT. Generalized plasticity state
parameter-based model for saturated and unsaturated soils. Part 1: Saturated state.
Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2011;35:1347–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nag.961. arXiv:nag.2347.
[9] Manzanal DG, Pastor MT, Fernández Merodo JA. Generalized plasticity state
parameter-based model for saturated and unsaturated soils. Part II: Unsaturated soil
modeling. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2011;35:1899–917. https://doi.org/
10.1002/nag.961. arXiv:nag.2347.
[10] Javanmardi Y, Imam SMR, Pastor M, Manzanal D. A reference state curve to define
the state of soils over a wide range of pressures and densities. Géotechnique
2018;68(2):95–106. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.136.
[11] Manzanal D, Pastor M, Javanmardi Y, Fernández Merodo J, Mira P, Martín Stickle
M, et al. Generalized plasticity modelling of geomaterials: The rol of dilatancy. In:
Schrefler B, Sanavia L, Collin F, editors. Coupled and Multiphysics phenomena:
ALERT Doctoral School; 2015.
[12] Manzanal D, Coop M, Baudet B, Pastor M. Modelling crushable material. Geosci
Front. 2019 [Under Review].
[13] Mira P, Fernández-Merodo J, Pastor M, Manzanal D, Stickle M, Yagüe A, et al. A
methodology for the 3d analysis of foundations for marine structures. Num Methods
Geotech Eng IX 2018;52.
[14] Stickle MM, De La Fuente P, Oteo C, Pastor M, Dutto P. A modelling framework for
marine structure foundations with example application to vertical breakwater
seaward tilt mechanism under breaking wave loads. Ocean Eng 2013;74:155–67.
[15] Pastor M, Manzanal D, Fernandez Merodo J, Mira P, Thomas B, Drempetic V, et al.
From solid to fluidized soils: Diffuse failure mechanisms in geostructures with ap-
plications to fast catastrophic landslides. Granular Matter 2018;12(3):211–328.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-009-0152-4.
[16] Pastor M, Chan A, Manzanal D, Fernandez Merodo J, Thomas B. Computational
geomechanics: the heritage of olek zienkiewicz. Int J Num Methods
2011;87:457–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.3192.
[17] López-Querol S, Fernández Merodo JA, Mira P, Pastor MT. Numerical modelling of
dynamic consolidation on granular soils. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
2008;32:1431–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.676. arXiv:nag.2347.
[18] Manzanal D, Bertelli S, López-Querol S, Rosetto T, Mira P. Influence of fines content
on liquefaction from a critical state framework: the christchurch earthquake case
study. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2019 [Under review].
[19] Seed H, Makdisi F, Lee K, Idriss I. Dynamic analysis of the slide in the lower san
11
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103538
fernando dam during the earthquake of february 9, 1971. J Geotech Eng, ASCE
1975;101:889–911.
[20] Olson S, Stark T. Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case his-
tories. Can Geotech J 2002;39:629–47.
[21] Zienkiewicz OC, Shiomi T. Dynamic Behaviour of saturated porous media: The
generalized Biot formulation and its numerical solution. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 1984;8(1):71–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610080106.
[22] Zienkiewicz OC, Chang CT, Bettes P. Drained, undrained, consolidating and dy-
namic behaviour assumptions in soils. Géotechnique 1980;30(4):385–95. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.02.008.
[23] Navas P, López-Querol S, Yu RC, Li B. B-bar based algorithm applied to meshfree
numerical schemes to solve unconfined seepage problems through porous media.
Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2016;40(6):962–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nag.2472.
[24] Navas P, Yu RC, López-Querol S, Li B. Dynamic consolidation problems in saturated
soils solved through u-w formulation in a LME meshfree framework. Comput
Geotech 2016;79:55–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.05.021.
[25] Navas P, Sanavia L, López-Querol S, Yu RC. Explicit meshfree solution for large
deformation dynamic problems in saturated porous media. Acta Geotechnica
2018;13(2):227–42.
[26] Navas P, Sanavia L, López-Querol S, Yu RC. u-w formulation for dynamic problems
in large deformation regime solved through an implicit meshfree scheme. Comput
Mech 2018;62(4):745–60.
[27] Lewis RW, Schrefler BA. The finite element method in the static and dynamic de-
formation and consolidation of porous media. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1998.
[28] Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor MT, Schrefler BA, Shiomi T. Computational
geomechanics. UK: John Wiley; 1999.
[29] Terzaghi KV. Principles of Soil Mechanics. Eng News-Rec 1925;95:19–27.
[30] Kontoe S. Developement of time integration schemes and advanced boundary
conditions for dynamic geotechnical analysis Ph.D. thesis London: Imperial College;
2006. URL http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.435799.
[31] Wriggers P. Nonlinear finite element methods. Springer; 2008.
[32] Arroyo M, Ortiz M. Local maximum-entropy approximation schemes: a seamless
bridge between finite elements and meshfree methods. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2006;65(13):2167–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1534.
[33] Navas P, López-Querol S, Yu RC, Pastor MT. Optimal transportation meshfree
method in geotechnical engineering problems under large deformation regime. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 2018;115(10):1217–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5841.
[34] Bonet J, Wood RD. Nonlinear continuum mechanics for Finite Element Analysis.
Cambridge University Press; 2008.
[35] Cuitiño A, Ortiz M. A material-independent method for extending stress update
algotithms from small-strain plasticity to finite plasticity with multiplicative kine-
matics. Eng Comput 1992;9:437–51.
[36] Borja RI, Alarcón E. A mathematical framework for finite strain elastoplastic con-
solidation Part 1: Balance laws, variational formulation, and linearization. Comp
Meth Appl Mech Eng 1995;122(1–2):145–71.
[37] Houlsby GT, Amorosi A, Rojas E. Elastic moduli of soils dependent on pressure: a
hyperelastic formulation. Géotechnique 2005;55(5):383–92. https://doi.org/10.
1680/geot.55.5.383.66021.
[38] Santagiuliana R, Schrefler BA. Enhancing the Bolzon-Schrefler-Zienkiewicz con-
stitutive model for partially saturated soil. Transp Porous Media 2006;65(1):1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-005-6083-6.
[39] Castro G. Liquefaction of sands Ph.D. thesis Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University; 1969.
[40] Donaghe RT, Chaney RC, Silver ML, editors. STP977-EB Advanced Triaxial Testing
of Soil and Rock. ASTM International: West Conshohocken; 1988.
[41] Bahda, F. Etude du comportaement du sable à l’appareil triaxial: expérience et
modélisation. Ph.D. thesis, ENPC; 1997. URL http://www.theses.fr/
1997ENPC9730.