Constitutive Models: Theory and Implementation. Flac

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION 1-1
1 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION
1.1 Introduction
Numerical solution schemes face several difficulties when implementing constitutive models to
represent geomechanical material behavior. There are three characteristics of geo-materials that
cause particular problems. One is physical instability. Physical instability can occur in a material
if there is the potential for softening behavior when the material fails. When physical instability
occurs, part of the material accelerates and stored energy is released as kinetic energy. Numerical
solution schemes often have difficulties at this stage because the solution may fail to converge when
a physical instability arises.
A second characteristic is the path dependency of nonlinear materials. In most geomechanical
systems, there are an infinite number of solutions that satisfy the equilibrium, compatibility and
constitutive relations that describe the system. A path must be specified, for a “correct” solution
to be found. For example, if an excavation is made suddenly, (e.g., by explosion) then the solution
may be influenced by inertial effects that introduce additional failure of the material. This may
not be seen if the excavation is made gradually. The numerical solution scheme should be able to
accommodate different loading paths, in order to apply the constitutive model properly.
A third characteristic is the nonlinearity of the stress-strain response. This includes the nonlinear
dependence of both the elastic stiffness and the strength envelope on the confining stress. This can
also include behavior after ultimate failure that changes character according to the stress level (e.g.,
different post-failure response in the tensile, unconfined and confined regimes). The numerical
scheme needs to be able to accommodate these various forms of nonlinearity.
The difficulties faced in numerical simulations in geomechanics (i.e., physical instability, path
dependence, and implementation of extremely nonlinear constitutive models) can all be addressed
by using the explicit, dynamic solution scheme provided in FLAC. This scheme allows the numerical
analysis to follow the evolution of a geologic system in a realistic manner, without concerns about
numerical instability problems. In the explicit, dynamic solution scheme, the full dynamic equations
of motion are included in the formulation. By using this approach, the numerical solution is stable
even when the physical system being modeled is unstable. With nonlinear materials, there is always
the possibility of physical instability (e.g., the sudden collapse of a slope). In real life, some of
the strain energy in the system is converted into kinetic energy, which then radiates away from
the source and dissipates. The explicit, dynamic solution approach models this process directly,
because inertial terms are included – kinetic energy is generated and dissipated.
In contrast, schemes that do not include inertial terms must use some numerical procedure to treat
physical instabilities. Even if the procedure is successful at preventing numerical instability, the
path taken may not be a realistic one. The numerical scheme should not be viewed as a black
box that will give “the solution.” The way the system evolves physically can affect the solution.
The explicit, dynamic solution scheme can follow the physical path. By including the full law of
motion, this scheme can evaluate the effect of the loading path on the constitutive response.
FLAC Version 8.0

1-2 Constitutive Models
The explicit, dynamic solution scheme also allows the implementation of strongly nonlinear consti-
tutive models because the general calculation sequence allows the field quantities (forces/stresses
and velocities/displacements) at each element in the model to be physically isolated from one
another during one calculation step. The general calculation sequence of FLAC is described in Sec-
tion 1.1.2 in Theory and Background. The implementation of elastic/plastic constitutive models
within the framework of this scheme is discussed in Section 1.3.
The constitutive models available in FLAC range from linearly elastic models to highly nonlinear
plastic models. The basic constitutive models are listed below. A short discussion of the theoretical
background and simple example tests for each model follow this listing.*
* The data files in this section are all created in a text editor. The files are stored in the directory
“ITASCA\FLAC800\Datafiles\ConstitutiveModels” with the extension “.DAT.” A project file is
also provided for each example. In order to run an example and compare the results to plots in
this section, open a project file by clicking on the File / Open Project menu item and selecting
the project file name (with extension “.PRJ”). Click on the Project Options icon at the top of the
Project Tree Record, select Rebuild unsaved states, and the example data file will be run, and plots
created.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.2 Constitutive Models in FLAC
There are 17 basic constitutive models provided in FLAC Version 8.0, arranged into null, elastic
and plastic model groups:
Null model group
(1) null model
A null material model is used to represent material that is removed or excavated.
(See Section 1.4.1.)
Elastic model group
(2) elastic, isotropic model
The elastic, isotropic model provides the simplest representation of material
behavior. This model is valid for homogeneous, isotropic, continuous materi-
als that exhibit linear stress-strain behavior with no hysteresis on unloading.
(3) elastic, transversely isotropic model
The elastic, transversely isotropic model gives the ability to simulate layered
elastic media in which there are distinctly different elastic moduli in directions
normal and parallel to the layers. (See Section 1.5.2.)
Plastic model group
(4) Drucker-Prager model
The Drucker-Prager plasticity model may be useful to model soft clays with
low friction angles. However, this model is not generally recommended for
application to geologic materials. It is included here mainly to permit com-
parison with other numerical program results. (See Section 1.6.1.)
(5) Mohr-Coulomb model
The Mohr-Coulomb model is the conventional model used to represent shear
failure in soils and rocks. Vermeer and deBorst (1984), for example, report
laboratory test results for sand and concrete that match well with the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion. (See Section 1.6.2.)
(6) ubiquitous-joint model
The ubiquitous-joint model is an anisotropic plasticity model that includes
weak planes of specific orientation embedded in a Mohr-Coulomb solid. (See
Section 1.6.3.)
FLAC Version 8.0

(7) caniso model

The Caniso model combines the logic of an elastic, transversely isotropic
(anisotropic) model with that of the ubiquitous joint model. The model has
a single orientation of weakness, which matches the orientation of the plane
of elastic isotropy, and the criterion for failure is a local Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion. The model can be useful in simulation of the behavior of layered
materials. (See Section 1.6.4.)
(8) strain-hardening/softening model
The strain-hardening/softening model allows representation of nonlinear ma-
terial softening and hardening behavior based on prescribed variations of the
Mohr-Coulomb model properties (i.e., cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile
strength) as functions of the deviatoric plastic strain. (See Section 1.6.5.)
(9) bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model
The bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model allows repre-
sentation of material softening and hardening behavior for the matrix and the
weak plane based on prescribed variations of the ubiquitous-joint model prop-
erties (i.e., cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength) as functions of
deviatoric and tensile plastic strain. The variation of material strength prop-
erties with mean stress can also be taken into account by using the bilinear
option. (See Section 1.6.6.)
(10) double-yield model
The double-yield model is intended to represent materials in which there may
be significant irreversible compaction in addition to shear yielding, such as
hydraulically placed backfill or lightly cemented granular material. (See Sec-
tion 1.6.7.)
(11) modified Cam-clay model
The modified Cam-clay model may be used to represent materials when the
influence of volume change on bulk property and resistance to shear need to
be taken into consideration, as in the case of soft clay. (See Section 1.6.8.)
(12) Hoek-Brown model
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion characterizes the stress conditions that lead
to failure in intact rock and rock masses. The failure surface is nonlinear,
and is based on the relation between the major and minor principal stresses.
The model incorporates a plasticity flow rule that varies as a function of the
confining stress level. (See Section 1.6.9.)
FLAC Version 8.0

(13) modified Hoek-Brown model

A modified Hoek-Brown model, called the mhoek model, provides an alter-
native to the Hoek-Brown model with a stress-dependent plastic flow rule,
described above. The modified model characterizes post-failure plastic flow
by simple flow rule choices given in terms of a user-specified dilation angle.
This model also contains a tensile strength limit similar to that used by the
Mohr-Coulomb model. In addition, a factor-of-safety calculation based on the
strength reduction method can be run with the modified Hoek-Brown model.
(14) Cysoil model
The cap-yield (Cysoil) model provides a comprehensive representation of the
nonlinear behavior of soils. The model includes frictional strain-hardening
and softening shear behavior, an elliptic volumetric cap with strain-hardening
behavior, and an elastic modulus function of plastic volumetric strain. The
model allows a more realistic representation of the loading/unloading response
of soils. (See Section 1.6.11.)
(15) simplified Cysoil model
A simplified version of the Cysoil model, called the Chsoil model, offers
built-in features including a friction-hardening law that uses hyperbolic model
parameters as direct input, and a Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope with two
built-in dilation laws. (See Section 1.6.12.)
(16) Plastic Hardening model
The Plastic Hardening (PH) model is a shear and volumetric hardening consti-
tutive model for the simulation of soil behavior. The model is characterized by
hyperbolic stress-strain relationship during axial drained compression (while
unlodaing/reloading is elastic) and stress-dependent stiffness described by a
power law. It also includes shear and volumetric hardening laws and adopts
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The model is straightforward to calibrate
using either conventional lab or in situ tests. It is well established for soil-
structure interaction problems, excavations, tunneling and settlements analy-
sis, etc. (See Section 1.6.13.)
(17) Swell model
The swell model is based on the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model with nonas-
sociated shear and associated tension flow rules. It accounts for wetting-
induced deformations by means of coupling wetting strains with the model
state prior to wetting. (See Section 1.6.14.)
There are also eight time-dependent (creep) material models available in the creep model option
for FLAC (see Section 1 in Creep Material Models), and two pore pressure-generation models
available in the dynamic analysis option (see Section 1 in Dynamic Analysis).
FLAC Version 8.0

Input parameters to all of these built-in models can be controlled via FISH to modify the behavior of
the models. For example, a nonlinear, elastic model can be created by making the elastic modulus
a function of confining stress (see Section 3.7.8 in the User’s Guide).
Duplicates of several of the built-in elastic and plastic models are provided as FISH functions;
these are described in Section 3 in the FISH volume and contained in the “\FISH\3-LIBRARY”
directory. Users may modify these files as they see fit, or use them as a basis for creating their
own constitutive models (see Section 2.8 in the FISH volume). See “HYP.FIS” in Section 3 in the
FISH volume for an example FISH constitutive function of a nonlinear elastic, hyperbolic model.
In addition, the C++ source codes for all of the models are provided in the directory folder
“\FLAC800\PLUGINFILES\MODELS.” Users can modify these models or create their own con-
stitutive models as dynamic link libraries (DLLs) by following the procedures given in Section 2.
Please note that models created as DLLs run considerably faster than models created as FISH
functions.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.3 Incremental Formulation
All constitutive models in FLAC share the same incremental numerical algorithm. Given the stress
state at time t and the total strain increment for the current timestep, t, the purpose is to determine
the corresponding stress increment and the new stress state at time t +t. When plastic deformations
are involved, only the elastic part of the strain increment will contribute to the stress increment. In
this case, a correction must be made to the elastic stress increment as computed from the total strain
increment, in order to obtain the actual stress state at the new timestep.
Note that all models operate on effective stresses only; pore pressures are used to convert total
stresses to effective stresses before the constitutive model is called. The reverse process occurs
after the model calculations are complete.
1.3.1 Incremental Equations of the Theory of Plastic Flow
In order to describe the implementation of elastic/plastic constitutive laws in the framework of the
explicit dynamic solution scheme, we consider (below) the implementation algorithm for the case
when the incremental elastic stress-strain relations are linear functions of strain increment, and the
yield relation is a linear function of the generalized stress components.
We note that all stress increments described in this chapter are co-rotational stress increments.
The stresses at time t + t are computed as “new stress values.” However, in large-strain mode,
these values must be incremented by the stress-rotation correction (see Section 1.2 in Theory and
Background).
The description of plastic flow in FLAC rests on the following relations.
(1) the failure criterion
f (σ n ) = 0 (1.1)
where f , the yield function, is a known function that specifies the limiting stress com-
bination for which plastic flow takes place. (This function is represented by a surface in
the generalized stress space, and all stress points below the surface are characterized by
elastic behavior.) [σ ] is the generalized stress vector of dimension n with components
σ i , i = 1, n.
(2) the relation expressing the decomposition of strain increments into the sum of elastic and
plastic parts
p
i = ei + i (1.2)
[] is the generalized strain-increment vector with components i , i = 1, n.

(3) the elastic relations between elastic strain increments and stress increments
FLAC Version 8.0

σ i = Si ( en ) i=1,n (1.3)
where Si is a linear function of the elastic strain increments en .

(4) the flow rule specifying the direction of the plastic-strain increment vector as that normal
to the potential surface g(σ n ) = constant
p ∂g
i = λ (1.4)
∂σ i
where λ is a constant. (The flow rule is said to be associated if g ≡ f , and nonassociated

otherwise.)
(5) the requirement for the new stress-vector components to satisfy the yield function
f (σ n + σ n ) = 0 (1.5)
This equation provides a relation for evaluation of the magnitude of the plastic-strain
increment vector.
Substitution of the expression for the elastic-strain increment derived from Eq. (1.2) into the elastic
relation Eq. (1.3) yields, taking into consideration the linear property of the function Si ,
σ i = Si ( n ) − Si ( pn ) (1.6)
In further expressing the plastic strain increment by means of the flow rule, Eq. (1.4), this equation
becomes

∂g
σ i = Si ( n ) − λSi (1.7)
∂σ n
where use has been made of the linear property of Si .

In the special case where f (σ n ) is a linear function of the components σ i , i = 1, n, Eq. (1.5) may
be expressed as
f (σ n ) + f ∗ (σ n ) = 0 (1.8)
where, as a notation convention, f ∗ represents the function f minus its constant term,
FLAC Version 8.0

f ∗ (.) = f (.) − f (0n ) (1.9)
For a stress point σ n on the yield surface, f (σ n ) = 0, and Eq. (1.8) becomes, after substitution of
the expression Eq. (1.7) for the stress increment, and further using the linear property of f ∗ ,

∗
∗ ∂g
f Sn ( n ) − λf Sn =0 (1.10)
∂σ n
We now define new stress components σ i N and elastic guesses σ Ii as
i = σ i + σ i
σN (1.11)
σ Ii = σ i + Si ( n ) (1.12)
Note that the term Si ( n ) in Eq. (1.12) is the component i of the stress increment induced by the
total-strain increment n in case no increment of plastic deformation takes place. This justifies
the name of “elastic guess” for σ Ii .
From the definition Eq. (1.12), it follows, using the same arguments as above, that

f (σ In ) = f ∗ Sn ( n ) (1.13)
Hence, an expression for λ may be derived from Eqs. (1.9), (1.10) and (1.13) that has the form
f (σ In )
λ= (1.14)
f Sn (∂g/∂σ n ) − f (0n )
Using the expression of the stress increment, Eq. (1.7), and the definition of the elastic guess,
Eq. (1.12), the new stress may be expressed from Eq. (1.11) as

∂g
σN
i = σ Ii − λSi (1.15)
∂σ n
For clarity, recall that, in these last two expressions, Si (∂g/∂σ n ) is the stress increment obtained
from the incremental elastic law, where ∂g/∂σ i is substituted for i , i = 1, n.
FLAC Version 8.0

1 - 10 Constitutive Models
1.3.2 Implementation
In FLAC, an elastic guess σ Ii , i = 1, n for the stress state at time t + t is first evaluated by adding
to the stress components at time t, increments computed from the total-strain increment for the
step, using an incremental elastic stress-strain law (see Eq. (1.12)). If the elastic guess violates the
yield function, Eq. (1.15) is used to place the new stress exactly on the yield curve. Otherwise, the
elastic guess gives the new stress state at time t + t.
If the stress point σ Ii , i = 1, n is located above the yield surface in the generalized stress space, the
coefficient λ in Eq. (1.15) is given by Eq. (1.14), provided the yield function is a linear function of
the generalized stress vector components. Eq. (1.15) is still valid, but λ is set to zero in case σ Ii , i
= 1, n is located below the yield surface (elastic loading or unloading).
The implementation of each of the seventeen basic constitutive models in FLAC is described sepa-
rately in the following sections. All models, except the null and elastic models, potentially involve
plastic deformations. Note that a wide range of material behavior may be obtained from these
seventeen models by assigning appropriate values to the model parameters. Recommendations on
applying these models are given in Section 3.6 in the User’s Guide.
FLAC Version 8.0

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION 1 - 11
1.4 Null Model Group
1.4.1 Null Model
The stresses within a null zone are set to zero; no body forces (e.g., gravity) act on these zones.
The null material may be changed to a different material model at a later stage of the simulation.
In this way, backfilling an excavation, for example, can be simulated.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.5 Elastic Model Group
The models in this group are characterized by reversible deformations upon unloading; the stress-
strain laws are linear and path-independent.
1.5.1 Elastic, Isotropic Model
In this model, the relation of stress to strain in incremental form is expressed by Hooke’s law in
plane strain as
σ11 = α1 e11 + α2 e22

σ22 = α2 e11 + α1 e22 (1.16)
σ12 = 2G e12 (σ21 = σ12 )
σ33 = α2 (e11 + e22 )
where α1 = K + (4/3)G;
α2 = K − (2/3)G;
K = bulk modulus; and
G = shear modulus.

1 ∂ u̇i ∂ u̇j
eij = + t (1.17)
2 ∂xj ∂xi
where eij = incremental strain tensor;
u̇i = displacement rate; and
t = timestep.
In plane stress, these equations become
σ11 = β1 e11 + β2 e22

σ22 = β2 e11 + β1 e22 (1.18)
σ12 = 2G e12 (σ21 = σ12 )
σ33 = 0
where β1 = α1 − (α22 /α1 ); and

β2 = α2 − (α22 /α1 ).
FLAC Version 8.0

For axisymmetric geometry:
σ11 = α1 e11 + α2 (e22 + e33 )

σ22 = α1 e22 + α2 (e11 + e33 ) (1.19)
σ12 = 2G e12 (σ21 = σ12 )
σ33 = α1 e33 + α2 (e11 + e22 )
1.5.1.1 MODEL Command and PROPERTY Keywords
Isotropic Elastic – MODEL elastic
bulk mod elastic bulk modulus, K

density mass density, ρ
shear mod elastic shear modulus, G
FLAC Version 8.0

1.5.2 Elastic, Transversely Isotropic Model
A transversely isotropic body has a plane of elastic symmetry at each point, and these planes are
parallel at all points. (All directions in such a plane are elastically equivalent.) A FLAC model
deforms as a two-dimensional slice of a transversely isotropic elastic material subjected to plane-
strain or plane-stress boundary conditions in the global xy plane, and oriented such that the global
z-axis is parallel with the planes of isotropy (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Transverse isotropy coordinate axes convention

(x1 x3 -axes are in the plane of isotropy)
There are five independent constants in the elastic, transversely isotropic model. The constants are
specified in terms of an orthogonal material coordinate system, x1 , x2 , x3 , in which the x2 axis is
normal to a plane of symmetry, with the x1 and x3 axes directed arbitrarily in this plane. The material
coordinate system is oriented by specifying the angle φ (measured positive counter-clockwise from
the global x-axis) and noting that the x3 axis is parallel with the global z-axis (see Figure 1.1).
A bedded material can be well approximated as a transversely isotropic body with the x1 x3 plane
coinciding with the bedding plane.
The five elastic constants are defined as
E1 modulus of elasticity in plane of isotropy
E2 modulus of elasticity in plane perpendicular to plane of isotropy
G12 cross-shear modulus between plane of isotropy and perpendicular
plane (i.e., x1 x2 - or x2 x3 -plane)
FLAC Version 8.0

ν21 Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x1 -direction (in the plane
of isotropy) related to the normal strain in the x2 -direction (in the
perpendicular plane) due to uniaxial stress in the x2 -direction
ν31 Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x1 -direction (in the plane
of isotropy) related to the normal strain in the x3 -direction due to
uniaxial stress in the x3 -direction
For a transversely isotropic body whose plane of isotropy lies within the x1 x3 -plane, the following
relations apply.
E3 = E1
ν31 = ν13
ν23 = ν21
G23 = G12
E1
G13 =
2(1 + ν31 )
E1
ν12 = ν21
E2
There are limitations on the variations in elastic properties (Amadei 1982). The following restric-
tions apply.
E1 > 0
E2 > 0
G12 > 0 (1.20)
2
ν12 ≤1
2
ν13 ≤1
2
2 E1 ν21
(1 − ν13 ) − ≥0
E2
FLAC Version 8.0

The stress-strain equations are given by Lekhnitskii (1981, p. 34) for a general orthotropic body.
When written in terms of the global x, y, z coordinate system, the equations are
exx = S11 σxx + S12 σyy + S13 σzz + S16 σxy
eyy = S12 σxx + S22 σzz + S23 σzz + S26 σxy
ezz = S13 σxy + S23 σyy + S33 σzz + S36 σxy (1.21)
1
eyz = (S44 σyz ) + (S45 σxz )
2
1
exz = (S45 σyz ) + (S55 σxz )
2
1
exy = (S16 σxx ) + (S26 σyy ) + (S36 σzz ) + (S66 σxy )
2
where

cos4 φ 1 2ν12 sin4 φ
S11 = + − sin2 φ cos2 φ +
E1 G12 E1 E2

sin4 φ 1 2ν12 cos4 φ
S22 = + − sin2 φ cos2 φ +
E1 G12 E1 E2

1 1 2ν12 1 ν12
S12 = + + − sin2 φ cos2 φ −
E1 E2 E1 G12 E1

ν23 ν13
S13 =− sin φ −
2
cos2 φ
E2 E1

ν23 ν13
S23 =− cos φ −
2
sin2 φ
E2 E1
1
S33 =
E3
cos2 φ sin2 φ
S44 = +
G23 G13
FLAC Version 8.0


1 1
S45 = − sin φ cos φ
G23 G13
sin2 φ cos2 φ
S55 = +
G23 G13

sin2 φ cos2 φ 1 2ν12
S16 =− 2 − + − cos2 φ − sin2 φ sin φ cos φ
E2 E1 G12 E1

cos2 φ sin2 φ 1 2ν12
S26 =− 2 − − − cos2 φ − sin2 φ sin φ cos φ
E2 E1 G12 E1

ν13 ν23
S36 = −2 − sin φ cos φ
E1 E2

1 1 2ν12 1 1
S66 = 4 + + − sin2 φ cos2 φ +
E1 E2 E1 G12 G12
φ = angle of anisotropy measured counterclockwise from the x-axis (see Figure 1.1).
A state of plane stress with respect to the xy-plane is obtained by setting
σzz = σxz = σyz = 0
in Eq. (1.21). This gives
exx = S11 σxx + S12 σyy + S16 σxy
eyy = S12 σxx + S22 σyy + S26 σxy (1.22)
1
exy = (S16 σxx + S26 σyy + S66 σxy )
2
which can be written as

exx s11 s12 s16 σxx
eyy = s12 s22 s26 σyy (1.23)
2exy s16 s26 s66 σxy
FLAC Version 8.0

The stress-strain relations can easily be found by inverting the matrix.

A state of plane strain in the xy-plane is obtained from Eq. (1.21) by setting
ezz = exz = eyz = 0
This results in
exx = s11 σxx + s12 σyy + s13 σzz + s16 σxy
eyy = s12 σxx + s22 σyy + s23 σzz + s26 σxy
0 = sxz σxx + s23 σyy + s33 σzz + s36 σxy
0 = s44 σyz + s45 σxz (1.24)
0 = s55 σxz + s45 σyz
1
exy = (s16 σxx + s26 σyy + s36 σzz + s66 σxy )
2
which can be written as
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
exx s11 s12 s13 s16 σxx
⎢ eyy ⎥ = ⎢ s12 s22 s23 s26 ⎥ ⎢ σyy ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ (1.25)
0 s13 s23 s33 s36 σzz
2exy s16 s26 s36 s66 σxy
The stress-strain relations can be obtained by inverting the matrix.
FLAC Version 8.0

Transversely Isotropic Elastic – MODEL anisotropic
angle angle of anisotropy, taken counterclockwise from the x-axis, φ

nuyx Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x1 -direction (in the plane
of isotropy) related to the normal strain in the x2 -direction (in the
perpendicular plane) due to uniaxial stress in the x2 -direction, ν21
nuzx Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x1 -direction (in the plane
of isotropy) related to the normal strain in the x3 -direction due to
uniaxial stress in the x3 -direction, ν31
shear mod elastic cross-shear modulus between plane of isotropy and perpen-
dicular plane (i.e., x1 x2 - or x2 x3 -plane), G12 ∗
xmod elastic Young’s modulus in the plane of isotropy, E1
ymod elastic Young’s modulus in the plane perpendicular
to the plane of isotropy, E2
* The cross-shear modulus, G12 , for anisotropic elasticity must be determined. Lekhnitskii (1981)
suggests the following equation based on laboratory testing of rock.
E1 E2
G12 =
E1 (1 + 2ν12 ) + E2
assuming the x1 x3 -plane is the plane of isotropy.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6 Plastic Model Group
All plastic models potentially involve some degree of permanent, path-dependent deformation
(failure), a consequence of the nonlinearity of the stress-strain relations. The different models in
FLAC are characterized by their yield function, hardening/softening functions and flow rule. The
yield functions for each model define the stress combination for which plastic flow takes place.
These functions or criteria are represented by one or more limiting surfaces in a generalized stress
space with points below or on the surface being characterized by an incremental elastic or plastic
behavior, respectively. The plastic flow formulation in FLAC rests on basic assumptions from
plasticity theory that the total strain increment may be decomposed into elastic and plastic parts,
with only the elastic part contributing to the stress increment by means of an elastic law. In addition,
both plastic and elastic strain increments are taken to be coaxial with the current principal axes of
the stresses. (This is only valid if elastic strains are small compared to plastic strains during plastic
flow). The flow rule specifies the direction of the plastic strain increment vector as that normal
to the potential surface; it is called associated if the potential and yield functions coincide, and
nonassociated otherwise. A detailed description of the plastic flow calculation in FLAC is given in
Section 1.3.1. See Vermeer and deBorst (1984) for further discussion on the theory of plasticity.
For the Drucker-Prager, Mohr-Coulomb, ubiquitous-joint, Caniso, strain-hardening/softening,
bilinear-hardening/softening-ubiquitous-joint, and swell models, a shear yield function and a nonas-
sociated shear flow rule are used. For the double-yield, Cysoil, and Plastic Hardening models, shear
and volumetric yield functions, nonassociated shear flow and associated volumetric flow rules are
included. The Chsoil model is a simplified version of the Cysoil model that provides built-in friction
hardening and dilation hardening/softening laws, and does not include a volumetric cap. In addi-
tion, the failure envelope for each of the above models is characterized by a tensile yield function
with associated flow rule.
The modified Cam-clay model formulation rests on a combined shear and volumetric yield function
and associated flow rule.
The two types of Hoek-Brown model in FLAC provide different formulations to represent yielding.
The basic Hoek-Brown model uses a nonlinear shear yield function and a plasticity flow rule that
varies as a function of the stress level. For the modified Hoek-Brown model, plastic flow is handled
in a manner similar to the way a dilation angle is specified in the Mohr-Coulomb model. Also,
a tensile yield function similar to that used with the Mohr-Coulomb model is included with the
modified Hoek-Brown model.
In FLAC, the out-of-plane stress is taken into consideration in the formulation that is expressed in
three-dimensional terms. All models are based on plane-strain conditions, with the exception of the
strain-softening model, which is also available in a plane-stress option. Note also that all plasticity
models are formulated in terms of effective stresses, not total stresses.
The plasticity models can produce localization (i.e., the development of families of discontinuities
such as shear bands in a material that starts as a continuum). Note that localization is grid-dependent
since there is no intrinsic length scale incorporated in the formulations. This is an important
consideration when creating a grid for a plasticity analysis, and is discussed more fully in Section 3.2
in the User’s Guide.
FLAC Version 8.0

As discussed in Section 1.3.2, in the numerical implementation of the models, an elastic trial (or
“elastic guess”) for the stress increment is first computed from the total strain increment using
the incremental form of Hooke’s law. The corresponding stresses are then evaluated. If they
violate the yield criteria (i.e., the stress point representation lies above the yield function in the
generalized stress space), plastic deformations take place. In this case, only the elastic part of the
strain increment can contribute to the stress increment; the latter is corrected by using the plastic
flow rule to ensure that the stresses lie on the composite yield function. This section describes the
yield and potential functions, flow rules and stress corrections for the different plasticity models in
FLAC.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.1 Drucker-Prager Model
The failure envelope for this model consists of a Drucker-Prager criterion with tension cutoff. The
shear flow rule is nonassociated, and the tensile flow rule is associated. For a detailed description
of the model see, for example, Chen and Han (1988).
1.6.1.1 Incremental Elastic Law
The Drucker-Prager model is expressed in terms of two generalized stress components: the tangen-
tial stress, τ , and mean normal stress, σ , defined as

τ= J2
1
σ = (σ11 + σ22 + σ33 ) (1.26)
3
where J2 is the second invariant of the stress deviator tensor. This quantity may be expressed as
1
J2 = (σ11 − σ22 )2 + (σ22 − σ33 )2 + (σ11 − σ33 )2 + σ12 2 (1.27)
6
The shear strain increment, γ , and volumetric strain increment, e, associated with τ and σ have
the form

γ = 2 J2
e = e11 + e22 + e33 (1.28)
where J2 , the second invariant of the incremental strain deviator tensor, is given by
1
J2 = (e11 − e22 )2 + (e22 − e33 )2 + (e11 − e33 )2 + e12 2 (1.29)
6
The strain increments are decomposed:
γ = γ e + γ p
e = ee + ep (1.30)
FLAC Version 8.0

where the superscripts e and p refer to elastic and plastic parts, respectively, and the plastic com-
ponents are nonzero during plastic flow only. The incremental expression of Hooke’s law in terms
of generalized stresses and strains is
τ = Gγ e
σ = Kee (1.31)
where G and K are the shear and bulk modulus, respectively.
1.6.1.2 Yield and Potential Functions
The representation of the failure criterion in the (σ, τ ) plane is sketched in Figure 1.2. The failure
envelope is defined from point A to B by the Drucker-Prager yield function,
f s = τ + qφ σ − kφ (1.32)
and from B to C by the tension yield function,
f t = σ − σt (1.33)
where qφ and kφ are constant material properties, and σ t is the tensile strength for the Drucker-
Prager model. Note that this strength is defined as the maximum value of the mean normal stress
for the material under consideration. For a material whose property qφ is not equal to zero, the
t
tensile strength cannot exceed the value σmax given by
kφ
t
σmax = (1.34)
qφ
FLAC Version 8.0

A f =s
0 τ
kφ B f t=0
C σ
σt
k φ / qφ
Figure 1.2 Drucker-Prager failure criterion in FLAC
The shear potential function g s corresponds in general to a nonassociated flow rule, and has the
form
g s = τ + qψ σ (1.35)
where qψ is a material constant equal to qφ if the flow rule is associated.

The flow rule for tensile failure is associated. It is derived from the potential function g t given by
gt = σ (1.36)
The flow rules are given a unique definition in the vicinity of an edge of the composite yield function
by application of the following technique. A function, h(σ, τ ) = 0, which is represented by the
diagonal between the representation of f s = 0 and f t = 0 in the (σ, τ ) plane, is defined (see
Figure 1.3). This function may be written as
h = τ − τ P − α P (σ − σ t ) (1.37)
where τ P and α P are two constants defined as
τ P = kφ − qφ σ t

α = 1 + qφ 2 − qφ
P
(1.38)
FLAC Version 8.0

+ τ
f s=
- 0
domain 1
+
h=0 -
domain 2
+
-
t
σ
f =0
Figure 1.3 Drucker-Prager model: domains used in the definition of the flow
rule
An elastic guess violating the failure criterion is represented by a point in the (σ, τ ) plane, located
either in domain 1 or 2, corresponding to positive or negative domains of h = 0, respectively. If in
domain 1, shear failure is declared, and the stress point is brought back to the curve f s = 0 using
a flow rule derived using the potential function g s . If in domain 2, tensile failure takes place, and
the stress point is brought back to f t = 0 using a flow rule derived using g t . Further comments on
this technique may be found in the Mohr-Coulomb model section.
1.6.1.3 Plastic Corrections
First consider shear failure. The flow rule has the form
∂g s
γ p = λs
∂τ
s
s ∂g
e = λ
p
(1.39)
∂σ
where the magnitude of the parameter λs remains to be defined. Using Eq. (1.35) for g s , these
expressions give, after partial differentiation,
FLAC Version 8.0

γ p = λs
ep = λs qψ (1.40)
The elastic strain increments may be expressed from Eq. (1.30) as total increments minus plastic
increments. In further using Eq. (1.40), the elastic laws in Eq. (1.31) may be expressed as
τ = Gγ − Gλs
σ = Ke − Kqψ λs (1.41)
Let the new and old stress states be referred to by the superscripts N and O, respectively. Then, by
definition:
τ N = τ O + τ
σ N = σ O + σ (1.42)
Substitution of Eq. (1.41) gives
τ N = τ I − Gλs
σ N = σ I − Kqψ λs (1.43)
where the superscript I is used to represent the elastic guess obtained by adding to the old stresses,
elastic increments computed using the total strain increments:
τ I = τ O + Gγ
σ I = σ O + Ke (1.44)
The parameter λs may now be defined by requiring that the new stress point be located on the shear
yield surface. Substitution of τ N and σ N for τ and σ in f s = 0 gives, after some manipulations
(see Eqs. (1.32) and (1.43)),
f s (σ I , τ I )
λs = (1.45)
G + Kqφ qψ
FLAC Version 8.0

Noting that the new deviatoric stresses may be obtained by multiplying the corresponding deviatoric
elastic guesses with the ratio τ N /τ I , the new stresses may be written as
τN
σijN = (σijI − σ I δij ) + σ N δij (1.46)
τI
where δij is the Kronecker delta symbol.
We now consider tensile failure. The flow rule has the form
∂g t
γ = λ
p t
∂τ
∂g t
ep = λt (1.47)
∂σ
where the magnitude of the parameter λt must be determined. Using the Eq. (1.36) for g t , these
expressions give, after partial differentiation,
γ p = 0
ep = λt (1.48)
Applying a reasoning similar to that described above, we obtain
τN = τI
σ N = σ I − Kλt (1.49)
and
σI − σt
λt = (1.50)
K
As expected, substitution of this expression in Eq. (1.49) yields
τN = τI
σN = σt (1.51)
In this mode of failure, the new deviatoric stresses correspond to the elastic guess and we may write
σijN = σijI + (σ t − σ I )δij (1.52)
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.1.4 Implementation Procedure
In the implementation of the Drucker-Prager model in FLAC, an elastic guess σijI is first computed
by adding to the old stress components, increments calculated by application of Hooke’s law to the
total strain increment for the step. The generalized stress components (σ I , τ I ) are then derived
from σijI using Eqs. (1.26) and (1.27).
If these stresses violate the composite yield criterion, a correction must be applied to the generalized
stress components to give the new stress state. In this situation, we have that either h(σ I , τ I ) > 0
or h(σ I , τ I ) ≤ 0 (see Eq. (1.37)). In the first case, shear failure is declared. New, generalized
stresses are evaluated from Eq. (1.43) using Eq. (1.45) for λs . In the second case, tensile failure
takes place and new stresses are calculated from Eq. (1.51). The stress tensor components in the
system of reference axes are then calculated from the generalized stresses, using Eq. (1.46) in the
case of shear failure and Eq. (1.52) when tensile failure takes place.
In FLAC, the default value for the tensile strength is zero if the material property qφ is zero, and is
t
σmax otherwise (see Eq. (1.34)). This last value is also retained if the value assigned to the tensile
t . There is no tensile softening in this model.
strength exceeds σmax
1.6.1.5 Note on Material Parameters
The Drucker-Prager shear criterion f s = 0 is represented in the principal stress space (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 )
by a cone with axis along σ1 = σ2 = σ3 , and apex at (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ) = (a, a, a) with a = kφ /qφ
(see Figure 1.4). The Mohr-Coulomb shear criterion, characterized by cohesion, c, and friction
angle, φ, is represented there by an irregular hexagonal pyramid with the same axis, three “outer”
and three “inner” edges (see Figure 1.5). The parameters qφ and kφ can be adjusted so that the
Drucker-Prager cone will either pass through the outer or the inner edges of the Mohr-Coulomb
pyramid. For the outer adjustment, we have
6
qφ = √ sin φ
3(3 − sin φ)
6
kφ = √ c cos φ (1.53)
3(3 − sin φ)
and for the inner adjustment, we have
6
qφ = √ sin φ
3(3 + sin φ)
6
kφ = √ c cos φ (1.54)
3(3 + sin φ)
FLAC Version 8.0

In the special case qφ = 0, the Drucker-Prager criterion degenerates into the von Mises criterion,
which corresponds to a cylinder in the principal stress space. The Tresca criterion is a special case
of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for which φ = 0. It is represented in the principal stress space by
a regular hexagonal prism. The von Mises cylinder circumscribes the prism for
qφ = 0
2
kφ = √ c (1.55)
3
-σ 3
Drucker-Prager qφ > 0 σ3
σ2 =
σ1 =
qφ Von Mises qφ = 0
3 kφ
-σ 2
-σ 1
Figure 1.4 Drucker-Prager and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress
space
-σ 3
Mohr-Coulomb φ > 0 σ3
σ2 =
σ1 =
tφ Tresca φ = 0
co
3 C
-σ 2
-σ 1
Figure 1.5 Mohr-Coulomb and Tresca yield surfaces in principal stress

space
FLAC Version 8.0

Drucker-Prager – MODEL drucker

kshear material parameter, kφ
qdil material parameter, qψ

qvol material parameter, qφ
tension tension limit, σ t
Note that the default tension limit is zero for a material with qφ = 0, and is kφ /qφ otherwise. The
value assigned for the tension limit remains constant when tensile failure occurs.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.2 Mohr-Coulomb Model
The failure envelope for this model corresponds to a Mohr-Coulomb criterion (shear yield function)
with tension cutoff (tensile yield function). The shear flow rule is nonassociated, and the tensile
flow rule is associated.
In the FLAC implementation of this model, principal stresses σ1 , σ2 , σ3 are used, the out-of-plane
stress, σzz , being recognized as one of these. The principal stresses and principal directions are
evaluated from the stress tensor components, and ordered so that (recall that compressive stresses
are negative)
σ1 ≤ σ2 ≤ σ3 (1.56)
The corresponding principal strain increments e1 , e2 , e3 are decomposed:
p
ei = eie + ei i = 1, 3 (1.57)
where the superscripts e and p refer to elastic and plastic parts, respectively, and the plastic com-
ponents are nonzero only during plastic flow. The incremental expression of Hooke’s law in terms
of principal stress and strain has the form
σ1 = α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2 = α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.58)
σ3 = α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
where α1 = K + 4G/3 and α2 = K − 2G/3.
FLAC Version 8.0

With the ordering convention of Eq. (1.56), the failure criterion may be represented in the plane
(σ1 , σ3 ) as illustrated in Figure 1.6:
B C
A
+
-
Figure 1.6 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in FLAC
The failure envelope is defined from point A to point B by the Mohr-Coulomb yield function,

f s = σ1 − σ3 Nφ + 2c Nφ (1.59)
and from B to C by a tension yield function of the form
f t = σ t − σ3 (1.60)
where φ is the friction angle, c is the cohesion, σ t is the tensile strength and
1 + sin φ
Nφ = (1.61)
1 − sin φ
FLAC Version 8.0

Note that only the major and minor principal stresses are active in the shear yield formulation;
the intermediate principal stress has no effect. For a material with friction, φ = 0 and the tensile
t
strength of the material cannot exceed the value σmax given by
c
t
σmax = (1.62)
tan φ
The shear potential function, g s , corresponds to a nonassociated flow rule and has the form
g s = σ1 − σ3 Nψ (1.63)
where ψ is the dilation angle and
1 + sin ψ
Nψ = (1.64)
1 − sin ψ
The associated flow rule for tensile failure is derived from the potential function g t , with
g t = −σ3 (1.65)
The flow rules for this model are given a unique definition in the vicinity of an edge of the composite
yield function in three-dimensional stress space by application of a technique (illustrated below) for
the case of a shear-tension edge. A function, h(σ1 , σ3 ) = 0, which is represented by the diagonal
between the representation of f s = 0 and f t = 0 in the (σ1 , σ3 ) plane, is defined (see Figure 1.7).
This function has the form
h = σ3 − σ t + α P (σ1 − σ P ) (1.66)
where α P and σ P are constants defined as

α = 1 + Nφ2 + Nφ
P
(1.67)
and

σ P = σ t Nφ − 2c Nφ (1.68)
FLAC Version 8.0

I!
domain 2
domain 1
fJ=0
-
I
Figure 1.7 Mohr-Coulomb model: domains used in the definition of the flow
rule
An elastic guess violating the failure criterion is represented by a point in the (σ1 , σ3 ) plane, located
either in domain 1 or 2, corresponding to negative or positive domains of h = 0, respectively. If in
domain 1, shear failure is declared, and the stress point is brought back to the curve f s = 0 using
a flow rule derived using the potential function g s . If in domain 2, tensile failure takes place, and
the stress point is brought back to f t = 0 using a flow rule derived using g t .
Note that, by ordering the stresses as in Eq. (1.56), the case of a shear-shear edge is automatically
handled by a variation on this technique. The technique, applicable for small-strain increments,
is simple to implement: at each step, only one flow rule and corresponding stress correction is
involved in the calculation of plastic flow. In particular, when a stress point follows an edge, it
receives stress corrections alternating between two criteria. In this process, the two yield criteria
are fulfilled to an accuracy that depends on the magnitude of the strain increment. As a validation
of this approach, results obtained for the oedometric test are presented in Section 1.6.2.5.
FLAC Version 8.0

First consider shear failure. The flow rule has the form
p ∂g s
ei = λs i = 1, 3 (1.69)
∂σi
where λs is a parameter of magnitude as yet unknown. Using Eq. (1.63) for g s , these equations
become, after partial differentiation,
p
e1 = λs
p
e2 = 0 (1.70)
p
e3 = −λs Nψ
increments. In further using the flow rule above (Eq. (1.70)), the elastic laws in Eq. (1.58) become
σ1 = α1 e1 + α2 (e2 + e3 ) − λs (α1 − α2 Nψ )

σ2 = α1 e2 + α2 (e1 + e3 ) − λs α2 (1 − Nψ ) (1.71)
σ3 = α1 e3 + α2 (e1 + e2 ) − λs (−α1 Nψ + α2 )
definition,
σiN = σiO + σi i = 1, 3 (1.72)
Substituting Eq. (1.71) for σi , i = 1, 3 in these equations, we may write
σ1N = σ1I − λs (α1 − α2 Nψ )

σ2N = σ2I − λs α2 (1 − Nψ ) (1.73)
σ3N = σ3I − λs (−α1 Nψ + α2 )
where the superscript I is used to represent the elastic guess, obtained by adding to the old stresses
FLAC Version 8.0

σ1I = σ1O + α1 e1 + α2 (e2 + e3 )

σ2I = σ2O + α1 e2 + α2 (e1 + e3 ) (1.74)
σ3I = σ3O + α1 e3 + α2 (e1 + e2 )
The parameter λs may now be defined by requiring that the new stress point be located on the shear
yield surface. Substitution of σ1N and σ3N for σ1 and σ3 in f s = 0 gives, after some manipulations
(see Eqs. (1.59) and (1.73)),
f s (σ1I , σ3I )
λ =
s
(1.75)
(α1 − α2 Nψ ) − (α2 − α1 Nψ )Nφ
In the case of tensile failure, the flow rule has the form
p ∂g t
ei = λt i = 1, 3 (1.76)
∂σi
where the magnitude of the parameter λt is not yet defined. Using Eq. (1.65) for g t , this expression
gives, after partial differentiation,
p
e1 = 0
p
e2 = 0 (1.77)
p
e3 = −λt
Repeating a reasoning similar to that described above, we obtain
σ1N = σ1I + λt α2
σ2N = σ2I + λt α2 (1.78)
σ3N = σ3I + λt α1
and
f t (σ3I )
λt = (1.79)
α1
FLAC Version 8.0

In the implementation of the Mohr-Coulomb in FLAC, an elastic guess σijI is first computed, by
adding to the old stress components, increments calculated by application of Hooke’s law to the total
strain increment for the step. Principal stresses σ1I , σ2I , σ3I and corresponding principal directions
are calculated and ordered. If these stresses violate the composite yield criterion, a correction must
be applied to the elastic guess to give the new stress state. In this situation we have that either
h(σ1I , σ3I ) ≤ 0 or h(σ1I , σ3I ) > 0 (see Eq. (1.66)). In the first case, shear failure is declared.
New stresses are evaluated from Eq. (1.73) using Eq. (1.75) for λs . In the second case, tensile
failure takes place, and new stresses are calculated from Eq. (1.78) using Eq. (1.79). The stress
tensor components in the system of reference axes are then calculated from the principal values
by assuming that the principal directions have not been affected by the occurrence of a plastic
correction.
In FLAC, the default value for the tensile strength is zero. This value is set to σmax t if the value
t
assigned to the tensile strength exceeds σmax . If the computed value of σ3 exceeds σ t in a zone,
the tensile strength is set to zero for that zone. This simulates instantaneous tensile softening.
The plastic strain is not calculated directly in this model, in order to speed the calculation. The
strain-softening model can be used if plastic strains are needed and/or gradual or no tensile softening
is desired.
1.6.2.5 Oedometer Test
This example concerns the determination of stresses in a Mohr-Coulomb material subjected to an

oedometer test. In this experiment, two of the principal stress components are equal and, during
plastic flow, the stress point evolves along an edge of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion representation
in the principal stress space. The purpose is to validate the numerical technique adopted in FLAC
to handle such a situation. Results of a numerical experiment are presented and compared to an
exact solution.
The boundary conditions for the plane-strain oedometric test are sketched in Figure 1.8. They
correspond to the uniform strain rates:
ex = 0
ey = vt/L (1.80)
ez = 0
where x and y refer to the system of reference axes sketched in the figure, and z is out-of-plane, v
is the constant y-component of the velocity applied to the sample (v < 0), and L is the height of
the sample.
FLAC Version 8.0

Assuming zero initial stresses, the principal directions of stresses and strains are those of the
coordinate axes. For simplicity, we consider a sample of unit height L = 1.
v v
Figure 1.8 Boundary conditions for oedometer test
In the elastic range, application of Hooke’s law gives, using that ey = vt at time t,
σx = α2 vt
σy = α1 vt (1.81)
σz = σx
where α1 = K + 4/3G and α2 = K − 2/3G.

To apply the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we consider the yield functions

f 1 = σy − σx Nφ + 2c Nφ

f 2 = σy − σz Nφ + 2c Nφ (1.82)
At the onset of yield, f 1 = f 2 = 0 and, using Eqs. (1.81) and (1.82), we find
FLAC Version 8.0


2c Nφ
t= (1.83)
−v(α1 − α2 Nφ )
Hence, yielding will only take place provided α1 − α2 Nφ > 0.

During plastic flow, the strain increments are composed of elastic and plastic parts and we have
p
ex = exe + ex
p
ey = eye + ey (1.84)
p
ez = eze + ez
Using the boundary conditions Eq. (1.80), we may write
p
exe = −ex
p
eye = vt − ey (1.85)
p
eze = −ez
The flow rule for plastic flow along the edge of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion corresponding to
σx = σz has the form (e.g., see Drescher 1991)
p ∂g 1 ∂g 2
ex = λ1 + λ2
∂σx ∂σx
∂g 1 ∂g 2
p
ey = λ1 + λ2 (1.86)
∂σy ∂σy
p ∂g 1 ∂g 2
ez = λ1 + λ2
∂σz ∂σz
where g 1 and g 2 are the potential functions corresponding to f 1 and f 2 :
g 1 = σy − σx Nψ
g 2 = σy − σz Nψ (1.87)
FLAC Version 8.0

After partial differentiation, Eq. (1.86) becomes
p
ex = −λ1 Nψ
p
ey = λ1 + λ2 (1.88)
p
ez = −λ2 Nψ
In further considering that, by symmetry, λ1 = λ2 , we obtain
p
ex = −λ1 Nψ
p
ey = 2λ1 (1.89)
p
ez = −λ1 Nψ
The stress increments, derived from Hooke’s law, are given by the relations
σx = α1 exe + α2 (eye + exe )

σy = α1 eye + α2 2exe (1.90)
σz = σx
where we have used the symmetry condition exe = eze .

Substitution of Eq. (1.85) in Eq. (1.90) yields, using Eq. (1.89),
σx = α1 λ1 Nψ + α2 (vt − 2λ1 + λ1 Nψ )

σy = α1 (vt − 2λ1 ) + α2 2λ1 Nψ (1.91)
σz = σx
The parameter λ1 may now be determined by expressing the condition that, during plastic flow,
f 1 = 0. Using Eq. (1.82), this condition takes the form
σy − σx Nφ = 0 (1.92)
FLAC Version 8.0

Substitution of Eq. (1.91) in Eq. (1.92) yields, after some manipulations, the expression
λ1 = vλt (1.93)
where
α1 − α2 Nφ
λ= (1.94)
(α1 + α2 )Nφ Nψ − 2α2 (Nφ + Nψ ) + 2α1
The FLAC simulation is carried out using a single zone of unit dimensions. The following properties
are used in conjunction with the Mohr-Coulomb model.
bulk modulus 200 MPa

shear modulus 200 MPa
cohesion 1 MPa
friction 10◦
dilation 10◦ and 0◦
tension 5.67 MPa
The velocity components are fixed in the x- and y-directions. A velocity of magnitude 10−5 m/steps
is applied to the top of the model in the negative y-direction for a total of 1000 steps. The stress and
displacement components in the y-direction are monitored and compared to the analytic prediction
obtained from Eqs. (1.81), (1.83) and (1.91), using Eqs. (1.93) and (1.94). Two runs are carried
out using the data file in Example 1.1, with values of 10◦ and 0◦ for the dilation parameter. The
match is very good, as may be seen in Figures 1.9 and 1.10, where numerical and analytic solutions
coincide.
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.1 Oedometer test on the Mohr-Coulomb model

;---------------------------------------------------------------------
; oedometer test
; check plastic flow along an edge of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
g 1 1
m m
pro bu 200 sh 200 co 1 fric 10 dil 10 ten 5.67 den 1
fix x y
def d sigy
a sy = 0.0
c k = bulk mod(1,1)
c g = shear mod(1,1)
e1 = c k + 4. * c g /3.
e2 = c k - 2. * c g /3.
sf = friction(1,1) * degrad
nf = sin(sf)
nf = (1. + nf) / (1. - nf)
sp = dilation(1,1) * degrad
np = sin(sp)
np = (1. + np) / (1. - np)
rl = (e1-e2*nf)/((e1+e2)*nf*np-2.*e2*(nf+np)+2.*e1)
vyv = -1.e-5
dsigy = vyv * (e1+2.*rl*(e2*np-e1))
stepl = -2.*cohesion(1,1)*sqrt(nf)/((e1-e2*nf)*vyv)
end
def esigy
while stepping
if step < stepl then
a sy = a sy + e1 * vyv
else
a sy = a sy + dsigy
end if
n sy = syy(1,1)
end
d sigy
ini yvel vyv j 2
his nstep 50
his ydisp i 1 j 2
his n sy
his a sy
step 1000
plot his -2 line -3 cross vs -1 hold
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Oedometer Test - phi = 10, dila = 10
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 4.000

step 1000
3.500
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Rev 2 n_sy (FISH) 3.000
Rev 3 a_sy (FISH)
X-axis : 2.500
Rev 1 Y displacement( 1, 2)
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Itasca Consulting Group, INC.
Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Figure 1.9 Oedometric test – comparison of numerical and analytical pre-

dictions for 10◦ dilation
JOB TITLE : Oedometer Test - phi = 10, dila = 0
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 3.500

step 1000
HISTORY PLOT 3.000

Y-axis :
Rev 2 n_sy (FISH)
2.500
Rev 3 a_sy (FISH)
X-axis :
Rev 1 Y displacement( 1, 2) 2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.10 Oedometric test – comparison of numerical and analytical pre-

dictions for 0◦ dilation
FLAC Version 8.0

Mohr-Coulomb – MODEL mohr-coul

cohesion cohesion, c
dilation dilation angle, ψ
friction friction angle, φ
Note that the default tension limit is zero for a material with no friction, and is c/ tan φ otherwise.
If tensile failure occurs in a zone, the tensile strength is set to zero for that zone.
The following property can be printed, plotted or accessed via FISH.
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.3 Ubiquitous-Joint Model
In this model, which accounts for the presence of an orientation of weakness (weak plane) in a
FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model, yield may occur in either the solid or along the weak plane, or both,
depending on the stress state, the orientation of the weak plane, and the material properties of the
solid and weak plane.
In the FLAC implementation, a technique by which general failure is first detected, and relevant
plastic corrections are applied, is used (as indicated in the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model description).
The new stresses are then analyzed for failure on the weak plane, and updated accordingly. The
criterion for failure on the plane is a local form of the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion with tension
cutoff. The local shear flow rule is nonassociated, and the local tension flow rule is associated.
The FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model was addressed above; developments related to plastic flow on the
weak plane are outlined in this section.
1.6.3.1 Weak Plane Plastic Corrections
Figure 1.11 illustrates the weak plane existing in a Mohr-Coulomb solid, and the global (xy) and
local (x y ) coordinate frames.
y' weak plane
x'
θ
x
Figure 1.11 A weak plane oriented at an angle θ to the global reference frame
FLAC Version 8.0

For simplicity, we define the global stress components by σij (obtained after application of the
plastic corrections). These global stresses are resolved into local components using the expressions

σ11 = σ11 cos2 θ + 2σ12 sin θ cos θ + σ22 sin2 θ

σ22 = σ11 sin2 θ − 2σ12 sin θ cos θ + σ22 cos2 θ (1.95)

σ33 = σ33

σ12 = −(σ11 − σ22 ) sin θ cos θ + σ12 (cos2 θ − sin2 θ)
where θ is the joint angle (measured counterclockwise from the x-global axis).
By convention, let τ represent the magnitude of the tangential traction component on the weak
plane, the associated strain variable is γ , and we have

τ = |σ12 |

γ = |e12 | (1.96)
.
With this notation, the local expression of the incremental elastic laws have the form

= α1 e 11 + α2 (e 22 + e 33 )
e e e
σ11

= α1 e 22 + α2 (e 11 + e 33 )
e e e
σ22 (1.97)

α1 e 33 + α2 (e 11 + e 22 )
e e e
σ33 =
τ = 2Gγ e
where α1 = K + 4G/3, α2 = K − 2G/3, and the superscript e stands for “elastic part.”
FLAC Version 8.0

, τ ) plane, as illustrated Figure 1.12:

The weak-plane failure criterion may be represented in the (σ22
A f =s
0 τ
Cj B f t=0
C σ 22
σ jt
Cj / tan φ j
Figure 1.12 Weak-plane failure criterion in FLAC
The local failure envelope is defined from point A to B by a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion defined
as f s = 0, with

f s = −τ − σ22 tan φj + cj (1.98)
and from B to C by a tension failure criterion of the form f t = 0, with

f t = σjt − σ22 (1.99)
where φj , cj and σjt are the friction, cohesion and tensile strength of the weak plane, respectively.
Note that, for a weak plane with a nonzero friction angle, the maximum value of the tensile strength
is given by
cj
t
σj,max = (1.100)
tan φj
The shear and tensile potential functions g s and g t correspond to a nonassociated flow rule with
dilatancy, ψj , and an associated flow rule, respectively. They have the form

g s = −τ − σ22 tan ψj (1.101)
and
FLAC Version 8.0


g t = −σ22 (1.102)
The flow rule is given a unique definition in the vicinity of the failure criterion edge by application of
a technique already described in the context of the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model. Here, a function,
, τ ) = 0, which may be represented by the diagonal between the representation of f s = 0
h(σ22
, τ ) plane, is used (see Figure 1.13). This function has the form
and f t = 0 in the (σ22

h = τ − τjP − αjP (σ22 − σjt ) (1.103)
where τjP and αjP are constants defined as
τjP = cj − tan φj σjt

αj = 1 + tan φj2 − tan φj
P
(1.104)
f s=0 τ
domain 1
h=0
domain 2
σ 22
f t=0
Figure 1.13 Ubiquitous-joint model: domains used in the definition of the

weak-plane flow rule
, τ ) plane, located
A stress state violating the local failure criterion is represented by a point in the (σ22
either in domain 1 or 2, corresponding to positive or negative domain of h = 0, respectively. If in
domain 1, shear failure is declared on the plane, and the stress point is brought back to the curve
FLAC Version 8.0

f s = 0 using a flow rule derived using the potential function g s . If in domain 2, local tensile failure
takes place, and the stress point is brought back to f t = 0 using a flow rule derived using g t .
First consider shear failure on the plane; the flow rule has the form
∂g s
e 11 = λs
p

∂σ11
∂g s
e 22 = λs
p
(1.105)
∂σ22
∂g s
e 33 = λs
p
∂σ33
∂g s
γ p = λs
∂τ
where the superscript p refers to plastic parts associated with failure on the weak plane, and the
magnitude of λs is as yet unknown. Using Eq. (1.101) for g s , these equations become, after partial
differentiation,
e 11 = 0
p
e 22 = −λs tan ψj

p
(1.106)
e 33
p
=0
γ = −λs
p
The elastic strain increments in the elastic relations Eq. (1.97) are expressed as differences between
total and plastic strain increments for the step. Assuming that the plastic contributions of general
and local failure are additive, we follow a reasoning similar to that used in the derivation of the
stress corrections for the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb criterion, in which we interpret the elastic guesses
there as the stresses here, obtained after application of the plastic corrections relating to general
failure. (This technique is approximate only when failure occurs both in the matrix and on the weak
plane.) Using this approach, it may be shown that the new stress state may be expressed as
σ 11 = σ 11 + α2 tan ψj λs
N
σ 22 = σ 22 + α1 tan ψj λs
N
(1.107)
σ 33 = σ 33 + α2 tan ψj λs
N
τ N = τ + 2Gλs
FLAC Version 8.0

where G is the shear modulus, and λs is given by
, τ)
f s (σ22
λ =
s
(1.108)
2G + α1 tan φj tan ψj
The new shear stress on the weak plane may be derived from τ N and τ , using the relation
N τN
σ12 = σ12 (1.109)
τ
The local stress corrections have the form

σ11 = α2 tan ψj λs

σ22 = α1 tan ψj λs (1.110)

σ33 = α2 tan ψj λ s
τN − τ
σ12 = σ12
τ
where λs is given by Eq. (1.108).

Finally, the global stress corrections for shear failure on the plane, obtained by resolution of the
local stress corrections into the global axes, may be expressed as

σ11 = −2σ12 (cos θ sin θ) + σ11 cos2 θ + σ22 sin2 θ

σ22 = 2σ12 (cos θ sin θ) + σ11 sin2 θ + σ22 cos2 θ
(1.111)

σ33 = σ33

σ12 = σ12 (cos2 θ − sin2 θ) + (σ11 − σ22 ) sin θ cos θ
These corrections are added to the stress components σij , which include the stress corrections for
general failure, if any, to provide the new stress state for the step.
FLAC Version 8.0

We now consider tensile failure on the plane. In this case, the flow rule has the form
∂g t
e 11 = λt
p

∂σ11
∂g t
e 22 = λt
p
(1.112)
∂σ22
∂g t
e 33
p
=λ
t
∂σ33
∂g t
γ p = λt
∂τ
where λt is a parameter of magnitude as yet unknown. Using Eq. (1.102) for g t , these equations
become, after partial differentiation,
e 11 = 0
p
e 22 = −λt
p
(1.113)
e 33 = 0
p
γ p = 0
Using the same reasoning as described above, we obtain
σ 11 = σ 11 + λt α2
N
σ 22 = σ 22 + λt α1
N
(1.114)
σ 33
N
=σ 33 + λ α2 t
τ N
=τ
and
f t (σ 22 )
λt = (1.115)
α1
FLAC Version 8.0

The local stress corrections for tensile failure on the weak plane may be expressed, after substitution
of Eq. (1.115) for λt in Eq. (1.114), as
α2
σ 11 = (σ t − σ22

)
α1
σ 22 = (σ t − σ22

) (1.116)
α2
σ 33 = (σ t − σ22 )
α1
where use has been made of Eq. (1.99) for f t .

After resolution into global axes, the stress corrections become
α2

σ11 = (σ t − σ22 ) cos2 θ + sin2 θ
α1
α
2
σ22 = (σ t − σ22 ) sin2 θ + cos2 θ (1.117)
α1
α2
σ33 = (σ t − σ22 )
α1
α2
σ12 = −(σ − σ22 )(1 − ) sin θ cos θ
t
α1
In large-strain mode, the orientation θ of the weak plane is adjusted to account for rigid body
rotations, and rotations due to deformations. The correction θ, evaluated as average over all
triangles in a zone, has the form
θ = e 12 + ω (1.118)
where
e 12 = −(e11 − e22 ) sin θ cos θ + e12 (cos2 θ − sin2 θ)

1
ω = (u̇1,2 − u̇2,1 ) (1.119)
2
and θ is expressed in radians.
FLAC Version 8.0

In the implementation of the ubiquitous-joint model in FLAC, stresses corresponding to the elastic
guess for the step are first analyzed for general failure, and relevant plastic corrections are made,
as described in the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model. The resulting stress components (labeled σij in
this section) are then examined for failure on the weak plane.
The corresponding local stress components σ22 and τ are calculated using Eqs. (1.95) and (1.96).
If these stresses violate the weak-plane composite yield criterion (see Eqs. (1.98) and (1.99)),
corrections must be applied to the components σij to give the new stress state for the step. In this
situation we have that either h(σ22 , τ ) > 0 or h(σ , τ ) ≤ 0 (see Eqs. (1.103) and (1.104)). In the
22
first case, shear failure takes place on the weak plane. New stresses are evaluated by adding the
corrections Eq. (1.111) to σij . In the second case, weak-plane tensile failure is declared, and new
stresses are calculated using the corrections Eq. (1.117).
In large-strain mode, the orientation of the weak plane is adjusted to account for body rotations (see
Eqs. (1.118) and (1.119)).
The default value for the weak-plane tensile strength is zero if φj = 0, and σj,max
t otherwise (see
Eq. (1.100)). This last value is also retained in the code if the value assigned for the weak-plane
t
tensile strength exceeds σj,max . If the computed value of σ22 exceeds σ t
j,max in a zone, then the
tensile strength is set to zero for that zone. This simulates instantaneous softening.
FLAC Version 8.0

Ubiquitous-Joint – MODEL ubiquitous

jangle joint angle taken counterclockwise from the x-axis, θ
jcohesion joint cohesion, cj
jdilation joint dilation angle, ψj
jfriction joint friction angle, φj
jtension joint tension limit, σjt

Note that the default tension limit of the matrix, σ t , is the same as that for the Mohr-Coulomb
model. The default joint tension limit, σjt , is zero if φj = 0, and is cj /tanφj otherwise. If tension
failure occurs on the joint, then the joint tensile strength is set to zero.
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.4 Caniso Model
Model “Caniso” combines the logic of an elastic, transversely isotropic (anisotropic) model with
that of the ubiquitous joint model (note that “weak plane” and “joint” are used interchangeably in
the text). The new model has a single orientation of weakness, which matches the orientation of the
plane of elastic isotropy. The criterion for failure on the plane, whose orientation is given, consists
of a local Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion with tension cutoff. The model can be used to simulate the
behavior of layered material, such as clay shales, and account for slip conditions in the direction of
layering (weak plane direction).
In the FLAC implementation, new stresses are evaluated for each step using the elastic-anisotropic
incremental laws. The new stresses are analyzed for yielding on the weak plane and updated
accordingly using the joint flow rule. The local shear flow rule is non-associated, and the local
tension flow rule is associated.
Note that the model is implemented for plane strain condition only.
Consider a local system of reference axes, with x - and y -axes in the “weak” plane, and the z -axis,
normal to it (Figure 1.14). This axis is a principal direction of elasticity. Also, any two perpendicular
directions x ,y , which are principal directions of elasticity, can be selected in the isotropic plane.*
The incremental elastic strain-stress relations used in the model logic are as follows (numerical
indices are used instead of x, y, z; see Figure 1.14 for details):
1 ν ν
ε1e 1 = σ1 1 − σ2 2 − σ3 3
E E E
ν 1 ν
ε2e 2 = − σ1 1 + σ2 2 − σ3 3
(1.120)
E E E
ν ν 1
ε3e 3 = − σ1 1 − σ2 2 + σ3 3
E E E
σ1 2 σ1 3
σ2 3
ε1e 2 = ε1e 3 = ε e
=
2G 2G 23
2G
* The notation used in this section differs from the notation used in the FLAC Ubiquitous Joint model
by permutation of y / y and z / z coordinates while maintaining a right-hand-side coordinate system
(this is equivalent to 90◦ rotation around Ox / Ox ). This notation, however, is consistent with
FLAC 3D notation for the Ubiquitous Joint model.
FLAC Version 8.0

where: E = E1 = E2 Young’s modulus in the plane of isotropy;

E = E3 Young’s modulus in the direction normal to the plane of isotropy;
ν = ν1 2 Poisson’s ratio characterizing lateral contraction in the plane of
isotropy when tension is applied in this plane;
ν = ν1 3 = ν2 3 Poisson’s ratio characterizing lateral contraction in the
plane of isotropy when tension is applied in the direction normal to it;
G = G1 2 shear modulus for the plane of isotropy;
G = G1 3 = G2 3 shear modulus for any plane normal to the plane of isotropy, and
E1
G1 2 = (1.121)
2(1 + ν1 2 )
Figure 1.14 Orientation of global xyz and local x y z coordinate systems

with regard to the plane of isotropy/weakness. In the case of
plane strain, the y axis coincides with y and is oriented in an
out-of-plane direction.
FLAC Version 8.0

The incremental stress-strain relations in the local axes are obtained by inversion of relations
(Eq. (1.120)):
σ1 1 = a11 ε1e 1 + a12 ε2e 2 + a13 ε3e 3

σ2 2 = a12 ε1e 1 + a11 ε2e 2 + a13 ε3e 3
σ3 3 = a13 ε1e 1 + a13 ε2e 2 + a33 ε3e 3 (1.122)
σ1 2 = 2Gε1e 2
σ1 3 = 2G ε1e 3
σ2 3 = 2G ε2e 3
where
E − ν 2 E
a11 = E
(1 + ν)[(1 − ν)E − 2ν 2 E]
νE + ν 2 E
a12 =E
(1 + ν)[(1 − ν)E − 2ν 2 E]
νE
a13 =E (1.123)
[(1 − ν)E − 2ν 2 E]
(1 − ν)E
a33 = E
[(1 − ν)E − 2ν 2 E]
The conversion of stress and strain tensors from local to global axes and vice-versa is obtained by
the application of the usual matrix rotation operations.
Let τ be defined as the magnitude of the tangential traction component on the weak plane:

τ = σ12 3 + σ22 3 (1.124)
Also, γ is the strain variable associated with τ :

γ = ε12 3 + ε22 3 (1.125)
The local incremental stress-strain equations (Eq. (1.122)) expressed using the above generalized
stress and strain components are:
FLAC Version 8.0

σ1 1 = a11 ε1e 1 + a12 ε2e 2 + a13 ε3e 3

σ2 2 = a12 ε1e 1 + a11 ε2e 2 + a13 ε3e 3 (1.126)
σ3 3 = a13 ε1e 1 + a13 ε2e 2 + a33 ε3e 3
τ = 2G γ e
where τ and γ e are introduced as

σ12 3 + σ22 3
τ =

γ = (ε1e 3 )2 + (ε2e 3 )2
e
(1.127)
Note that in the case of purely elastic deformation and plane strain condition, σ1 2 = σ2 3 = 0,
ε1e 2 = ε2e 2 = ε2e 3 = 0, and therefore
τ = |σ1 3 |, γ e = |ε1e 3 |
In the case of plastic deformation and plane strain condition, only total out-of-plane strain compo-
nents are zero, ε1 2 = ε2 3 = ε2 2 = 0, while elastic strains may be non-zero.
The yield criterion on the weak plane consists of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for slip, f s = 0, and
a tension cut-off, f t = 0, with
f s = τ + σ3 3 tan φj − cj (1.128)

f =
t
σ3 3 − σjt
In Eq. (1.128), φj is joint friction, cj is joint cohesion, and σjt is joint tensile strength. For a joint
with a non-zero friction angle, the tensile strength is capped with the following maximum value:
cj
t
σj,max = (1.129)
tan φj
FLAC Version 8.0

Graphical representation of Eq. (1.128) and Eq. (1.129) is provided by Figures 1.10 and 1.11 in the
FLAC 3D Constitutive Models manual.
Shear yielding on the weak plane corresponds to a non-associated flow rule; the potential function
is:
g s = τ + σ3 3 tan ψj (1.130)
where ψj is the joint dilation angle.

Tension yielding on the weak plane corresponds to an associated flow rule, and the potential function
is:
g t = σ3 3 (1.131)
The flow rule is obtained, as usual, by differentiation of the potential function with respect to the
generalized stress components:
p ∂g
ei = λs , i = 1, 3 (1.132)
∂σi
Therefore, the incremental plastic strain components (labeled with a superscript p) for shear yielding
on the weak plane are obtained from Eq. (1.130) and Eq. (1.132):
p p
ε1 1 = ε2 2 = 0
p
ε3 3 = λs tan ψj (1.133)
γ p = λs
For tension yielding on the weak plane, the incremental plastic strain components are derived from
Eq. (1.130) and Eq. (1.132):
p p
ε1 1 = ε2 2 = 0
p
ε3 3 = λt (1.134)
γ = 0 p
FLAC Version 8.0

The calculation scheme proceeds in incremental computational steps. At each step, the constitutive
model receives the old stress as input and the total strain increment for the step, and it is in charge
of producing the new stress value for the step. In the model implementation, an elastic guess for the
stress is first computed using the total strain increment. The yield conditions are tested. If yielding
is detected, a stress correction is applied to the elastic guess that is consistent with plasticity theory,
as follows.
The total strain increment is expressed as the sum of elastic and plastic components. According to
the superposition principle, the local stress-strain Eq. (1.126) can be expressed as follows:
p p p
σ1 1 = a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 − (a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 )
p p p
σ2 2 = a12 ε1 1 + a11 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 − (a12 ε1 1 + a11 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 )
p p p
σ3 3 = a13 ε1 1 + a13 ε2 2 + a33 ε3 3 − (a13 ε1 1 + a13 ε2 2 + a33 ε3 3 )
τ = 2G γ − 2G γ p (1.135)
e are substituted with the difference between total strain incre-

where elastic strain increments εij
p
ments εij and plastic strain increments εij .
The stress increments in Eq. (1.135) stand for the difference between new (N) and old (O) stress
for the step. Therefore,
p p p
σ1N 1 = [σ1O 1 + a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 ] − (a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 )
p p p
p p p
τ N = [τ O + 2G γ ] − (2G γ p ) (1.136)
In the above equations, the expression in brackets is the elastic guess (G) for the step, and the
expression in parentheses is the stress correction for the step (C). With this notation convention,
Eq. (1.136) can be written as follows:
σ1N 1 = σ1G 1 − σ1C 1

σ2N 2 = σ2G 2 − σ2C 2 (1.137)
σ3N 3 = σ3G 3 − σ3C 3
τ N
=τ G
−τ C
FLAC Version 8.0

where the (known) elastic guess for the step is:
σ1G 1 = σ1O 1 + a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3

σ2G 2 = σ2O 2 + a12 ε1 1 + a11 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 (1.138)
σ3G 3 = σ3O 3 + a13 ε1 1 + a13 ε2 2 + a33 ε3 3
τ G = τ O + 2G γ
And the stress correction, yet to be determined, is:
p p p
σ1C 1 = a11 ε1 1 + a12 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3
p p p
σ2C 2 = a12 ε1 1 + a11 ε2 2 + a13 ε3 3 (1.139)
p p p
σ3C 3 = a13 ε1 1 + a13 ε2 2 + a33 ε3 3
τ C = 2G γ p
To evaluate the stress correction, first consider the case of shear yielding on the weak plane. After
substitution of the plastic strain increments of Eq. (1.133) into Eq. (1.139), the corrections are
obtained as:
σ1C 1 = λs a13 tan ψj

σ2C 2 = λs a13 tan ψj (1.140)
σ3C 3 = λs a33 tan ψj
τ C = λs 2G
The magnitude of λs is determined from the condition that the new (corrected) stresses must satisfy
the condition for shear yielding, shown in Eq. (1.128). The new stresses for the step are obtained
from Eq. (1.137) and Eq. (1.140):
σ3N 3 = σ3G 3 − λs a33 tan ψj

τ N = τ G − λs 2G (1.141)
After substitution of σ3N 3 for σ3 3 and τ N for τ in the criterion for shear yielding (Eq. (1.128)) and
further solving for λs , we obtain:
FLAC Version 8.0

τ G + σ3G 3 tan φj − cj
λs = (1.142)
2G + a33 tan ψj tan φj
The plastic corrections for the local shear stress components on the weak plane are derived by
scaling:
σ1G 3
σ1C 3 = τ C (1.143)
τG
σ G
σ2C 3 = τ C 2G3
τ
For tensile failure on the weak plane, we follow the same reasoning. After substitution of the plastic
strain increment (Eq. (1.134)) for tensile yielding in Eq. (1.139), the stress corrections become:
σ1C 1 = λt a13
σ2C 2 = λt a13 (1.144)
σ3C 3 = λ a33
t
τ C
=0
Using Eq. (1.137) and Eq. (1.144), we obtain
σ3N 3 = σ3G 3 − λt a33 (1.145)
Finally, after substitution of Eq. (1.145) for σ3 3 in the tensile yield criterion, (Eq. (1.128)) and
solving for λt , one gets:
σ3G 3 − σjt
λ =
t
(1.146)
a33
Finally, after calculating stress corrections using Eq. (1.140) and Eq. (1.144), they are resolved into
the global coordinate system using standard matrix rotation operations. These corrections can now
be used to adjust elastic guess for the stress to obtain new stresses (alternatively, new stresses can
be found in the local coordinate system using Eq. (1.137) and then transferred into the global axes).
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.4.4 Large-Strain Update of Weak Plane Orientation
In large strain, the orientation of the weak plane is adjusted per zone to account for rigid body
rotations and rotations due to deformations. The corrections are identical to those described in
Section 1.6.3.6 of the Constitutive Models manual for FLAC 3D version 5.0 (Itasca, 2012).
The implementation of the Caniso model proceeds as follows. The coefficients of the global
elasticity matrix are computed and stored in the initialization phase. New stresses are estimated
using the elasticity matrix and the total strain increments for the step. The global stress tensor
then is resolved in the local axes of the weak plane, and the local yield conditions are tested. If
yielding is detected, a relevant local stress correction (derived using the flow rule) is calculated as
described above. The stress correction then is resolved into global axes and added to the elastic
stress estimate. Finally, in large strain, adjustment of the weak plane orientation is performed to
account for rigid body rotations.
FLAC Version 8.0

Canisotropic – MODEL caniso

e1 Young’s modulus in the weak plane, E
e2 Young’s modulus normal to the weak plane, E
g2 shear modulus normal to the weak plane, G
nu1 Poisson’s ratio in plane, ν
nu2 Poisson’s ratio cross plane, ν
angle angle of weak plane in degrees, θ
jcohesion weak plane cohesion, cj
jfriction weak plane friction, φj
jdilation weak plane dilation, ψj
jtension weak plane tension, σjt
Note that the default tension limit of the matrix, σjt , is the same as that for the Mohr-Coulomb
model. The default joint tension limit, σjt , is zero if φj = 0 and is cj / tan φj otherwise. If tension
failure occurs on the joint, then the joint tensile strength is set to zero.
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.5 Strain-Hardening/Softening Model
This model is based on the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model with nonassociated shear and associated
tension flow rules, as described earlier. The difference, however, lies in the possibility that the
cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength may harden or soften after the onset of plastic yield.
In the Mohr-Coulomb model, those properties are assumed to remain constant. Here, the user can
define the cohesion, friction and dilation as piecewise-linear functions of a hardening parameter
measuring the plastic shear strain. A piecewise-linear softening law for the tensile strength can
also be prescribed in terms of another hardening parameter measuring the plastic tensile strain. The
code measures the total plastic shear and tensile strains by incrementing the hardening parameters
at each timestep, and causes the model properties to conform to the user-defined functions.
The yield and potential functions, plastic flow rules and stress corrections are identical to those of
the Mohr-Coulomb model, as discussed in Section 1.6.2.
1.6.5.1 Hardening/Softening Parameters
Plastic shear strain is measured by the shear hardening parameter eps , whose incremental form is
defined as (see Equation 6.4 in Vermeer and deBorst 1984)
1
1 ps ps 2 1 ps 2 1 ps ps 2 2
e ps
= e1 − em + em + e3 − em (1.147)
2 2 2
where
ps 1 ps ps
em = e1 + e3
3
ps
and ej , j = 1, 3 are the principal plastic shear strain increments.
The tensile hardening parameter ept measures the accumulated tensile plastic strain; its increment
is defined as
pt
ept = e3 (1.148)
pt
where e3 is the increment of tensile plastic strain in the direction of the major principal stress
(recall that tensile stresses are positive).
The notation used above (and in similar expressions to be presented later) needs some clarification.
ps p
The term ei is identical to ei (defined previously in Eq. (1.70)), where i = 1, 2, 3. The
added superscript, s, denotes that the plastic strain is related to the shear yield surface (rather than
FLAC Version 8.0

ps
the tensile yield surface). Note that ei are plastic principal strain increments, not shear strain
pt p
increments. Similarly, e3 is identical to e3 , defined in Eq. (1.77); here, the superscript t denotes
that the plastic strain is related to the tensile yield surface.
The following example demonstrates the relation between the incremental hardening parameter
and the axial strain increment for an unconfined compression test of an axisymmetric sample of
frictionless material. The results show that the average value for the plastic strain increment is
equal to the axial strain increment.
Example 1.2 Relation between incremental hardening parameter and axial strain increment
for an axial compression test
config axi extra 5
g 5 10
mo ss
pro den 1 bul 1e8 she 1e8 fric 0 coh 1e5 tens 1e20
fix y j=1
fix y j=11
ini yvel -.25e-4 j=11
hist syy i=1 j=1
def results
sum = 0.0
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
sum = sum + e plastic(i,j)
endloop
endloop
av ep = sum / float(izones * jzones)
ax e inc = -ydisp(1,jgp) / y(1,jgp)
ii = out(’ Average plastic strain increment = ’+string(av ep))
ii = out(’ Axial strain increment = ’+string(ax e inc))
end
cyc 1500
prop e plastic = 0 ; reset plastic strain
ini xd 0 yd 0 ; and displacements
cyc 40 ; Do a strain increment
results
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.5.2 User-Defined Functions for Cohesion, Friction, Dilation and Tensile Strength
Consider a one-dimensional stress-strain curve σ − e, which softens upon yield and attains some
residual strength:
yield
σ
e=ee e=ee+ep
Figure 1.15 Example stress-strain curve
The curve is linear to the point of yield; in that range, the strain is elastic only (i.e., e = ee ).
After yield, the total strain is composed of elastic and plastic parts (i.e., e = ee + ep ). In the
softening/hardening model, the user defines the cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength
variance as a function of the plastic portion, ep , of the total strain. Examples of these functions
are sketched in Figure 1.16, and may be approximated in FLAC as sets of linear segments (see
Figure 1.17).
C φ
eps eps
(a) (b)
Figure 1.16 Variation of cohesion (a) and friction angle (b) with plastic strain
FLAC Version 8.0

C φ
eps eps
(a) (b)
Figure 1.17 Approximation by linear segments
Hardening and softening behaviors for the cohesion, friction and dilation in terms of the shear
parameter eps (see Eq. (1.147)) are provided by the user in the form of tables. Each table contains
pairs of values: one for the parameter and one for the corresponding property value. It is assumed
that the property varies linearly between two consecutive parameter entries in the table. Softening
of the tensile strength is described in a similar manner using the parameter ept (see Eq. (1.148)).
For example, the input in Example 1.3 illustrates a piecewise-linear definition of softening proper-
ties:
Example 1.3 Piecewise linear definition of softening properties

model ss
prop s=11.5e9 b=8.62e9 d=2000 ftab=1 ctab=2 dtab=3 ttab=4
prop fric=40 coh=20e6 dil=10 ten=15e6
table 1 0,40 .01,30
table 2 0,20e6, .01,10e6
table 3 0,10 .01,5
table 4 0,15e6 .01,0.0
Here, the friction function is defined in table 1, the cohesion in table 2, the dilation in table 3 and the
tensile strength in table 4. Note that the initial friction, cohesion, dilation and tensile strength must
be defined (here, to be 40◦ , 20 MPa, 10◦ and 15 MPa, respectively). The functions each consist of
two linear segments, as shown in Figure 1.18. The values remain constant for plastic strains greater
than the last table value.
FLAC Version 8.0

40°
30°
20e6
φ C
10e6
0 0
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02
(a) friction (b) cohesion
10° 15e6
ψ 5° σt
0 0
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02
(c) dilation (d) tensile strength
Figure 1.18 Friction (a), cohesion (b), dilation (c) and tensile strength (d)
defined by two linear segments
Hardening behavior for the cohesion, friction and dilation can be produced by an increase in these
properties with increasing plastic strain measure.
In the implementation of this model, new stresses for the step are computed, as described in the
FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model description, using the current values of the model properties. Plastic
shear and tensile strain increments are evaluated from Eqs. (1.70) and (1.77) using Eq. (1.75) of λs
and Eq. (1.79) of λt . Hardening increments are calculated as the surface average of values obtained
from Eqs. (1.147) and (1.148) for all triangles involved in the zone. The hardening parameters
are updated, and new model properties are evaluated by linear interpolation in the tables. These
properties are stored for use in the next step. The hardening or softening lags one timestep behind
the corresponding plastic deformation. In an explicit code, this error is small because the steps are
small.
For a material with friction, the maximum value of the tensile strength is evaluated from Eq. (1.62)
using the new cohesion and friction angle. This value is retained by the code if it is smaller than
the tensile strength updated from the table.
FLAC Version 8.0

Strain-Hardening/Softening – MODEL ss

ctable number of table relating cohesion to plastic shear strain
dtable number of table relating dilation angle to plastic shear strain
ftable number of table relating friction angle to plastic shear strain
ttable number of table relating tensile limit to plastic tensile strain
The strain-hardening/softening behavior is controlled by the variation in friction, cohesion and
dilation as a function of plastic shear strain, and tension limit as a function of plastic tensile strain,
given by a specified table of values. Note that if table numbers are given as 0 (default), the properties
will take the values given (i.e., with cohesion, dilation, friction or tension keyword).
The following properties can be printed, plotted or accessed via FISH.
e plastic accumulated plastic shear strain
et plastic accumulated plastic tensile strain
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.6 Bilinear Strain-Hardening/Softening Ubiquitous-Joint Model
The bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model is a generalization of the ubiquitous-

joint model described in Section 1.6.5. In the bilinear model, the failure envelopes for the matrix
and joint are the composite of two Mohr-Coulomb criteria with a tension cutoff that can harden or
soften according to specified laws. A nonassociated flow rule is used for shear-plastic flow and an
associated flow rule, for tensile-plastic flow.
The softening behaviors for the matrix and the joint are specified in tables in terms of four indepen-
dent hardening parameters (two for the matrix and two for the joint), which measure the amount of
plastic shear and tensile strain, respectively. In this numerical model, general failure is first detected
for the step, and relevant plastic corrections are applied. The new stresses are then analyzed for
failure on the weak plane, and updated accordingly. The hardening parameters are incremented if
plastic flow has taken place, and the parameters of cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength
are adjusted for the matrix and the joint using the tables.
1.6.6.1 Failure Criterion and Flow Rule for the Matrix
The criterion for failure in the matrix used in this model is sketched in the principal stress plane
(σ1 , σ3 ) in Figure 1.19. (Recall that compressive stresses are negative and, by convention, σ1 ≤
σ2 ≤ σ3 .)
The failure envelope is defined by two Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria: f2s = 0 and f1s = 0 for
segments A − B and B − C, and a tension failure criterion f t = 0 for segment C − D.
The shear failure criterion has the general form f s = 0. Failure is characterized by a cohesion, c,
and a friction angle, φ. For segment A − B, cohesion and friction angle are defined by c2 , and φ2 ,
respectively. For segment B −C, cohesion and friction angle are defined by c1 , and φ1 , respectively.
The tensile failure criterion is specified by means of the tensile strength, σ t (positive value); thus
we have

f s = σ1 − σ3 Nφ + 2c Nφ (1.149)
f t = σ3 − σ t (1.150)
where
1 + sin φ
Nφ = (1.151)
1 − sin φ
FLAC Version 8.0

The value of σ3 corresponding to the intersection of f2s = 0 and f1s = 0 is given by

2c2 Nφ − 2c1 Nφ1
σ3I = 2
(1.152)
Nφ2 − Nφ1
Note that the tensile cap acts on segment B − C of the shear envelope and, for a material with
nonzero friction angle φ1 , the maximum value of the tensile strength is given by
c1
σ t max = (1.153)
tan φ1
σ3
σ1
=
σ 3
f t =0 c2/tan φ2
C
f1 = 0
s
D
B 1 σt c1/tan φ1
N φ1
σ1
f 2 =0
s
1
Nφ 2
A
Figure 1.19 FLAC bilinear matrix failure criterion
In the model formulation, elastic guesses for the stresses are first evaluated for the step using total
strain increments. Plastic yielding is detected if the corresponding stress point (σ1I , σ3I ) lies outside
the failure surface representation in Figure 1.19. In this case, a stress correction must be applied to
the elastic guess. It is determined by allowing plastic flow to occur in order to restore the condition
f2s = 0, f1s = 0 or f t = 0, depending on the position of the stress point above A − B, B − C
or C − D. (Bisectors are used at B and C to delimit the domain of failure attached to a particular
segment of the yield surface.)
FLAC Version 8.0

The usual assumption is made: that total strain increments can be decomposed into elastic and
plastic parts. The flow rule for plastic yielding has the form
p ∂g
ei = λ (1.154)
∂σi
where i = 1, 3. The potential function g for shear yielding is g s . This function corresponds to the
nonassociated law,
g s = σ1 − σ3 Nψ (1.155)
where ψ, the dilation angle, is equal to ψ2 for failure along A − B, ψ1 along B − C, and
1 + sin ψ
Nψ = (1.156)
1 − sin ψ
The potential function for tensile yielding is g t . It corresponds to the associated flow rule,
g t = σ3 (1.157)
It may be shown that the plastic strain increments for shear failure have the form
p
e1 s = λs
p
e2 s = 0 (1.158)
p
e3 s = −λs Nψ
The stress corrections for shear failure are
σ1 = −λs (α1 − α2 Nψ )
σ2 = −λs α2 (1 − Nψ ) (1.159)
σ3 = −λs (−α1 Nψ + α2 )
FLAC Version 8.0

where

I − σ I N + 2c N
σ1 3 φ φ
λs = (1.160)
(α1 − α2 Nψ ) − (−α1 Nψ + α2 ) Nφ
and, by definition,
4
α1 = K + G
3
(1.161)
2
α2 = K − G
3
In turn, the plastic strain increments for tensile failure have the form
p
e1 t = 0
p
e2 t = 0 (1.162)
p
e3 t = λt
The stress corrections for tensile failure are
σ1 = −λt α2
σ2 = −λt α2 (1.163)
σ3 = −λt α1
where
σ3I − σ t
λ =
t
(1.164)
α1
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.6.2 Failure Criterion and Flow Rule for the Weak Plane
The stresses, corrected for plastic flow in the matrix, are resolved into components parallel and
perpendicular to the weak plane, and tested for ubiquitous-joint failure. The failure criterion is
expressed in terms of the magnitude of the tangential traction component, τ = |σ 12 |, and the
normal traction component, σ 22 , on the weak plane.
The failure criterion is represented in Figure 1.20 and corresponds to two Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria (f2s = 0 for segment A − B; f1s = 0 for segment B − C) and a tension failure criterion
(f t = 0, for segment C −D). Each shear criterion has the general form f s = 0, and is characterized
by a cohesion and a friction angle cj , φj , equal to cj2 , φj2 along segment A − B and cj1 , φj1 along
B − C. The tensile criterion is specified by means of the tensile strength, σjt (positive value). Thus
we have
f s = τ + σ 22 tan φj − cj (1.165)
f t = σ 22 − σjt (1.166)
Note that for a weak plane with nonzero friction angle φj1 , the maximum value of the tensile strength
is given by
cj1
σjt max = (1.167)
tan φj1
A
τ
f2 s=
0
B
f1 s= f t =0
0 Cj2
Cj1 C
φj1 φj2
D σ3'3'
σtj
Figure 1.20 FLAC bilinear joint failure criterion
FLAC Version 8.0

Yield is detected and stress corrections applied using a technique similar to the one described in the
matrix context.
Here, the flow rule for plastic yielding has the form
∂g
e 22s = λ
p
∂σ 22
∂g
γ ps = λ (1.168)
∂τ
where γ is the strain variable associated to τ , and we have
γ ps = |e 12s |
p
(1.169)
The potential function, g, for shear yielding on the weak plane is g s . It corresponds to the nonas-
sociated law,
g s = τ + σ 22 tan ψj (1.170)
where ψj , the dilation angle, is equal to ψj2 for failure along A − B, and ψj1 along B − C.
The potential function, g, for tensile yielding on the weak plane is g t . It corresponds to the associated
flow rule,
g t = σ 22 (1.171)
It may be shown that the local plastic strain increments for shear failure are such that
e 22s = λs tan ψj

p
γ ps = λs (1.172)
FLAC Version 8.0

The stress corrections for shear failure are
σ 11 = −λs α2 tan ψj
τ = −λs 2G (1.173)
where
τ O + σ O
22 tan φj − cj
λ =
s
(1.174)
2G + α1 tan ψj tan φj
and the superscript O indicates values obtained just before detection of failure on the weak plane.
The plastic corrections for the local shear stress components on the weak plane are derived by
scaling
σ O
σ 12 = τ O12 (1.175)
τ
In turn, local plastic strain increments for tensile failure have the form
e 22t = λt
p
γ pt = 0 (1.176)
The stress corrections for tensile failure are
σ 11 = −λt α2
σ 22 = −λt α1 (1.177)
σ 33 = −λt α2
FLAC Version 8.0

where
σ O
22 − σj
t
λ =
t
(1.178)
α1
1.6.6.3 Large-Strain Update of Orientation
In large-strain, the orientation of the weak plane is adjusted, per zone, to account for rigid-body
rotations, and rotations due to deformations. The corrections are identical to those described in
Section 1.6.3.1.
1.6.6.4 Hardening Parameters
In the bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model, some or all of the zone yielding
parameters (i.e., cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength) for the matrix and joint are modified
automatically after the onset of plasticity, according to piecewise linear laws specified on input, in
terms of a range of values for the hardening parameters. (See Section 1.6.5.2.) One table number
must be specified in the PROPERTY command for each softening parameter. (If no table property
number is specified, the parameter is taken as constant.) The corresponding table data contain pairs
of values for the parameter and the property between which a linear variation is assumed. The last
property value is used for values of the hardening parameter beyond the last one specified in the
table.
Four independent hardening parameters are used in this model:
(1) κ s measures the matrix plastic shear strain, and is used to update the matrix cohesion,
friction and dilation;
(2) κ t measures the matrix plastic volumetric tensile strain, and is used to update the matrix
tensile strength;
(3) κjs estimates the joint plastic shear strain, and controls the joint cohesion, friction and
dilation update; and
(4) κjt evaluates the joint plastic volumetric tensile strain, and controls the joint tensile
strength update.
The parameters are defined as the sum of incremental measures of plastic strain for the zone. The
zone-hardening increments are calculated as the average of hardening increments over all triangles
involved in the zone.
The shear-hardening increment for a triangle is the square root of the second invariant of the
incremental plastic shear-strain deviator tensor for the step. For the matrix, it is given as
FLAC Version 8.0


1 p p p p p
κ s = √ (e1 s − ems )2 + (ems )2 + (e3 s − ems )2 (1.179)
2
p
where ems is the volumetric plastic shear strain increment,
p 1 p p
ems = (e1 s + e3 s ) (1.180)
3
and the plastic strain increments are given by Eq. (1.158), using Eq. (1.160) for λs .
For the joint, the formula is

1 p p
κjs = (e 22s )2 + (e 12s )2 (1.181)
3
where the plastic strain increments are given by Eq. (1.172) (see Eq. (1.169)), using Eq. (1.174) for
λs .
The tetrahedron tensile-hardening increment is the plastic volumetric tensile-strain increment.
For the matrix, we have
p
κ t = 3 t (1.182)
where the plastic strain increment is given by Eq. (1.162), using Eq. (1.164) for λt .
For the joint, the expression is
κjt = e 22t

p
(1.183)
where the plastic strain increment is given by Eq. (1.176), using Eq. (1.178) for λt .
FLAC Version 8.0

The implementation of the bilinear model in FLAC proceeds as indicated above. An elastic guess,
σijI , is first computed using stress increments for the step evaluated by application of Hooke’s law to
the total strain increments, eij . Principal stresses are calculated, ordered such that σ1I ≤ σ2I ≤ σ3I ,
and tested for failure in the matrix using the yield criteria Eqs. (1.149) and (1.150). In principle,
matrix failure is declared if the representation of the stress point (σ1I , σ3I ) falls outside the yield
surface in Figure 1.19. In this case, stress corrections are applied to the principal values of the
elastic guess, which depend on the position of the stress point above A − B, B − C or C − D.
(Bisectors are used at B and C to delimit the domain of failure attached to a particular segment of
the yield surface.)
The stress corrections for shear failure in the matrix are given by Eqs. (1.159) and (1.160), where
the parameters of cohesion, c, friction, φ, and dilation, ψ, have value c2 , φ2 , ψ2 for failure along
A − B, and c1 , φ1 , ψ1 for failure along B − C.
The stress corrections for tensile failure in the matrix are given by Eqs. (1.163) and (1.164).
The stress tensor components in the system of reference axes, σijO , are then calculated from the
corrected principal values by assuming that the principal directions have not changed during plastic
flow.
Local traction components on the weak plane are defined as σ 22 and τ , with σ 22 being the normal
component, and τ = |σ 12 | being the magnitude of the tangential traction component. These
stresses are resolved from σijO , and examined for ubiquitous-joint failure using the yield criteria
Eqs. (1.165) and (1.166). In principle, ubiquitous-joint failure is declared if the representation of
the stress point (σ O O
22 , τ ) falls outside the yield surface in Figure 1.20. In this case, local stress
corrections, which depend on the position of the stress point in the vicinity of A − B, B − C or
C − D, are applied. (Bisectors are used at B and C to delimit the domain of failure attached to a
particular segment of the yield surface.)
The stress corrections for shear joint failure are given by Eqs. (1.173) to (1.175), where the param-
eters of cohesion, cj , friction, φj and dilation, ψj , have values cj2 , φj2 , ψj2 for failure along A − B,
and cj1 , φj1 , ψj1 for failure along B − C.
The stress corrections for tensile joint failure are given by Eqs. (1.177) and (1.178).
Finally, the local stress components are resolved back into global axes.
In large-strain mode, the unit normal to the weak plane is adjusted per zone to account for body
rotations.
After determination of the new stresses for the step, the hardening parameters are incremented using
Eqs. (1.179), (1.181), (1.182) and (1.183). These parameters are then used to determine new values
of cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength for the matrix and the joint from the available
input tables.
FLAC Version 8.0

It is assumed that the tensile strength of the material can never increase. Also, for material with
t
friction, the value will not exceed the maximum value σmax or σjt (see Eqs. (1.153) and (1.167)).
max
Note that, by default, the yield model is linear in both the matrix and the joint, in which case only
section 1 (where f1s = 0) and section 3 (where f t = 0) of the yield curve are recognized (even if
properties are assigned for section 2, where f2s = 0). To activate the bilinear laws, the property
bimatrix and/or bijoint must be set to 1.
Also, if the friction angles for sections 1 and 2 become equal, the model will be considered as linear
and section 2 will be ignored (for the matrix and/or the joint, as appropriate). Section 2 will also be
ignored if the intersection of sections 1 and 2 corresponds to a stress point that violates the tensile
criterion.
FLAC Version 8.0

Bilinear Strain-Hardening/Softening Ubiquitous-Joint – MODEL subiquitous
bijoint = 0 for joint linear model (default)

= 1 for joint bilinear model
bimatrix = 0 for matrix linear model (default)
= 1 for matrix bilinear model
c2table number of table relating matrix cohesion, c2 , to matrix plastic shear
strain
cj2table number of table relating joint cohesion, cj 2 , to joint plastic shear strain
cjtable number of table relating joint cohesion, cj 1 , to joint plastic shear strain
co2 matrix cohesion, c2

cohesion matrix cohesion, c1
ctable number of table relating matrix cohesion, c1 , to matrix plastic shear
strain
d2table number of table relating matrix dilation, ψ2 , to matrix plastic shear
strain
di2 matrix dilation angle, ψ2
dilation matrix dilation angle, ψ1
dj2table number of table relating joint dilation, ψj 2 , to joint plastic shear strain
djtable number of table relating joint dilation, ψj 1 , to joint plastic shear strain
dtable number of table relating matrix dilation angle, ψ1 , to matrix plastic

shear strain
f2table number of table relating matrix friction angle, φ2 , to matrix plastic
shear strain
fj2table number of table relating joint friction angle, φj 2 , to joint plastic shear
strain
fjtable number of table relating joint friction angle, φj 1 , to joint plastic shear
strain
FLAC Version 8.0

fr2 matrix friction angle, φ2

friction matrix friction angle, φ1
ftable number of table relating matrix friction angle, φ1 , to matrix plastic
shear strain
jangle joint angle taken counterclockwise from the x-axis, θ
jc2 joint cohesion, cj 2
jcohesion joint cohesion, cj 1
jd2 joint dilation angle, ψj 2
jdilation joint dilation angle, ψj 1
jf2 joint friction angle, φj 2
jfriction joint friction angle, φj 1
jtension joint tension limit, σjt

tension matrix tension limit, σ t
tjtable number of table relating joint tensile limit, σjt , to joint plastic tensile
strain
ttable number of table relating matrix tensile limit, σ t , to matrix plastic
tensile strain
Table 1.1 lists the properties by matrix and joint failure segments.
Note that the default tension limits for the matrix and weakness planes are the same as those in the
ubiquitous-joint model.
e plastic accumulated matrix plastic shear strain
ej plastic accumulated joint plastic shear strain
et plastic accumulated matrix plastic tensile strain
etj plastic accumulated joint plastic tensile strain
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

Table 1.1 Property groups by failure segment for the bilinear,

strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model
Properties Description
general
bijoint 1 for bilinear joint law
0 for linear joint law (default)
bimatrix 1 for bilinear matrix law
0 for linear matrix law (default)
bulk mod bulk modulus
jangle joint angle
(counterclockwise from x-axis)
jtension <tjtable> tension limit of joint segments 1 and 2
shear mod shear modulus
tension <ttable> tension limit of matrix segments 1 and 2
matrix-segment 1
cohesion <ctable> cohesion
dilation <dtable> dilation (degree)
friction <ftable> friction (degree)
matrix-segment 2
co2 <c2table> cohesion
di2 <d2table> dilation (degree)
fr2 <f2table> friction (degree)
joint-segment 1
jcohesion <cjtable> cohesion
jdilation <djtable> dilation (degree)
jfriction <fjtable> friction (degree)
joint-segment 2
jc2 <cj2table> cohesion
jd2 <dj2table> dilation (degree)
jf2 <fj2table> friction (degree)
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.7 Double-Yield Model
Permanent volume changes caused by the application of isotropic pressure are taken into account
in this model by including, in addition to the shear and tensile failure envelopes in the FLAC strain-
softening/hardening model, a volumetric yield surface (or “cap”). For simplicity, the cap surface,
defined by the “cap pressure” pc > 0, is independent of shear stress; it consists of a vertical line on
a plot of shear stress versus mean stress. The hardening behavior of the cap pressure is activated
by volumetric plastic strain, and follows a piecewise-linear law prescribed in a user-supplied table
(like that described in Section 1.6.5.2). The tangential bulk and shear moduli evolve as plastic
volumetric strain takes place according to a special law defined in terms of a factor, R, assumed to
be constant, and defined as the ratio of elastic bulk modulus to plastic bulk modulus.
Only two additional material parameters and a table are required in addition to those associated
with the strain-softening model:
(1) the initial value of pc , which corresponds to the maximum mean pressure that the material
has experienced in the past;
(2) the value of R, greater than unity, which controls the slope of the stress-strain curve on
volumetric unloading (the “swelling” line, in soil mechanics terms); and
(3) the table representation of the “hardening curve,” which relates cap pressure, pc , to plastic
volume strain, epv .
Hence, any laboratory-determined hardening behavior may be modeled within the constraints im-
posed by a two-parameter model.
In the FLAC implementation of this model, principal stresses σ1 , σ2 , σ3 are used, the out-of-plane
stress, σzz , being recognized as one of these. The principal stresses and principal directions are
evaluated from the stress tensor components, and ordered so that (recall that compressive stresses
are negative)
σ1 ≤ σ2 ≤ σ3 (1.184)
The corresponding principal strain increments e1 , e2 , e3 are decomposed:
p
ei = eie + ei i = 1, 3 (1.185)
where the superscripts e and p refer to elastic and plastic parts, respectively, and the plastic compo-
nents are nonzero only during plastic flow. (Note that extensional strains are positive.) It is assumed
that the plastic contributions of shear, tensile and volumetric yielding are additive, so we may write
FLAC Version 8.0

p ps pt pv
ei = ei + ei + ei (1.186)
where the superscripts ps, pt and pv stand for plastic shear, plastic tensile and plastic volumetric
strain. By convention, in this section, the symbol e is used to refer to the minus volumetric strain
increment (e1 + e2 + e3 ) with plastic part ep and elastic part ee . The symbol epv refers
pv pv pv
to minus the value of the plastic volumetric strain (e1 + e2 + e3 ).
The incremental expression of Hooke’s law in terms of principal stress and strain has the form
σ1 = α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2 = α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.187)
σ3 = α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
where α1 = Kc + 4Gc /3, α2 = Kc − 2Gc /3, and Kc and Gc are the current tangential bulk and
shear moduli, defined according to the following considerations.
Consider an isotropic compression test with increasing pressure, pc . As the material becomes
more compact, its plastic stiffness (dpc /depv ) usually increases; it seems reasonable that the elastic
stiffness will also increase, since the grains are being forced closer together. A simple rule is
adopted in this model whereby under general loading conditions, the incremental elastic stiffness,
Kc , is a constant factor, R, multiplied by the current incremental plastic stiffness. The values of
bulk and shear modulus, K and G, supplied by the user, are taken as upper limits to Kc and Gc ,
and it is assumed that the ratio Kc /Gc remains constant and equal to K/G. Using incremental
notation, this law is defined by the relations
pc
Kc = R Kc := min(Kc , K)
epv
(1.188)
Kc
Gc = G
K
where the factor R is given, and pc /epv is the current slope of the table of pc values.
The type of behavior exhibited by the double-yield model is illustrated in Figure 1.21, which shows a
nonlinear volumetric loading curve with several unloading excursions; these excursions are elastic,
with slope related by R to the plastic stiffness at the point of unloading.
FLAC Version 8.0

Main
Loading
Pressure
Path
Unloading
e
- Volumetric Strain
Figure 1.21 Elastic volumetric loading/unloading paths
The shear and tensile yield functions, referred to as f s and f t , have the form

f s = σ1 − σ3 Nφ + 2c Nφ (1.189)
f = σ − σ3
t t
(1.190)
where
Nφ = (1 + sin φ)/(1 − sin φ)
and φ is the friction angle, c is the cohesion and σ t is the tensile strength.
The volumetric yield function, f v , is defined as
1
fv = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 + pc (1.191)
3
where pc is the cap pressure.
FLAC Version 8.0

The shear potential function, g s , corresponds to a nonassociated flow rule, and the tensile and
volumetric potential functions, g t and g v , correspond to associated laws. They have the form
g s = σ1 − σ3 Nψ
g t = −σ3 (1.192)
1
g v = σ1 + σ2 + σ3
3
where
Nψ = (1 + sin ψ)/(1 − sin ψ)
and ψ is the dilation angle.
1.6.7.3 Hardening/Softening Parameters
The shear and volume yield surfaces can harden (or soften), and the tensile yield surface can soften,
according to hardening rules that are specified by look-up tables (see Section 1.6.5.2). Entry to the
tables is by hardening parameters that record some measure of accumulated plastic strain. In shear
and tension, the hardening parameter incremental forms are
1
1 ps ps 2 1 ps 2 1 ps ps 2 2
e ps
= e1 − em + em + e3 − em
2 2 2
pt
ept = e3 (1.193)
where
ps ps ps
em = 1/3 e1 + e3
ps pt
ej , j = 1, 3 and e3 are plastic shear and tensile strain increments in the principal directions.
In the volumetric direction, the hardening parameter increment is
pv pv pv
epv = |e1 + e2 + e3 | (1.194)
pv
where ej , j = 1, 3 are plastic volumetric strain increments in the principal directions.
These hardening parameters are used in the tables to determine new values of friction, cohesion,
dilation, tensile strength and cap pressure. The current bulk and shear moduli are also calculated
from the table values as defined by Eq. (1.188).
FLAC Version 8.0

Let the superscript I be used to represent the elastic guess, obtained by adding to the old stresses,
σijO , elastic increments computed using the total strain increments. In principal axes we then have
σ1I = σ1O + α1 e1 + α2 (e2 + e3 )

σ2I = σ2O + α1 e2 + α2 (e1 + e3 ) (1.195)
σ3I = σ3O + α1 e3 + α2 (e1 + e2 )
In the FLAC implementation, shear yield is detected if f s (σ1I , σ3I ) < 0, volumetric yield if
fv (σ1I , σ2I , σ3I ) < 0, and tensile yield if f t (σ3I ) < 0. Corresponding plastic corrections are
evaluated using the following techniques.
We first consider the case where tensile failure is not detected for the step, but both shear and
volumetric yield conditions are exceeded. Using Eqs. (1.185) and (1.186), the principal strain
increments may be expressed as
ps pv
ei = eie + ei + ei i = 1, 3 (1.196)
The flow rules for shear and volumetric yielding are
ps ∂g s
ei = λs
∂σi
pv ∂g v
ei = λv (1.197)
∂σi
where i = 1, 3. Using Eq. (1.192), these expressions become, after differentiation,
ps
e1 = λs
ps
e2 = 0
ps
e3 = −λs Nψ (1.198)
and
FLAC Version 8.0

pv 1 v
e1 = λ
3
pv 1
e2 = λv
3
pv 1
e3 = λv (1.199)
3
Substituting in Eq. (1.196), we obtain
e1e = e1 − λs − λv /3
e2e = e2 − λv /3 (1.200)
e3e = e3 + λs Nψ − λv /3
With these expressions for the elastic strain increments, Hooke’s incremental equations yield (see
Eq. (1.187))
σ1N = σ1I − λs (α1 − α2 Nψ ) − λv K

σ2N = σ2I − α2 λs (1 − Nψ ) − λv K (1.201)
σ3N = σ3I − λ (α2 − α1 Nψ ) − λ K
s v
where σiI , i = 1, 3 are the initial trial stresses in Eq. (1.195), and σiN = σiO + σi , i = 1, 3 are
the new principal stresses for the step.
To determine the multipliers λs and λv , we require that if shear and volumetric yielding occur, the
new stresses are on both yield surfaces, and we must have f s (σ1N , σ3N ) = 0, and f σ (σ1N , σ2N , σ3N )
= 0. Substituting Eq. (1.201) for σi , i = 1, 3 in Eqs. (1.189) and (1.191), and solving for λs , we
obtain
f sI − f vI (1 − Nφ )
λs = (1.202)
α1 − α2 Nψ − α2 Nφ + α1 Nφ Nψ − K(1 − Nφ )(1 − Nψ )
Hence,
FLAC Version 8.0

f vI
λv = − λs (1 − Nψ ) (1.203)
K
In these equations, the notation f I stands for the function f evaluated for the initial trial stresses.
Eqs. (1.202) and (1.203) can now be used to evaluate the new stresses from Eq. (1.201). These
stresses simultaneously satisfy both yield conditions and both flow rules.
If the element is only yielding in shear, then
λv = 0
f sI
λs = (1.204)
α1 − α2 Nψ − α2 Nφ + α1 Nφ Nψ
If the element is only yielding in volume, then
λs = 0
f vI
λ =
v
(1.205)
K
Eq. (1.204) or Eq. (1.205) may be used in Eq. (1.201), as appropriate, to compute new stresses.
We now consider the case where tensile failure is detected by the condition f t (σ3I ) < 0. If
volumetric failure is not detected, we use the same technique and stress corrections as described
in the Mohr-Coulomb model. If volumetric failure is detected in addition to tensile failure, then
either f s (σ1I , σ3I ) ≤ 0 or f s (σ1I , σ3I ) > 0. We begin by assuming that all three yield conditions
are exceeded. We assume that the plastic contributions of shear, volumetric and tensile yielding are
additive:
ps pv pt
ei = eie + ei + ei + ei i = 1, 3 (1.206)
The flow rule for tensile yielding has the form
pt ∂g t
ei = λt i = 1, 3 (1.207)
∂σi
Using Eq. (1.192), these expressions become, after partial differentiation,
FLAC Version 8.0

pt
e1 = 0
pt
e2 = 0 (1.208)
pt
e3 = −λt
Using the same reasoning as above, and Eqs. (1.198) and (1.199) for the shear and volumetric flow
rule, we obtain
σ1N = σ1I − λs (α1 − α2 Nψ ) − λv K + λt α2

σ2N = σ2I − α2 λs (1 − Nψ ) − λv K + λt α2 (1.209)
σ3N = σ3I − λs (α2 − α1 Nψ ) − λv K + λt α1
The multipliers λs , λv and λt are determined by solving the system of three equations:
f s (σ1N , σ3N ) = 0, f v (σ1N , σ2N , σ3N ) = 0 and f t (σ3N ) = 0. This gives
f tI (1 + 2Nφ ) + 3f vI − 2f sI
λs =
α2 − α1
f vI −3(1 + Nφ )f tI − 6f vI + 3f sI
λv = + (1.210)
K α2 − α1
−f [Nψ (1 + 2Nφ ) + 2 + Nφ ] − 3(1 + Nψ )f vI + (1 + 2Nψ )f sI
tI
λt =
α2 − α1
Substitution of those expressions in Eq. (1.209) yields

σ1N = σ t Nφ − 2c Nφ

σ2N = −3pc − σ t (1 + Nφ ) + 2c Nφ (1.211)
σ3N = σt
If only tensile and volumetric yield are detected, then λs = 0 in Eq. (1.209). The constants λv and
λt are determined by requiring that both conditions, f v (σ1N , σ2N , σ3N ) = 0 and f t (σ3N ) = 0, be
fulfilled. After some manipulation, we obtain
FLAC Version 8.0

α1 f vI + Kf tI
λ = v
K(α1 − K)
f vI + f tI
λt = (1.212)
α1 − K
Substitution of those expressions in Eq. (1.209) gives
3f vI + f tI
σ1N = −
σ1I
2
3f + f tI
vI
σ2N = σ2 −
I
(1.213)
2
σ3N = σt
Hardening and softening behaviors for the cohesion, friction and dilation in terms of the shear
parameter eps (see Eq. (1.193)) are provided by the user in the form of tables. Softening of the
tensile strength is described in a similar manner, using the parameter ept (see Eq. (1.193)). In turn,
the variation of cap pressure is specified in a table in terms of the parameter epv (see Eq. (1.194)).
Each table contains pairs of values: one for the parameter and one for the corresponding property
value. It is assumed that the property varies linearly between two consecutive parameter entries in
the table.
In the implementation of the double-yield model in FLAC, new stresses for the step are computed
using the current values of the model properties. In this process, an elastic guess σijI is first
computed, by adding to the old stress components increments calculated by application of Hooke’s
law to the total strain increment for the step. Principal stresses σ1I , σ2I , σ3I and corresponding
principal directions are calculated and ordered. If these stresses violate the composite yield criterion,
corrections are applied to the elastic guess as described in Section 1.6.7.4, to give the new stress
state. The stress tensor components in the system of reference axes are then calculated from the
principal values by assuming that the principal directions have not been affected by the occurrence
of a plastic correction.
Plastic strain increments are evaluated from Eqs. (1.198), (1.199) and (1.208), using relevant ex-
pressions of λs , λt and λv for the mode of failure taking place. Zone hardening increments are
then calculated as the surface average of values obtained from Eqs. (1.193) and (1.194) for all
triangles involved in the zone. The hardening parameters are updated, and new zone properties for
cohesion, friction, dilation, tensile strength and cap pressure are evaluated by linear interpolation
in the tables. New elastic constants are derived from the cap pressure table using Eq. (1.188). All
of these properties are stored for use in the next step. The hardening or softening lags one timestep
FLAC Version 8.0

behind the corresponding plastic deformation. In an explicit code, this error is small because the
steps are small.
For a material with friction, the maximum value of the tensile strength is evaluated from Eq. (1.62),
using the new cohesion and friction angle. This value is retained by the code if it is smaller than
the tensile strength updated from the table.
1.6.7.6 Choice of Volumetric Properties
The “hardening curve” and ratio, R, of elastic bulk modulus to plastic bulk modulus are volumetric
properties that may be derived from the results of a triaxial test in which axial stress and confining
pressure, p, are kept equal. This test, for which dep = depv , is recommended because it is best
to determine the parameters related to a particular mode of failure from a test which only involves
that failure mode.
p
tan -1
( (
hKc
h+Kc dp
dp
Kc= dee
tan -1Kc
dpc
h= dep
e
dep de
de dep
R= e
de
Figure 1.22 Isotropic consolidation test
Consider the experimental graph of minus mean stress (pressure) versus minus volumetric strain for
an increasing stress level, with a small unloading excursion, obtained from such a test and presented
in Figure 1.22. The volumetric strain increment, de, at a point of the main loading path (assuming
that we are above any initial pre-consolidation stress level) is composed of an elastic part, dee , and
a plastic part, dep . (Recall that in this section, de, dee and dep refer to minus the value of the
volumetric strain.) The observed tangent modulus may be expressed as
dp hKc
= (1.214)
de h + Kc
FLAC Version 8.0

where h is the plastic modulus, Kc is the elastic modulus and, by definition,
dpc
h=
dep
dp
Kc = e (1.215)
de
With the above notation convention, the volumetric property R may be defined as
R = Kc / h (1.216)
and Eq. (1.214) becomes
dp Kc
= (1.217)
de 1+R
Expressing R from this relation, we obtain
Kc
R= −1 (1.218)
dp/de
Values for dp/de and Kc can be estimated from main loading and unloading increments on the
graph. Hence, R can be calculated from Eq. (1.218). Note that, in the context of this model, the
ratio R is assumed to be constant. Using that Kc = Rh and h = dpc /dep in Eq. (1.214), we may
write, after some manipulation,

dpc 1+R dp
=h= (1.219)
dep R de
From this, it follows that values of pc for a particular ep can be obtained, to the first approximation,
by multiplying the value p on the graph corresponding to e = ep by the ratio (1 + R)/R. For
example, if R = 5, then the graph curve must be scaled by a factor of 1.2 to convert it to table
values, assuming no over-consolidation.
To be sure that input parameters are reasonable, a single-element test should be done with FLAC,
exercising the double-yield model over stress paths similar to those of the physical tests, and plotting
similar graphs.
As an illustration, the data file in Example 1.4 exercises the double-yield model for a material that
exhibits a response eleven times stiffer upon unloading than loading.
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.4 Exercising the double-yield model

config axi
g 1 1
mo dy
pro bu 1110e6 sh 507.7e6 cptable 1 mul 10
pro den 1000 coh 1e10 ten 1e10
table 1 0 0 1 1.1e7
fix x i 2
fix y
ini yvel -1e-6 j=2
ini xvel -1e-6 i=2
hist syy i=1 j=1
hist ydis i=1 j=2
step 1000
ini xv mul -.1
ini yv mul -.1
step 900
plot his -1 vs -2
The loading tangent modulus, dp/de, observed in the physical test, was constant and equal to 10
MPa. The slope of unloading increments corresponded to a value Kc = 110 MPa. To define the
volumetric properties of the numerical model, we substitute those values in Eq. (1.218) and find that
R = 10. As can be seen from Eq. (1.219), the hardening curve has a constant slope corresponding
to dpc /dep = h = 11 MPa. The hardening table is derived from this result, assuming no over-
consolidation.
Note that the input value for bulk modulus, K, must be higher than Kc (see Eq. (1.188)). The input
shear modulus controls the ratio of G/K. In this example,
Kc
Gc = G = 50.77 MPa
K
and the Poisson’s ratio is
3Kc − 2Gc
ν= = 0.3
2(3Kc + Gc )
Results of the numerical test are presented in the plot of minus vertical stress versus minus vertical
strain in Figure 1.23. The loading slope is 10 MPa, and the unloading slope is eleven times stiffer,
as expected.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : DOUBLE-YIELD MODEL
FLAC (Version 8.00)

04
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 1900 2.500
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Rev 1 Ave. SYY ( 1, 1) 2.000
X-axis :
1.500
1.000
0.500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.23 Single-element test in which unloading is eleven times stiffer than
loading
The maximum elastic moduli, K and G, should be estimated for the maximum pressure likely to be
produced in the model. They should not be set larger than this because FLAC does its mass scaling
(for a stable timestep) on the basis of the moduli. Setting them too high will give rise to a sluggish
response (e.g., the model may be slow to converge to a steady-state solution). The elastic moduli
also act as a limit on plastic moduli.
If a material to be modeled has experienced some initial compaction (i.e., it is over-consolidated),
then pc may be set to this “pre-consolidation” pressure. In this case, ep must also be set, in order
to be consistent with pc and the given table (use PROPERTY ev plastic to set ep ).
FLAC Version 8.0

Double-Yield – MODEL dy

cap pressure current intersection of volumetric yield surface (cap) with pressure
(mean stress) axis, pc
cptable number of table relating cap pressure to plastic volumetric strain
ctable number of table relating cohesion to plastic shear strain
dtable number of table relating dilation angle to plastic shear strain
ftable number of table relating friction angle to plastic shear strain
multiplier multiplier on current plastic cap modulus to give elastic bulk and shear
moduli, R
ttable number of table relating tensile limit to plastic tensile strain
The strain-hardening/softening behavior is controlled by the variation in friction, cohesion and
dilation as a function of plastic shear strain, and tension limit as a function of plastic tensile strain,
given by a specified table of values. The variation in cap pressure is a function of plastic volumetric
strain. Note that if table numbers are given as 0 (default), the properties will take the values given
(i.e., with cohesion, dilation, friction, tension or cap pressure keyword).
dy state special plasticity state indicator (Section 2.5.3 in the FISH volume)
e plastic accumulated plastic shear strain
et plastic accumulated plastic tensile strain
ev plastic accumulated plastic volumetric strain
state plastic state
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.8 Modified Cam-Clay Model
The modified Cam-clay model is an incremental hardening/softening elastoplastic model. Its fea-
tures include a particular form of nonlinear elasticity, and a hardening/softening behavior governed
by volumetric plastic strain (“density” driven). The failure envelopes are similar in shape, and
correspond to ellipsoids of rotation about the mean stress axis in the principal stress space. The
shear flow rule is associated; no resistance to tensile mean stress is offered in this model. See
Roscoe and Burland (1968) and Wood (1990) for detailed discussions on the modified Cam-clay
model. (For convenience, we drop the qualifier “modified” in the following discussion. Recall that
all models are expressed in terms of effective stresses. In particular, all pressures referred to in this
section are effective pressures.)
The Cam-clay model is expressed in terms of three variables: the mean effective pressure, p; the
deviator stress, q; and the specific volume, v. In the FLAC implementation of this model, principal
stresses σ1 , σ2 , σ3 are used, the out-of-plane stress, σzz , being recognized as one of these. (By
convention, traction and dilation are positive.)
The generalized stress components p and q may be expressed in terms of principal stresses:
1
p = − (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )
3
1
q = √ (σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ1 − σ3 )2 (1.220)
2
√
(Note that q = 3J2 , where J2 is the second invariant of the effective stress deviator tensor.)
The incremental strain variables associated with −p and q are the volumetric strain increment, e,
and distortional strain increment, eq , and we have
e = e1 + e2 + e3

√
2
eq = (e1 − e2 )2 + (e2 − e3 )2 + (e1 − e3 )2 (1.221)
3
where ej , j = 1, 3 are principal strain increments. The principal strain increments may be
decomposed into elastic and plastic parts so that
p
ei = eie + ei i = 1, 3 (1.222)
FLAC Version 8.0

The specific volume v is defined as
V
v= (1.223)
Vs
where Vs is the volume of solid particles (assumed incompressible), contained in a volume, V , of

soil. The incremental relation between volumetric strain, e, and specific volume has the form
v
e = (1.224)
v
Starting with an initial specific volume, v0 , we may thus write, for small volumetric strain incre-
ments,
v = v0 (1 + e) (1.225)
where e is the current accumulated volumetric strain.

The incremental expression of Hooke’s law in principal axes may be expressed in the form
σ1 = α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2 = α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.226)
σ3 = α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
where α1 = K + 4G/3; and

α2 = K − 2G/3.
Alternatively, using deviatoric parts of incremental stress and strain tensors, we may write
si = 2Gie i = 1, 3
−p = Kee (1.227)
where si = σi + p;

ie = eie − ee /3; and
ee = e1e + e2e + e3e .
FLAC Version 8.0

In the Cam-clay model, the tangential bulk modulus, K, in the volumetric relation Eq. (1.227)
is updated to reflect a nonlinear law derived experimentally from isotropic compression tests.
The results of a typical isotropic compression test are presented in the semi-logarithmic plot of
Figure 1.24:
vλ
normal
consolidation line
vκA
A
vκB
κ B
1
swelling lines λ
1
ln p1 ln p
Figure 1.24 Normal consolidation line and unloading-reloading (swelling)
line for an isotropic compression test
As the normal consolidation pressure, p, increases, the specific volume, v, of the material decreases.
The point representing the state of the material moves along the normal consolidation line defined
by the equation
p
v = vλ − λ ln (1.228)
p1
where λ* and vλ are two material parameters, and p1 is a reference pressure. (Note that vλ is the
value of the specific volume at the reference pressure.)
* λ is used by Wood (1990) to define the slope of the normal consolidation line. It should not
be confused with the plastic (volumetric) multiplier, λs , used in the plasticity flow rule given in
Section 1.6.8.3.
FLAC Version 8.0

An unloading-reloading excursion, from point A or B on the figure, will move the point along an
elastic swelling line of slope κ, back to the normal consolidation line where the path will resume.
The equation of the swelling lines has the form
p
v = vκ − κ ln (1.229)
p1
where κ is a material constant, and the value of vκ for a particular line depends on the location of
the point on the normal consolidation line from which unloading was performed.
The recoverable change in specific volume v e may be expressed in incremental form after differ-
entiation of Eq. (1.229):
p
v e = −κ (1.230)
p
After division of both members by v, and comparing with Eq. (1.224), we may write
vp e
−p = e (1.231)
κ
In the Cam-clay model it is assumed that any change in mean pressure is accompanied by elastic
change in volume according to the above expression. Comparison with Eq. (1.227) hence suggests
the following expression for the tangent bulk modulus of the Cam-clay material:
vp
K= (1.232)
κ
Under more general loading conditions, the state of a particular point in the medium might be
represented by a point, such as A, located below the normal consolidation line in the (v, ln p) plane
(see Figure 1.25). By virtue of the law adopted in Eq. (1.230), an elastic path from that point
proceeds along the swelling line through A.
FLAC Version 8.0

normal
A consolidation line
Δvp
vcA
Δvp
Δve
A'
A'
vc
A A'
ln pc ln pc ln p
Figure 1.25 Plastic volume change corresponding to an incremental consol-

idation pressure change
The specific volume and mean pressure at the intersection of swelling line and normal consolidation
line are referred to as (normal) consolidation (specific) volume and (normal) consolidation pressure:
vcA and pcA , in the case of point A. Consider an incremental change in stress bringing the point from

state A to state A . At A there is a corresponding consolidation volume, vcA , and consolidation

pressure, pcA . The increment of plastic volume change, v p , is measured on the figure by the
vertical distance between swelling lines (associated with points A and A ), and we may write, using
incremental notation,
pc
v p = −(λ − κ) (1.233)
pc
After division of the left and right member by v, we obtain, comparing with Eq. (1.224),
λ − κ pc
ep = − (1.234)
v pc
Hence, whereas elastic changes in volume occur whenever the mean pressure changes, plastic
changes of volume occur only when the consolidation pressure changes.
FLAC Version 8.0

The yield function corresponding to a particular value pc of the consolidation pressure has the form
f = q 2 + M 2 p(p − pc ) (1.235)
where M is a material constant. The yield condition f = 0 is represented by an ellipse with

horizontal axis, pc , and vertical axis, Mpc , in the (q, p) plane (see Figure 1.26). Note that the
ellipse passes through the origin. Hence, the material in this model is not able to support an
all-around tensile stress.
The failure criterion is represented in the principal stress space by an ellipsoid of rotation about
the mean stress axis (any section through the yield surface at constant mean effective stress p is a
circle).
The potential function g corresponds to an associated flow rule, and we have
g = q 2 + M 2 p(p − pc ) (1.236)
e
lin
te
sta
plastic dilation al
itic
-ep<0 cr
pc plastic compaction
qcr=M
2
-ep>0
pc pc p
pcr=
2
Figure 1.26 Cam-clay failure criterion in FLAC
FLAC Version 8.0

The flow rule used to describe plastic flow has the form
p ∂g
ei = λs i = 1, 3 (1.237)
∂σi
where λs is a parameter whose magnitude remains to be defined.

Using Eq. (1.236) for g, these expressions give, after partial differentiation,
p
e1 = λs ca
p
e2 = λs cb (1.238)
p
e3 = λs cc
where
M2
ca = (2p − pc ) + (σ1 − σ2 ) + (σ1 − σ3 )
3
M2
cb = (2p − pc ) + (σ2 − σ1 ) + (σ2 − σ3 ) (1.239)
3
M2
cc = (2p − pc ) + (σ3 − σ1 ) + (σ3 − σ2 )
3
increments. In further using Eq. (1.238), the elastic laws in Eq. (1.226) become
σ1 = α1 e1 + α2 (e2 + e3 )

− λs [α1 ca + α2 (cb + cc )]
σ2 = α1 e2 + α2 (e1 + e3 )
− λs [α1 cb + α2 (ca + cc )] (1.240)
σ3 = α1 e3 + α2 (e1 + e2 )
− λs [α1 cc + α2 (ca + cb )]
definition,
FLAC Version 8.0

σiN = σiO + σi i = 1, 3 (1.241)
Substitution of Eq. (1.240) gives
σ1N = σ1I − λs [α1 ca + α2 (cb + cc )]

σ2N = σ2I − λs [α1 cb + α2 (ca + cc )] (1.242)
σ3N = σ3I − λs [α1 cc + α2 (ca + cb )]
where the superscript I is used to represent the elastic guess, obtained by adding to the old stresses
σ1I = σ1O + α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2I = σ2O + α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.243)
σ3I = σ3O + α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
The parameter λs may now be defined by requiring that the new stress point be located on the yield
surface. Substitution of σiN , as given by Eq. (1.242) for σi , i = 1, 3 in f = 0 give, after some
manipulations (see Eq. (1.235)),
aλs 2 + bλs + c = 0 (1.244)
where

a =2G2 (ca − cb )2 + (cb − cc )2 + (cc − ca )2 + M 2 K 2 (ca + cb + cc )2

b = − 2G (σ1I − σ2I )(ca − cb ) + (σ2I − σ3I )(cb − cc ) + (σ3I − σ1I )(cc − ca )
− M 2 K(ca + cb + cc )(2pI − pc ) (1.245)
c =f (q I , pI )
Of the two roots of this equation, the one with the smallest modulus must be retained.
Note that at the critical point corresponding to pcr = pc /2, qcr = Mpc /2 in Figure 1.26, the normal
to the yield curve, f = 0, is parallel to the q-axis. Since the flow rule is associated, the plastic
volumetric strain rate component vanishes there. As a result of the hardening rule Eq. (1.234),
the consolidation pressure, pc , will not change. The corresponding material point has reached
the critical state, in which unlimited shear strains occur with no accompanying change in specific
volume or stress level.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.8.4 Hardening/Softening Rule
The size of the yield curve is dependent on the value of the consolidation pressure, pc (see
Eq. (1.235)). This pressure is a function of the plastic volume change, and varies with the specific
volume, as indicated in Eq. (1.234).
The consolidation pressure, pc , corresponding to new values for v and p may easily be found by
intersection of the consolidation line with the swelling line through (v, ln p). This gives, using
Eqs. (1.228) and (1.229),
pc = p1 e(vλ −vκ )/(λ−κ) (1.246)
where
p
vκ = v + κ ln (1.247)
p1
1.6.8.5 Initial Stress State
The Cam-clay model in FLAC is only applicable to material in which the stress state corresponds to a
compressive mean effective stress. This model is not designed to predict the behavior of material in
which this condition is not met. In particular, the initial state of the material (just before application
of the Cam-clay model) must be consistent with this requirement. The initial state may be specified
using the INITIAL command, or may be the result of a run in which another constitutive model has
been used. In any case, the initial effective pressure, defined as p0 , must be positive throughout the
medium.
1.6.8.6 Over-consolidation Ratio
The over-consolidation ratio, R, is defined as the ratio of initial pre-consolidation pressure to initial
pressure – i.e.,
pc0
R= (1.248)
p0
This ratio is useful in characterizing the behavior of Cam-clay material.
FLAC Version 8.0

In the implementation of the Cam-clay model in FLAC, an elastic guess, σijI , is first computed, by
adding to the old stress components increments calculated by application of Hooke’s law to the
total strain increment for the step. The principal stresses σiI , i = 1, 3 and corresponding principal
directions are then evaluated.
Elastic guesses for the mean pressure, pI , and deviator stress, q I , are calculated using Eq. (1.220).
If these stresses violate the yield criterion and f (q I , pI ) < 0 (see Eq. (1.235)), plastic deformation
takes place and the consolidation pressure changes. In this situation, a correction must be applied to
the elastic guess to give the new stress state: new principal stresses are derived from Eqs. (1.239) and
(1.242). These equations use a value for λs corresponding to the root of Eqs. (1.244) and (1.245),
and using the smallest modulus. Note that, in this version of the code, Eq. (1.239) is evaluated
using the elastic guess. However, the error associated with this technique is small, provided the
steps are small. New stress tensor components in the system of reference axes are then evaluated,
assuming the principal directions have not been affected by the occurrence of plastic flow.
Volumetric strain increment, e, and mean pressure, p, for the zone are computed as average over
all involved triangles (see Eqs. (1.220) and (1.221)). The zone volumetric strain, e, is incremented,
and the zone specific volume, v, updated, using Eq. (1.225). In turn, the new zone consolidation
pressure is calculated from Eq. (1.246), and the tangential bulk modulus is updated using Eq. (1.232).
If a nonzero value for the Poisson’s ratio property is imposed, a new shear modulus is calculated
from the expression G = 1.5(1 − 2ν)K/(1 + ν). Otherwise, G is left unchanged as long as the
condition 0 ≤ ν ≤ 0.5 is satisfied. If it is not, G is assigned a value corresponding to ν = 0 or
ν = 0.5, as appropriate. The new values for the consolidation pressure, and shear and bulk moduli,
are then stored for use in the next timestep. The material properties thus lag one timestep behind
the corresponding calculation. In an explicit code, this error is small because the steps are small.
1.6.8.8 Determination of the Input Parameters
Frictional constant M – M is the ratio of q/pcr at the critical state line. Therefore, a series of
triaxial tests (drained or undrained with pore pressure measurement) can be used to obtain this
constant. These tests should be carried out to large strains to ensure that the final values of pcr and
q are close to the critical state line. The slope of a best-fitting line of q vs pcr will be the parameter
M.
M is related to the effective stress friction angle, φ , of the Mohr-Coulomb yield function. However,
since the Cam-clay critical state line is dependent on the intermediate stress, σ2 , while Mohr-
Coulomb is not, the relation between M and φ will be different for different values of σ2 at yield.
(This condition is similar to the relation between Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager yield functions
– see Section 1.6.1.5.) For triaxial compression tests,
6 sin φ
M= (1.249)
3 − sin φ
FLAC Version 8.0

while for triaxial extension tests,
6 sin φ
M= (1.250)
3 + sin φ
The slopes of the normal consolidation and swelling lines (λ and κ) – Ideally, these two param-
eters should be obtained from an isotropically loaded triaxial test (q = 0) with several unloading
excursions. The slope of the normal compression line in a v versus ln p plot will be the parameter
λ. The slope of an unloading excursion in the same plot will be the parameter κ.
These two parameters can also be derived from an oedometer test, making certain assumptions. Let
σv and σH be the vertical and horizontal stresses in an oedometer test. In most oedometer apparatus,
it is not possible to measure the horizontal stresses, σH , so the mean stress, p = (σv + 2σH )/3,
is not known. However, experimental data show that the ratio of horizontal to vertical effective
stresses, K0 , is constant during normal compression. Since p = σv (1 + 2K0 )/3 along the normal
compression line, the slope of v vs ln p will be equal to the slope of e versus ln σv , where e is the
void ratio = v − 1.
The compression index, Cc , is calculated as the slope of e vs log10 (σv ). So the parameter λ will be
λ = Cc / ln(10) (1.251)
Experimental data show that along a swelling line in an oedometer test, K0 is not constant, so an
estimate of κ based on the swelling coefficient, Cs , will only be an approximation:
κ ≈ Cs / ln(10) (1.252)
In practice, κ is usually chosen in the range of one-fifth to one-third of λ.

Location of the normal consolidation line in the v versus ln p plot – In order to determine the
location of the normal consolidation line in the v versus ln p plot, a point (vλ , ln p1 ) on this line
must be specified. The obvious way to determine this point is to perform an isotropic triaxial test.
There is an alternative way to determine this point based on the undrained shear strength (for details,
see Britto and Gunn 1987).
The equation of the normal consolidation line is (see Eq. (1.228))
p
v = vλ − λ ln (1.253)
p1
The specific volume at the critical state line for p = p1 is given by
= vλ − (λ − κ) × ln(2) (1.254)
FLAC Version 8.0

In a soil, the undrained shear strength, cu , is uniquely related to the specific volume, vcr , by the
equation

Mp1 − vcr
cu = exp (1.255)
2 λ
Thus, the value of for a given p1 , and therefore vλ , can be calculated if the undrained shear
strength for a particular specific volume, vcr , along with the parameters M, λ and κ, is known.
Pre-consolidation pressure, pc0 – The pre-consolidation pressure determines the initial size of the
yield surface in the equation
q 2 = M 2 [p(pc0 − p)] (1.256)
If a sample has been submitted to an isotropic loading path, pc0 will be the maximum past mean
effective stress. If the sample has followed other non-isotropic paths, pc0 has to be calculated from
the maximum previous p and q, using Eq. (1.256).
The maximum vertical effective stress can be calculated from an oedometer test using Casagrande’s
method (for details, see Britto and Gunn 1987). Some hypothesis has to be made about the maximum
horizontal effective stress. A common hypothesis is Jaky’s relation (e.g., see Britto and Gunn 1987),
σh max
Knc = 1 − sin φ (1.257)
σv max
where Knc is the coefficient of horizontal σh max to vertical σv max stress at rest for normally consoli-
dated soil. For example, if a soil with an effective friction angle of 20◦ has experienced a maximum
vertical effective stress, σv max = 1 MPa. Then, using Jaky’s relation,
Knc = 1 − sin 20◦ = 0.658 (1.258)
and the maximum horizontal stress is
σh max = 0.658 MPa (1.259)
FLAC Version 8.0

The maximum values of p and q are
σv max + 2σh max

pmax = = 0.772 MPa
3
(1.260)
qmax = σv max − σh max = 0.342 MPa
Substituting these two values in the yield function Eq. (1.256), we obtain the pre-consolidation
pressure
2
qmax
pc0 = pmax + = 1.026 MPa (1.261)
M 2 pmax
Initial values for specific volume v0 and current bulk modulus K – Given an initial effective
pressure, p0 , the initial specific volume, v0 , must be consistent with the choice of parameters
κ, λ, p1 and pc0 . The initial value, v0 , is calculated by the code to correspond to the value of
the specific volume corresponding to p0 on the swelling line, through the point on the normal
consolidation line at which p = pc0 . From Figure 1.27, it follows that

pc0 pc0
v0 = vλ − λ ln + κ ln (1.262)
p1 p0
FLAC Version 8.0

vλ
normal consolidation line
swelling line
v0
pc0
κ ln
p0
pc0
vλ-λ ln
p1
lnp1 lnp0 lnpc0 lnp
Figure 1.27 Determination of initial specific volume
The initial value of the current bulk modulus (bulk current) may in turn be evaluated using
Eq. (1.232), which gives
v0 p0
K= (1.263)
κ
In FLAC, the default values for v0 and K are evaluated using Eqs. (1.262) and (1.263) when the
first step command is issued.
Maximum value of the elastic parameters K and G – In the Cam-clay model, the value of the
current bulk modulus (bulk current) changes as a function of the specific volume and the mean
stress:
vp
K= (1.264)
κ
The input values of Kmax (bulk) and G (shear) are used in the mass scaling calculation performed
in FLAC, to ensure numerical stability (see Section 1.3.5 in Theory and Background). This
calculation is done once every time a STEP command is issued. These input values should be
chosen in order to give an upper bound to the sum (K + 4/3G), as evaluated by the model between
FLAC Version 8.0

two consecutive STEP commands. However, values should not be set too high, or the model may
be slow to converge. They should be selected based on the stress level in the problem.
G or ν – The modified Cam-clay model in FLAC allows the user to specify either a constant shear
modulus or a constant Poisson’s ratio.
If no Poisson’s ratio is specified, a constant shear modulus equal to the input value is assumed.
Then the Poisson’s ratio will vary as a function of the specific volume and the mean stress:
vp
3 − 2G
ν= κ
vp (1.265)
6 κ + 2G
If a nonzero Poisson’s ratio is specified, the shear modulus will vary at the same rate as the bulk
modulus in order to maintain a constant Poisson’s ratio:
vp
3 (1 − 2ν)
G= κ
(1.266)
2 (1 + ν)
1.6.8.9 Oedometer Test
The numerical simulation of an oedometer test on a Cam-clay sample is presented in this example.
It may be shown that, in the framework of the modified Cam-clay model, the stress path for one-
dimensional normal compression corresponds to a straight line in the p-q-plane (see Wood 1990).
The slope of this line, η, may be derived from the expression
η(1 + ν)(1 − ) 3η

+ 2 =1 (1.267)
3(1 − 2ν) M − η2
where ν is the constant Poisson’s ratio for the test = (λ − κ)/λ, and M, λ and κ are Cam-clay
model properties.
The boundary conditions for the oedometer test are represented in Figure 1.28. In this test, the
ratio, K0 , of horizontal to vertical stresses is related to η by the formula
3−η
K0 = (1.268)
3 + 2η
FLAC Version 8.0

v v
Figure 1.28 Boundary conditions for oedometer test
In soils that have a history of one-dimensional deformation, this ratio is called the “coefficient of
earth pressure at rest.” The coefficient K0 is evaluated numerically using the data file in Example 1.5,
and compared to the analytic value derived from the above expression.
The FLAC simulation is carried out using a single zone of unit dimensions. The following properties
are used in conjunction with the Cam-clay model:
bulk modulus(maximum value), K 50000 Pa

Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.3
frictional constant, M 1.02
slope of normal consolidation line, λ 0.2
slope of elastic swelling line, κ 0.05
reference pressure, p1 1 Pa
specific volume, vλ 3.32
The analytical value of K0 is evaluated using the FISH function c konc. A nonzero initial stress
state is specified with values σyy = −5 Pa and σxx = σzz = K0 σyy . The initial value of pc
corresponds to a normally consolidated state, and is calculated using Eq. (1.261). The velocity
components are fixed in the x- and y-directions. A velocity of magnitude 10−5 m/steps is applied
to the top of the model in the negative y-direction for a total of 1000 steps. The ratio of horizontal
to vertical stress is monitored and compared to the analytic prediction for K0 . The match is very
good where numerical and analytic solutions coincide, as may be seen in Figure 1.29. The stress
paths in the (σyy , σxx ) and (p, q) planes are represented in Figures 1.30 and 1.31; they correspond
to straight line trajectories, as expected.
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.5 Oedometer test on a Cam-clay material

;------------------------------------------------------------
; Oedometric test on Cam-clay sample (drained)
; ’coefficient of earth pressure’ konc: comparison between
; numerical and analytical predictions
; Wood, Soil behaviour and critical soil mechanics, p314-319
;------------------------------------------------------------
g 1 1
tit
Oedometric test on cam-clay sample R = 1
; --- model properties ---
model cam-clay
prop shear 250. bulk 50000. dens 1
prop mm 1.02 lambda 0.2 kappa 0.05 poiss 0.3
prop mp1 1. mv l 3.32
; --- boundary conditions ---
fix x y
ini yvel -0.5e-5 j=2
; --- fish functions ---
; ... analytical value for konc ...
def c konc
c l = 1. - kappa(1,1)/lambda(1,1)
c b = 3.*c l
c a = (1.+poiss(1,1))*(1.-c l)/(3.*(1.-2.*poiss(1,1)))
m2 = mm(1,1)*mm(1,1)
a1 = -1./c a
a2 = -(c a*m2+c b)/c a
a3 = m2/c a
bq = (a1*a1-3.*a2)/9.
br = (a1*(2.*a1*a1-9.*a2)+27.*a3)/54.
aux = br*br-bq*bq*bq
eta = 0.0
if aux > 0.0 then
aux = (sqrt(aux)+abs(br))ˆ(1./3.)
eta = -sgn(br)*(aux+bq/aux)-a1/3.
konc = (3.-eta)/(3.+2.*eta)
else
aux = sqrt(-aux)/abs(br)
teta= atan(aux)+pi
aux1 = 2.*sqrt(bq)
aux2 = a1/3.
eta1 = -aux1*cos((teta)/3.)-aux2
eta2 = -aux1*cos((teta+2.*pi)/3.)-aux2
eta3 = -aux1*cos((teta+4.*pi)/3.)-aux2
FLAC Version 8.0

konc1 = (3.-eta1)/(3.+2.*eta1)
konc2 = (3.-eta2)/(3.+2.*eta2)
konc3 = (3.-eta3)/(3.+2.*eta3)
konc = max(konc1,konc2)
konc = max(konc,konc3)
end if
; ... Jaky’s approximate expression for konc = 1 - sin(phi) ...
kjaky = 1.-3.*mm(1,1)/(6.+mm(1,1))
end
; ... initial, normally consolidated state ...
def i state
isyy = -5.0
syy(1,1) = isyy
sxx(1,1) = isyy * konc
szz(1,1) = isyy * konc
p i = -isyy * (1.0 + 2.0 * konc) / 3.
q i = -isyy * (1.0 - konc)
val = q i / (mm(1,1)*p i)
mpc(1,1) = p i * (1.0 + val * val)
end
; ... numerical values for p, q, v ...
def path
s1 = -syy(1,1)
s2 = -szz(1,1)
s3 = -sxx(1,1)
k0 = 0.0
if s1 # 0 then
k0 = s3 / s1
end if
sp = cam p(1,1)
sq = cam q(1,1)
dif = sq / sp - 3.*(1.-k0)/(1.+2.*k0)
sqcr = sp*mm(1,1)
lnp = ln(sp)
logsy = log(s1)
c sv = sv(1,1)
void ratio=c sv-1.
mk = bulk current(1,1)
mg = shear mod(1,1)
s1konc = s1 * konc
end
; ... loading-unloading excursions ...
def trip
loop i (1,3)
command
ini yv -0.5e-4 j=2
FLAC Version 8.0

step 2000
ini yv mul -.1
step 1500
ini yv mul -1
step 2500
end command
end loop
end
; --- histories ---
his nstep 20
his unbal
his path
his sp
his lnp
his logsy
his sq
his sqcr
his c sv
his mk
his mg
his ydisp i=1 j=2
his k0
his konc
his s1
his s3
his s1konc
his dif
hist void ratio
; --- test ---
c konc
i state
;trip
step 1000
; --- results ---
;save coedo.sav
plot hold his 12 cross 13 min 0 max 1 vs -11
plot hold his 15 cross 16 vs 14
plot hold his 6 vs 3
print k0 konc kjaky
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : OEDOMETER TEST ON A CAM-CLAY MATERIAL
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 1000 1.000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
12 k0 (FISH) 0.800
13 konc (FISH)
X-axis :
0.400
0.200
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.29 Oedometric test – comparison of numerical and analytical values

for K0
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
3.800
step 1000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 3.750
15 s3 (FISH)
16 s1konc (FISH)
3.700
X-axis :
14 s1 (FISH)
3.650
3.600
3.550
50 51 51 52 52 53 53
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.30 Oedometric test – history of vertical versus horizontal stresses
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 1000 1.560
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
6 sq (FISH) 1.540
X-axis :
3 sp (FISH)
1.520
1.500
1.480
40 41 41 42 42 43
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.31 Oedometric test – history of stresses q versus p
FLAC Version 8.0

Modified Cam-Clay – MODEL cam-clay
bulk mod elastic bulk modulus, Kmax

kappa slope of swelling line, κ
lambda slope of normal consolidation line, λ
mm frictional constant, M
mp1 reference pressure, p1
mpc pre-consolidation pressure, pc
mv l specific volume at reference pressure, p1 , on normal consolidation
line, υλ
mv0 initial specific volume, υ0 (calculated internally, by default)
poiss Poisson’s ratio, ν
If Poisson’s ratio, poiss, is not given, and a nonzero shear modulus, shear mod, is specified, then
the shear modulus remains constant; Poisson’s ratio will change as bulk modulus changes. If a
nonzero poiss is given, then the shear modulus will change as the bulk modulus changes; Poisson’s
ratio remains constant.
bulk current current elastic bulk modulus, K
cam p effective pressure,p
cam q shear stress,q
ev plastic accumulated plastic volumetric strain
ev tot accumulated total volumetric strain
sv current specific volume
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.9 Hoek-Brown Model
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion is an empirical relation that characterizes the stress conditions
that lead to failure in intact rock and rock masses. It has been used very successfully in design
approaches that use limit equilibrium solutions, but there has been little direct use in numerical
solution schemes. Alternatively, equivalent friction and cohesion have been used with a Mohr-
Coulomb model that is matched to the nonlinear Hoek-Brown strength envelope at particular stress
levels (e.g., see “HOEK.FIS” in Section 3 in the FISH volume). Numerical solution methods
require full constitutive models, which relate stress to strain in a general way; in addition to a
failure (or yield) criterion, a “flow rule” is also necessary, in order to provide a relation between the
components of strain rate at failure. There have been several attempts to develop a full constitutive
model from the Hoek-Brown criterion (e.g., Pan and Hudson 1988, Carter et al. 1993 and Shah
1992). These formulations assume that the flow rule has some fixed relation to the failure criterion,
and that the flow rule is isotropic, whereas the Hoek-Brown criterion is not. In the formulation
described here, there is no fixed form for the flow rule; it is assumed to depend on the stress level,
and possibly some measure of damage.*
In what follows, the failure criterion is taken as a yield surface, using the terminology of plasticity
theory. Usually, a failure criterion is assumed to be a fixed, limiting stress condition that corresponds
to ultimate failure of the material. However, numerical simulations of elastoplastic problems allow
continuing the solution after “failure” has taken place, and the failure condition itself may change
as the simulation progresses (by either hardening or softening). In this event, it is more reasonable
to speak of “yielding” rather than failure. There is no implied restriction on the type of behavior
that is modeled: both ductile and brittle behavior may be represented, depending on the softening
relation used.
1.6.9.1 The General Formulation
The “generalized” Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek and Brown 1980 and 1998), adopting the convention
of positive compressive stress, is
σ a
3
σ1 = σ3 + σci mb +s (1.269)
σci
where σ1 and σ3 are the major and minor effective principal stresses, and σci , mb , s and a are
material constants that can be related to the Geological Strength Index and rock damage (Hoek
et al. 2002). For interest, the unconfined compressive strength is given by σc = σci s a , and the
* FLAC simulations using the Hoek-Brown model have shown that the model with a stress-dependent
flow rule works well at high confining stress states, but can produce excessive dilation at low con-
finement conditions. An alternative formulation, the modified Hoek-Brown model, which allows
the user to input a dilation angle and specify a stress-independent flow rule is available (see Sec-
tion 1.6.10).
FLAC Version 8.0

tensile strength by σt = - s σci / mb . Note that the criterion (Eq. (1.269)) does not depend on the
intermediate principal stress, σ2 . Thus, the failure envelope is not isotropic.
Assume that the current principal stresses are (σ1 ,σ2 , σ3 ), and that initial trial stresses (σ1t ,σ2t , σ3t )
are calculated by using incremental elasticity:
σ1t = σ1 + E1 e1 + E2 (e2 + e3 ) (1.270)

σ2t = σ2 + E1 e2 + E2 (e1 + e3 )
σ3t = σ3 + E1 e3 + E2 (e1 + e2 )
where E1 = K + 4G/3 and E2 = K − 2G/3, and (e1 , e2 , e3 ) is the set of principal strain
increments. If the yield criterion (Eq. (1.269)) is violated by this set of stresses, then the strain
increments (prescribed as independent inputs to the model) are assumed to be composed of elastic
and plastic parts:
p
e1 = e1e + e1
e2 = e2e (1.271)
p
e3 = e3e + e3
Note that plastic flow does not occur in the intermediate principal stress direction. The final stresses
f f f
(σ1 ,σ2 , σ3 ) output from the model are related to the elastic components of the strain increments.
Hence,
f p p
σ1 − σ1 = E1 (e1 − e1 ) + E2 (e2 + e3 − e3 )
f p p
σ2 − σ2 = E1 e2 + E2 (e1 − e1 + e3 − e3 ) (1.272)
f p p
σ3 − σ3 = E1 (e3 − e3 ) + E2 (e1 − e1 + e2 )
Eliminating the current stresses, using Eq. (1.270) and Eq. (1.272):
f p p
σ1 = σ1t − E1 e1 − E2 e3
f p p
σ2 = σ2t − E2 (e1 + e3 ) (1.273)
f p p
σ3 = σ3t − E1 e3 − E2 e1
We assume the flow rule
FLAC Version 8.0

p p
e1 = γ e3 (1.274)
p
where the factor γ depends on stress, and is recomputed at each timestep. Eliminating e1 from
Eq. (1.273):
f p
σ1 = σ1t − e3 (γ E1 + E2 )
f p
σ2 = σ2t − e3 E2 (1 + γ ) (1.275)
f p
σ3 = σ3t − e3 (γ E2 + E1 )
At yield, Eq. (1.269) is satisfied by the final stresses. That is,
σ3
f a
f f
F = σ1 − σ3 − σci mb +s =0 (1.276)
σci
f f
By substituting values of σ1 and σ3 from Eq. (1.275), Eq. (1.276) can be solved iteratively (using
p
Newton’s method or a bisection method) for e3 , which is then substituted in Eq. (1.275) to give
the final stresses. The method of solution is described later, but first the evaluation of γ is discussed.
1.6.9.2 Flow Rules
We need to consider an appropriate flow rule, which describes the volumetric behavior of the material
during yield. In general, the flow parameter γ will depend on stress, and possibly history. It is not
meaningful to speak of a “dilation angle” for a material when its confining stress is low or tensile,
because the mode of failure is typically by axial splitting, not shearing. Although the volumetric
strain depends in a complicated way on stress level, we consider certain specific cases for which
behavior is well-known, and determine the behavior for intermediate conditions by interpolation.
Three cases are considered:
Associated Flow Rule
It is known that many rocks under unconfined compression exhibit large rates of volumetric expan-
sion at yield, associated with axial splitting and wedging effects. The associated flow rule provides
the largest volumetric strain rate that may be justified theoretically. This flow rule is expected to
apply in the vicinity of the uniaxial stress condition (σ3 ≈ 0). An associated flow rule is one in
which the vector of plastic strain rate is normal to the yield surface (when both are plotted on similar
axes). Thus,
p ∂F
ei = −γ (1.277)
∂σi
FLAC Version 8.0

where the subscripts denote the components in the principal stress directions, and F is defined by
Eq. (1.276). Differentiating this expression, and using Eq. (1.274),
1
γaf = − (1.278)
1 + aσci (mb σ3 /σci + s)a−1 (mb /σci )
Radial Flow Rule

Under the condition of uniaxial tension, we might expect that the material would yield in the
direction of the tensile traction. If the tension is isotropically applied, we imagine (since the test is
almost impossible to perform) that the material would deform isotropically. Both of these conditions
are fulfilled by the radial flow rule, which is assumed to apply when all principal stresses are tensile.
For a flow-rate vector to be coaxial with the principal stress vector, we obtain
σ1
γrf = (1.279)
σ3
Constant-Volume Flow Rule

As the confining stress is increased, a point at which the material no longer dilates during yield is
reached. A constant-volume flow rule is therefore appropriate when the confining stress is above
some user-prescribed level, σ3 = σ3cv . This flow rule is given by
γcv = −1 (1.280)
Composite Flow Rule

We propose to assign the flow rule (and, thus, a value for γ ) according to the stress condition. In
the fully tensile region, the radial flow rule (γrf ) will be used. For compressive σ1 and tensile or
zero σ3 , the associated flow rule (γaf ) is applied. For the interval 0 < σ3 < σ3cv , the value of γ is
linearly interpolated between the associated and constant-volume limits:
1
γ = 1 σ3
(1.281)
1
γaf + ( γ1cv − γaf ) σ3cv
Finally, when σ3 > σ3cv , the constant-volume value, γ = γcv , is used.

It is noted that if σ3cv is set equal to zero, then the model condition approaches a nonassociated flow
rule with a zero dilation angle. If σ3cv is set to a very high value relative to σci , the model condition
approaches an associated flow state.
FLAC Version 8.0

The equations presented above are implemented in a built-in model written in C++, with the model
name hoekbrown. The Hoek-Brown model is implemented with two iterative solvers: a fast
Newton’s method and a slower bisection method. For Newton’s method, one difficulty with the
failure criterion (Eq. (1.276)) is that real values for F do not exist if σ3 < −sσci /mb . During an
iteration process, this condition is likely to be encountered, so it is necessary that the expression for
F and its first derivatives be continuous everywhere in stress space. This is fulfilled by adapting
the composite expression
sσci σ a f
f f
if σ3 ≥ − then F = σ1 − σ3 − σci mb 3 + s = 0 (1.282)
mb σci
sσci σ a f
f f
if σ3 < − then F = σ1 − σ3 + σci mb 3 + s = 0 (1.283)
mb σci
p
To initialize the iteration for Newton’s method, a starting value for e3 is taken as the absolute
maximum of all the strain increment components. This value, denoted by e1 , is inserted into
Eq. (1.275), together with the value for γ found from the flow-rule equations, and the resulting
stress values inserted into Eqs. (1.282) and (1.283). The resulting value of F is denoted by F1 .
Taking the original value of F as F0 (and the corresponding plastic strain increment of zero as e0 ),
we can estimate a new value of the plastic strain increment using
F1 e0 − F0 e1
e2 = (1.284)
F1 − F0
From this we find a new value of F (call it F2 ) and, if it is sufficiently close to zero, the iteration
stops. Otherwise, we set F0 = F1 , F1 = F2 , e0 = e1 and e1 = e2 , and apply Eq. (1.284)
again.
Tests have shown that for high confining stresses, the Newton scheme converges in one step; at
low confining stresses, up to ten steps are necessary. (The limit built into the Newton scheme is
presently set at 15.)
In tensile conditions, the Newton solver occasionally has problems converging. In this case, a
bisection solver (with a slower convergence rate than the Newton solver) is used. High and low
p
values for e3 are selected and substituted into Eq. (1.275); one results in F < 0 and the other
results in F > 0 in Eq. (1.276). The bisection method searches between these two limits to find
p
the value of e3 that results in F = 0 in Eq. (1.276).
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.9.4 Material Softening
In the Hoek-Brown model, the material properties σci , mb , s and a are assumed to remain constant,
by default. Material softening, after the onset of plastic yield, can be simulated by specifying
that these mechanical properties change (i.e., reduce the overall material strength) according to a
softening parameter. The softening parameter selected for the Hoek-Brown model is the plastic
p p
confining strain component, e3 . The choice of e3 is based on physical grounds. For yield near
the unconfined state, the damage in brittle rock is mainly by splitting (not by shearing) with crack
p
normals oriented in the σ3 direction. The parameter e3 is expected to correlate with the microcrack
damage in the σ3 direction.
p p
The value of e3 is calculated by summing the strain increment values for e3 calculated by
Eq. (1.284). Softening behavior is provided by specifying tables that relate each of the proper-
p p
ties σci , mb , s and a to e3 . Each table contains pairs of values: one for the e3 value, and one
for the corresponding property value. It is assumed that the property varies linearly between two
consecutive parameter entries in the table.
A multiplier, μ (denoted as multable), can also be specified to relate the softening behavior to the
confining stress, σ3 . The relation between μ and σ3 is also given in the form of a table. (See Cundall
et al. (2003) for an application of softening parameters.)
1.6.9.5 Triaxial Compression Test
Triaxial compression tests are performed on models composed of Hoek-Brown material in FLAC
to verify the stress and strain paths that develop. The triaxial load conditions are illustrated in
Figure 1.32. The triaxial tests are performed on a sample of Hoek-Brown material with properties
of mb = 5, s = 1, a = 0.5, σci = 1.0 and σ3cv = 1.5, and with elastic properties of E = 100 and
ν = 0.35. Compression loading tests are performed under two loading conditions: σ3 /σci = 0 and
1.0. The analytical solutions for stress and strain during compression loading are presented by the
plots shown in Figures 1.33 and 1.34.
A single-zone model is constructed in FLAC to simulate the triaxial loading tests. The FLAC results
are compared to the analytical solutions in Figures 1.35 through 1.38. The solutions compare within
1%.
FLAC Version 8.0

Figure 1.32 Triaxial compression tests – loading conditions
FLAC Version 8.0

Figure 1.33 Triaxial compression tests – a) Hoek-Brown failure envelope; b)

stress-strain plots
FLAC Version 8.0

Figure 1.34 Triaxial compression tests – a) confining (lateral) strain versus

axial strain; b) volumetric strain versus axial strain
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : TRIAXIAL TESTS ON A HOEK-BROWN MATERIAL
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
5.000
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 20000
4.500
Stress-Axial Strain
4.000
sxx vs eyy (analytical)
syy vs eyy (analyitical) 3.500
szz vs eyy (FLAC)
sxx vs eyy (FLAC) 3.000
syy vs eyy (FLAC)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.35 Triaxial compression test – stress versus axial strain

(σ3 /σci = 0)
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 0.000

step 20000
-0.200
Lateral Strain-Axial Strain
exx vs eyy (analytical)
-0.400
exx vs eyy (FLAC)
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.36 Triaxial compression test – lateral strain versus axial strain
(σ3 /σci = 0)
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
5.000
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 20000
4.500
Stress-Axial Strain
4.000
szz vs eyy (FLAC)
syy vs eyy (FLAC)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )

(σ3 /σci = 1.0)
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 0.000

step 20000
-0.200
-0.400
exx vs eyy (FLAC)
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
(σ3 /σci = 1.0)
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.6 Triaxial tests on a Hoek-Brown material

config ax
DEF variables
;
; --- To reconstruct the compression analytical curves: ---
sig conf = 0.0
; sig conf = -1.0 ; negative is compression
max eyy = -6.0e-2 ;<-- maximum ’driving’ strain (contraction negative)
;
; Plastic properties
sig ci = 1.0 ; <-- enter UCS as positive always
mb = 5.0
s = 1.0
a = 0.5
sig3 cv = 1.5 ; <-- enter UCS as positive always
;
sig tm2 = - s* sig ci/ mb
;
; Elastic properties
young = 100
poiss = 0.35
bulk = young/3.0/(1-2* poiss)
shear = young/2.0/(1+ poiss)
;
; Loading
cyc = 20000 ; <-- number of steps in which load is to be applied
delta u = max eyy * 1.0
y vel = 0.5* delta u / cyc
minus y vel = - y vel
;
END
variables
grid 1 1
group ’biaxial test sample’
model hoekbrown group ’biaxial test sample’
prop shear= shear bulk= bulk
prop hbsigci= sig ci hbmb= mb hbs= s hba= a
prop hbs3cv= sig3 cv
prop dens = 1.0
apply sxx= sig conf i=2
ini sxx = sig conf
ini syy = sig conf
ini szz = sig conf
FLAC Version 8.0

;
DEF record variables
;
disp 0 = 0.5*(xdisp(1,1) + xdisp(1,2))
disp 1 = 0.5*(xdisp(2,1) + xdisp(2,2))
eps xx = -( disp 0 - disp 1)/1.0
;
disp 0 = 0.5*(ydisp(1,1) + ydisp(2,1))
disp 1 = 0.5*(ydisp(1,2) + ydisp(2,2))
eps yy = -( disp 0 - disp 1)/1.0
;
sig zz = szz(1,1)
sig xx = sxx(1,1)
sig yy = syy(1,1)
;
record variables = 1.0
;
END
apply yvel y vel j=2
apply yvel minus y vel j=1
his 1 record variables
hist nstep 1000
his 11 eps xx
his 12 eps yy
his 13 eps yy
his 21 sig xx
his 22 sig yy
his 23 sig zz
step cyc
;
; Copy histories to tables
;
DEF copy histories to tables
;
loop j (1,2)
loop i (1,3)
itabloc = int(j*10+i)
command
his write itabloc table itabloc
end command
end loop
end loop
;
; Table 111 contains syy stress vs axial strain diagram
; Table 112 contains sxx stress vs axial strain diagram
; Table 113 contains szz stress vs axial strain diagram
FLAC Version 8.0

; Table 114 contains lateral strain vs axial strain diagram

n = table size(11)
loop i (1, n)
; sig yy vs eps yy
xtable(111,i) = -ytable(12,i)/ sig ci
ytable(111,i) = -ytable(22,i)/ sig ci
; sig xx vs eps yy
; sig zz vs eps yy
; eps xx vs eps yy
xtable(114,i) = -ytable(12,i)
ytable(114,i) = -ytable(11,i)
;
end loop
;
END
copy histories to tables
;
; Compute analytical solution
;
DEF analytical solution
;
; Stress-strain diagram
;
sig1F = sig conf- sig ci*(- mb* sig conf/ sig ci+ s)ˆ a
S s1e1 Elast = young
eps1CR = ( sig1F- sig conf)/ S s1e1 Elast
eps1MAX = max eyy
;
; Table 211 contains syy stress vs axial strain diagram
; Table 212 contains sxx stress vs axial strain diagram
; Table 214 contains lateral strain vs axial strain diagram
;
xtable(211,1) = 0.0
xtable(211,2) = - eps1CR/ sig ci
xtable(211,3) = - eps1MAX/ sig ci
ytable(211,1) = - sig conf/ sig ci
ytable(211,2) = - sig1F/ sig ci
ytable(211,3) = - sig1F/ sig ci
;
xtable(212,1) = 0.0
FLAC Version 8.0


;
; Strain-strain diagram
;
S e3e1 Elast = - poiss
eps3CR = eps1CR* S e3e1 Elast
Kpsi 0 = 1 + a* mb/(- mb* sig conf/ sig ci+ s)ˆ(1- a)
;
if - sig conf > sig3 cv
Kpsi = 1.0
else
Kpsi = Kpsi 0 + sig conf/ sig3 cv * ( Kpsi 0-1)
end if
S e3e1 Plast = - Kpsi / 2.0
eps3MAX = eps3CR + ( eps1MAX- eps1CR)* S e3e1 Plast
;
xtable(214,1) = 0.0
ytable(214,1) = 0.0
ytable(214,2) = - eps3CR/ sig ci
ytable(214,3) = - eps3MAX/ sig ci
;
END
analytical solution
;
label table 111
syy vs eyy (FLAC)
label table 112
sxx vs eyy (FLAC)
label table 113
szz vs eyy (FLAC)
label table 211
syy vs eyy (analytical)
label table 212
;
label table 114
exx vs eyy (FLAC)
label table 214
;
DEF plot solutions
;
FLAC Version 8.0

name1 = ’Triaxial Compression Test’

command
title @name1
plot hold table 211 line 111 212 line 112 113 &
min 0.0 max 5.0 alias ’Stress-Axial Strain’
pause
title @name1
plot hold table 114 214 line min -0.2 &
alias ’Lateral Strain-Axial Strain’
endcommand
;
END
plot solutions
save ex2 06.sav
FLAC Version 8.0

Hoek-Brown – MODEL hoek-brown
p
atable number of table relating a to e3
bulk elastic bulk modulus, K

p
citable number of table relating σci to e3

p
hb e3plas accumulated plastic strain, e3
hb ind number of iterations∗

hba Hoek-Brown parameter, a
hbmb Hoek-Brown parameter, mb
hbs Hoek-Brown parameter, s
hbs3cv Hoek-Brown parameter, σ3cv
hbsigci Hoek-Brown parameter, σci

p
mtable number of table relating mb to e3
multable number of table relating a multiplier to σ3

shear elastic shear modulus, G
p
stable number of table relating s to e3
state plastic state
∗ The Hoek-Brown model makes three attempts to bring a stress point to the yield surface:
1) A fast Newton solver is tried.
2) If 1) does not converge, the stress point is checked to see if it falls below the apex of the
Hoek-Brown envelope (i.e., does it cross the σ1 = σ3 line). If this is the case, then the
stress point is set to the apex.
3) If 1) and 2) do not work, a bisection method is used to find the stress point on the yield
surface.
FLAC Version 8.0

The hb ind property reflects the attempts made to bring a stress point to the yield surface. Each zone
contains a number of triangular subzones that are sent in sequence to the constitutive model. When
the first subzone is received by the Hoek-Brown model, the Hoek-Brown model sets hb ind to 0.
If case 1 works, hb ind is set to max(hb ind, number of iterations required by the Newton solver).
If case 2 is encountered, hb ind is set to max(hb ind, 1000). If case 3 is encountered, hb ind is set
to max (hb ind, 1000 + iterations required by the bisection algorithm). If none of the cases work,
then hb ind is set to 9999.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.10 Modified Hoek-Brown Model
A modified version of the hardening/softening Hoek-Brown model, described above, is available

as an alternative formulation. The Hoek-Brown model described in Section 1.6.9 provides a rep-
resentation for yielding that accounts for the changing failure condition. This model works well
at higher confining stress states, but can produce excessive dilation at low confinement or under
tensile-stress conditions. The alternative version, described in this section, is modified to include
a tensile yield criterion, and also to allow the user to specify a dilation angle as an input parameter
and manually control the level of dilation that develops.
The modified Hoek-Brown model is derived directly from the Mohr-Coulomb model. Like the
Mohr-Coulomb model, it can be used to perform factor-of-safety calculations using the SOLVE fos
command. The formulation and an example exercise are given below.
1.6.10.1 Formulation and Implementation
The Hoek-Brown criterion is used for plastic yielding when the minor principal stress, σ3 , is
compressive. The criterion is based on a nonlinear relation between major and minor principal
stresses, σ1 and σ3 , as shown previously in Eq. (1.269), and repeated here:
σ3 a
σ1 = σ3 + σci mb +s (1.285)
σci
where σci is the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock, and mb , s and a are material
constants that can be related to the Geological Strength Index and rock damage (Hoek et al. 2002).
The Hoek-Brown envelope is extended, for σ3 tensile, by a combination of the Mohr-Coulomb
envelope (tangent to Hoek-Brown at σ3 = 0) and a tensile cutoff at σ3 = −sσci /mb .
The numerical implementation of the Hoek-Brown model uses a linear approximation, whereby
the nonlinear failure surface is continuously approximated by the Mohr-Coulomb tangent, at the
current stress level, σ3 . The logic is similar to that adopted in the FISH version of the model (see
“HOEK.FIS” in Section 3 in the FISH volume). The current tangent Mohr-Coulomb criterion is

σ1 = σ3 Nφc + 2cc Nφc (1.286)
where
1 + sin φc φc
Nφc = = tan2 ( + 45◦ ) (1.287)
1 − sin φc 2
FLAC Version 8.0

The current (apparent) value of cohesion, cc , and friction, φc , are calculated using

φc = 2 tan−1 Nφc − 90◦ (1.288)
σ ucs
cc = c (1.289)
2 Nφc
where
σ3 a−1
Nφc = 1 + amb mb +s (1.290)
σci
σ3 a
σcucs = σ3 (1 − Nφc ) + σci mb +s (1.291)
σci
The Mohr-Coulomb envelope extension in the region of tensile σ3 is accounted for in the logic by
considering the following cap in Eqs. (1.290) and (1.291) (recall that compressive stress is positive).
σ3 = max(σ3 , 0) (1.292)
The tensile yield logic is the same as the one used for the strain-hardening/softening model; it is
described in Section 1.6.5.2.
The plastic strain increment for shear yielding is defined using the current Mohr-Coulomb flow
rule:
p ∂g 1 p
eij = ep − evol δij i = 1, 3 (1.293)
∂σij 3
where ep is the plastic flow increment intensity, g is the plastic potential function, and
p ∂g ∂g ∂g
evol = ep + + (1.294)
∂σ11 ∂σ22 ∂σ33
The plastic potential function is
g = σ1 − σ3 Nψc (1.295)
FLAC Version 8.0

where ψc is the current value of dilation and
1 + sin ψc
Nψc = (1.296)
1 − sin ψc
∂g
The direction of plastic flow ( ∂σij
in Eq. (1.293)) is expressed using the plastic potential function.
The plastic flow increment intensity, ep , is derived from the current tangent Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion, Eq. (1.286). There are three choices of flow rule for the model:
1. Input a dilation angle (ψc is a constant value) specified by property keyword hbpsi and
hb doption = 0;
2. Specify associated plastic flow (ψc is set equal to φc ) by setting hb doption = −1;
3. Set dilation as a fraction of the friction angle (ψc is set to a constant times φc ); hb doption
is a positive fraction.
Strain hardening/softening behavior can be prescribed for the Hoek-Brown properties, mb , s, a,
and σci . The input is via tables and in terms of an evolution parameter. There are two choices for
evolution parameter: plastic shear strain (property keyword hb poption is set to 1), or plastic strain
in the direction of the least compressive principal stress, σ3 (property keyword hb poption is set to
0). The evolution parameter can be monitored via the property hb plas.
A simple regularization technique can be selected to address the issue of grid dependency on
softening behavior. To activate this technique, the grid zone size used to calibrate model properties
with experimental data is assigned to the property hb len. This property is the calibration length.
The input softening rate is then adjusted automatically to account for a different zone size used in
the full FLAC model. Note that this technique is experimental and should be used with caution.
1.6.10.2 Triaxial Compression Test
The triaxial compression tests performed in Section 1.6.9.5 for the Hoek-Brown model described
in Section 1.6.9 are repeated for the modified Hoek-Brown model. Two compression loading tests
are performed: one test at zero confining stress, σ3 /σci = 0, and the other test at high confining
stress, σ3 /σci = 1.
The data file shown in Example 1.6 is used for these tests, with the Hoek-Brown model and properties
replaced by the modified Hoek-Brown model and properties. For the zero confining stress case,
we specify an associated flow rule; this is done with the command PROP hb doption = -1. The
following commands are specified for this case.
model mhoekbrown group ’biaxial test sample’
prop bulk bulk shear shear
prop hb do -1
FLAC Version 8.0

For the higher confining stress case, we need to specify a dilation angle that is consistent with
the limiting constant-volume stress, σ3cv = 1.5, chosen for this test in Section 1.6.9.5. We linearly
interpolate a value for dilation corresponding to the current confining stress level of σ3 = 1, relative
to a nonassociated zero dilation at σ3cv = 1.5. The current dilation, ψc , is then taken to be a fraction
of the current friction angle, φc , using the linear interpolation:
ψc σ3
= 1 − cv = 0.333 (1.297)
φc σ3
The following commands are used to apply the modified Hoek-Brown model for this case.
model mhoekbrown group ’biaxial test sample’
prop bulk bulk shear shear
prop hb do 0.333
The FLAC results for the zero confining stress case are compared to the analytical solution (from
Section 1.6.9.5) in Figures 1.39 and 1.40, and the results for the high confining stress case are
compared in Figures 1.41 and 1.42.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Traixial Compression Test - MHOEK model
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
5.000
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 20000
4.500
Stress-Axial Strain
4.000
szz vs eyy (FLAC)
syy vs eyy (FLAC)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )

(σ3 /σci = 0) – modified Hoek-Brown model
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 0.000

step 20000
-0.200
-0.400
exx vs eyy (FLAC)
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
(σ3 /σci = 0) – modified Hoek-Brown model
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
5.000
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 20000
4.500
Stress-Axial Strain
4.000
szz vs eyy (FLAC)
syy vs eyy (FLAC)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )

(σ3 /σci = 1.0) – modified Hoek-Brown model
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 0.000

step 20000
-0.200
-0.400
exx vs eyy (FLAC)
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
(σ3 /σci = 1.0) – modified Hoek-Brown model
FLAC Version 8.0

Modified Hoek-Brown – MODEL mhoek
atable number of table relating a to the evolution parameter

citable number of table relating σci to the evolution parameter
hba Hoek-Brown parameter, a
hb doption = 0 to input a constant dilation angle specified by hb psi (default)
= -1 to specify associated plastic flow; ψc = φc
= val where val is a fraction of friction angle, φc (ψc = val × φc )
hb len calibration length to calibrate model properties to account for zone
size
hbmb Hoek-Brown parameter, mb
hb poption = 0 for evolution parameter set to plastic strain in direction of
least compressive principal stress
= 1 for evolution parameter set to plastic shear strain (default)
hbpsi dilation angle, ψc (specified if hb doption = 0)
hbsigci Hoek-Brown parameter, σci
hb soption = 0 for SOLVE fos solution controlled by shear strength (default)
= 1 for SOLVE fos solution controlled by unconfined compressive
strength
hbs Hoek-Brown parameter, s
hbtension current value of tensile strength, σ t
mtable number of table relating mb to the evolution parameter
stable number of table relating s to the evolution parameter
ttable number of table relating σ t to plastic tensile strain
FLAC Version 8.0


hb aac current value of a
hb cohesion current value of cohesion, cc
hb dilation current value of dilation angle, ψc ∗
hb friction current value of friction angle, φc
hb mmc current value of mb
hb plas plastic strain in direction of least compressive principal stress
(if hb poption = 0)
plastic shear strain (if hb poption = 1)
hb scc current value of σci
hb ssc current value of s
* If hb doption = 0, hb dilation = min(hbpsi, ψc ). Thus, hb dilation may not always be equal to the
specified value of hbpsi.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.11 Cap-Yield (Cysoil) Model
The Cysoil model is a strain-hardening constitutive model characterized by a frictional and cohesive
Mohr-Coulomb shear envelope and an elliptic volumetric cap with ratio of axes, defined by a shape
parameter α.
The Cysoil model in FLAC 8 is an updated version of the FLAC 7 Cysoil model with the following
built-in features:
• a cap hardening law to capture the volumetric power law behavior observed in isotropic
compaction tests;
• a friction-hardening law to reproduce the hyperbolic stress-strain law behavior observed
in drained triaxial tests; and
• a compaction/dilation law to model irrecoverable volumetric strain taking place as a result
of soil shearing.
The motivation for closing the yield surface by a cap on the mean stress axis is to permit plastic
behavior in response to an isotropic stress increase. This plasticity effect accounts for grain crushing
and rearrangement, and is particular to soils. In the double-yield model, the cap is a plane normal to
the mean stress axis in stress space. The impact of this particular shape on the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure, K0 , as predicted by the model in uniaxial compression tests, has been considered to
be somewhat restrictive by some users. In that respect, the Cysoil model is a modification of the
double-yield volumetric behavior that addresses this issue by accounting for a cap with an elliptic
shape in the (p , q) plane. The ratio of axes of the ellipse, α, determines the value of K0 , and
is a material property for the model, which can be chosen to match a known value in uniaxial
compression. In particular, a planar volumetric cap is obtained as a special case of the Cysoil
formulation by assuming a value of α 1.
In addition, when subjected to deviatoric loading, soils usually exhibit a decrease in stiffness,
accompanied by irreversible deformation. In most cases, the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial
strain obtained in a drained triaxial test may be approximated by a hyperbola. This feature has
been used by Duncan and Chang (1970) to formulate their well-known “hyperbolic soil” model.
(See Section 3.7.8 in the User’s Guide.) The hyperbolic soil model of Duncan and Chang is a
nonlinear elastic model that has been shown to exhibit some drawbacks. These drawbacks include,
for example, difficulty in detecting and characterizing unloading/reloading, and, in specific cases,
producing a nonphysical bulk modulus value that can lead to an erroneous energy generation in the
model. Because the Cysoil model is formulated in the theory of hardening plasticity, it allows for
an alternative expression of the hyperbolic behavior (based on friction hardening), which is capable
of addressing some of these problems.*
* A simplified version of the Cysoil model, called the Chsoil model, also addresses the difficulties of
the Duncan and Chang model and is provided as an alternative to the Duncan and Chang model.
See Section 1.6.12.
FLAC Version 8.0

When tested under drained triaxial conditions, soils generally exhibit shear-induced volume changes
that are strongly dependent on soil density. Typically, there is a tendency for the soil to contract
under small shear strains and to dilate under larger strains, unless it is very loose (Byrne et al.
2003). In particular, when fluid fills the pores, it is this tendency of the soil skeleton to contract and
dilate that controls its liquefaction response. Also, the shear-stress/shear-strain response of loose
soil may exhibit a softening response under undrained conditions. It is the existence of a peak in
shear strength that may lead to instability (static liquefaction) during a monotonic load-controlled
process (Boukpeti 2001). Shear-induced volume changes can be accounted for in the Cysoil model
by means of a dilation hardening/softening law.
Conventions
Principal stress, σi , and strain, ei , i = 1,3, components are positive in tension. Also, effective
stresses are denoted by a prime. The principal effective stresses are σ1 , σ2 , σ3 and, by convention,
σ1 ≤ σ2 ≤ σ3 (i.e., σ1 is the most compressive stress).
The elastic behavior is expressed using the incremental form of Hooke’s law, which in terms of
principal stress and strain has the form
σ1 = α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2 = α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.298)
σ3 = α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
where α1 = K e + 4Ge /3, α2 = K e − 2Ge /3, and the quantities K e and Ge are the tangent elastic
bulk and shear modulus, respectively. In the constitutive model logic, the modulus Ge is related to
the mean effective pressure by a power law. Also, Poisson’s ratio, ν, is assumed to remain constant.
Note that in the current version of the Cysoil model, the bulk modulus is not used as input.
However, the bulk modulus, K e , is derived internally using the relation
2(1 + ν)
K e = Ge (1.299)
3(1 − 2ν)
FLAC Version 8.0

Shear Yield Criterion and Flow Rule

Shear yielding is defined by a Mohr-Coulomb criterion (see representation in Figure 1.43):

f = σ1 − σ3 Nφm + 2cm Nφm
(1 + sin φm )
Nφm = (1.300)
(1 − sin φm )
where φm is the mobilized friction, a quantity that can increase between an initial value (possibly
zero), and a final value, φf , set by the user.
Figure 1.43 Mohr circles at in-situ stress and at failure
Note that in the model logic, unloading is elastic, and thus φm cannot decrease. The last term of
Eq. (1.300) contains mobilized cohesion, cm , which can increase between an initial value and an
ultimate value, c, defined by the user. The expression for cm is:
tan φm
cm = c (1.301)
tan φf
The shear yield envelope (see Eq. (1.300)) can also be expressed in an alternative form (consistent
with the cap formulation) as follows:
f = M(p + c cot φf ) − q (1.302)
FLAC Version 8.0

In this expression, M = 6 sin φm /(3 − sin φm ), p = −(σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )/3 is the mean effective
stress, and q = −[σ1 + (δ − 1)σ2 − δσ3 ], with δ = (3 + sin φm )/(3 − sin φm ) as a measure of shear
stress.
The potential function is not associated; it is given as follows
g = M ∗ p − q ∗ (1.303)
where q ∗ = −[σ1 + (δ ∗ − 1)σ2 − δ ∗ σ3 ], M ∗ = 6 sin ψm /(3 − sin ψm ), ψm is the mobilized dilation
angle, and δ ∗ = (3 + sin ψm )/(3 − sin ψm ).
Volumetric Cap Criterion and Flow Rule
Yielding on the cap is associated; the criterion is
q2
fc = 2
+ p2 − pc2 (1.304)
α
where α is a dimensionless parameter (α ≥ 1) defining the shape of the elliptical cap in the (p , q)
plane, and pc is the current cap pressure. Note that the ellipsoid degenerates into a spherical cap
for α = 1 (default setting), and to a planar volumetric cap for α 1.
Tensile Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
The tensile yield function is the same as that used for the Mohr-Coulomb and strain-hardening/
softening models:
f t = σ t − σ3 (1.305)
where σ t is the tensile strength. The potential function for tensile yielding is associated.
1.6.11.3 Built-in hardening functions
Cap Hardening
Soil stiffness usually increases in a nonlinear fashion as a function of isotropic pressure. In the
Cysoil model, soil volumetric behavior in an isotropic compaction test can be captured by the
following power law:
m
dp p
= Kref pref (1.306)
de pref
FLAC Version 8.0

where e is volumetric strain taken positive in compression, Kref is the tangent elastic bulk modulus
number, the product Kref pref is the slope of the laboratory curve for p versus e at reference
effective pressure, pref , and m is a constant (0 < m < 1).
A typical graph representative of this law is sketched with a small unloading excursion in Figure 1.44.
The equation for the curve (obtained by integration of Eq. (1.306) and using p = 0 at e = 0) is:
p = pref [(1 − m)Kref e]1/(1−m) (1.307)
The usual assumption is made that the total strain increment is the sum of the elastic and plastic
contributions:
de = dee + dep (1.308)
In this context, ep is the plastic volumetric strain contribution from cap yielding only, not including
shear yielding.
Also, the tangent elastic bulk modulus, K e , and plastic hardening modulus, H , are defined as
follows:
dp dpc
Ke = ,H = p (1.309)
de de
Figure 1.44 Isotropic compaction test: pressure versus volumetric strain
FLAC Version 8.0

As the material becomes more compact, its plastic stiffness usually increases. It seems reasonable
that the elastic stiffness will also increase, because the grains are being forced closer together. The
Cysoil model uses a simple rule (the same as that used in the double-yield model) whereby, under
general loading conditions, the current elastic modulus is equal to a constant, R, times the current
plastic modulus:
K e = RH (1.310)
Substitution of H from Eq. (1.309) in Eq. (1.310) gives:
dpc de
Ke = R (1.311)
de dep
Using Eq. (1.308) in Eq. (1.311), we obtain

dpc dee
K =R
e
1+ p (1.312)
de de
For isotropic compression, dp = dpc , and by definition of K e and H (see Eq. (1.309)), it follows
from Eq. (1.310) that
dep
R= (1.313)
dee
Now, substituting Eq. (1.313) into Eq. (1.312), one obtains
dpc
K e = (1 + R) (1.314)
de
Thus, using the definition Eq. (1.306) for dp c

de in Eq. (1.314), the tangent elastic bulk modulus, K
e
is dependent on cap pressure, pc (or maximum effective pressure sustained by the material in the
past), according to the following power law:
m
pc
K = (1 + R)Kref pref
e
(1.315)
pref
According to Eq. (1.299) and Eq. (1.315), the tangent elastic shear modulus obeys the following
power law:
FLAC Version 8.0

m
pc
G = (1 + R)Gref pref
e
(1.316)
pref
where
3(1 − 2ν)
Gref = Kref (1.317)
2(1 + ν)
The input parameters Gref , pref , m and R must be provided by the user.
In addition, the user can provide upper and lower bound values for Ge (Gupper and Glower ), which
will then overwrite the default settings for these parameters. Note that the upper bound for Ge is
used for numerical stability: a value close to the maximum value reached during the simulation
should be assigned to the parameter. If a much larger value is assigned, the numerical convergence
may be slow.
After substituting Eq. (1.315) into Eq. (1.310), the expression for the hardening modulus, H ,
becomes

dpc 1 + R pc m
H = p = Kref pref (1.318)
de R pref
Integration of Eq. (1.318) for m < 1 with pc = 0 at ep = 0 provides the evolution law for the cap
pressure, pc , in terms of plastic volumetric strain, ep :
1
Kref p 1−m
pc = pref (1 − m)(1 + R) e (1.319)
R
Conversely, the plastic volumetric strain is expressed in terms of pc as:
1−m
1 R 1 pc
e =
p
(1.320)
1 − m 1 + R Kref pref
Note that the code sets an upper bound of 0.99 for m. However, it may be interesting to know that
p
in the limiting case of m = 1, integration of Eq. (1.318) with initial values of pc = pc0 at ep = e0
provides a logarithmic law that is similar to the expression used by the Cam-clay model:
pc p
ln = (1 + 1/R)Kref (ep − e0 ) (1.321)
pc0
FLAC Version 8.0

Friction Hardening
For most soils, the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain obtained in a drained triaxial test can
be approximated by a hyperbola (see Figure 1.45). The Cysoil model incorporates a friction-strain
hardening law to capture this behavior.
Figure 1.45 Deviatoric stress versus axial strain for a generic triaxial test
The evolution parameter for the cap volumetric yielding envelope and that for the shear yielding
envelope are independent in the Cysoil model. By convention, the mobilized plastic shear modulus,
p
Gm , is defined as
p d(sin φm )
Gm = pref (1.322)
dγ p
p
where φm is the mobilized friction angle and γ p is plastic shear strain. Thus, the ratio Gm /pref is
the slope of the curve in a graph of mobilized stress ratio, sin φm , versus plastic shear strain γ p .
The expression for mobilized plastic shear modulus is adopted from Byrne et al. (2003):
2
p p sin φm − sin φ0
Gm = Gm,i 1− Rf (1.323)
sin φf − sin φ0
In this formula, φ0 is an internal constant (which, by default is set equal to the user-provided
mobilized friction angle under in-situ conditions), φf is the ultimate friction angle, GPm,i is the
p p
value of Gm under in-situ conditions, Rf is the failure ratio used to assign a lower bound for Gm .
Note that Rf < 1, and a typical value used in many cases is Rf = 0.9.
For the Cysoil model, GPm,i is expressed as
FLAC Version 8.0

GPm,i = β(1 + R)Gref pref (1.324)
where β is a user-defined calibration factor, which can depend on the value of confinement (in
triaxial test modeling) or in-situ confining stress (in field scale modeling).
After substituting Eq. (1.323) and Eq. (1.324) in Eq. (1.322) and re-arranging some terms, we
obtain:
1 d(sin φm )
dγ p = 2 (1.325)
β(1 + R)Gref sin φm −sin φ0
1− sin φf −sin φ0 Rf
The evolution law for mobilized friction, φm , in terms of plastic shear strain, γ p , for the Cysoil
model is obtained by integration of Eq. (1.323), considering that γ p = 0 at φm = φ0 :
βγ p (1 + R)Gref (sin φf − sin φ0 )

sin φm = sin φ0 + (1.326)
(sin φf − sin φ0 ) + βγ p (1 + R)Gref Rf
Eq. (1.326) is used in the built-in logic to calculate the mobilized friction from the accumulated
plastic shear strain.
Note that after solving Eq. (1.326) for γ p with φ0 = 0, one obtains:
1 sin φf sin φm
γp = (1.327)
β(1 + R)Gref sin φf − sin φm Rf
The mobilized plastic shear modulus can be expressed in terms of plastic shear strain by substitution
of Eq. (1.327) for sin φm into Eq. (1.323) and performing some manipulations:
p 2
Gm 1
p = (1.328)
Gm,i 1 + Aγ p
where
(1 + R)Gref Rf
A=β (1.329)
sin φf − sin φ0
p
Gm
The graph of p
Gm,i
versus log(γ p ) is represented in generic form in Figure 1.46.
FLAC Version 8.0

p
Gm
Figure 1.46 Generic form of plot p
Gm,i
versus log(γ p )
It is assumed that the curve at very small strain (see Figure 1.46) is derived from in-situ conditions
(e.g., by using seismic shear wave velocity profiles drawn by cross-hole or down-hole tests), and
that γ p is the plastic shear strain that develops after initial conditions have been established. In this
case, the initial value of the evolution parameter γ p should be left at zero (default value). The code
will automatically set the parameter φ0 equal to the initial value of mobilized friction, friction mob,
provided by the user (by using the FISH function “CY.FIS” provided at the end of Section 1.6.11).
The implication is that the graph in Figure 1.46 will be exercised starting at γ p = 0 during the
simulation.
Alternatively, the user can exercise the modulus degradation curve in a simulation, starting with a
value of γ p that is larger than zero. This option provides additional calibration flexibility. Note
that when the initial non-zero value of γ p is provided by the user, the code automatically sets the
internal constant φ0 to zero. For example, Eq. (1.327) can be used to derive a value of plastic shear
strain, consistent with the user-provided mobilized friction angle, for input into the code. This
technique is used in the FISH function “CY.FIS” provided with the code.
Dilation Hardening
p
A certain amount of irrecoverable volumetric strain, es , is expected to take place as a result of soil
shearing. Also, under small monotonic shear strains, there is a tendency for the soil skeleton to
contract due to grain rearrangements. For dense soil and larger strain conditions, the soil skeleton
may dilate as a result of grains moving over each other. A dilation strain-hardening law is used
FLAC Version 8.0

to model this non-monotonic behavior. For the Cysoil model, the shear-hardening flow rule (from
shear yielding only, not including cap yielding) has the form:
p
des
= sin ψm (1.330)
dγ p
where ψm is the mobilized dilation angle. The evolution law for mobilized dilation angle ψm is
given by the following law, based on Rowe’s stress-dilatancy theory (1962):
sin φm − sin φcv

sin ψm = (1.331)
1 − sin φm sin φcv
where sin φm is given in terms of γ p by Eq. (1.326), and φcv is a constant. According to the law
of Eq. (1.331), the material contracts for φm < φcv and dilates for φm > φcv . In most cases, the
constant volume stress ratio sin φcv can be expressed in terms of (known) ultimate values of friction,
φf , and dilation, ψf , as follows:
sin φf − sin ψf
sin φcv = (1.332)
1 − sin φf sin ψf
FLAC Version 8.0

Dilatancy Cut-off
In addition, a dilatancy cut-off can be specified whereby the mobilized dilation angle is set to zero
when the void ratio, ê, exceeds a specified value, êmax . The values of initial (in-situ) void ratio, êini ,
and final void ratio, êmax , are provided by the user. The current value of void ratio ê is calculated
by the code from the known volumetric strain, e (positive for extension), initial (in situ) volumetric
strain, êini , and initial void ratio, êini , using
ê = (1 + êini ) exp(e − eini ) − 1 (1.333)
where
êini + 1
ei = − ln (1.334)
êmax + 1
1.6.11.4 Basic Model Properties, Choice of Model Parameters
Basic Model Properties

The basic Cysoil model includes the following built-in features and functionalities, as described
above:
• A frictional and cohesive strain-hardening Mohr-Coulomb shear envelope including: (1)
a built-in friction-hardening law to reproduce the hyperbolic stress-strain law behavior
observed in drained triaxial tests; and (2) a built-in dilation hardening/softening law to
model shear-induced volume changes whereby the soil contracts under small shear strains
and dilates under larger strains.
• An elliptic volumetric cap with a ratio of axes defined by a shape parameter, which can
be chosen to match a known value of lateral earth pressure, K0 , in uniaxial compression,
combined with a built-in cap hardening law to capture the volumetric power-law behavior
observed in isotropic compaction tests.
The minimum set of properties that must be specified by the user or else accepted at their default
value in the basic Cysoil mode of operation is as follows.
cap flag flag that must be set to 1 to activate the cap yielding logic. Default
value: 0 (no cap yielding).
cap pressure cap pressure, pc . An initial value larger than zero must be set con-
sistent with the initial stress state (for example, by using FISH func-
tion “CY.FIS”). Otherwise, the default value is calculated based on
Eq. (1.304).
cohesion ultimate cohesion, c. Default value: 0.
FLAC Version 8.0

density mass density, ρ. Input is required.

dilation ultimate dilation angle, ψf . Default value: 0.
friction ultimate friction angle, φf > 0. Default value: 0.1.
friction mob mobilized friction angle, φm . An initial value must be provided con-
sistent with the in-situ stress state (for example, by using FISH func-
tion “CY.FIS”). Default value: 0.
multiplier multiplier, R; used to define the unloading/reloading modulus. De-
fault value: 5.0.
p ref reference pressure, pref . Input is required.
shear ref elastic tangent shear modulus number, Gref . Input value is required.
tension tensile strength, σ t . Default value: 0.

Note that, by default, the cap shape parameter, α, is 1; the elastic modulus exponent, m, is 0.5;
Poisson’s ratio, ν, is 0.2; the failure ratio, Rf , is 0.9; and the calibration factor, β, is 1.
The complete set of properties together with their default value is listed in Section 1.6.11.9. A
number of alternative features can also be selected in the Cysoil model. They are described in
Section 1.6.11.5.
Choice of Model Parameters

General guidelines to select the properties for the basic model are provided below.
Initialization of Gref , R and m
The “hardening curve” and ratio, R, of elastic bulk modulus to plastic bulk modulus are volumetric
properties that may be derived from the results of a triaxial test in which axial stress and confining
pressure, p, are kept equal. The use of this test is recommended because parameters related to a
particular mode of yielding (e.g., volumetric, shear, tension) can be determined more reliably from
a test that involves only that yielding mode.
The laboratory curve, including a small unloading excursion, is sketched in Figure 1.44. The
parameter R can be estimated from the graph by taking the ratio of the two quantities dep and dee
measured from the unloading excursion (see Eq. (1.313)).
The two additional volumetric model parameters Kref and m appearing in 1.307 can be obtained by
fitting this equation to the laboratory curve (see sketch in Figure 1.44). To facilitate the curve fitting
process, a first estimate of Kref can be calculated from 1.306 using a starting value of m = 0.5 and
the quantities dp and de measured on the graph close to the unloading point. Some iterations can
then be taken in which m and Kref are adjusted to obtain a better fit to the lab curve. In turn, the
parameter Gref can be estimated (from known values of Kref and ν) using Eq. (1.317).
FLAC Version 8.0

Alternatively, the model parameters Gref and R can be estimated from published values of Plaxis
ref ref
Hardening Soil model parameters Eur and Eoed (see Plaxis Material Models manual, 2014) using
the following relationships.
At pc = pref , Eq. (1.316) and give:
Ge = (1 + R)Gref pref (1.335)
On the other hand, by definition:
ref
Eur
G = e
(1.336)
2(1 + ν)
After elimination of Geref between Eq. (1.335) and (1.336), we obtain
ref
Eur
Gref = (1.337)
2(1 + ν)(1 + R)pref
ref
The following relationship can be inferred from the definition of Eoed in an oedometer setting.

ref 4 2(1 − ν)
Eoed = Kref + Gref pref = Gref pref (1.338)
3 1 − 2ν
Where the relationship between Kref and Gref in Eq. (1.317) has been used.
After substitution of (1.337) into Eq. (1.338) and some manipulations, we obtain:
ref
ref Eur 1−ν
Eoed = (1.339)
1 + R (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
Using Eq. (1.339), the multiplier R is obtained as:
ref
Eur 1−ν
R= −1 (1.340)
ref
Eoed (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
Also, substitution of Eq. (1.340) into (1.337) gives:
FLAC Version 8.0

ref
E (1 − 2ν)
Gref = oed · (1.341)
pref 2(1 − ν)
Eq. (1.340) through (1.341) can be used as an approximation to relate the Plaxis Hardening Soil
parameters to Cysoil properties. Note, however, that the Hardening Soil and Cysoil model formu-
lations differ and thus simulation results using the two models cannot be expected to be identical.
Initialization of c, φf , ψf and σ t
The properties of ultimate friction, cohesion and dilation can be derived from standard triaxial
tests carried out at a minimum of two different confinements until the ultimate yield state has been
achieved (see Figure 1.47). The tensile strength can be determined from a tensile test, carried out
to sample failure. Alternatively, the properties for standard soils can be found from the literature.
Figure 1.47 Shear stress versus normal stress (left) and volumetric strain ver-
sus axial strain (right)
Initialization of the cap pressure

The cap pressure should be initialized to a value that is consistent with the in-situ stress and takes
into account volumetric soil over-consolidation, as applicable. The initial cap pressure is derived
from the yield criterion fc = 0 (see Eq. (1.304)):

q2
pc = ocr · + p2 (1.342)
α2
where the over-consolidation ratio, ocr, is an amplification factor larger or equal to 1.

The code automatically assigns an initial value of the evolution parameter, ep , derived from
Eq. (1.320) that is consistent with the initial cap pressure.
FLAC Version 8.0

The FISH function “CY.FIS”, called after the in-situ stress conditions have been established, will
automatically perform the initialization of the cap pressure taking into account the value of over-
consolidation ratio set using the property ocr (the default value for ocr is 1). Note that cap flag
should be set to 1 to activate this FISH functionality.
Initialization of mobilized friction angle
The mobilized friction angle is an important parameter that should be initialized appropriately to be
consistent with the in-situ stresses and accounting for shear over-consolidation, as applicable. The
following expression, consistent with Eq. (1.300), can be used to determine the mobilized friction
angle for a normally shear-consolidated material:
σ1 − σ3
nc
sin φm = (1.343)
σ1 + σ3 + 2c cot φf
where σ1 and σ3 are the minimum and maximum principal effective stresses in-situ, and c is the
cohesion. Eq. (1.343) follows from the geometrical consideration of Mohr circles presented in
Figure 1.43.
The initial state of an over-consolidated soil is prescribed by specifying an initial value of the
nc .
mobilized friction property that is larger than the normally consolidated value φm
FISH function “CY.FIS” will automatically perform the initialization assuming normal consolida-
tion in shear if called after the in-situ stress conditions have been established.
Initialization of friction hardening parameter
By default, the friction hardening parameter γ p is assumed to be zero under in-situ conditions.
Alternatively, the user can choose to exercise the modulus degradation curve starting with a value
of γ p that is larger than zero (see discussion on friction hardening in Section 1.6.11.3). The
following expression can be used to initialize the value of plastic shear strain, consistent with the
initial value of mobilized friction, (see Eq. (1.327)):
1 sin φf sin φm
γp = (1.344)
β(1 + R)Gref sin φf − sin φm Rf
FISH function “CY.FIS” will perform the initialization automatically if called after the in-situ stress
conditions have been established.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.11.5 Alternative features
User-defined hardening/softening laws

One flexible feature of the model is the capability to substitute alternative user-defined harden-
ing/softening laws for the built-in laws, which are communicated to the model by means of tables.
Up to five tables can be declared. Tables may specify mobilized friction, dilation, and cohesion in
terms of plastic shear strain measure, γ p ; tensile strength in terms of tensile plastic strain, ept ; and,
volumetric cap pressure in terms of cap plastic volumetric strain, ep . When a table is declared for
a specific model property (e.g., friction, dilation, cohesion, tensile strength, or cap-pressure), the
associated user-defined law takes precedence over the corresponding built-in law.
Duncan-Chang type model
For geotechnical applications that do not require taking into account substantial plastic volumetric
strains, the volumetric cap is usually ignored. On the other hand, it is still important to consider the
dependency of the material elastic moduli on the initial effective stresses. This type of problem is
often analyzed with the use of the Duncan and Chang hyperbolic soil model (1970).
To account for such behavior in the Cysoil model, the user should specify not to use the volumetric
cap by setting property cap flag to zero (the default value). Also, the user should assign p ini to a
(positive) zone-based measure of initial confinement (e.g., pini = σ3 ). The code will then use the
value of p ini in lieu of pc in Eq. (1.315) and (1.316) for bulk and shear moduli.
The emerging behavior of the model should be similar to that of a Duncan-Chang model (in the
case that dilation is fixed at zero, using dilation flag=1), and that of the Chsoil in particular.
Constant friction angle
It is possible to use a constant friction angle as an alternative to the built-in friction hardening logic
in the Cysoil model. To select this option, the user needs to set property shear flag to 1 (by default,
shear flag is 0) and the input value of the friction property to the desired friction angle.
Dilation alternatives
The built-in dilation logic is used when dilation flag is set to zero (the default value). There are
two alternative options: (1) constant dilation (dilation flag=1), in which case the input value of the
dilation property is used; and (2) Rowe’s Dilation law (dilation flag=2), in which case φcv is not
internally derived from φf and ψf , but an input value that is set using the friction cv property.
FLAC Version 8.0

The implementation procedure for the Cysoil model follows the general implementation of the
double-yield model (see Section 1.6.7.5). At each timestep, new stresses are computed using the
guess
current values of the model properties. In this process, an elastic guess σij is first computed
by adding stress increments to the old stress components. The stress increments are calculated by
guess
application of the Hooke’s law to the total strain increment for the step. Principal stresses σ1 ,
guess guess
σ2 , σ3 and corresponding principal directions are calculated and ordered. If these stresses
violate the yield criteria for shear, volume (cap) and/or tension (see Section 1.6.11.2), corrections
are applied to the elastic guess to give the new stress state. The stress tensor components in the
system of reference axes are then calculated from the principal values by assuming that the principal
directions have not been affected by the occurrence of a plastic correction.
The evolution parameters γ p , ep and ept for shear, cap and tensile yielding, respectively, are
calculated independently by the code. The parameter for shear yielding is the (accumulated) plastic
shear strain, γ p ; the plastic shear strain increment is defined as (also see Section 1.6.5.1 and
Section 1.6.7.3)
1
1 ps ps 2 1 ps 2 1 ps ps 2 2
γ =p
(e1 − em ) + (em ) + (e3 − em ) (1.345)
2 2 2
ps ps ps ps
where em = (e1 −e3 )/3 and ej , j = 1, 3 are the principal plastic shear strain increments.
The evolution parameter for cap yielding is the modulus of plastic volumetric strain, ep , and its
increment is defined as
p p p
ep = |e1 + e2 + e3 | (1.346)
p
where ej , j = 1, 3 are the principal plastic strain increments from yielding on the cap. The
tensile hardening parameter ept measures the accumulated tensile plastic strain; its increment is
defined as
pt
ept = e3 (1.347)
pt
The components of the plastic strain increment for each failure mode are evaluated from expressions
similar to those derived for the double-yield model (see Section 1.6.7.4).
Zone hardening increments are then calculated from the relevant (surface averaged) plastic strain
increments for all triangles involved in the zone. After this, new zone properties (e.g., mobilized
friction, cohesion, dilation, updated cap pressure) are calculated and stored for use in the next step.
FLAC Version 8.0

The hardening or softening lags one timestep behind the corresponding plastic deformation. In an
explicit code, this error is small because the steps are small. Note that for a material with friction,
the maximum value of the tensile strength is evaluated from Eq. (1.62), using the new mobilized
cohesion and friction angle.
Several simple tests are presented below to illustrate the Cysoil model features and capabilities.
1.6.11.7 Tests
Isotropic Compression Tests

Isotropic compression tests on dense, medium and loose sand are simulated (simultaneously in one
grid) using the Cysoil model. The model properties for the tests are listed in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Properties for isotropic compression test

Parameter Dense Medium Loose
ref
Eoed (kPa) 40000 30000 20000
ref
Eur (kPa) 120000 90000 60000
Gref (kPa) 150 112.5 75
ρ (kg/m3 ) 1000
ν 0.2
φf (deg) 45
pref (kPa) 100
pc (kPa) 10
R 2.3
cap flag 1
The dimensionless Cysoil model parameters R and Gref in Table 1.2 are derived from the available
ref ref
parameters Eoed and Eur , using Eq. (1.340) and (1.341).
The simulation is run in axisymmetric mode. The FLAC grid consists of three separate zones with
unit dimensions lined up along the symmetry axis. The initial stress state is isotropic in each zone;
the magnitude of the confining stress is 10 kPa. The sand is normally consolidated for the tests (the
initial cap pressure is equal to 10 kPa). The base of the zones is fixed in the axial (y) direction,
confining velocities of magnitude 10−6 m/step are applied at the top and lateral sides of the zone.
Five unloading/reloading excursions are included. The example data file Example 1.7 is provided
in Section 1.6.11.8.
FLAC Version 8.0

A plot of vertical (axial) stress versus axial strain for the test is shown for dense, medium and
loose soil cases in Figure 1.48. The plots show the power law and stiffer behavior achieved by
the denser soil, as expected from the model. A plot of elastic bulk modulus versus axial strain
for the test is shown in Figure 1.49. The bulk modulus is seen on the plot to remain constant
during unloading/reloading; also, the value is higher for higher strain levels, consistent with the
dependency of the property on plastic deformation. The shear modulus exhibits the same behavior
as the current bulk modulus.
JOB TITLE : ISOTROPIC COMPRESSION TESTS ON A CYSOIL MATERIAL
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 17500 1.000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Rev 1 Ave. SYY ( 1, 5) 0.800
Rev 5 Ave. SYY ( 1, 3)
Rev 9 Ave. SYY ( 1, 1)
X-axis : 0.600
0.400
0.200
4 8 12 16 20 24
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.48 Axial stress (in kPa) versus axial strain for dense, medium and
loose sand
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : ISOTROPIC COMPRESSION TESTS ON A CYSOIL MATERIAL
FLAC (Version 8.00)

04
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01
7.000
step 17500
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 6.000
3 bulk_current ( 1, 5) PRP
5.000
X-axis :
4.000
3.000
2.000
4 8 12 16 20 24
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.49 Bulk modulus (in kPa) versus axial strain for dense, medium and
loose sand
Oedometer Tests
Oedometer test simulations are carried out for different values of the parameter α to evaluate the
impact of the cap aspect ratio on confining stress when yielding occurs on the cap. The values of
α considered for the tests are 0.5, 1 and 1020 (i.e., a value very large compared to 1, in which case
the behavior of the double-yield model is recovered).
We use the same setup and properties (apart from α) as in the previous example, except in this
case the simulations are run in plane strain with fixed lateral boundaries to simulate oedometer
test conditions. Friction is assigned a large value to prevent shear yielding. The example data file
Example 1.8 is provided in Section 1.6.11.8.
The ratio, K0 , of confining stress to vertical stress, σxx / σyy , is plotted versus axial strain for dense,
medium and loose sand in two figures below. Figure 1.50 compares predictions for α = 0.5 and α
= 1020 (double-yield model), and Figure 1.51 shows plots for α = 1.0 and α = 1020 (double-yield
model).
The results of the oedometer simulations show that with the given properties, a higher value of K0
is achieved for the Cysoil model than the double-yield model. And for all tests, the lower the aspect
ratio of the cap, the higher the K0 that is achieved. Also, dense, medium and loose sands converge
to the same ultimate K0 value as deformation takes place, and they do so at a faster deformation
rate for the Cysoil model than the double-yield model.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Oedometer Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
0.900
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 48000
0.800
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 0.700
30 _k0_d_cy (FISH)
31 _k0_m_cy (FISH) 0.600
32 _k0_l_cy (FISH)
33 _k0_d_dy (FISH) 0.500
34 _k0_m_dy (FISH)
35 _k0_l_dy (FISH) 0.400
X-axis :
0.200
0.100
10 20 30 40 50 60
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.50 K0 versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose sand
for α = 0.5 (top) and double-yield model (bottom)
JOB TITLE : Oedometer Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
0.900
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 48000
0.800
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 0.700
30 _k0_d_cy (FISH)
31 _k0_m_cy (FISH) 0.600
32 _k0_l_cy (FISH)
33 _k0_d_dy (FISH) 0.500
34 _k0_m_dy (FISH)
35 _k0_l_dy (FISH) 0.400
X-axis :
0.200
0.100
10 20 30 40 50 60
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.51 K0 versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose sand
for α = 1.0 (top) and double-yield model (bottom)
FLAC Version 8.0

Drained Triaxial Tests: Constant Dilation

Triaxial tests on dense, medium and loose sand are simulated using the Cysoil model. The model
properties are listed in Table 1.3. This example does not consider yielding on the cap, therefore
cap flag is set to 0 (default value). In this case, initial pressure, p ini is required; it is used by the
code in lieu of pc in Eq. (1.315) and (1.316) for bulk and shear moduli. The dilation is constant,
therefore the dilation flag is set to 1, and a value is assigned to the dilation property.
The simulations are run in axisymmetric mode. The FLAC grid consists of one zone with unit
dimensions. The initial stress state is isotropic, with mean pressure equal to 100 kPa. The lateral
pressure is kept constant during the test, the base of the model is fixed in the axial (y) direction,
and an axial velocity of −10−6 m/step is applied at the top of the model. In addition, three
unloading/reloading excursions are performed.
A plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain for the cohesionless simulation is shown in Figure 1.52
for dense, medium and loose sand cases. The plot shows the hyperbolic behavior expected from
the model, and the higher failure level achieved by the denser soil. Three unloading/reloading
excursions, also shown in the figure, illustrate the model capabilities. The plot of volumetric strain
versus axial strain for the cohesionless simulation is shown in Figure 1.53. The volumetric behavior
is monotonic in the plot, the dilatant behavior of the dense sand is clearly shown.
The comparable results for the simulation with cohesion set to 10 kPa are shown in Figure 1.54
and Figure 1.55. It is seen from Figure 1.54 that the initial stiffness of cohesive sand is higher
than for the sand without cohesion. Similarly, deviatoric stress at failure is higher for the cohesive
material. On the other hand, Figure 1.55 shows much smaller dilation (especially for loose and
medium sands), which is expected for the case with non-zero cohesion.
Example 1.9 (see Section 1.6.11.8) lists the data file for the triaxial test on dense sand. Test results for
all three cases are written to tables. Example 1.10 lists the data file that creates plots in Figure 1.52
through Figure 1.55 to compare the three cases for cohesionless and cohesive soil.
FLAC Version 8.0

Table 1.3 Cysoil model properties for triaxial test

Gref (kPa) 150 112.5 75
φf (deg) 40 35 30
ψf (deg) 10 5 0
pref (kPa) 100
pini (kPa) 100
c (kPa) 0/10
φm (deg) 0
R 2.3
cap flag 0
dilation flag 1
Also, the default values ν = 0.2, m = 0.5, Rf = 0.9 and β = 1 are used.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- no cohesion
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 3.500

step 0
Dev. stress vs axial strain 3.000

dense
medium
2.500
loose
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.52 |σ1 - σ3 | (in kPa) versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose
sand – constant dilation, no cohesion
JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- no cohesion
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 1.000

step 0
0.800
Vol strain vs axial strain
dense
0.600
medium
loose
0.400
0.200
0.000
-0.200
-0.400
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.53 Volumetric strain versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose
sand – constant dilation, no cohesion
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- with cohesion
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 4.000

step 0
3.500
Dev. stress vs axial strain
dense
3.000
medium
loose
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
sand – constant dilation, with cohesion
JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- with cohesion
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-03
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 8.000

step 0
6.000
Vol strain vs axial strain
dense
4.000
medium
loose
2.000
0.000
-2.000
-4.000
-6.000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
sand – constant dilation, with cohesion
FLAC Version 8.0

Drained Triaxial Tests: Dilation Hardening

The triaxial test simulations with friction hardening in the previous section are repeated, this time
also using a dilation hardening law as described by Eq. (1.331). In this case, the default zero value is
used for dilation flag, initial dilation is set to zero, and the ultimate value of dilation, ψf , is listed in
Table 1.3. Example 1.11 (see Section 1.6.11.8) lists the data file for the triaxial test on dense sand,
including dilation hardening. The results of all three cases are compared, as before, by writing the
results to tables and creating plots using the command file listed in Example 1.10.
The simulation results of deviatoric stress and volumetric strain versus axial strain are plotted in
Figure 1.56 and Figure 1.57, respectively. The non-monotonic volumetric behavior is apparent in
the second plot: all soil types do compact initially, and the denser soil is shown to dilate upon
further shearing.
JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- Dilation Hardening
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:01 3.500

step 0
dev stress vs axial strain 3.000

dense
medium
2.500
loose
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
sand – dilation hardening case
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Drained Triaxial Test- Dilation Hardening
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-02
(10 )
LEGEND
0.400
18-Jan-16 17:01
step 0
0.200
vol strain vs axial strain
dense 0.000
medium
loose -0.200
-0.400
-0.600
-0.800
-1.000
-1.200
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-03
(10 )
sand – dilation hardening case
Undrained Triaxial Tests

The tests at constant dilation, no cohesion presented in the previous section are repeated, but this
time under undrained conditions. The model setup and properties are the same as those used in the
previous examples. In addition, the groundwater flow configuration is selected, with flow turned
off. Porosity is 0.3, and the fluid bulk modulus is 2000 kPa for the runs.
The undrained simulation results for deviatoric stress and pore pressure versus axial strain are
plotted in Figure 1.58 and Figure 1.59, respectively. While the excess pore pressure is indicated
in Figure 1.59 to rise initially for all soils, for the medium and dense soils it is shown to decrease
upon further shearing as a result of dilation taking place.
Example 1.12 (see Section 1.6.11.8) lists the data file for the dense soil case. The plots below can
be obtained in a way similar to that shown in Example 1.10.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Undrained Triaxial Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
3.000
step 0
Dev stress vs axial strain

dense 2.500
medium
loose
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
5 10 15 20 25 30
-03
(10 )
sand – undrained triaxial tests
JOB TITLE : Undrained Triaxial Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
1.500
step 0
Pore pressure vs axial strain

dense 1.000
medium
loose
0.500
0.000
-0.500
-1.000
5 10 15 20 25 30
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.59 Pore pressure (in kPa) versus axial strain for dense, medium and
loose sand – undrained triaxial tests
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.11.8 Data Files for Single-Zone Examples
Example 1.7 Isotropic compression tests

new;
title
Isotropic compression test
; Units: SI: meter-kilogram-second
;
config axi
grid 1 5
model cysoil
prop dens 1000 poisson=0.2 p_ref=100.
prop friction=45. mul=2.3
prop cap_flag=1 cap_pressure=10.
model null j=2
model null j=4
; --- dense ---
prop shear_ref= 150. i=1 j=5
; --- medium ---
prop shear_ref= 112.5 i=1 j=3
; --- loose ---
prop shear_ref= 75. i=1 j=1
;
fix x i=2
fix y
ini sxx -10. syy -10. szz -10.
ini xvel -1e-6 i=2
ini yvel -1e-6 j=2
ini yvel -1e-6 j=4
ini yvel -1e-6 j=6
;
hist nstep 20
hist syy i=1 j=5
hist ydis i=1 j=6
hist bulk_current i=1 j=5
hist shear_current i=1 j=5
;
hist syy i=1 j=3
hist ydis i=1 j=4
;
hist syy i=1 j=1
hist ydis i=1 j=2
FLAC Version 8.0


;
def trip
loop i (1,5)
command
ini xv -1e-6 i=2
ini yv -1e-6 j=2
ini yv -1e-6 j=4
ini yv -1e-6 j=6
step 300
ini xv mul -.1 yv mul -.1
step 1500
ini xv mul -1. yv mul -1.
step 1500
end_command
end_loop
end
step 1000
trip
;
;*** plot commands ***
;plot name: his -1 -5 -9 vs -2
plot hold his -1 -5 -9 vs -2
;plot name: his 3 7 11 vs -2
plot hold his 3 7 11 vs -2
;plot name: his 4 8 12 vs -2
plot hold his 4 8 12 vs -2
;plot name: Compare
plot hold history -1 line -5 line -9 line -13 line -14 line -15 line vs 2
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.8 Oedometer tests

new
title
Oedometer test - high friction
;Units: SI: meter-kilogram-second;Branch 1:oedo2.sav
def setup
_alpha = 0.5 ;1.0 ;1e20
_em = 0.5
_Pref = 100.
_nu = 0.2
_pc0 = 100.
_mul = 2.3
; --- dense ---
_G_to_K = 2*(1.0+_nu)/(3.*(1.-2.0*_nu))
_gid = 150.
_kid = _gid * _G_to_K
; --- medium ---
_gim = 112.5
_kim = _gim * _G_to_K
; --- loose ---
_gil = 75.
_kil = _gil * _G_to_K
;
; --- derived quantities ---
_mpc0 = -_pc0
_bulk = 1e15
_shear= _bulk*(3.*(1.-2.*_nu))/(2.*(1.+_nu))
_num = 5000.
_nt = 1
end
setup
;
config
grid 3 5
;
model cysoil i=1
prop dens 1000 poisson=0.2 p_ref=100. i=1
prop shear_flag=1 friction=89. mul=2.3 i=1
prop cap_flag= 1 cap_pressure=_pc0 i=1
prop alpha=_alpha i=1
;
model dy i=3
prop dens 1000 bulk=_bulk sh=_shear i=3
prop friction=89. mul=2.3 i=3
FLAC Version 8.0

prop cap_pressure=_pc0 i=3

;
model null i=2
model null j=2
model null j=4
;
def cap_table
evpmax= 1e-1
_de = evpmax/float(_num)
ratr = (1.+_mul)/_mul
xtable(_nt,1) = 0.0
ytable(_nt,1) = 0.0
coe = 1.-_em
_mex = 1./coe
loop ii (2,_num)
xval = _de*float(ii-1)
ytable(_nt,ii) = _Pref*(coe*ratr*_ki*xval)ˆ_mex
xtable(_nt,ii) = xval
end_loop
evp=((_pc0/_Pref)ˆcoe)*(_mul/(1.+_mul))/(coe*_ki)
end
;
; --- dense ---
set _ki=_kid _nt=1
cap_table
prop cptable=_nt ev_plastic=evp i=3 j=5
prop shear_ref= _gid i=1 j=5
; --- medium ---
set _ki=_kim _nt=2
cap_table
prop shear_ref= _gim i=1 j=3
; --- loose ---
set _ki=_kil _nt=3
cap_table
prop shear_ref= _gil i=1 j=1
;
fix x y
ini sxx _mpc0 syy _mpc0 szz _mpc0
;
hist ns 100
hist 1 ydis i=1 j=2
FLAC Version 8.0

hist 2 syy i=1 j=5

hist 3 sxx i=1 j=5
hist 4 bulk_current i=1 j=5
hist 5 shear_current i=1 j=5
;
hist 6 syy i=3 j=5
hist 7 sxx i=3 j=5
hist 8 bulk i=3 j=5
hist 9 shear i=3 j=5
;
hist 10 syy i=1 j=3
hist 11 sxx i=1 j=3
;
hist 14 syy i=3 j=3
hist 15 sxx i=3 j=3
;
hist 18 syy i=1 j=1
hist 19 sxx i=1 j=1
;
hist 22 syy i=3 j=1
hist 23 sxx i=3 j=1
;
def _k0_d_cy
_k0_d_cy=sxx(1,5)/syy(1,5)
_k0_d_dy=sxx(3,5)/syy(3,5)
_k0_m_cy=sxx(1,3)/syy(1,3)
_k0_m_dy=sxx(3,3)/syy(3,3)
_k0_l_cy=sxx(1,1)/syy(1,1)
_k0_l_dy=sxx(3,1)/syy(3,1)
end
;
hist 30 _k0_d_cy
hist 31 _k0_m_cy
hist 32 _k0_l_cy
hist 33 _k0_d_dy
hist 34 _k0_m_dy
hist 35 _k0_l_dy
;
FLAC Version 8.0

step 48000
;
;plot name: his 30 31 32 33 34 35 vs -1
plot hold his 30 31 32 33 34 35 vs -1
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.9 Triaxial tests – dense sand case (constant dilation)

new;
title
Drained triaxial test - dense cysoil
;
def setup
_gref = 150. ; reference tangent shear mod number
_mul = 2.3
_Pa = 100. ; reference pressure
_fric = 40. ; ultimate friction
_dil = 10.0 ; dilation
_coh = 0.0 ; 10.0
;
_p0 = 100.
_yv = -1e-6
_mp0 = -_p0
end
setup
;
config axi extra 10
grid 1,1
model cysoil
prop dens 1000 p_ref=_Pa shear_ref=_gref mul=_mul
prop friction=_fric cohesion=_coh
prop cap_flag=0 p_ini=_p0
prop dilation_flag=1 dilation=_dil
; (default values)
;prop m_k=0.5 poisson=0.2 beta=1. friction_mob=0.0
;
fix y
ini sxx _mp0 syy _mp0 szz _mp0
apply sxx _mp0 i=2
ini yvel _yv j 2
;
hist 1 cy_q i 1 j 1
hist 2 cy_p i 1 j 1
hist 3 syy i 1 j 1
hist 4 sxx i 1 j 1
hist 5 szz i 1 j 1
hist 6 ydisp i 1 j 2
hist 7 cap_pressure i 1 j 1
hist 8 es_plastic i 1 j 1
hist 9 ev_plastic i 1 j 1
FLAC Version 8.0

hist 10 et_plastic i 1 j 1
hist 11 friction_mob i 1 j 1
hist 12 dilation_mob i 1 j 1
hist 13 vsi i 1 j 1
hist 14 bulk_current i 1 j 1
hist 15 shear_current i 1 j 1
hist nstep 50
;
def trip
loop i (1,3)
command
ini yv -1e-6 j=2
step 8000
ini yv mul -.1 j=2
step 6000
ini yv mul -1. j=2
step 6000
end_command
end_loop
end
;
step 3000
trip
ini yv -1e-6 j=2
step 23000
;
his write 1 vs -6 tab 10
;
call log_it.fis
set filename = ’dense-ds.log’
set tabin = 10
log_it
set filename = ’dense-ev.log’
set tabin = 11
log_it
;
;plot name: his 1 vs -6
plot hold his 1 vs -6
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.10 Triaxial tests – compare results

new
title
Drained triaxial test comparison - cysoil
;
call dense-ds.log
call dense-ev.log
call medium-ds.log
call medium-ev.log
call loose-ds.log
call loose-ev.log
;
label table 10
dense ds
label table 11
dense ev
label table 20
medium ds
label table 21
medium ev
label table 30
loose ds
label table 31
loose ev
plot hold table 10 lin 20 lin 30 lin
plot hold table 11 lin 21 lin 31 lin
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.11 Triaxial tests – dense sand case (dilation hardening)

new
title
Drained triaxial test, dilation hardening - dense cysoil
;
def setup
_mul = 2.3
_coh = 0.0
;
_p0 = 100.
_yv = -1e-6
_mp0 = -_p0
end
setup
;
config axi extra 10
grid 1,1
model cysoil
; (default values)
;prop m_k=0.5 poisson=0.2 beta=1. friction_mob=0.0
;
fix y
apply sxx _mp0 i=2
ini yvel _yv j 2
;
hist 1 cy_q i 1 j 1
hist 2 cy_p i 1 j 1
hist 3 syy i 1 j 1
hist 4 sxx i 1 j 1
hist 5 szz i 1 j 1
FLAC Version 8.0

hist 13 vsi i 1 j 1
hist nstep 50
;
step 70000
;
;
call log_it.fis
set tabin = 10
log_it
set filename = ’dense-ev.log’
set tabin = 11
log_it
;
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.12 Triaxial undrained tests – dense sand case

new
title
Undrained triaxial test - dense cysoil
;
def setup
_mul = 2.3
_coh = 0.0
;
_p0 = 100.
_yv = -1e-6
_mp0 = -_p0
end
setup
config axi gw extra 10

grid 1,1
model cysoil
; --- fluid part ---
prop poros 0.3
ini ftens -1e20
ini fmod 2e3
set flow off
set force 0 sratio 1e-5
;
fix y
apply sxx _mp0 i=2
ini yvel _yv j 2
;
hist 1 cy_q i 1 j 1
hist 2 cy_p i 1 j 1
hist 3 syy i 1 j 1
hist 4 sxx i 1 j 1
hist 5 szz i 1 j 1
FLAC Version 8.0

hist 13 vsi i 1 j 1
hist 20 pp i 1 j 1
;
hist nstep 50
step 30000
;
;
call log_it.fis
set tabin = 10
log_it
set filename = ’dense-pp.log’
set tabin = 11
log_it
;
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

Cap-Yield – Cysoil – MODEL cysoil

Default values are used if the user does not provide an input value for a model
parameter.
alpha dimensionless cap yielding surface parameter, α. Default value α =

1.
beta Calibration factor, β. Default value β = 1.0.
cap flag flag indicating the use of a cap pressure*. Default value cap flag =
0, indicating no cap.
cap pressure initial cap
pressure, pc . The default value is
pc = ocr · p2 + q 2 /α 2 , α = 0, where q is derived from Eq. (1.302)
with p = pini and pc is based on Eq. (1.304).
cohesion ultimate cohesion, c. Default value c = 0.
cptable Number of table relating cap pressure, pc , to plastic volumetric strain.
ctable number of table relating cohesion to plastic shear strain.
density mass density, ρ. Input value is required.
dilation ultimate dilation angle, ψf when no dtable is used. Default value
ψf = 0.
dilation flag flag indicating how dilation angle is calculated†. Default value dila-
tion flag = 0.
dtable number of table relating mobilized dilation angle to plastic shear
strain.
* For cap flag = 0, the elastic moduli are functions of the initial mean effective stress. The property
p ini should be provided as an input in this case and it is used in lieu of pc in Eq. (1.316) and
(1.317). For cap flag = 1, the elastic moduli are functions of the current cap pressure. The property
cap pressure should be provided as an input (using a FISH function, e.g., “CY.FIS”); otherwise it
is derived internally (see information for cap pressure).
† For dilation flag = 0, the built-in dilation Rowe rule is used, and φcv and ψm are calculated using
Eq. (1.336) and (1.337).
For dilation flag = 1, ψm ≡ ψf , where ψf is user input of ultimate dilation angle.
For dilation flag = 2, φcv should be provided as input and ψm is calculated from Eq. (1.336).
The dilation cut-off rule applies.
FLAC Version 8.0

es plastic accumulated plastic shear strain, γ p = εps . Default value: if built-in

friction hardening logic is used (ftable is not specified), γ p is derived
from Eq. (1.329); otherwise, γ p = 0.0.
et plastic accumulated plastic tensile strain, ept . Default value: ept = 0.0.
ev plastic accumulated plastic volumetric strain, ep = ε pc . Default value: if
cap flag = 1, ep is derived from Eq. (1.319); othervise, ep = 0.0.
fric0 initial mobilized friction angle, φ0 , associated with zero plastic shear
strain. Default value: φ0 = φm if es plastic = 0 and φ0 = 0 other-
wise.
friction ultimate friction angle, φf when no ftable is used. Default value
φf = 0.1. If φf < 0.1 deg, φf is set to 0.1 deg for numerical
stability.
friction mob initial mobilized friction angle*, φm . Default value: φm = 0.
friction cv constant volume friction angle, φcv . Default value: see Eq. (1.332).
Input value is required only if dilation flag = 2.
ftable number of table relating mobilized friction angle to plastic shear strain
mk shear modulus exponent, m. Default value: m = 0.5 and upper limit
is m ≤ 0.99.
multiplier multiplier on current plastic cap modulus, R, used in elastic bulk and
shear modulus calculations. Default value: R = 5.0.
ocr over consolidation ratio, ocr. Default value: ocr = 1.0.
p ini initial mean effective stress, pini . Input value is required if cap pres-
sure is not used. The value of pini (> 0) can be input directly through
the command or be input through a FISH function based on the in-situ
stress.
p ref reference pressure, pref . Input value is required.
poisson Poisson’s ratio, ν. Default value: ν = 0.2.

rf failure ratio, Rf . Default value: Rf = 0.9.
* φm should be no less than the normally consolidated value corresponding to Eq. (1.343). The value
for φm can be input directly through the command or be input through a FISH function based on
the in-situ stress.
FLAC Version 8.0

shear flag flag determining which shear logic is used†. Default value:
shear flag = 0.
shear lower lower-bound limit of the elastic shear modulus, Glower . Default
value: Glower = 0.1 × Geinitial , where Geinitial is determined from
Eq. (1.316)*.
shear ref elastic tangent shear modulus number, Gref . Input value is required.
shear upper upper-bound limit of the elastic shear modulus, Gupper . Default
value: Gupper = 10 × Geinitial , where Geinitial is determined from
Eq. (1.316)*.
tension tension limit, σ t . Default value: σ t = 0.0. If σ t is greater than
c/ tan φf , it will be reset to this limit.
ttable number of table relating tensile strength to plastic tensile strain.
void current current void ratio‡, ê. Default value: ê = êini .
void ini initial void ratio‡, êini . Default value: êini = 1.0.
void max maximum void ratio‡, êmax . Default value: êmax = 999.0.

bulk current current elastic bulk modulus, K e
cy p mean effective pressure, p
cy q deviatoric stress defined in the cap yield function, q
dilation mob current mobilized dilation angle, ψm

shear current current elastic shear modulus, Ge
state plastic state
† For shear flag = 0, the built-in shear hardening law is used.

For shear flag = 1, φm ≡ φf .
* If volumetric cap is not used, pini is used instead of pc .
‡ The void related parameters void ini, void max and void current are used to specify a dilation
cut-off.
sin φm −sin φcv
For ê < êmax , sin ψm = 1−sin φm sin φcv ,
For ê ≥ êmax , sin ψm ≡ 0.
For no dilation cut-off, no input is required for the void parameters (default values are used).
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.13 FISH function “CY.FIS”

; --- The following function initializes:
; - cap pressure
; - mobilized friction
; - plastic shear strain
; Note:
; It should be called after stresses are initialized and (all other)
; model properties are assigned or left at their default value.
; Function accounts for volumetric over-consolidation (by using OCR)
; but assumes that the material is normally shear-consolidated
; ---
def ini_cysoil
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
if model(i,j) < 1
if z_model(i,j) = ’cysoil’
;
_al = z_prop(i,j,’alpha’)
_ocr = z_prop(i,j,’ocr’)
_phif = z_prop(i,j,’friction’)
_co = z_prop(i,j,’cohesion’)
_rf = z_prop(i,j,’rf’)
_gref = z_prop(i,j,’shear_ref’)
_mul = z_prop(i,j,’multiplier’)
_beta = z_prop(i,j,’beta’)
_pini = z_prop(i,j,’p_ini’)
_pa = z_prop(i,j,’p_ref’)
_m = z_prop(i,j,’m_k’)
_coot = 0.0
;
if _al = 0.0
_al = 1.
z_prop(i,j,’alpha’) = 1.0
end_if
if _phif > 0.0
_coot = 2.*_co/tan(_phif*degrad)
end_if
if _pa <= 0.0
_pa = 1.0
end_if
; --- principal effective stresses ---
temp1 = .5*(sxx(i,j)+syy(i,j))
temp2 = sqrt(sxy(i,j)ˆ2+.25*(sxx(i,j)-syy(i,j))ˆ2)
FLAC Version 8.0

eszz_ = szz(i,j) +pp(i,j)

sig1_= temp1-temp2 +pp(i,j)
sig2_= eszz_
sig3_= temp1+temp2 +pp(i,j)
if eszz_ < sig1_
sig2_ = sig1_
sig1_ = eszz_
else
if eszz_ > sig3_
sig2_ = sig3_
sig3_ = eszz_
end_if
end_if
;
; --- initial mobilized friction ---
;
sinphi = (sig1_-sig3_)/(sig1_+sig3_-_coot)
_phimob = 180.0*atan(sqrt(sinphiˆ2/(1.-sinphiˆ2)))/pi
if z_prop(i,j,’rf’) # 0.0
z_prop(i,j,’friction_mob’) = _phimob
end_if
;
; --- initial plastic shear strain ---
;
gamma = 0.0
sinf = sin(_phif*degrad)
_den = (sinf-sinphi*_rf)
if abs(_den) > 0.0
gamma = sinphi*sinf/_den
z_prop(i,j,’es_plastic’) = gamma/(_beta*(1.+_mul)*_gref)
end_if
;
; --- initial cap pressure ---
;
if z_prop(i,j,’cap_flag’) = 1.0
z_prop(i,j,’p_ini’) = 0.0
_delta = (3.+sinphi)/(3.-sinphi)
_pp =-(sig1_+sig2_+sig3_)/3.
_qq =-(sig1_+(_delta-1.)*sig2_-_delta*sig3_)
_capp = _ocr * sqrt((_qq/_al)ˆ2 + _ppˆ2)
z_prop(i,j,’cap_pressure’) = _capp
coe = _pa*(1.+_mul)*(_capp/_pa)ˆ_m
z_prop(i,j,’shear_upper’) = 2.0*coe*_gref
end_if
;
end_if
FLAC Version 8.0

end_if
end_loop
end_loop
end
;ini_cysoil
ret
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12 Simplified Cysoil (Chsoil) Model
As discussed previously in Section 1.6.11, soils, when subjected to deviatoric loading, usually
exhibit a decrease in stiffness accompanied by irreversible deformation. The well-known Duncan
and Chang model (1970) is commonly used to simulate this hyperbolic stress-strain behavior. The
Duncan and Chang model is relatively easy to use. However, as noted in Section 1.6.11, this model
has several drawbacks. In addition, hyperbolic relations that rely on nonlinear elasticity are known
to have significant limitations (Duncan et al. 1980), including (1) the relations are applicable prior to
failure, but may produce unrealistic behavior of soils at and after failure; (2) the hyperbolic relations
do not include volume change resulting from change in shear stress (the implied dilation relies on
the Poisson’s ratio), and thus may not be able to predict deformations in dilatant soils accurately,
such as dense sands under low confining pressure; and (3) the relations predict an isotropic behavior
in the plane, which is not always realistic (soil strengths in triaxial compression and extension
usually differ in magnitude).
A simplified version of the Cysoil model, named the Chsoil model, is provided as an alternative to
the Duncan and Chang model that does not have the drawbacks of this model. The Chsoil model is
derived from the same strain hardening/softening logic that exists in the Cysoil model, and therefore
can provide a realistic stress-strain relation at failure and post-failure. The Chsoil model provides
built-in features and does not have a volumetric cap.
The Chsoil model has three specific features:
1. a built-in friction hardening law that uses hyperbolic model parameters as direct input
2. a frictional Mohr-Coulomb shear envelope
3. two built-in dilation laws: one is based on Rowe stress dilatancy theory (Rowe 1962),
and the other is a user-defined dilation hardening/softening law
The unloading behavior of the Chsoil model is elastic. Reloading is elastic up to the outermost
yield envelope reached previously. Note that in its present form, the Chsoil model is not intended
to simulate cyclic loading.
The elastic behavior of the Chsoil model is expressed using Hooke’s law. The incremental expression
of the law in terms of principal stress and strain has the form
σ1 = α1 e1e + α2 (e2e + e3e )

σ2 = α1 e2e + α2 (e1e + e3e ) (1.348)
σ3 = α1 e3e + α2 (e1e + e2e )
where α1 = K e + 4Ge /3, α2 = K e − 2Ge /3, and K e and Ge are the tangent elastic bulk and shear
modulus, respectively.
FLAC Version 8.0

In the Chsoil model, the elastic shear modulus depends on the initial value of mean effective stress,
pm . The mean effective stress is specified by the user, using, for example, the expression
σ1 + σ2 + σ3

pm =− (1.349)
3
is represented by the equation (see, for example, Byrne et al. 2003)
The variation of Ge with pm
pm n
G = Gref pref
e
(1.350)
pref
The parameter pref is the reference pressure, and Gref is the shear modulus number (Gref × pref
is the value of the tangent elastic shear modulus at reference pressure). n is a constant modulus
exponent (n ≤ 1). Also, the tangent elastic bulk modulus is described by the relation
pm m
K = Kref pref
e
(1.351)
pref
The parameter Kref is the bulk modulus number, the product (Kref ×pref is the value of the tangent
elastic bulk modulus at reference pressure), and m is a constant modulus exponent (m ≤ 1).
Some useful relations between Kref , Gref , Young’s modulus number, Eref , and Poisson’s ratio at
reference pressure, νref , are listed for reference:
Eref Eref
Kref = Gref =
3(1 − 2νref ) 2(1 + νref )
(1.352)
Kref 2(1 + νref )
=
Gref 3(1 − 2νref )
The user can specify either Eref and νref or Kref and Gref as input properties for the model. If Eref
and νref are specified, Kref and Gref are calculated internally from Eq. (1.352), and the resulting
values are used with Eqs. (1.350) and (1.351). Values of Poisson’s ratio are restricted to positive
values smaller than 0.49. Accordingly, upper and lower bounds for K e are specified internally as
2Ge
< K e < 49.66Ge (1.353)
3
, must be provided as an input property for
As noted above, the initial mean effective pressure, pm
the model. (This value may be evaluated using FISH and stored in the associated zone property
is used to calculate the tangent elastic shear and bulk moduli, according
offset.) The value of pm
to Eqs. (1.350) and (1.351). Ge and K e stay constant in this implementation; the moduli are not
updated automatically in terms of mean effective pressure.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12.2 Shear Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
Shear yielding is defined by a Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The yield envelope is expressed as

f s = σ1 − σ3 Nφm + 2c Nφm (1.354)
where c is the cohesion, φm is the mobilized friction angle, and, by definition
1 + sin φm
Nφm = (1.355)
1 − sin φm
The potential function is nonassociated, and has the form
g = σ1 − σ3 Nψm (1.356)
where
1 + sin ψm
Nψm = (1.357)
1 − sin ψm
and ψm is the mobilized dilation angle. Several different laws are available in the literature to
characterize ψm .
By default, ψm can be given in terms of plastic shear strain via a user-defined table ofψm versus
γ p . The evolution parameter for shear yielding, γ p , is defined incrementally by
√
dp dp dp
γ = (ε1 )2 + (ε2 )2 + (ε3 )2 / 2
p
(1.358)
dp
where εi , i = 1, 3 are the principal, deviatoric, plastic shear-strain increments.
The model parameter dilaw must be set to zero to activate this option. If dilaw = 0 and no table is
provided, it is then assumed that dilation is equal to the input value for ultimate dilation property
set with dilf. Note that dilf is not used if a dilation table is provided.
Two built-in dilation laws are also available. A law based on Rowe (1962) dilatancy theory is used
if dilaw = 1. This is the default setting. Alternatively, a simple step function can be used, in which
ψm is zero for φm < φcv , where φcv is a constant specified by the user, and ψm is equal to the
ultimate dilation value ψf (set by dilf) for values of mobilized friction larger than ψcv . The model
property dilaw must be set to 2 to activate this option. The additional constraint that ψm cannot
exceed φm (to prevent unwanted generation of energy from taking place) is enforced internally by
the code.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12.3 Tensile Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
The tensile yield function is the same as that used for the Cysoil model, and is of the form
f t = σ t − σ3 (1.359)
The tensile strength, σ t , is given in terms of the plastic tensile-strain measure, ept , and input by
means of a user-defined table. If no table is provided, it is assumed that tensile strength is constant,
and equal to the input value of the tensile strength property.
The evolution parameter for tensile yielding is the modulus of plastic tensile strain, ept . The
increment of plastic tensile strain is defined as
pt
ept = e3 (1.360)
pt
1.6.12.4 Friction Hardening
For most soils, the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain obtained in a drained triaxial test can
be approximated by a hyperbola. The Chsoil model incorporates a friction strain-hardening law
to capture this behavior. In this formulation, the mobilized friction angle, φm , is given in terms
of plastic shear strain measure, γ p , by means of the following differential law, similar to the one
implemented by Byrne et al (2003) in their UBCSAND liquefaction model:
Gp
d(sin φm ) =
d(γ p ) (1.361)
pm
where the plastic shear modulus, Gp , is given by
sin φm 2
φm ≤ φf : Gp = Ge 1 − Rf (1.362)
sin φf
In this formula, Ge is the elastic tangent shear modulus, φf is the ultimate friction angle, and Rf
(the failure ratio) is a constant smaller than 1 (0.9 in most cases) used to assign a lower bound for
Gp .
,
According to Eq. (1.350), the elastic tangent shear modulus is a function of pm
FLAC Version 8.0

n
pm
G = Gref pref
e
(1.363)
pref
After substitution of Eq. (1.363) into (1.362), the resulting expression in (1.361), and rearranging
terms, we obtain

pm d(sin φm )
d(γ p ) = 2 (1.364)
Ge sin φm
1− sin φf Rf
Using φm = 0 at γ p = 0, integration of this equation gives
sin φ
pm 1
f
γp = − 1 (1.365)
Ge Rf 1 − sin φm
sin φf Rf
Solving for sin φm , we obtain
sin φf 1
sin φm = 1− e Rf
(1.366)
Rf 1 + γ p pG
m sin φf
This expression is used in the Chsoil model to calibrate mobilized friction in terms of plastic shear
strain. The use of this hardening law for modeling primary loading in a triaxial test produces a
hyperbolic-type curve of deviatoric stress versus axial strain.
1.6.12.5 Over-consolidation
The initial state of a normally consolidated soil or an over-consolidated soil is prescribed by speci-
fying an initial value to the friction property that is equal or larger than the normally consolidated
value, φnc , respectively. For normal consolidation Eqs. (1.354) and (1.355) give
σ1 − σ3
φnc = arcsin (1.367)
σ1 + σ3
The material behavior is considered to be elastic for stress points below the current yield envelope.
The initial value of friction must be smaller than the ultimate value, φf . (An upper bound equal
to φf is set automatically by the model.) An initial value of the evolution parameter, γ p , that is
consistent with the specified initial value of mobilized friction angle is also assigned automatically.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12.6 Shear-Induced Compaction and Dilation
A certain amount of irrecoverable volumetric strain, ep , is expected to take place as a result of soil
shearing. Also, under small monotonic shear strains, there is a tendency for the soil skeleton to
contract due to grain rearrangements. For larger shear strains, the soil skeleton may dilate if the soil
is dense, as a result of grains riding over each other. A dilation strain-hardening law is incorporated
in the logic to model this behavior.
The shear-hardening flow rule implemented in the Chsoil model has the form
ep = γ p sin ψm (1.368)
where ep is the plastic volumetric strain increment, γ p is the plastic shear strain increment, and
ψm is the (mobilized) dilation angle.
One possible way to characterize ψm is to adopt an equation based on Rowe stress-dilatancy theory
(Rowe 1962). According to this theory, there is a (constant-volume) friction angle, φcv , below
which the material contracts (i.e., for φm ≤ φcv ), while for higher stress ratios (i.e., for φm > φcv ),
the material dilates. The equation has the form

sin ψm = (1.369)
where
sin φf − sin ψf
sin φcv = (1.370)
1 − sin φf sin ψf
and φf and ψf are ultimate (known) values of friction and dilation, respectively.
Dilation is evaluated in terms of plastic shear strain based on the last two equations, and the assumed
relation between φm and γ p reported in Eq. (1.365). Rowe’s dilation law is selected by setting the
material property dilaw = 1 (default value). A simple dilation law also can be used, in which ψm = 0
for φm < φcv , and ψm = ψf for φm ≥ φcv ; the option is activated by specifying dilaw = 2. Finally,
the user may choose to define an alternative dilation law by creating an input table of dilation values
versus plastic shear strain. The model property dilaw must be set to zero to activate this option.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12.7 Correlation Between Chsoil Properties and Duncan and Chang Properties
A parallel can be drawn, for particular cases, between properties used in the hyperbolic stress-strain
relations reported in Duncan et al. (1980) for the Duncan and Chang model and the properties of
the Chsoil model. The correlations depend on property input; they are listed in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4 Property correlation for input of Kref and Gref

Model m=n No Dilation
Duncan and Chang Kur ,n Kb ,m
9Kref Gref
Chsoil Kref , Gref 3Kref +Gref ,n Kref ,m
Eref
Chsoil Eref , νref Eref ,n 3(1−2νref ) , m
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.12.8 Calibration of the Chsoil Model to Triaxial Test Results on Nevada Sand
Results of drained triaxial tests at constant mean effective stress, p , on Nevada sand are used to
provide an example of the methodology that can be used to calibrate the properties of the Chsoil
model. The test results are listed in data files “40-40.log”, “40-80.log” and “40-160.log,” and
correspond to values of the mean stress at 40 kPa, 80 kPa and 160 kPa, respectively. The relative
density of the sand for these tests is 40%. The test results consist of three sets of data:
(1) deviatoric stress versus mean effective stress;
(2) deviatoric stress versus axial strain (up to 25% strain); and
(3) volumetric strain versus axial strain (up to 25% strain).
For this calibration exercise, we consider axial strains up to 5%, because strains are not expected to
develop above this level for the intended (static, drained) application. The Nevada sand appears to be
purely frictional in character. Also, two main features characterize the data: (1) hyperbolic behavior
is observed in the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain, and (2) bilinear dilatant behavior
is exhibited by the plot of volumetric strain versus axial strain. The Chsoil model capabilities,
including friction hardening and variable dilation, are used to simulate these features.
The elastic tangent shear and bulk moduli are functions of the initial mean effective stress according
to Eqs. (1.350) to (1.352). For friction hardening we use the built-in law, Eq. (1.365). The dilation
law is bilinear; its value is zero below the stress ratio φ = φcv , and a constant, ψf , above it:
ψ =0 φ < φcv
(1.371)
ψ = ψf φ ≥ φcv
The failure ratio, Rf , is 0.99 for this exercise. Eight properties must be defined:
Eref , ν, pref , φf , ψf , φcv , m, n
Calibration of the model properties is done in two steps. First, using theoretical considerations
and values recorded in the literature, we derive a first estimate for the property values. Second,
we improve on the estimates by modeling the triaxial experiments numerically and matching the
results obtained in the laboratory.
First Estimates – The value of ultimate friction is derived from a linear fit to plots of deviatoric
stress, q, versus mean effective stress, p , obtained from the laboratory tests. The linear fit to
maximum q at given p provides a value for the maximum stress ratio, a:
q
a= (1.372)
p
FLAC Version 8.0

From the definition of the purely frictional Mohr-Coulomb criterion, we obtain the relation
3a
sin φf = (1.373)
6+a
from which the ultimate friction angle, φf , can be derived. The estimated value for Dr = 40% sand
is φf = 34◦ .
The value of ultimate dilation angle is derived from the slope, b, of a linear fit to the laboratory curves
of minus volumetric strain versus axial strain. To relate b to ψf , we use, as a first approximation,
the expression for bilinear idealization of triaxial stress results provided by Vermeer and de Borst
(1984):
2 sin ψf
b= (1.374)
1 − sin ψf
The first estimate for ψf is 8.2◦ for Dr = 40% sand.

To estimate the parameter φcv for a given Dr , we first derive the maximum value of axial strain,
εa∗ , at which the volumetric strain is negligible from the laboratory plots of volumetric strain versus
axial strain at a given p . From the knowledge of axial strain, εa∗ , we estimate q from the laboratory
plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain at that p , and then the ratio q/p . Three values of the
ratio are available (one at each p ). The mean value of q/p is used to calculate the corresponding
friction angle using Eq. (1.373), where φf now is replaced by φcv , and a by the average q/p (see
Eq. (1.372)). The estimate is φcv = 27.7◦ for Dr = 40%.
The first guess for Eref is taken as 1200 for Dr = 40% at atmospheric pressure; this value is
equivalent to that used in the triaxial numerical experiment for dense sand listed in Example 1.8.
The value of ν for this exercise is arbitrarily selected as 0.35. Also, we select n = m = 0.5.
The elastic constant, Eref , is estimated by matching the initial slopes of q versus axial strain
curves obtained in similar triaxial tests (under constant mean stress) performed numerically and
in the laboratory. These estimates may not be very accurate; more robust estimates for the elastic
constants can be obtained from laboratory results of small unloading-reloading excursions. Such
results were not available for this example.
Numerical Triaxial Experiments – Triaxial experiments are conducted numerically using FLAC
at the three levels of mean stress, 40, 80 and 160 kPa, for the Dr = 40% sand. The axisymmetric
geometry configuration is selected for the strain-controlled simulations. A servo-control is applied
to maintain the mean stress constant during the numerical experiments.
The estimates for model properties are used to conduct the numerical tests, and the test results
are compared to the available laboratory data (imported into FLAC in tables). The properties are
adjusted (in the order listed above), and the numerical experiment is repeated until a satisfactory
curve fitting is obtained.
FLAC Version 8.0

The results of the curve fitting experiment are listed in Table 1.5:
Table 1.5 Calibration results

Dr Eref ν φf ψf φcv m n
40% 1800 0.35 34◦ 7.5◦ 28◦ 0.5 0.5
A comparison between numerical predictions using the calibrated properties and laboratory re-
sults is shown in Figures 1.60 through 1.62. Note that the soil-mechanics convention for positive
stress/strain in compression is adopted in these plots. (Dilation is negative.) The comparison is
quite reasonable. The data file for this comparison example is listed in Example 1.14.
JOB TITLE : Drained triaxial test at constant mean pressure - Dr=40
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
2.000
step 100000
Table Plot
40-40 lab: q vs p 1.600
40-780 lab: q vs p
40-160 lab: q vs p
1.200
40-40 num: q vs p
40-80 num: q vs p
40-160 num: q vs p 0.800
0.400
0.000
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
01
(10 )
Figure 1.60 Deviator stress versus mean stress for Dr = 40% – comparison
between laboratory (line) and numerical (cross) results
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
2.000
step 100000
Table Plot
40-40 lab:q vs e_a 1.600
40-80 lab:q vs e_a
40-160 lab:q vs e_a
1.200
40-40 num:q vs e_a
40-80 num:q vs e_a
40-160 num:q vs e_a 0.800
0.400
0.000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.61 Deviatoric stress versus axial strain (in %) for Dr = 40%
– comparison between laboratory (line) and numerical (cross)
results
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02 0.000

step 100000
-0.200
Table Plot
40-40 lab:e_v vs e_a
-0.400
40-80 lab: e_v vs e_a
40-160 lab: e_v vs e_a
40-40 num: e_v vs e_a -0.600
40-80 num: e_v vs e_a

40-160 num: e_v vs e_a -0.800
-1.000
-1.200
-1.400
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.62 Volumetric strain (in %) versus axial strain (in %) for Dr = 40%
– comparison between laboratory (line) and numerical (cross)
results
FLAC Version 8.0

Example 1.14 Drained triaxial test at constant mean pressure – Dr = 40 – Chsoil model
config axi
;
def setup
nu = 0.35
Eref = 1800. ; Young’s mod number
Pa = 100. ; reference pressure
m = 0.5 ; bulk modulus exponent
n = 0.5 ; shear modulus exponent
friu = 34. ; ultimate friction
dilu = 7.5 ; ultimate dilation
ficv = 28. ; transition phase angle
Rf = 0.99 ; failure ratio Rf
fric = 0. ; initial friction
coh = 0. ; cohesion
; (servo)
yvel = -0.5e-6
gain=1.
high vel=0.6e-6
; (declaration)
p0 = 40.
nt = 2
xvel = - yvel/2.
end
setup
;
grid 1 5
model chsoil j = 1
model null j = 2
model chsoil j = 3
model null j = 4
model chsoil j = 5
prop young ref= Eref poisson= nu p ref= Pa
prop Rf= Rf fricf= friu m k= m n g= n
prop dens 1000 cohesion= coh dilation=0.
prop dilaw=2 fricv= ficv dilf= dilu
prop dtable 2 j = 1
prop dtable 3 j = 3
prop dtable 4 j = 5
ini sxx -40 syy -40. szz -40. j = 1
ini sxx -80 syy -80. szz -80. j = 3
ini sxx -160 syy -160. szz -160. j = 5
prop p ini=40 j = 1
FLAC Version 8.0

prop p ini=80 j = 3
prop p ini=160 j = 5
fix x y
ini xvel xvel i = 2
ini yvel yvel j = 2
ini yvel yvel j = 4
ini yvel yvel j = 6
;
; --- servo for constant mean stress ---
def servo sig0
while stepping
sig=-(sxx(1,1)+syy(1,1)+szz(1,1))/3.
svel=xvel(2,1)- gain*(1.- sig/40.)
if abs( svel) > high vel then
svel=sgn( svel)*high vel
end if
xvel(2,1)= svel
xvel(2,2)= svel
;
sig=-(sxx(1,3)+syy(1,3)+szz(1,3))/3.
end if
xvel(2,3)= svel
xvel(2,4)= svel
;
sig=-(sxx(1,5)+syy(1,5)+szz(1,5))/3.
end if
xvel(2,5)= svel
xvel(2,6)= svel
end
;
def q1
q1 = sxx(1,1)-syy(1,1)
p1 = -(sxx(1,1)+syy(1,1)+szz(1,1))/3.
q2 = sxx(1,3)-syy(1,3)
p2 = -(sxx(1,3)+syy(1,3)+szz(1,3))/3.
q3 = sxx(1,5)-syy(1,5)
p3 = -(sxx(1,5)+syy(1,5)+szz(1,5))/3.
eps v1 = vsi(1,1)*100. ; volumetric strain (%)
eps a1 = ydisp(1,2)*100. ; axial strain (%)
FLAC Version 8.0


end
hist 1 q1
hist 2 p1
hist 3 eps v1 ; vol. strain (%) dilation positive
hist 4 eps a1 ; axial strain (%)
;
hist 5 q2
hist 6 p2
;
hist 9 q3
hist 10 p3
hist nstep 1300
step 100000
;
def read in
array in line(1)
oo=open(’40-40.log’,0,1)
loop kk (1,232)
oo=read(in line,1)
astr=parse(in line(1),1)
q =parse(in line(1),2)
p =parse(in line(1),3)
vs =parse(in line(1),4)
if astr < 5.01 then
xtable(11,kk)= astr
ytable(11,kk)= q
xtable(12,kk)= astr
ytable(12,kk)= vs
xtable(13,kk+1)= p
ytable(13,kk+1)= q
end if
end loop
oo=close
;
oo=open(’40-80.log’,0,1)
loop kk (1,306)
oo=read(in line,1)
FLAC Version 8.0

if astr < 5.01 then
xtable(21,kk)= astr
ytable(21,kk)= q
xtable(22,kk)= astr
ytable(22,kk)= vs
xtable(23,kk+1)= p
ytable(23,kk+1)= q
end if
end loop
oo=close
;
oo=open(’40-160.log’,0,1)
loop kk (1,258)
oo=read(in line,1)
if astr < 5.01 then
xtable(31,kk)= astr
ytable(31,kk)= q
xtable(32,kk)= astr
ytable(32,kk)= vs
xtable(33,kk+1)= p
ytable(33,kk+1)= q
end if
end loop
oo=close
end
read in
hist write 1 vs -4 table 111
hist write -3 vs -4 table 112
hist write 1 vs 2 table 113
save clone dr40-ch.sav
;
;plot name: dev stress v axial strain
label table 11
FLAC Version 8.0

40-40 lab:q vs p
label table 111
40-40 num:q vs p
label table 21
40-80 lab:q vs p
label table 121
40-80 num:q vs p
label table 31
40-160 lab:q vs p
label table 131
40-160 num:q vs p
plot hold table 11 line 21 line 31 line 111 cross 121 cross 131 cross
;
;plot name: vol strain vs axial strain
label table 12
40-40 lab:e v vs e a
label table 112
40-40 num: e v vs e a
label table 22
40-80 lab: e v vs e a
label table 122
label table 32
40-160 lab: e v vs e a
label table 132
;
;plot name: q vs p
label table 13
40-40 lab: q vs p
label table 113
40-40 num: q vs p
label table 23
40-780 lab: q vs p
label table 123
40-80 num: q vs p
label table 33
40-160 lab: q vs p
label table 133
40-160 num: q vs p
FLAC Version 8.0

Simplified Cysoil – Chsoil – MODEL chsoil
bulk ref bulk modulus number, Kref

ctable number of table relating cohesion, c, to plastic shear strain
dilaw = 0 for mobilized dilation angle, ψm , equal to input value, dilf
or a function of plastic shear strain if table is input with dtable
= 1 for mobilized dilation angle, ψm , characterized by Rowe stress-
dilatancy theory
= 2 for mobilized dilation angle, ψm = 0 if φm < φcv , and
ψm = ultimate dilation value, ψf , if φm ≥ φcv
dilf ultimate dilation angle, ψf
dtable number of table relating mobilized dilation angle to plastic shear strain
fricf ultimate friction angle, φf
fricv constant used in dilation laws (dilaw = 1 or 2), φcv

mk bulk modulus exponent, m
ng shear modulus exponent, n
p ini
initial effective pressure, pm
p ref reference pressure, pref
poisson Poisson’s ratio, ν

rf failure ratio, Rf
shear ref shear modulus number, Gref
tension tensile strength, σ t

ttable number of table relating mobilized tensile strength to plastic tensile
strain
young ref Young’s modulus number, Eref
FLAC Version 8.0

bulk mod mobilized elastic bulk modulus, K e
dilation mobilized dilation angle, ψm
es plastic accumulated plastic shear strain, εps
et plastic accumulated plastic tensile strain, εpt
friction mobilized friction angle, φm
shear mod mobilized elastic shear modulus, Ge
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.13 Plastic Hardening (PH) Model
The Plastic Hardening (PH) model is a shear and volumetric hardening constitutive model for the
simulation of soil behavior. When subjected to deviatoric loading (e.g., during a conventional
drained triaxial test), soils usually exhibit a decrease in stiffness, accompanied by irreversible
deformation. In most cases, the plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain obtained in a drained
triaxial test may be approximated by a hyperbola. This feature was discussed by Duncan and
Chang (1970) in their well-known “hyperbolic-soil” model, which is formulated as a non-linear
elastic model.
The PH model is formulated within the framework of hardening plasticity (Schanz et al. 1999)
allowing the removal of the main drawbacks of the original non-linear elastic model formulation
(e.g., detection of loading/unloading pattern, nonphysical bulk modulus).
The main features of the PH model are:
1. hyperbolic stress-strain relationship during axial drained compression;
2. plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening);
3. plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening);
4. stress-dependent elastic stiffness according to a power law;
5. elastic unloading/reloading compared to virgin loading;
6. memory of pre-consolidation stress; and
7. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
The model is straightforward to calibrate using either conventional lab tests or in-situ tests. It is well
established for soil-structure interaction problems, excavations, tunneling and settlements analysis,
among many other applications.
The PH model adopts hypo-elasticity for the description of elastic behavior,
p = −Kεve
sij = 2Gεij
e
(1.375)
where p is the mean pressure defined as p = −σii /3, εve is the volumetric elastic strain defined
as εve = εiie , and sij and εij
e are the deviatoric stress tensor and deviatoric elastic strain tensor,
respectively. K and G are the elastic bulk and shear moduli, which can be derived from the elastic
unloading-reloading Young’s modulus, Eur , and the unloading-reloading Poisson’s ratio, ν, are
obtained using the relations:
FLAC Version 8.0

Eur
K=
3(1 − 2ν)
Eur
G= (1.376)
2(1 + ν)
In the PH model, the Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be a constant with a typical value of 0.2 (if
otherwise not provided at input), while the Young’s modulus is a stress-dependent parameter:
m
ref c · cot φ − σ3
Eur = Eur (1.377)
c · cot φ + pref
ref ref
where Eur , m, c, pref and φ are user-defined constant parameters. Eur is the reference unloading-
reloading stiffness modulus at the reference pressure p ref . The current unloading-reloading stiff-
ness modulus Eur depends on the maximum (minimum compressive) principal stress, σ3 , the
cohesion, c, and the ultimate friction angle, φ, as well as the power, m. For clays, m is usually close
to 1. For sands, m is usually between 0.4 and 0.9.
The PH model also employs an additional stiffness measure, E50 , which defines the initial slope
of the hyperbolic stress-strain curve (see Eq. (1.381) and Figure 1.63). Parameter E50 obeys the
following power law:
m
ref c · cot φ − σ3
E50 = E50 (1.378)
c · cot φ + pref
ref
Here E50 is a material parameter, which could be estimated from a set of triaxial compression tests
with various cell stresses.
Shear Yield Criterion and Flow Rule

The shear yield function determining the onset and development of shear hardening is defined as
qa q q γp
fs = − − =0 (1.379)
Ei (qa − q) Eur 2
where γ p is a shear hardening parameter (one of the internal variables) defined in Eq. (1.382),
Ei = 2E50 /(2 − Rf ), q = σ3 − σ1 , and qa is given as
FLAC Version 8.0

qf
qa = = Kqa (c · cot φ − σ3 )
Rf
1 2 sin φ
Kqa = (1.380)
Rf 1 − sin φ
The failure ratio Rf has a value smaller than 1 (typically, Rf = 0.9 is used). Note that the ultimate
deviatoric stress qf = 2 sin φ(c · cot φ − σ3 )/(1 − sin φ) is consistent with the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion (Figure 1.63).
For a standard drained triaxial test, the connection between the axial (vertical) strain, ε1 and devi-
atoric stress q can be described by a hyperbolic relation:
qa q
ε1 = (1.381)
Ei (qa − q)
Eq. (1.381) is graphically represented in Figure 1.63 with the cut-off at qf .
Figure 1.63 Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary shear loading
The shear hardening parameter γ p is defined so that its incremental form is:
p p p
γ p = −(ε1 − ε2 − ε3 ) (1.382)
Due to the increase of γ p , the shear yield surface will expand up to the ultimate surface which is
defined by the conventional Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (see Section 1.6.2 and Section 1.6.11
for an alternative form consistent with cap formulation). In case the material experiences ultimate
shear failure, the conventional Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion applies.
FLAC Version 8.0

The PH model uses the following flow rule between volumetric and shear plastic strains:
εvp = sin ψm γ p (1.383)
where ψm is the mobilized dilation angle, which should be smaller or equal to the user-defined
ultimate dilation angle ψ. The mobilized dilation angle is calculated based on Rowe’s dilation law
(1962):

sin ψm = Fc , if sin φm ≤ sin φcv
sin ψm = , if sin φm > sin φcv (1.384)
where the parameter Fc is the contraction scale factor, with the allowable range of 0 to 0.25 and
default value of 0.0 for most soils. The critical state friction angle φcv is defined as
sin φ − sin ψ
sin φcv = (1.385)
1 − sin φ sin ψ
The mobilized friction φm is defined in terms of the current stress state
σ1 − σ3
sin φm = (1.386)
σ1 + σ3 − 2c · cot φ
A non-associated flow rule consistent with the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is used in the model.
The shear potential function is defined as
gs = m1 σ1 + m3 σ3 (1.387)
where m1 = (−1 + sin ψm )/2 and m3 = (1 + sin ψm )/2.

In order to avoid over-dilatancy when the soil reaches its critical void state at emax , the dilation
angle needs a minor modification. One way proposed by Schanz et al. (1999) is to set a cut-off
rule, so that
sin ψm = 0, if e ≥ emax (1.388)
Here we introduce a smoothing technique to avoid a sudden change of dilation angle:
FLAC Version 8.0


e
sin ψm = 100 1 − , if e ≥ 0.99emax (1.389)
emax
The dilation rules with cut-off, smoothing technique and without dilation cut-off are compared in
Figure 1.64.
Figure 1.64 Volumetric strain curve for a standard triaxial compression test
with dilation cut-off and smoothing
Volumetric Cap Criterion and Flow Rule

The volumetric (cap) yield function is defined as
q̃ 2
fv = gv = 2
+ p2 − pc2 = 0 (1.390)
α
where α is a constant derived internally from other material parameters based on a virtual (numerical)
oedometer test, q̃ is a shear stress measure defined as q̃ = −[σ1 + (δ − 1)σ2 − δσ3 ], and δ =
(1 + sin φ)/(1 − sin φ). The initial value of hardening parameter pc , which denotes the pre-
consolidation pressure, can be determined using the initial stress state and over-consolidation ratio,
ocr, so that

2
q̃ini
pc,ini = ocr · + pini
2 (1.391)
α2
If ocr has a large value, the model behaves as if there is no cap present.
The associated flow rule is adopted for volumetric hardening, which means that the potential volu-
metric function is assumed to be the same as the volumetric yield function; see Eq. (1.392).
FLAC Version 8.0

The volumetric hardening parameter γ v (one of the internal variables) is defined incrementally as
p p p
γ v = −εvp = −(ε1 + ε2 + 3 ) (1.392)
p
where εv is the volumetric plastic strain increment.
Evolution of the hardening parameter pc is given by the relation:
m
c · cot φ + pc
pc = Hc γ v (1.393)
c · cot φ + pref
where Hc is a constant parameter that can be derived internally from other material parameters.
ref
Instead of taking α and Hc as input material parameters, another two parameters, Knc and Eoed are
ref
specified as input. Parameter Knc denotes normal consolidation coefficient and Eoed stands for the
tangent oedometer stiffness at the reference pressure p ref . If Knc is not provided by the user, it is
taken as Knc = 1 − sin φ (default value).
The PH model reserves the flexibility for the user to input user-defined α and Hc instead of internal
calculation for α and Hc . A typical value for α is between 0.8 and 2.0 for most soils. Parameter
Hc is calculated as Hc = kKp , where k is a correction factor with a typical value of 0 < k ≤ 1.0,
ref ref
Kp = K1 K2 /(K1 − K2 ), K1 = Eur /[3(1 − 2ν)], and K2 = (1 + 2Knc )Eoed /3.
Tensile Yield Criterion and Flow Rule
The model checks for the tension failure condition. The tension failure and potential functions are
ft = gt = σ3 − σ t (1.394)
where σ t is the tension limit. By default, σ t is zero and the user can provide a value with an upper
t = c/ tan φ. The model does not consider tension hardening.
limit of σlim
FLAC Version 8.0

Plastic Corrections
In the implementation of the PH model, elastic trial stresses, σijI , are first computed by adding to the
old stresses, σijo , elastic increments computed using the total strain increment εij for the step (see
Eq. (1.395)). During this step, the moduli and mobilized dilation angle are assumed to be constants
(for simplicity) and calculated based on the old stress components. All stresses are assumed to be
effective.
The formulation for the trial stresses (denoted by a superscript I ) in principal axes are:
σ1I = σ1o + α1 ε1 + α2 (ε2 + ε3 )

σ2I = σ2o + α1 ε2 + α2 (ε1 + ε3 ) (1.395)
σ3I = σ3o + α1 ε3 + α2 (ε1 + ε2 )
where α1 = K + 4G/3, α2 = K − 2G/3, K and G are the tangent elastic bulk and shear modulus,
respectively, and (ε1 , ε2 , ε3 ) is the set of principal strain increments.
The trial internal variables, γ p and γ v , take their values from the previous step. If the hardening yield
criteria (Eq. (1.379) and (1.390)) are exceeded, both the stress components and internal variables
will be corrected as described below.
First, consider the situation when only shear hardening occurs, fs > 0. The plastic strain increment
is oriented in the direction of the gradient of the potential function in the principal stress space.
Using Eq. (1.387), we get
p ∂gs
ε1 = λs = λs m1
∂σ1
p ∂gs
ε2 = λs =0 (1.396)
∂σ2
p ∂gs
ε3 = λs = λs m3
∂σ3
The shear hardening parameter increment is obtained from Eq. (1.382),
γ p = −λs (m1 − m3 ) = λs (1.397)
Thus, following the procedure outlined in Section 1.6.2, the corrected (new) stress components
become:
FLAC Version 8.0

σ1 = σ1I − λs (α1 m1 + α2 m3 )
σ2 = σ2I − λs (α2 m1 + α2 m3 ) (1.398)
σ3 = σ3I − λs (α1 m3 + α2 m1 )
and the corrected internal variable is
γ p = γ p,I + γ p = γ p,I + λs (1.399)
Using Eq. (1.398) and definitions m1 and m2 from Eq. (1.387), updated shear stress and parameter
qa (see Eq. (1.380)) are calculated as
q = q I − 2Gλs
qa = qaI + λs · Kqa (α1 m3 + α2 m1 ) (1.400)
After substituting the corrected parameters q, qa , γ p into Eq. (1.379), parameter λs can be obtained
by solving a nonlinear equation fs (λs ) = 0 using an iteration method. Note that γ p in Eq. (1.399)
uses the current value of λs updated in each iteration step, which implies that the correction algorithm
is semi-implicit.
If the trial shear stress exceeds the Mohr-Coulomb shear failure surface, the corrections used in
Mohr-Coulomb model implementation apply (see Section 1.6.2).
Now consider the case when the elastic guess (Eq. (1.395)) exceeds the volumetric yield criterion,
fv > 0, and the volumetric hardening occurs. The plastic strain increments are related to the
gradient of the potential function in the stress space as

p ∂gv 2q̃ 2
ε1 = λv = λv − 2 − p
∂σ1 α 3

p ∂gv 2q̃ 2
ε2 = λv = λv − 2 (δ − 1) − p (1.401)
∂σ2 α 3

p ∂gv 2q̃ 2
ε3 = λv = λv + 2 δ − p
∂σ3 α 3
Evolution of the hardening parameter γ v is given by the relation:
p p p
γ v = −εvp = −(ε1 + ε2 + ε3 ) = 2pλv (1.402)
FLAC Version 8.0

In the above formulation, the plastic strain and volumetric hardening parameter increment are related
to the current stress measurement (p or q̃), so the correction algorithm again uses a semi-implicit
approach.
The corrected stress components are obtained by analogy with shear hardening,

4q̃G
σ1 = + λv 2pK + 2
σ1I
α

4(δ − 1)q̃G
σ2 = σ2 + λv 2pK +
I
(1.403)
α2

4δ q̃G
σ3 = σ3 + λv 2pK −
I
α2
Noting that p = −(σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )/3 and q̃ = −[σ1 + (δ − 1)σ2 − δσ3 ] and using Eq. (1.403), we
get
pI
p=
1 + 2Kλv
q̃ I
q̃ = (1.404)
1 + 2Mλv
where M = 4G(δ 2 − δ + 1)/α 2 . After substituting the corrected p and q̃ into the yield function
fv , (Eq. (1.390)), parameter λv can be obtained by solving the nonlinear equation fv (λv ) = 0 for
the smallest root using an iterative method.
Finally, we consider the situation when the elastic trial stresses exceed both the shear yield hardening
surface and volumetric yield hardening surface. In this case, the plastic strain increment is related
to the partial derivatives of the potential functions as follows:

p ∂gs ∂gv 2q̃ 2
ε1 = λs + λv = λs m1 + λv − 2 − p
∂σ1 ∂σ1 α 3

ε2 = λs + λv = λv − 2 (δ − 1) − p (1.405)
∂σ2 ∂σ2 α 3

ε3 = λs + λv = λs m3 + λv 2 δ − p
∂σ3 ∂σ3 α 3
Parameters λs and λv can be found by using an iterative method similar to that adopted in the
shear or volumetric hardening correction technique. If the trial stress is out of both the volumetric
hardening surface and Mohr-Coulomb failure surface, the Mohr-Coulomb failure function should
be used instead of the shear hardening function.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.13.4 Implementation procedure
In the initialization step, the initial stress, evolution parameters γ p and γ v and strain increment are
defined for the zone and are assumed to be constant during this step. For simplicity, the stiffness
moduli and dilation, which are dependent on the current stress and evolution parameters, are also
assumed to be constant in the zone during this step. The trial elastic stresses and the possible stress
corrections are defined at the sub-zone level. The trial stress increments obey the linear elastic
(Hooke’s) law. If the trial stresses violate the tension limit, the tension failure procedure is called.
The next step is to check whether the tension-corrected stress is in the tension or compression side.
If the corrected stress is tensile, volumetric hardening will not apply. In either side, if the stress
is out of the shear failure or shear yield surface, the shear failure or hardening procedure will be
called, respectively. In the compression side, if the stress is out of the volumetric yield surface,
the volumetric hardening procedure will be called. In particular, if the stress is also out of the
shear failure or shear yield surface, the mixed procedure with both the volumetric hardening and
shear failure/hardening corrections will be called. A second tension failure procedure is called if
any volumetric hardening or shear hardening/failure occurs to ensure that the averaged stress in the
zone level is within the tension limit. After all sub-zones complete the stress check for tension and
shear failure, shear and volumetric hardening criteria, the internal variables, stiffness moduli and
dilation are updated based on the zone-averaged stresses.
1.6.13.5 Comparison between the PH model and Cysoil (CY) model
The PH and CY models share many similar features. For example, both models have stress-
dependent moduli, both have primary shear and volumetric hardening, both employ a hyperbolic
relation for the deviatoric stress versus axial strain during triaxial compression, the volumetric
yield and potential functions are the same in both models, etc. However, there are some differences
between the models as outlined below.
1. For primary shear, the CY model uses a Mohr-Coulomb-type yield function associated
with the mobilized friction angle, while the PH model uses the yield function described
by Eq. (1.379).
2. The CY model uses the accumulated plastic shear strain as one of the evolution parameters
(γ p ), while the definition for γ p differs from plastic shear strain in the PH model (see
Eq. (1.382)).
3. The CY model moduli are dependent on the mean pressure, while the PH model moduli
are dependent on the maximum principal stress (minimum compressive).
4. The PH model introduces a modulus E50 to determine the initial slope of the hyperbolic
curve during the triaxial compression, while the CY model does not have such modulus;
this implies that these two models may have different hyperbolic curves during the drained
triaxial compression, although the ultimate shear stresses are the same.
5. In the CY model, the parameter alpha is user-defined, while in the PH model, this
parameter can be internally calculated using other input parameters.
FLAC Version 8.0

6. A constant ratio between the elastic and plastic volumetric strain is assumed during
isotropic compression at any pressure in the CY model, while the PH model does not
adopt this assumption. As a result, the hardening law provided by Eq. (1.393) is used in
the PH model.
7. Most parameters of the PH model can be calibrated through the conventional triaxial and
oedometer compression tests (see Section 1.6.13.7), while calibration of the CY model
parameters is more elaborate.
8. In the CY model, many parameters can be input through tables. Currently, the PH model
does not have this flexibility feature.
Several simple tests are presented below to illustrate Plastic Hardening model features and capa-
bilities.
1.6.13.6 Tests
Comparison with Mohr-Coulomb Model – Triaxial Compression Test

This example compares the behavior of the Plastic-Hardening (PH) and Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
models during the triaxial compression. Both models are used in a one-zone triaxial compression
test with a constant cell pressure of 100 kPa. The strength parameters including friction angle,
dilation angle, and tension limit are the same for both models. The E50 stiffness of the PH model
is used as Young’s modulus for the MC model and Eur is assumed to be three times the value of
ref
the E50 . Material properties for this example are summarized in Table 1.6.
FLAC Version 8.0

Table 1.6 Plastic Hardening (PH) and Mohr-Coulomb

(MC) Model Properties for the Triaxial
Compression Test
Parameter PH MC
ref
E50 (kPa) 20000 -
ref
Eur (kPa) 60000 -
E (kPa) - 20000
pref (kPa) 100 -
m 0.6 -
Rf 0.9 -
piini , i=1..3 (kPa) -100 -
ρ (kg/m3 ) 1000
ν 0.2
φ (deg) 30
ψ (deg) 10
σ t (kPa) 1e10
Figure 1.65 shows a plot deviatoric stress versus axial strain for both PH and MC models. It is easy
to verify from the figure that:
1. the ultimate failure deviatoric stresses are the same for both models, as expected;
2. for the pre-failure curve, the PH and MC models are crossing at the half of the failure
stress, which is consistent with the concept of E50 stiffness; and
3. the unloading stiffness in the MC model is the same as the loading stiffness (E in the MC
model, or E50 in the PH model), while these stiffnesses are different in the PH model.
The example data file (Example 1.15) is provided in Section 1.6.13.8.
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Comparison of PH and MC Models- Triaxial Compression Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
step 38000 2.000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Dev. stress, kPa - P-Hardening 1.600
Dev. stress, kPa - Mohr-Coulomb
X-axis :
Axial strain 1.200
0.800
0.400
10 20 30 40 50 60
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.65 Comparison of PH and MC models for a triaxial compression

test
Isotropic Compression Tests

This example presents the simulation of the isotropic compression test for dense, medium and loose
sands. The initial stress state is isotropic; the magnitude of the confining stress is 100 kPa. The
sands are normally consolidated with ocr = 1. Material properties for this example are summarized
in Table 1.7.
The resulting plots of mean stress versus axial strain are presented in Figure 1.66 and show the
nonlinear behavior (corresponding to the power law) of the cap hardening surface. Example 1.16
in Section 1.6.13.8 lists the data file for the test.
FLAC Version 8.0

Table 1.7 PH Model Properties for the Isotropic

Compression Test
ref
E50 (kPa) 40000 30000 20000
ref
Eoed (kPa) 32000 24000 16000
φ (deg) 40 35 30
ψ (deg) 10 5 0
Knc (kPa) 0.36 0.43 0.5
ρ (kg/m3 ) 1000
ν 0.2
pref (kPa) 100
piini , i=1..3 (kPa) -100
m 0.5
Rf 0.9
ocr 1
JOB TITLE : Isotropic Compression Test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

03
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
step 33500 1.000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Mean stress, kPa - loose sand 0.800
Mean stress, kPa - medium sand
Mean stress, kPa - dense sand
X-axis : 0.600
strain
0.400
0.200
10 20 30 40 50 60
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.66 Mean stress vs. axial strain for dense, medium and loose sands
in an isotropic compression
FLAC Version 8.0

Triaxial Compression Tests

Drained triaxial tests on dense, medium and loose sands are simulated using the PH model. Default
value of ocr=100 is used in order to prevent yielding on the cap. All other material properties are
provided in Table 1.8.
A plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain is shown in Figure 1.67, which reveals the hyperbolic
behavior. The unloading-reloading paths are also shown in the figure. The plot of volumetric strain
versus axial strain is shown in Figure 1.68. The dilatancy of the denser sands is clearly represented.
The smooth evolution of the dilation angle when the void ratio is approaching the critical state
occurs as a result of the dilation smoothing technique (Figure 1.64) implemented in the model
logic. Example 1.17 in Section 1.6.13.8 lists the data file for the test.
Table 1.8 PH Model Properties for the Triaxial

Compression Test
ref
E50 (kPa) 40000 30000 20000
φ (deg) 40 35 30
ψ (deg) 10 5 0
Knc (kPa) 0.36 0.43 0.5
ρ (kg/m3 ) 1000
ν 0.2
pref (kPa) 100
piini , i=1..3 (kPa) -100
m 0.5
Rf 0.9
ocr 100
emax 1.02
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Triaxial compression test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02 3.500

step 61500
HISTORY PLOT 3.000

Y-axis :
Dev.Stress, kPa - Loose sand
2.500
Dev.Stress, kPa - Medium sand
Dev.Stress, kPa - Dense sand
X-axis : 2.000
Axial strain
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-03
(10 )
Figure 1.67 Drained triaxial deviatoric stress versus axial strain for dense,
medium and loose sands
JOB TITLE : Triaxial compression test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-03
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
step 61500 8.000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Vol. Strain - Loose sand 6.000
Vol. Strain - Medium sand
Vol. Strain - Dense sand
X-axis : 4.000
Axial strain
2.000
0.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-03
(10 )
sands
FLAC Version 8.0

Oedometer Tests
This section presents the simulation of an oedometer test to reveal the capability of the PH model
to reproduce the evolution of lateral stress ratio K0 = σh /σv . Three kinds of sands with friction
angles of 30, 35 and 40 degrees are used in the simulations and the default consolidation coefficient
is calculated as Knc = 1 − sin φ. Other material properties are provided in Table 1.9.
Initially the model is in equilibrium with isotropic stress state in each zone, σii = −0.1 kPa. Oe-
dometer compression follows for 1000 steps. The results of stress ratio evolution due to compression
in the oedometer tests are shown in Figure 1.69, and it is seen that they correctly reproduce the ex-
pected evolution path. Figure 1.70 presents vertical oedometer pressure versus vertical strain. The
slope of the curves at the reference pressure of 100 kPa reproduces the expected oedometer stiffness
ref ref
(as Eoed is not provided as part of input, it is assigned to E50 by default; see Section 1.6.13.9).
Example 1.18 in Section 1.6.13.8 lists the data file for the test.
The test is repeated using predefined values of Knc = 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5. The results for K0 are plotted
in Figure 1.71 and Figure 1.72 shows variation of vertical oedometer pressure versus axial strain.
Again, correct stress paths and oedometer stiffness at the reference vertical pressure are successfully
reproduced.
Table 1.9 PH Model Properties for the Odeometer Test

ref ref
E50 = Eoed (kPa) 40000 30000 20000
φ (deg) 40 35 30
ψ (deg) 10 5 0
Knc (for case 2) 0.5 0.6 0.7
ρ (kg/m3 ) 1000
ν 0.2
pref (kPa) 100
piini , i=1..3 (kPa) -0.1
m 0.5
Rf 0.9
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Oedometer test
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02 6.500

step 1000
HISTORY PLOT 6.000

Y-axis :
K0 - Dense sand
5.500
K0 - Medium sand
K0 - Loose sand
X-axis : 5.000
Vertical strain
4.500
4.000
3.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.69 K0 path calculated from the oedometer test with friction angles
of 30, 35 and 40 degrees and default Knc values
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02 4.000

step 1000
3.500
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Vert. pressure, kPa - Dense sand 3.000
Vert. pressure, kPa - Medium sand
Vert. pressure, kPa - Loose sand 2.500
X-axis :
Vertical strain 2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.70 Vertical pressure versus vertical strain from the oedometer test
with friction angles of 30, 35 and 40 degrees and default Knc
values
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
7.500
step 1000
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis : 7.000
K0 - Dense sand
K0 - Medium sand
6.500
K0 - Loose sand
X-axis :
Vertical strain
6.000
5.500
5.000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.71 K0 path calculated from the oedometer test with friction angles
of 30, 35 and 40 degrees and specified Knc values
FLAC (Version 8.00)

02
(10 )
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02 4.000

step 1000
3.500
HISTORY PLOT
Y-axis :
Vert. pressure, kPa - Dense sand 3.000
Vert. pressure, kPa - Medium sand
Vert. pressure, kPa - Loose sand 2.500
X-axis :
Vertical strain 2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-04
(10 )
Figure 1.72 Vertical pressure versus vertical strain from the oedometer test
with friction angles of 30, 35 and 40 degrees and specified Knc
values
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.13.7 Calibration of Material Parameters Using Laboratory Data
This section presents information on calibration techniques for the PH model material parameters
using the conventional geotechnical laboratory tests. The calibration example uses original test
results obtained from the triaxial compression tests on Monterey sand (Lade 1972). The triaxial
test consisted of loading the specimen followed by the unloading- reloading regimes. The original
test data are provided in Figure 1.73 and Figure 1.74.
The data are based on three sets of triaxial compression tests with confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6
and 0.3 MPa. The initial void ratios are 0.783, 0.786 and 0.781, respectively.
Figure 1.73 Original q − ε1 curves for the confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6 and
0.3 kgf/cm2 of the triaxial compression tests of Monterey sand
(Lade 1972)
Figure 1.74 Original εv − ε1 curves for confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6 and 0.3
kgf/cm2 of the triaxial compression tests of Monterey sand (Lade
1972)
FLAC Version 8.0

Calibration of Friction Angle (φ) and Cohesion (c)

To estimate values of friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) from triaxial test data, follow the procedure
outlined below.
1. Plot deviatoric stress q vs. normal stress p using triaxial compression test lab data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.
3. The slope of the line is 6 sin φ/(3 − sinφ), which follows from an alternative form of
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (see Eq. (1.302)). This determines friction angle φ.
4. The intercept of the line is 6c · cos φ/(3 − sin φ), which determines cohesion (c), as the
friction angle (φ) is already known from the previous step.
For the Monterey sand, the slope of the trend line of the Mohr-Coulomb envelope presented in
Figure 1.75 is 1.403. Based on this, the friction angle is calculated as 34.65◦ . The intercept is zero,
which implies that the cohesion is zero.
Figure 1.75 Determination of friction angle and cohesion from the triaxial
compression test data
ref
Calibration of Rf , m and E50
ref
To estimate values of Rf , m and E50 from triaxial test data, follow the procedure outlined below.
1. Plot the curve of ε1 /q vs. ε1 /qf using the triaxial compression test data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the data. The slope of the line is Rf , the intercept is 1/Ei (see
Eq. (1.380) and (1.381)).
FLAC Version 8.0

3. Three sets of triaxial compression tests with three different confining pressures can be
used to produce three pairs of (Rf , E50 ). The final Rf is the averaged one, and the pairs
ref
of (Ei , σ3 ) determine m and E50 based on Eq. (1.378).
Figure 1.76 plots the curves of ε1 /q vs. ε1 /qf using triaxial compression test data of the Monterey
sand with confining pressures 1.2, 0.6 and 0.3 kgf/cm2 . The slopes of these lines are Rf , and the
intercepts are 100/Ei (as strain is given in %).
This figure determines three pairs of (Rf , E50 ), summarized in Table 1.10. The average value for Rf
is 0.957. Parameter pref needs no calibration and its value is assumed to be 0.1 kgf/cm2 . Finally,
plotting parameters ln(−σ3 /pref ) vs. ln(E50 ), as shown in Figure 1.77, and using Eq. (1.378)
ref
allows for determination of m and E50 (remember that cohesion c = 0). The slope of the trend
ref
line in Figure 1.77 is m = 0.707 and the intercept determines E50 = exp(4.63) = 102.5 kgf/cm2 .
ref
Table 1.10 Determination of Rf , m, and E50

c·cot φ−σ3
σ3 Rf 1/Ei Ei E50 ln(E50 ) ln c·cot φ+pref
-0.3 0.9558 0.002459 406.7 212.3 5.358 1.099

-0.6 0.9678 0.001286 777.6 401.3 5.995 1.792
-1.2 0.9476 0.00093 1075.3 565.8 6.338 2.485
Figure 1.76 Determination of Rf and Ei from three sets of triaxial compres-

sion tests with three different confining stresses
FLAC Version 8.0

ref
Figure 1.77 Determination of m and E50 from three sets of triaxial compres-
sion tests with three different confining stresses
ref
Calibration of Eur
ref
After the calibration of parameter m, it is straightforward to obtain Eur from Eq. (1.377) using the
unloading-reloading modulus Eur obtained from the original q vs. ε1 data in a triaxial compression
ref
test. The final value of Eur can be averaged using data for different confining pressures.
ref
For the example of Monterey sand, Eur is determined to be 320.0 kgf/cm2 . If the unloading-
ref
reloading moduli are not available, a value in the range of (3 − 5) × E50 can be used for most
ref ref
soils. The PH model uses a default value of 4E50 if no input is provided for Eur .
Calibration of Dilation Angle ψ
The ultimate dilation angle can be estimated as sin ψ = s/(s + 2), where s is the maximum slope
of the εν − ε1 curve in the triaxial compression tests. The slope s is found as: s = −εv /ε1 ≈
p p
−εv /ε1 ≡ 2 sin ψ/(1 − sin ψ). For this example of the Monterey sand, the dilation angles are
6-7◦ ( depending on confining pressure). The values are summarized in Table 1.10.
ref
Calibration of Knc and Eoed
ref
Parameters Knc and Eoed can be calibrated from the oedometer tests. The ultimate value of σ3 /σ1
from an oedometer test is Knc . When σ1 = pref , the tangent modulus of the σ1 − ε1 curve is
ref
Eoed . If the data of oedometer tests are not available, the PH model uses the default values of
ref ref
Knc = 1 − sin φ and Eoed = E50 . For most soils, values for Knc are in the range of 0.5-0.7.
FLAC Version 8.0

Calibration of Poisson’s Ratio

Poisson’s ratio can be estimated from the unloading-reloading slope of the εv −ε1 curve. Experience
shows that results are not very sensitive to changes in Poisson’s ratio, and therefore, the range of
0.15 to 0.4 is typically used. In this example, Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be 0.3.
Calibration of emax
The material parameter emax is needed if the dilation smoothing technique (Figure 1.64) is required.
The value of emax can be determined by conducting standard laboratory tests (ASTM D4254). If
the standard ASTM D4254 laboratory test data are not available, its value can be estimated through
the trial-and-error method based on the curves of the volumetric strain vs. axial strain of the
triaxial compression tests. In this example, its value is estimated as 0.803. The default value of
emax = 999.0 is used when it is not provided as input, which implies that the dilation smoothing
technique will not be activated.
Calibration of Other Parameters
Such material parameters as p1ini , p2ini , p3ini , eini and ocr are known initial parameters and should
be consistent with the initial conditions.
A summary of all material properties determined for the Monterey sand is provided in Table 1.10.
Using these parameters, the triaxial compression tests can be simulated by the PH model. The
plots presented in Figure 1.78 and Figure 1.79 reveal close match between the simulated results and
laboratory test data. Example 1.19 provided in Section 1.6.13.8 lists the data file for the test.
Note that example Example 1.19 compares simulations with different confining pressures between
each other only. In order to compare PH model results with lab data (as shown in Figure 1.78
and Figure 1.79), the simulation for each confining pressure should be run independently using
the corresponding amount of calculation steps. This is done within project file “cm 01 19.prj” that
combines three independent simulations and compares results with lab data stored in tables. All files
are provided with FLAC 8.0 in the directory “ITASCA\FLAC800\Datafiles\ConstitutiveModels”.
FLAC Version 8.0

Table 1.11 Calibrated Material Parameters for Loose Monterey Sand

Parameter S3 = 1.2 kgf/cm2 S2 = 0.6 kgf/cm2 S3 = 0.3 kgf/cm2
piini , i=1..3 (kgf/cm2 ) -1.2 -0.6 -0.3
ocr 1.0 2.0 4.0
eini 0.783 0.786 0.781
ψ (deg) 6.1 6.4 7.0
ref
E50 (kgf/cm2 ) 102.5
ref
Eur (kgf/cm2 ) 320.0
m 0.707
Rf 0.957
pref (kgf/cm2 ) 0.1
ν 0.3
φ (deg) 34.65
c (kgf/cm2 ) 0.0
emax 0.803
Knc 0.5
FLAC Version 8.0

JOB TITLE : Triaxial test - comparison with lab data
FLAC (Version 8.00)
LEGEND
18-Jan-16 17:02
3.000
step 0
Table Plot
Test1 - FLAC (--) 2.500
Test2 - FLAC (--)
Test3 - FLAC (--)
2.000
Test1 - Lab data (X)
Test3 - Lab data (X) 1.500
1.000
0.500
10 20 30 40 50
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.78 Deviatoric stress vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial
compression tests on fine Monterey sand
JOB TITLE : Triaxial test - comparison with lab data
FLAC (Version 8.00)

-01
(10 )
LEGEND
7.000
18-Jan-16 17:02
step 0
6.000
Table Plot
Test1 - FLAC (--) 5.000
Test2 - FLAC (--)
Test3 - FLAC (--) 4.000
Test2 - Lab data (X) 3.000

2.000
1.000
0.000
-1.000
10 20 30 40 50
-01
(10 )
Figure 1.79 Volumetric strain vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial
compression tests on fine Monterey sand
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.13.8 Datafiles for single zone examples
Example 1.15 Comparison with Mohr-Coulomb model – triaxial compression test

;Units: SI: meter-kilogram-second
;PH model - Comparison with Mohr-Coulomb Model - Triaxial Compression Test
;
new;
config axi
grid 1 3
model elastic
;
model null j=2
;
def setup
p0_ = -100.0
pini_ = -p0_
pref_ = 100.0
E50_ = 20000.0
Eur_ = 3.0*E50_
m_ = 0.60
pr_ = 0.2
fr_ = 30.0
dr_ = 10.0
co_ = 0.0
tt_ = (co_*cos(fr_*degrad) + pini_*sin(fr_*degrad))
t_ = tt_ / (co_*cos(fr_*degrad) + pref_*sin(fr_*degrad))
E_ = E50_*(t_ˆm_)
K_ = E_/3.0/(1-2.0*pr_)
G_ = E_/2.0/(1.0+pr_)
end
setup
;
model p-hardening j=1
prop E50_ref=E50_ Eur=Eur_ p_ref=pref_ m=m_ poisson=pr_ Rf=0.9 j=1
prop friction=fr_ dilation=dr_ cohesion=co_ density = 1000 tension=1e10 j=1
prop sig1=p0_ sig2=p0_ sig3=p0_ j=1
;
model mohr j=3
prop dens 1000 j=3
prop bulk=K_ shear=G_ friction=fr_ dilation=dr_ cohesion=co_ &
tension=1e10 j=3
;
fix y
apply sxx = p0_ i=2 j=1,2
apply sxx = p0_ i=2 j=3,4
FLAC Version 8.0

ini yvel -1e-6 j=2

ini yvel -1e-6 j=4
ini sxx p0_ syy p0_ szz p0_
;
def devtrPH
devtrPH = sxx(1,1) - syy(1,1)
end
def devtrMC
devtrMC = sxx(1,3) - syy(1,3)
end
;
hist nstep 10
hist 1 unbal
hist 5 devtrPH
hist 6 devtrMC
hist 7 ydis i=1 j=4
;
ini yvel -2e-6 j=2
ini yvel -2e-6 j=4
step 10000
ini yvel 1e-6 j=2
ini yvel 1e-6 j=4
step 1000
ini yvel -2e-6 j=2
ini yvel -2e-6 j=4
step 10000
ini yvel 1e-6 j=2
ini yvel 1e-6 j=4
step 1000
ini yvel -2e-6 j=2
ini yvel -2e-6 j=4
step 10000
ini yvel 1e-6 j 2
ini yvel 1e-6 j 4
step 1000
ini yvel -2e-6 j=2
ini yvel -2e-6 j=4
step 5000
;
; plot commands
plot his 5 6 vs -7
Example 1.16 Isotropic compression tests

FLAC Version 8.0

;PH model - Isotropic Compression Tests

;
new;
config axi
grid 1,5
model elastic
;
model null j 2
model null j 4
;
model p-hardening j 1 ; loose sand
model p-hardening j 3 ; medium sand
model p-hardening j 5 ; dense sand
prop density 1000 p_ref 100 m 0.5 Rf 0.9 poisson 0.2 ocr 1
prop E50_ref=20000 Eoed_ref=16000 friction=30 dilation=0 Knc=0.5 j 1
prop sig1 -100 sig2 -100 sig3 -100
;
fix x y
initial sxx -100.0 syy -100.0 szz -100.0
initial yvelocity -1e-6 j 2
initial xvelocity -1e-6 i 2
;
hist nstep 50
hist 100 syy j 1 i 1
hist 102 bulk j 1 i 1
hist 103 shear j 1 i 1
hist 501 ydis j 6 i 2
;
def _trip
loop j (1,5)
command
initial yvelocity -2.0E-6 j 2
initial xvelocity -2.0E-6 i 2
step 500
FLAC Version 8.0

initial yvelocity mul -.15 xvelocity mul -.15

step 3000
initial yvelocity mul -1. xvelocity mul -1.
step 3000
end_command
endloop
end
step 1000
_trip
;
; plot commands
plot his -100 -300 -500 vs -501
Example 1.17 Triaxial compression test

;PH model - Triaxial Compression Test
;
new;
;
config axi
grid 1,5
model elastic
;
model null j 2
model null j 4
;
model p-hardening j 5
;
prop dens 1000 p_ref=100.0 m=0.5 Rf=0.9 poisson=0.2 void_max=1.02
prop E50_ref=40000.0 friction=40.0 dilation=10.0 cohesion=0.0 Knc=0.36 j=5
prop sig1 -100 sig2 -100 sig3 -100
;
ini sxx -100 syy -100 szz -100
fix y
apply sxx -100.0 i=2 j=1,2
apply sxx -100.0 i=2 j=3,4
apply sxx -100.0 i=2 j=5,6
ini yvel 1e-6 j=1
ini yvel 1e-6 j=3
ini yvel 1e-6 j=5
FLAC Version 8.0

;
def devStr1
devStr1 = sxx(1,1) - syy(1,1)
end
def devStr3
end
def devStr5
end
;
hist nstep 100
hist 1 unbal
hist 2 devStr1
hist 3 devStr3
hist 4 devStr5
hist 5 vsi i 1 j 1
hist 6 vsi i 1 j 3
hist 7 vsi i 1 j 5
;
def _trip
loop i(1,3)
command
ini yv 2e-6 j 1
ini yv 2e-6 j 3
ini yv 2e-6 j 5
step 4000
ini yv mul -0.1 j 1
ini yv mul -0.1 j 3
ini yv mul -0.1 j 5
step 3000
ini yv mul -1.0 j 1
ini yv mul -1.0 j 3
ini yv mul -1.0 j 5
step 3000
end_command
end_loop
end
step 1500
_trip
;
ini yv 2e-6 j 1
ini yv 2e-6 j 3
ini yv 2e-6 j 5
step 30000
FLAC Version 8.0

;
; plot commands
plot his 2 3 4 vs 8
plot his 5 6 7 vs 8
Example 1.18 Oedometer tests

;PH model - Oedometer Tests
new;
;
def setup_
_em = 0.5
_Pref = 100.
_nu = 0.2
_p0 = 100.
_Rf = 0.9
_sini = -0.1
_E50ref1 = 40000
_fric1 = 40
_dila1 = 10
_Knc1 = 0.5; 1.0 - sin(_fric1*degrad)
_E50ref2 = 30000
_fric2 = 35
_dila2 = 5
_Knc2 = 0.6; 1.0 - sin(_fric2*degrad)
_E50ref3 = 20000
_fric3 = 30
_dila3 = 0
_Knc3 = 0.7; 1.0 - sin(_fric3*degrad);
end
setup_
;
config axi
grid 1,5
model null j 2
model null j 4
;
model p-hardening j 5 ; loose sand
model p-hardening j 3 ; medium sand
model p-hardening j 1 ; dense sand
;
prop dens=1000 p_ref=_Pref m=_em Rf=_Rf poisson=_nu ocr=1
prop sig1=_sini sig2=_sini sig3=_sini
FLAC Version 8.0

;
prop E50_ref=_E50ref1 friction=_fric1 dilation=_dila1 Knc=_Knc1 j 1
;
fix x y
ini yvel -1e-5 j 2
ini yvel -1e-5 j 4
ini yvel -1e-5 j 6
ini sxx _sini
ini syy _sini
ini szz _sini
;
hist nstep 10
hist 1 ydis i 1 j 2
hist 2 syy i 1 j 5
hist 3 syy i 1 j 3
hist 4 syy i 1 j 1
;
def _k0_d
_k0_d = sxx(1,1)/syy(1,1)
_k0_m = sxx(1,3)/syy(1,3)
_k0_l = sxx(1,5)/syy(1,5)
end
hist 11 _k0_d
hist 12 _k0_m
hist 13 _k0_l
;
step 1000
;
; plot commands
plot his 11 12 13 vs -1
plot his -2 -3 -4 vs -1
Example 1.19 Calibration of material parameters – triaxial compression test

;PH model - Calibration of Material Parameters - Triaxial Compression Test
;
new;
;
define setup
_E50ref = 102.5
_Eurref = 320.0
_m = 0.707
_Pref = 0.1
FLAC Version 8.0

_nu = 0.30
_Rf = 0.957
_fri = 34.65
_coh = 0.0
_knc = 0.5
end
setup
;
config axi
grid 1,5
model elastic
;
model null j 2
model null j 4
;
;
prop dens=1
prop E50_ref=_E50ref Eur_ref=_Eurref m=_m p_ref=_Pref poisson=_nu Rf=_Rf &
fric=_fri coh = _coh knc=_knc
;
prop void_ini=0.783 void_max=0.803 dilation=6.1 ocr=1 j=1
prop sig1=-1.2 sig2=-1.2 sig3=-1.2 j=1
prop sig1=-0.6 sig2=-0.6 sig3=-0.6 j=3
prop sig1=-0.3 sig2=-0.3 sig3=-0.3 j=5
;
fix y
ini sxx -1.2 syy -1.2 szz -1.2 j=1
ini sxx -0.6 syy -0.6 szz -0.6 j=3
ini sxx -0.3 syy -0.3 szz -0.3 j=5
apply sxx = -1.2 i=2 j=1,2
apply sxx = -0.6 i=2 j=3,4
apply sxx = -0.3 i=2 j=5,6
;
ini yvel -1e-6 j=2
ini yvel -1e-6 j=4
ini yvel -1e-6 j=6
;
def devStr1
end
def devStr3
FLAC Version 8.0


end
def devStr5
end
;
hist nstep 100
hist 1 unbal
hist 2 devStr1
hist 3 devStr3
hist 4 devStr5
hist 5 vsi i 1 j 1
hist 6 vsi i 1 j 3
hist 7 vsi i 1 j 5
;
step 52400
ini yv 1e-6 j=2
ini yv 1e-6 j=4
ini yv 1e-6 j=6
step 1500
ini yv -1e-6 j=2
ini yv -1e-6 j=4
ini yv -1e-6 j=6
step 4000
;
; plot commands
plot his 2 3 4 vs -8
plot his 5 6 7 vs -8
FLAC Version 8.0

Plastic Hardening – PH – MODEL phardening
cohesion cohesion, c. Default minimum value: c = 1 × 10−5 Pref .
density mass density, ρ. Input value is required.

dilation ultimate dilation angle, ψ. Default value: ψf = 0. A good estimation
is ψ ≈ (φ − 30) for sand and ψ ≈ 0 for clay.
ref
E50 ref secant stiffness, E50 , at 50% of the ultimate deviatoric stress qf
when σ3 = −p ref . Input value is required.
ref
Eoed ref tangent stiffness, Eoed , at vertical stress σ1 = −p ref in an oedometer
ref ref ref
test. Default value: Eoed = E50 . A range of (0.5 − 2)E50 is
common for most soils.
ref
Eur ref unloading-reloading stiffness, Eur , when σ3 = −pref . Default
ref ref ref
value: Eur = 4E50 . A range of (3 − 5)E50 is common for most
ref
soils. Values lower than 2E50 are not allowed.
Fc Contraction factor, Fc . Default value: Fc = 0. Allowable range is 0 -

0.25.
flag ini flag indicating if internal parameters should be recalculated* when it
is set to 1. Default value flag ini = 0.
friction ultimate friction angle, φ. Input value is required. If φ < 0.001deg,
φ is set to 0.001deg for numerical stability.
Knc normal consolidation coefficient, Knc . Default value: Knc = 1 −
sin φ. Input value cannot be lower than ν/(1 − ν). A range of 0.5 -
0.7 is common for most soils.
m elastic modulus exponent, m. Default value and lower limit: m =
0.0, upper limit of m ≤ 0.999. For sand, m is usually in the range of
0.4-0.9; for clay, m is usually close to 1.0.
ocr over consolidation ratio, ocr. Default value: ocr = 100.0, which
denotes that the model would not consider cap hardening.
* If flag ini = 1, the internal parameters will be recalculated when: a) material parameters are modified;
b) every certain number of cycles with large strain mode; or c) new cycle/solve/step command. To
inactivate the recalculation of the internal parameters for these cases, set flag ini = 0 (default value).
FLAC Version 8.0

p ref reference pressure, pref . Input value is required.
poisson Poisson’s ratio, ν. Default value: ν = 0.2. A range of ν ∼ 0.15−0.4

is common for most soils.
rf failure ratio, Rf . Default value: Rf = 0.9.
tension tension limit, σ t . Default value: σ t = 0.0. If σ t > c/ tan φ, σ t is set

to c/ tan φ.
sig1 initial minimum principal effective stress*, p1ini .
sig2 initial middle principal effective stress*, p2ini .
sig3 initial maximum principal effective stress*, p3ini .
void ini initial void ratio, eini . Default value: eini = 1.0.
void max maximum void ratio, emax . Default value: emax = 999.0.
alpha dimensionless parameter in the cap yield function, α. Initialized
internally. See Note (2) for an alternative option.
Hc hardening modulus for cap pressure, Hc . Initialized internally. See
Note (2) for an alternative option.
pc cap pressure, pc . Internal parameter determined by the current
stresses, α and ocr. Updated internally.
bulk current unloading-reloading bulk modulus, K. Updated internally.
shear current unloading-reloading shear modulus, G. Updated internally.
s hardening accumulated plastic hardening parameter, γ p . Initialized and updated
internally.
p
v hardening accumulated plastic volumetric hardening parameter, εv . Initialized
and updated internally.
void current current void ratio, enow . Initialized and updated internally.
state plastic state.
* Parameters sig1, sig2, sig3 must be provided the first time the PH model is called because PH is a
stress-dependent model. A FISH function (see Note (1)) may be used to obtain principal effective
stresses from the known stress state. Negative values denote compressive stress.
FLAC Version 8.0

Notes:
(1) The following FISH function can be used to assign parameters sig1, sig2 and sig3 based on
current stress state.
Example 1.20 Initialization of initial principal effective stresses for PH model

;function "setEffPStress.fis"
def setEffPStress ; set sig1, sig2, sig3 to eff. principal stresses
; assumption: sig1 < sig2 < sig3 < 0
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
$sdif = sxx(i,j) - syy(i,j)
$s0 = 0.5 * (sxx(i,j) + syy(i,j))
$st = 4.0 * sxy(i,j)2̂
$rad = 0.5 * sqrt($sdif2̂ + $st)
$si = $s0 - $rad
$sii = $s0 + $rad
section
if szz(i,j) > $sii then
; ---- szz is minor p.s. ----
$smax = $si
$smed = $sii
$smin = szz(i,j)
exit section
end if
if szz(i,j) < $si then
; ---- szz is major p.s. ----
$smax = szz(i,j)
$smed = $si
$smin = $sii
exit section
end if
; ---- szz is intermediate ---
$smax = $si
$smed = szz(i,j)
$smin = $sii
end section
z prop(i,j,’sig1’) = $smax + pp(i,j)
z prop(i,j,’sig2’) = $smed + pp(i,j)
z prop(i,j,’sig3’) = $smin + pp(i,j)
end loop
end loop
end
;
; call this fish function when assigning PH model properties
FLAC Version 8.0

; setEffPStress
(2) If both alpha and Hc are input by the user and have non-zero values, the PH model will use
these user-defined material parameters and the internal calculations for alpha and Hc will not be
performed.
(3) Some parameter combinations may be rejected because the parameters are out of predetermined
limits, some internal parameters cannot be correctly determined, and possible numerical instability.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.14 Swell Model
MODEL swell is based on the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model with nonassociated shear and
associated tension flow rules, as described Section 1.6.2. The difference is that the wetting-induced
deformations are taken into account by means of coupling wetting strains with the model state prior
to wetting. For model application and modeling procedures, see Noorany et al. 1999, Pathak et al.
2003, Rodriguez-Ortiz et al. 2003, and Pathak 2009.
The yield and potential functions, plastic flow rules and stress corrections are identical to those of
the Mohr-Coulomb model, as discussed in Section 1.6.2.
1.6.14.1 Wetting strain and stress corrections
The wetting-induced strains can be expressed by the following logarithmic or linear function of
total compressive stress, σy y , in the principal swelling direction (see Figure 1.80) normalized by
the atmospheric pressure, pa :
1. logarithmic function
σy y < 0 : εy y = c1 log[a1 (−σy y /pa )]

εx x = εz z = c3 log[a3 (−σy y /pa )] (1.406)
2. linear function
σy y < 0 : εy y = c1 − a1 σy y /pa
εx x = εz z = c3 − a3 σy y /pa (1.407)
In the above equations, a1, c1, a3 and c3 are swelling properties determined from laboratory
tests, and, by convention, compressive stresses and strains are negative. Note that wetting strain is
assumed to be isotropic in the lateral direction (εx x = εz z ). Stress σy y is the total vertical stress
component in the local axes obtained at the equilibrium state prior to wetting and is not modified
in Eq. (1.406) and Eq. (1.407) during calculations.
Corresponding wetting stresses in the principal swelling directions (defined by angle α shown in
Figure 1.80) are then calculated based on the incremental form of Hooke’s Law:
σy y = −{α1 εy y + α2 (εx x + εz z )}

σx x = −{α1 εx x + α2 (εy y + εz z )} (1.408)
σz z = −{α1 εz z + α2 (εx x + εy y )}
FLAC Version 8.0

where
4
α1 = K + G
3
2
α2 = K − G (1.409)
3
and K and G are bulk and shear moduli.

The principal swelling directions x and y are specified by means of angle α (measured positive
counter-clockwise from the global x-axis) and illustrated in Figure 1.80.
Figure 1.80 Principal swelling directions
Finally, the global swelling stresses are obtained through resolution of the local stresses in the
principal swelling direction into the global axes. Global swelling stresses are then added (in
increments) to the global stress components over a specified number of steps, ninc. At each step,
the resulting stress components are examined for failure based on the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria. Note that the model should be cycled to equilibrium after ninc steps are taken.
In the implementation of MODEL swell in FLAC, stresses corresponding to the elastic guess for
the step are first analyzed as described in the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model. The corresponding
swelling stresses in the local axis (principal swelling directions) are calculated using Eq. (1.408)
and then resolved into the global axes. The swelling stresses in the global axes are added over a
specified number of steps, ninc. The resulting stresses are then examined for failure based on the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.
Upper bounds are defined for the swelling strains in the x and y directions based on the swelling
measured under zero vertical stress. The code checks the wetting strains at each step and sets values
to the upper bounds once they exceed the limits.
FLAC Version 8.0

1.6.14.3 Single Zone Swell Test
In this example, a 2 m x 2 m single zone is generated, and the following elastic material properties
are assigned: density = 1000 kg/m3 ; bulk modulus = 100 MPa; and shear modulus = 30 MPa. With
roller boundary conditions enforced at two lateral and bottom boundaries, the model is settled under
the gravity loading (g = 10 m/s2 ). At this point, the vertical stress σy y at middle of elevation in
the zone is equal to -10 kPa.
In the next step, the displacements and velocities are reset in the model; the material model is
switched from elastic to swell, which has the same stiffness and high strength (cohesion and tension).
The swelling properties associated with the logarithmic function are:
α =0
a1 = 1.5335
c1 = -1.87 x 10−2
a3 = 0
c3 = 0
Using the above parameters, an atmospheric pressure of 100 kPa and logarithmic function for strains
(modnum = 1), the swelling strain in the vertical direction obtained from Eq. (1.406) is 0.01523.
Therefore, based on these analytical calculations, the zone swells upward by 30.46 mm.
Numerical simulations are done with the data file provided below. The property ninc is set to
200, which means the swelling stress will be introduced into the zone over the next 200 steps.
The SOLVE/STEP command is used after 200 steps are taken to bring the model to equilibrium.
Execution of the data file reports 30.46 mm swelling at the top surface, which exactly matches the
analytical prediction.
Example 1.21 Single zone swell test

; single zone swell test
;
new
grid 1 1
gen 0,0 0,2 2,2 2,0
model elastic
prop dens 1000 bulk 1e8 shear 3e7
set gravity 10.
fix x i 1
fix x i 2
fix y j 1
solve
;
ini xd 0 yd 0 xv 0 yv 0
print sxx syy szz
;
FLAC Version 8.0

model swell
prop bulk 1e8 shear 3e7 coh 1e10 tens=1e10
prop angle 0. a1 1.5335 c1 -1.87e-2 a3 0 c3 0 modnum 1
prop ninc 200 pressure 1e5 sv0 0.0
def uy top ana
; sv0 = -1*rho*g*h = -10000.
; eyy = c1*log10(a1*(-sv0/pa)) = 0.01523
uy top ana = 0.01523*2.
uy top num = ydisp(1,2)
end
step 200
solve
print uy top ana uy top num
FLAC Version 8.0

Swell – MODEL swell
a1 a soil swelling property

a3 a soil swelling property
angle angle between x and x taken counter-clockwise from the x-axis
c1 a soil swelling property
c3 a soil swelling property
dilation dilation angle
friction internal angle of friction
m1 maximum possible swelling strain in y direction
m3 maximum possible swelling strain in x and z direction
modnum swelling function type (1 - logarithmic, 2 - linear)
ninc number of steps over which swelling strains are introduced
p ref atmospheric pressure, pa
tension tensile limit, t

cinc count of step number after swelling starts, must reset to zero to start
a new swelling episode
sv0 local total vertical (i.e., in y-direction) stress when swelling starts;
must reset to zero when soil swelling properties are changed (output)
swsxx xx swelling stress component (output)
swsyy yy swelling stress component (output)
FLAC Version 8.0

swszz zz swelling stress component (output)
swsxy xy swelling stress component (output)
FLAC Version 8.0

1.7 References
Amadei, B. The Influence of Rock Anisotropy on Measurement of Stresses In Situ. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley (January 1982).
Boukpeti, N. Modeling Static Liquefaction in Granular Deposits. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Minnesota (2001).
Britto, A. M., and M. J. Gunn. Critical State Soil Mechanics via Finite Elements. Chichester
U.K.: Ellis Horwood Ltd. (1987).
Byrne, P. M., S. S. Park and M. Beaty. “Seismic Liquefaction: Centrifuge and Numerical Modeling,”
in FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics – 2003 (Proceedings of the 3rd International
FLAC Symposium, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, October 2003, pp. 321-331. R. Brummer et al.,
eds. Lisse: A. A. Balkema (2003).
Carter, T. G., J. L. Carvalho and G. Swan. “Towards the Practical Application of Ground Reac-
tion Curves,” in Innovative Mine Design for the 21st Century (Proceedings of the International
Congress on Mine Design, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August 1993), pp. 151-171. W. F. Bawden
and J. F. Archibald, eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema (1993).
Chen, W. F., and D. J. Han. Plasticity for Structural Engineers. New York: Springer-Verlag
(1988).
Cundall, P., C. Carranza-Torres and R. Hart. “A New Constitutive Model Based on the Hoek-
Brown Criterion,” in FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics – 2003 (Proceedings of
the 3rd International FLAC Symposium, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, October 2003), pp. 17-25.
R. Brummer et al., eds. Lisse: Balkema (2003).
Davis, R. O., and A. P. S. Selvadurai. Plasticity and Geomechanics. Cambridge (2002).
Drescher, A. Analytical Methods in Bin-Load Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier (1991).
Duncan, J. M., et al. “Strength, Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element
Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses,” University of California, Berkeley, College
of Engineering, Report No. UCB/GT/80-01 (1980).
Duncan, J. M., and C-Y. Chang. “Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils,” Soil Mechanics,
96(SM5), 1629-1653 (1970).
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. “Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., 34(8), 1165-1186 (1998).
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown. Underground Excavations in Rock. London: IMM (1980).
Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres and B. Corkum. “Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition,” in
Proceedings of NARMS-TAC 2002, 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th
Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference – Toronto, Canada – July 7 to 10, 2002. Vol. 1.,
pp. 267-271. R. Hammah et al., eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (2002).
FLAC Version 8.0

Lade, P.V. “The Stress-Strain and Strength Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils,” Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley (1972).
Lekhnitskii, S. G. Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body. Moscow: Mir Publishers (1981).
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H. “K0-OCR Relationships in Soil,” Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 108(GT6), 851-872 (1982).
Noorany, I., S. Frydman and C. Detournay. “Prediction of Soil Slope Deformation Due to Wetting,”
in FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics (Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 1999),
pp. 101-107. C. Detournay and R. Hart, Eds. Rotterdam: Balkema (1999).
Pan, X. D., and J. A. Hudson. “A Simplified Three Dimensional Hoek-Brown Yield Criterion,” in
Rock Mechanics and Power Plants (Proceedings of the ISRM Symp., pp. 95-103. M. Romana,
ed. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema (1988).
Pathak Y.P. Experimental and Numerical Studies of Geosynthetic Reinforced Clays and Silts
under Environmental-Induced Swelling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba (2009).
Pathak Y., M. Alfaro, and C. Detournay. “Wetting-Induced Deformation of Geosynthetic Re-
inforced Slopes with Expansive soils,” in 56th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Vol. 1, pp.266-273. (2003).
Rodríguez-Ortiz M., P. Varona and P. Velasco. “Modeling of Anhydrite Swelling with FLAC,” in
FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics – 2003 (Proceedings of the 3rd International
FLAC Symposium, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, October 2003), pp. 55-62. R. Brummer et al., eds.
Lisse: A. A. Balkema (2003).
Roscoe K. H., and J. B. Burland. “On the Generalised Stress-Strain Behavior of ‘Wet Clay’,” in
Engineering Plasticity, pp. 535-609. J. Heyman and F. A. Leckie, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (1968).
Rowe, P. W. “The Stress-Dilatancy Relation for Static Equilibrium of an Assembly of Particles in
Contact,” Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 269, 500-527 (1962).
Schanz, T., P.A. Vermeer, and P.G. Bonnier. “The Hardening Soil Model: Formulation and Verifi-
cation,” in Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics – 10 Years of Plaxis, R.B.J. Brinkgreve,
ed. Rotterdam: Balkema (1999).
Shah, S. A Study of the Behaviour of Jointed Rock Masses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto
(1992).
Vermeer, P. A., and R. de Borst. “Non-Associated Plasticity for Soils, Concrete and Rock,” Heron,
29(3), 3-64 (1984).
Wood, D. M. Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press (1990).
FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC Version 8.0

Constitutive Models: Theory and Implementation. Flac

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutive Models: Theory and Implementation. Flac

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION 1-1

1 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS: THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION

FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC Version 8.0

1.2 Constitutive Models in FLAC

FLAC Version 8.0

(7) caniso model

FLAC Version 8.0

(13) modified Hoek-Brown model

FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC Version 8.0

1.3 Incremental Formulation

1.3.1 Incremental Equations of the Theory of Plastic Flow

[] is the generalized strain-increment vector with components i , i = 1, n.

FLAC Version 8.0

σ i = Si ( en ) i=1,n (1.3)

where Si is a linear function of the elastic strain increments en .

where λ is a constant. (The flow rule is said to be associated if g ≡ f , and nonassociated

σ i = Si ( n ) − Si ( pn ) (1.6)

where use has been made of the linear property of Si .

FLAC Version 8.0

f ∗ (.) = f (.) − f (0n ) (1.9)

We now define new stress components σ i N and elastic guesses σ Ii as

FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC Version 8.0

1.4 Null Model Group

1.4.1 Null Model

FLAC Version 8.0

1.5 Elastic Model Group

1.5.1 Elastic, Isotropic Model

σ11 = α1 e11 + α2 e22

σ11 = β1 e11 + β2 e22

where β1 = α1 − (α22 /α1 ); and

FLAC Version 8.0

For axisymmetric geometry:

σ11 = α1 e11 + α2 (e22 + e33 )

1.5.1.1 MODEL Command and PROPERTY Keywords

Isotropic Elastic – MODEL elastic

bulk mod elastic bulk modulus, K

FLAC Version 8.0

1.5.2 Elastic, Transversely Isotropic Model

Figure 1.1 Transverse isotropy coordinate axes convention

FLAC Version 8.0

FLAC Version 8.0

exx = S11 σxx + S12 σyy + S13 σzz + S16 σxy

eyy = S12 σxx + S22 σzz + S23 σzz + S26 σxy

FLAC Version 8.0

σzz = σxz = σyz = 0

in Eq. (1.21). This gives

exx = S11 σxx + S12 σyy + S16 σxy

eyy = S12 σxx + S22 σyy + S26 σxy (1.22)

which can be written as

FLAC Version 8.0

The stress-strain relations can easily be found by inverting the matrix.

ezz = exz = eyz = 0

exx = s11 σxx + s12 σyy + s13 σzz + s16 σxy

eyy = s12 σxx + s22 σyy + s23 σzz + s26 σxy

0 = sxz σxx + s23 σyy + s33 σzz + s36 σxy

0 = s44 σyz + s45 σxz (1.24)

0 = s55 σxz + s45 σyz

which can be written as

The stress-strain relations can be obtained by inverting the matrix.

FLAC Version 8.0