Geotechnical modelling and critical state soil mechanics

Naples, May 2007

13. Designer models: addition of extra features

(GM 2, 3, EM, GeoF)

David Muir Wood

University of Bristol
Designer models: addition of extra features
1.Kinematic yielding
2. Cam clay
3. Mohr-Coulomb
 plastic –
less stiff
shear shear
stress stress

elastic -
stiff
mean shear
stress strain

classical elastic-plastic modelling of soil

for example, Cam clay (1963, 1968)

 stress

yield?
classical identification of yield
from stress:strain response
typical actual response

void
ratio
strain

geometrical construction for

estimation of preconsolidation preconsolidation
pressure
vertical stress
(log scale)

pressure
 Cam clay providing inspiration:
search for ‘Cam clay like’ yield loci
eg kaolin (Al-Tabbaa, 1984)
200 q: kPa Cam clay?

150

100

50
p': kPa
0
0 100 200 300 400
-50

-100

-150

Fig 3: Anisotropic yield locus for one-dimensional stress history

(after Al-Tabbaa, 1984)
 yield loci for natural clays
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
q/s vc

0.4 Rang de Fleuve

Belfast
0.3
Winnipeg
0.2 St Alban
Lyndhurst
0.1
Mastemyr
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
p/s v c

collected by Graham et al (1988)

 typical experimental observation:
stiffness falls steadily with monotonic straining:
is there an elastic region?

limit of elastic
response??

shear stiffness degradation data for Quiou sand from resonant

column and torsional shear tests (after LoPresti et al, 1997)
 how do we objectively identify yielding?
occurrence of irrecoverable strain?
dissipation of energy in loading/unloading cycles?
change in slope of stress:strain response?
stress stress

a. b.

strain strain
 70
q: kPa
yielding of Bothkennar
60
clay:
50
boundaries deduced Y3 yield locus
from inspection of 40
stress:strain response
Y2 yield locus
30
Y1 approximately
centred on in situ 20
stress state Y1 yield locus
10
Y3 reflects natural
structure – damaged 0
by any irrecoverable 0 10 20 30 40 p': kPa
50 60
-10
strain - evanescent
after Smith et al (1992) -20
 kaolin revisited:
isotropic consolidation histories
200 deviator stress q: kPa

150 a.

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
-50 mean effective stress p': kPa

data from Al-Tabbaa (1987)

 kaolin revisited:
one-dimensional consolidation histories
200
deviator stress q: kPa
b.
150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
-50 mean effective stress p': kPa

data from Al-Tabbaa (1987)

 q q
kPa kPa

p' kPa p' kPa

plastic strain increments: approximate normality to kinematic yield loci

q q
kPa kPa

p' kPa p' kPa

kaolin: Al-Tabbaa, 1987

Deviatoric stress response envelopes
σz
250
sz
σz
250
sz

C-A0 C-A30
C-A330

150
A: isotropic compression 150
C-A300 C-A60

50
50
A270 C-A90
qx:kPa
-250 -150 -50 A 50 150 250 A
-50
-250 -150 -50 50 150 250
C-A240 C-A120 -50

sx
σx C-A210
-150
C-A180
C-A150 σy
sy

σx
sx
-150
σy
sy

-250 qz:kPa

εd = 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2%

-250

•distortional stress probe rosettes Hostun sand

•constant mean stress Sadek, 2006
•cross anisotropy?
•Ev > Eh
 ABC120 250 σz sz
ABC150

ABC180
distortional probing ABC60
ABC90

150
ABC … probe ABC210
constant mean stress
ABC30
C B

50
ABC360 ABC300
non-monotonic stress paths -250 -150 -50 A 50 150 250
qx:kPa

-50
ABC240
stress probe rosettes
σ σy
ABC330 -150 sy
Stress paths in the octahedral plane for Rosette ABs x
(CCA: p' = 200kPa, Hostun Sand: D r = 65%) x ABC270

σz
ABC300

sz
AB120 -250 qz:kPa
250
AB90
AB60
AB150
150 AB180

AB30 AB210

AB … probe 50
B

AB240
qx:kPa
-250 -150 -50 A 50 150 250
-50
AB360

Sadek, 2006
σx
sx
AB330
-150

AB300
AB270
σy sy

-250 qz:kPa
Stress response envelopes: Hostun sand: small-medium strain sz
radial shearing
sz
250 250

two corners AB
ABC 150 150

C B B

50 50

qx: kPa qx: kPa

A A
-250 -150 -50 50 150 250-250 -150 -50 50 150 250
-50 -50

sx sy sx sy
-150 -150

εd = 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6,

-250
0.8, 1, 1.2% -250

distortional strain
0.05%: history recalled
Sadek, 2006
1%: history ‘forgotten’
 sz
150 stress response envelopes
small/medium strain stiffness
C B
c
b
kinematic hardening
50
a centre as indicator of current
fabric q : kPa
x
A
-150 -50 50 150
but strain too large
-50

sx sy

-150

comparison of 0.05% strain

Sadek, 2006
response envelopes for
histories A, AB, ABC
Designer models: addition of extra features
1. Kinematic yielding

2. Cam clay
3. Mohr-Coulomb
 Cam clay

elastic-hardening plastic model

volumetric hardening
associated flow – normality
Cam clay
response in drained triaxial
compression tests with
constant p'
asymptotic approach to
critical state
effect of overconsolidation
ratio
sharp division between
elastic and plastic response
compare response of soil on nonmonotonic loading
with capability of single yield surface model

extension to simple models

using kinematic hardening
and bounding surface plasticity
compare response of soil on nonmonotonic
loading with capability of single yield surface
model
elastic-hardening plastic model expects elastic
behaviour on reversal, sudden drop in stiffness at
yield
soils typically show hysteretic behaviour on
unload-reload cycles, steady change in
incremental stiffness
kinematic hardening extension
yield locus carried around with stress state – 'bubble' –
strongly influenced by recent history
stiffness falls as yield 'bubble' approaches bounding surface
– controlled by distance b
when loading with 'bubble' in contact with bounding surface
model is identical to Cam clay
assume relative size R of 'bubble'
assume rule for translation of 'bubble'
assume interpolation rule linking plastic stiffness with b
…otherwise identical to Cam clay
η volumetric strain

η kaolin
constant p' cycles
hysteresis
build up of
experiment volumetric strain
simulation

η
η

distortional strain
 q
kPa

p' kPa

migration of 'bubble' during constant p' unloading

after one-dimensional normal compression
hardening of 'bubble' and bounding surface
 experiment simulation

constant q cycles after one-dimensional normal compression

add further effects in a similarly hierarchical way
cementation and structure: extension to 'bubble' model
natural soils often contain structure: bonding between particles:
destroyed with mechanical or chemical damage
 ratio of sizes of structure surface and
reference surface gives indication of
current degree of structure

design model in which yield surface has increased size as a result of

the bonding
with plastic straining (or chemical weathering) the yield surface
gradually shrinks to the yield surface, for remoulded, structureless
material
extension of 'bubble' kinematic extension of Cam clay
all features of 'bubble' model retained
add measure of structure or bonding: single scalar parameter r
'bounding' surface now called 'structure' surface: size r times larger
than a reference surface
structure lost whenever plastic strains occur
damage law: k
r    r  1   dp

damage plastic strain increment δεdp combines plastic volumetric
and plastic distortional strain increments:
– additional parameter to control their relative importance
structure progressively disappears:
r  1 as plastic deformation increases
logical: structureless soil is one which has been so mechanically
pummelled that it has no remaining bonds between particles
particular forms of laboratory testing (triaxial testing, for example)
may not be able to provide sufficient damage
evolution law and definition of damage strain may need to include
some more subtle reference to the nature of the strain path
shearing with rotation of principal axes is likely to be especially
damaging
feasible to introduce other evolution laws which relate change
(increase or decrease) of scalar measure of structure r to chemical
environment or time or temperature effects
Cam clay can be regained by setting r = 1, R = 1
 hierarchical extension of 'bubble'
model to include effects of structure

other evolution laws: relate change

(increase or decrease) of scalar
measure of structure r to chemical
environment or time or temperature
effects

Cam clay can be regained by setting r = 1, R = 1

 Norrköping clay – calibration tests

Rouainia & Muir Wood (2000)

 Norrköping clay – parametric variation

Rouainia & Muir Wood (2000)

 Norrköping clay – undrained – isotropic
consolidation

Rouainia & Muir Wood (2000)

 Norrköping clay – undrained – anisotropic consolidation

Rouainia & Muir Wood (2000)

 Norrköping clay – undrained – isotropic overconsolidation

Rouainia & Muir Wood (2000)

 simulation experiment
Bothkennar clay Gajo & Muir Wood, 2001
results normalised by Hvorslev equivalent
consolidation pressure p'e for structureless soil
Hierarchical extensions of Cam clay
•it is relatively straightforward to add extra features to a soil
model
•advantage in using well known model as basis – check
implementation – acceptability
•extra features imply additional soil parameters and
additional calibration tests
•seek adequate complexity in modelling – match complexity
of model to availability of data and needs of application
Designer models: addition of extra features
1. Kinematic yielding
2. Cam clay

3. Mohr-Coulomb
 standard elastic-perfectly
plastic Mohr-Coulomb model
non-associated plastic flow

simplicity
sharp stiffness changes
tangent stiffness either
elastic or zero
continuing volume change
standard elastic-perfectly plastic
Mohr-Coulomb model
available in all numerical analysis
programs
subjectivity in selecting values of soil
parameters – stiffness, strength,
dilatancy
elastic-hardening plastic Mohr-Coulomb model
non-associated flow steady fall in stiffness continuing volume change
 is post-peak softening important?
design a model to include softening
Mohr-Coulomb family
post-peak softening to critical state
three regimes of response
adaptation of hardening Mohr-Coulomb model
for η < ηp response is elastic: η < ηp, ηy = ηp  δεqp = 0
after peak, linear fall in yield stress ratio with strain
p   y  qp
0 < εqp < b:  (distortional 'hardening' law)
p  M b
eventual perfectly plastic critical state: εqp  b, ηy = M
non-associated flow rule as before
 conventional triaxial drained compression test

elastic
post-peak softening
critical state
 triaxial undrained compression test

effective stress path

  
1   1    2 M 
p'p'i  p  p p 

bKp  M
21   limited model
  
 p 

elastic (isotropic: δp' = 0) concentration on single aspect

post-peak softening of response

critical state
Mohr-Coulomb model with strength dependent on state variable

Severn-Trent sand
influence of density
softening
dilatancy
simplicity
 Severn-Trent sand

build on Mohr-Coulomb model

describe journey from initial
elastic response to ultimate
critical state
include nonlinearity, peak
strength and softening
simplicity?
adequate complexity?
 Severn-Trent sand: strength

critical state line state parameter ψ = volume distance

from critical state line
'loose'
specific function of density and stress level
volume ψ
more useful than void ratio alone –
'dense' indicating effect of density and stress

mean stress Been & Jefferies

 Severn-Trent sand: strength
peak
strength what is peak strength?

data confirm link between

strength and state parameter ψ

state parameter ψ
Mohr-Coulomb model with
current strength dependent on
'loose'
current state parameter
specific
volume ψ
'dense'
critical state line

mean stress Been & Jefferies

 Severn-Trent sand: strength
peak
strength what is peak strength?
•property of the soil which
changes with stress level,
density
data confirm link between
strength and state parameter ψ
state parameter ψ
Mohr-Coulomb model with
'loose' current strength dependent on
specific current state parameter
volume ψ
'dense'

mean stress Been & Jefferies

 Severn-Trent sand: dilatancy
dilatancy: volume change during
shearing

'dense' sand expands

'loose' sand contracts
volume
strain
dilatancy depends on density shear strain
dilatancy varies during test

Benahmed

what do we mean by 'dense' and 'loose'?

 Severn-Trent sand: dilatancy
critical state line
dilatancy
'loose'
specific
volume ψ
'dense' 'loose' 'dense'

state parameter ψ
mean stress

data confirm link between dilatancy and state parameter ψ

if soil is not at critical state when it is being sheared (ψ  0):
then volume changes occur towards the critical state: dilatancy
'loose': ψ > 0: contraction
Been & Jefferies
'dense': ψ < 0: dilation
 Mohr-Coulomb model with strength dependent on state variable

ratio currently mobilised strength

currently available strength
1
distortional hardening monotonic
relationship
monotonic increase of ratio of mobilised
to available strength (η/ηp) with
distortional strain εqp shear strain
hyperbolic hardening law: simple
available strength ':
varies with state parameter
mobilised
strength 'mob
current peak strength
conventional drained triaxial compression tests
different initial density (state variable)
volume change accompanies shearing
hence change in state variable
hence change in available strength
model automatically homes in on critical
state
softening emerges without being
described mathematically
peak strength is moving target reached at
infinite distortional strain – then identical
with critical state strength
 characterisation of variation of tangent stiffness

soil response perfectly plastic model

nonlinearity and reversed plasticity observed when direction
of loading is reversed
elastic-hardening plastic model: behaviour purely elastic for
stress ratios lower than the previous maximum stress ratio
Severn-Trent sand
add kinematic hardening:
elastic region of high stiffness carried round with recent stress history
boundary of elastic region is the yield surface
use bounding surface plasticity:
plastic hardening stiffness depends on separation of the yield surface
and bounding surface
kinematic hardening Mohr-Coulomb: strength dependent on state
variable: hierarchical development
Severn-Trent sand
calibrated against triaxial test data for
Hostun sand
effect of different density/stress level
automatically described
ignore practical problem of maintaining
homogeneity within softening sample

Gajo & Muir Wood, 1999

use model to simulate cyclic undrained loading leading to
eventual liquefaction
model fails after 25 cycles
actual soil (Hostun sand) fails after 89 cycles
number of cycles to liquefaction is not a particularly reliable
parameter to use for model calibration
obvious significant difference between samples which liquefy in
one or two cycles and those which survive for many cycles
character of cyclic pore pressure build-up reproduced in model
messages:
•possible to develop elegant models which reproduce
desirable mechanical characteristics
•especially effects of density and stress level
•mathematical complexity not essential
•build up from well known model – Mohr-Coulomb