The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 2018

Edited by:

S. Panagoulias
PLAXIS bv, The Netherlands

G. Vilhar
PLAXIS bv, The Netherlands

R.B.J. Brinkgreve
Delft University of Technology & PLAXIS bv, The Netherlands

Trademark
Windows® is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation.
PLAXIS is a registered trademark of the PLAXIS company (Plaxis bv).

Copyright PLAXIS program by:

Plaxis bv P.O. Box 572, 2600 AN DELFT, Netherlands
Fax: +31 (0)15 257 3107; E-mail: info@plaxis.nl; Internet site: www.plaxis.nl
These manuals may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by photo-copy or print or any other means, without
written permission from Plaxis bv.

© 2018 Plaxis bv
Printed in the Netherlands
THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 3
1.1 Normalised behaviour and the SHANSEP concept 3

2 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP constitutive model 5

2.1 The NGI-ADP model 5
2.2 On the use of the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 5
2.3 Model Parameters 7
2.4 Modelling the undrained behaviour 10
2.5 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model in combination with other constitutive
models 12

3 Conclusions 13

4 References 14

2 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018

 INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model (Stress History and Normalised Soil Engineering
Properties) constitutes a soil model implemented in PLAXIS, intended for anisotropic
undrained soil strength conditions. It enables the analysis of dikes and embankments
according to the new design requirements (based upon undrained Critical State
calculations) within a FEM environment. The model is based on the NGI-ADP model
(Grimstad, Andresen & Jostad (2010)), but modified such that it is able to simulate
potential changes of the undrained shear strength Su , based on the effective stress state
of the soil. The model takes into account the effects of stress history and stress path in
characterising soil strength and in predicting field behaviour.

1.1 NORMALISED BEHAVIOUR AND THE SHANSEP CONCEPT

Laboratory tests conducted at the Imperial College using remolded clays (Henkel (1960)
and Parry (1960)) and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on a wide range of
clays, give evidence that clay samples with the same over-consolidation ratio (OCR ), but
different consolidation stress σ 'c and therefore different pre-consolidation stress σ 'pc ,
exhibit very similar strength and stress-strain characteristics when the results are
normalised over the consolidation stress σ 'c .
Figure 1.1 illustrates idealised stress-strain curves for isotropically consolidated
undrained triaxial compression tests on a normally-consolidated clay, with consolidation
stresses σ 'c of 200 kPa and 400 kPa. As depicted in Figure 1.2, the stress-strain curves
are plotted on top of each other when they are normalised over the consolidation
stresses.

σ'c = 200 kPa σ'c = 400 kPa

120

100
σ1-σ3 [kPa]

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Axial strain [%]

Figure 1.1 Triaxial compression test data of homogeneous clay (Ladd & Foott, 1974)

In practice, normalised behaviour is not as perfect as shown in Figure 1.2. Usually, there
is discrepancy in the normalised plots caused by different consolidation stresses, soil
deposit heterogeneity or even the fact that the conditions from one soil test to another are
not identical. However, this discrepancy is reported to be quite small (Ladd & Foott, 1974)
and as a result the observed normalised soil behaviour is adopted in engineering
practice. It is worth mentioning that tests on quick clays and naturally cemented soils,
which have a high degree of structure, will not exhibit normalised behaviour because the
structure is significantly altered during the deformation process (Ladd & Foott, 1974).
The observations of normalised soil behaviour lead to the Normalised Soil Parameter

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 3

 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

σ'c = 200 kPa σ'c = 400 kPa

0.30

0.25

(σ1-σ3) / σ'c
0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The SHANSEP MC model

Axial strain [%]

Figure 1.2 Normalised triaxial compression test data of homogeneous clay (Ladd & Foott, 1974)

(NSP) concept. According to NSP, Figure 1.3 illustrates data from Ladd & Foott (1974)
whichcan
alized strengths showalso
the variation of the to
be applied undrained
overconsolidated Su normalised
shear strength soils. over the
Data from current
Ladd and Foot (1974
vertical effective stress σ 'v 0 against the over-consolidation ratio OCR , for five cohesive
ng the variation
soils,ofin correspondence
with the
withOCR, are reported
their index properties.in Fig.
The 1.2
data forafive
show clays
similar trendwith
of a range of index
increasing Su /σ 'v 0 with OCR .
ties.

Figure 2.2 –1.3

Figure Variation
Variationofof Su /σ 'v 0 with
withOCR
OCR for 5 clays
for five (from
different Ladd
clays and &Foott,
(Ladd Foott,1974)
1974)

ata for the various soils all shows a similar trend of increasing values of with the OCR.
history and normalized soil engineering properties (SHANSEP) is the basis of this new constitutiv
. Evaluating the stress history of the deposit during the constructions phases, it is possible to update th
4 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018
nd profiles to determine the OCR variation through the deposit. Consequently, applying th
 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

2 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

Stress History and Normalised Soil Engineering Properties (SHANSEP) is the basis of
the constitutive model hereby presented. The stress history of the soil deposit can be
evaluated by assessing the OCR variation via the current and the pre-consolidation
stress profiles. Based on the NSP concept, the undrained shear strength Su is estimated
as:
 
σ '1,max m
Su = ασ '1 = ασ '1 (OCR) m (2.1)
σ '1
in which α and m are normalised soil parameters.
The model is implemented in PLAXIS such that the effective major principal stress σ '1 is
considered to compute the OCR and the undrained shear strength. This is thought to be
a more objective parameter in comparison with the vertical effective stress σ 'v , as it is the
most compressive value, independent of the Cartesian system of axes. Assuming
horizontal soil layering, both parameters would result in the same value of OCR .
However, if the vertical effective stress σ 'v was considered in case of soil slopes, the
rotation of principal axes for soil elements adjacent to the slope would result in slightly
lower values of OCR and Su respectively.

2.1 THE NGI-ADP MODEL

The NGI-ADP model may be used for bearing capacity, deformation and soil-structure
interaction analyses, involving undrained loading of clay. The basis of the material model
is:
• Input parameters for (undrained) shear strength for three different stress
paths/states, i.e. Active (suA ), Direct Simple Shear (suDSS ) and Passive (suP ).
• A yield criterion based on a translated approximated Tresca criterion.
• Elliptical interpolation functions for plastic failure strains and for shear strengths in
arbitrary stress paths.
• Isotropic elasticity, given by the unloading/reloading shear modulus, Gur .
The NGI-ADP model is formulated for a general stress state, matching both undrained
failure shear strengths and strains to that of selected design profiles (Andresen & Jostad
(1999), Andresen (2002), Grimstad, Andresen & Jostad (2010)). The reader may refer to
to Chapter 13 of the PLAXIS Material Models Manual for further details upon the model
formulation and implementation.

2.2 ON THE USE OF THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is implemented in PLAXIS as a user-defined soil model

(UDSM). Prior to using this model, the 'ngiadps64.dll' should be placed in the sub-folder
'udsm' of the folder where PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D have been saved.
In order to use this model after starting a new project or opening an existing one, the
User-defined option should be selected through the Material model combo box in the

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 5

THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

General tabsheet of the Material sets window. In the Parameters tabsheet, the
'ngiadps64.dll' should be selected as the DLL file from the drop-down menu. The
'NGI-ADP-S' is used as the Model in DLL. Subsequently, the model parameters can be
specified (Section 2.3).
The reader may refer to Chapter 17 of the PLAXIS Material Models Manual for further
study on the use of user-defined soil models.

2.2.1 THE 'SWITCH' TO THE SHANSEP CONCEPT

The 'switch' to the SHANSEP concept is done at the beginning of a chosen phase by
inserting 1 (or any other odd number) as a Special option parameter in the General
section of the phase calculation parameters (in the Phases menu). This triggers the
initialisation of the SHANSEP concept for the activated materials. After the switch, the
undrained shear strength suA is calculated by Eq. (2.1) based on the current stress state
and the maximum stress in the past, σ '1,max , according to previous calculation phases or
predefined input values.
After the first switch, the calculated undrained shear strength suA is kept constant. The
re-initialisation of the suA is possible at a subsequent phase in the same way, by inserting
1 (or any other odd number) as a Special option in the General section of the phase
calculation parameters. The re-initialisation can be done as many times as the user
desires. This feature is available as from PLAXIS 2D 2018 and PLAXIS 3D 2018.
In case of using the model in PLAXIS 2D 2017 or PLAXIS 3D 2017, the 'switch' to the
SHANSEP concept is activated differently, namely by storing a file in the project folder,
i.e. inside the ∗ .p2dxdat folder for PLAXIS 2D and inside the ∗ .p3dat folder for PLAXIS
3D. This file should have the following file name format:

data.shansep.rs#
in which the special character # represents the calculation phase number at which the
model is switched from the NGI-ADP model to SHANSEP NGI-ADP. Note that depending
on the user actions in the Staged construction mode, the number mentioned in the name
of the calculation phase might be different than the actual phase number used to activate
the switch. For instance, this could happen if a new calculation phase is inserted or an
already existing one is deleted. Therefore, it is better to verify the phase number by
writing the command 'echo phase_#.number ' in the command line, where 'phase_# '
stands for the phase ID.
The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model can also be used in the Soil Test facility. In this case, the
different activation procedure has to be used. Before each run, the Soil Test will search
for the presence of a file named 'data.shansep.rs0' . If the file is found then the
SHANSEP activation will be executed. Firstly, one run of the Soil Test has to be
performed in order to create a temporary Soil Test facility folder with the path
%temp%\VL_xxxx. Then the arbitrary file named 'data.shansep.rs0' has to be stored
within that folder.

2.2.2 TRACKING OF σ '1,max

At the end of each calculation step the Cartesian stress components are transformed to
principal stress components (σ '1 , σ '2 , σ '3 ) and the maximum major principal stress,
σ '1,max , is kept as a general state parameter. During calculations, σ '1,max is updated if the

6 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018

 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

current major principal stress is larger than it. This feature is available as from PLAXIS
2D 2018 and PLAXIS 3D 2017.01.

2.2.3 STATE VARIABLES

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model provides output on five State variables. These
parameters can be visualised by selecting the State parameters option from the stresses
menu in the Output program. The State variables are:

State variable 1: σ '1,max (compression is positive)

State variable 2: suA (shansep)(equals zero before the switch)
State variable 3: γ p (plastic shear strain)
State variable 4: rκ (hardening function)
State variable 5: suA (equals suA (shansep) after the switch)
Before the switch to the SHANSEP concept, state variable 2 (suA (shansep)) equals zero.
After the switch, it is calculated based on Eq. (2.1). State variable 5 (suA ) is calculated
A
based on the input parameters suA and su,inc (Section 2.3). After the switch it is set equal
A
to the state variable 2 (su (shansep)).
Also, note that during a Safety analysis the value of state variable 2 (suA (shansep))
remains constant and equal to the value obtained after the last (re-)initialisation of the
active undrained shear strength (see Eq. (2.1)), while the value of state variable 5 (suA )
graudually decreases in order to compute the factor of safety.
The first time that the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is used in a sequence of calculation
phases, the state variables are initialised. The first state variable (σ '1,max ) is the
preconoslidation stress and is initialised with the general state variable σ '1,max
representing the maximum major principal effective stress ever reached. The state
variables 1 and 2 are kept constant during the analysis unless the model is re-initialised
again.

Hint: In order to create charts of the State variables via the Curves manager in the
Output program, one or more stress points have to be selected after the
calculation is completed (post-calculated stress points).

2.3 MODEL PARAMETERS

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is formulated such that it initially behaves as the
NGI-ADP model until it is switched to the SHANSEP concept by the user (see Section
2.2). It should preferably be used in combination with undrained behaviour. This drainage
type can be ignored before switching to the SHANSEP concept by using the calculations
option Ignore undrained behaviour in the Phases window. However, the strength will still
be an undrained strength as defined by the initial shear strength profile.
The NGI-ADP model is intended to be used for Undrained (B) analysis. However, for

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 7

THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

user-defined soil models, such as SHANSEP NGI-ADP, the only available drainage type
for undrained behaviour is Undrained (A). Nevertheless, since the strength is defined as
udrained shear strength, the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model will actually behave according
to the Undrained (B) drainage type.
Since the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is an extension of the NGI-ADP model, the model
parameters can be classified in two groups, i.e. the NGI-ADP model parameters and the
SHANSEP parameters. For the 'pre-switching' behaviour only the NGI-ADP model
parameters are used.
Since there are dependencies in the NGI-ADP model parameters, there are limitations as
to which combinations of values are acceptable. The standard NGI-ADP model in
PLAXIS includes checks to evaluate whether or not a valid combination of parameters
has been specified. Such checks are not available for user-defined soil models.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended to first define a material data set using the
standard NGI-ADP model and ONLY IF the parameters are accepted as a valid
combination of parameters, a data set should be created using the SHANSEP NGI-ADP
model as a user-defined soil model with the same NGI-ADP model parameters. If an
invalid combination of model parameters is used in the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model, an
error will occur during the calculation.
Table 2.1 gives an overview of all model parameters. Only the SHANSEP parameters will
be discussed in the next section. For the NGI-ADP model parameters the reader may
refer to Section 13.2 of the PLAXIS Material Models manual.
Table 2.1 SHANSEP NGI-ADP model parameters

Parameter Symbol Description Unit

Gur /suA Ratio unloading/reloading shear modulus over (plane strain) active shear strength -
γfC Shear strain at failure in triaxial compression %
γfE Shear strain at failure in triaxial extension %
NGI-ADP model parameters
γfDSS Shear strain at failure in direct simple shear %
A
su,ref Reference (plane strain) active shear strength kN/m2
yref Reference depth m
A
su,inc Increase of shear strength with depth kN/m2 /m
suP /suA Ratio of (plane strain) passive shear strength over (plane strain) active shear strength -
τ0 /suA Initial mobilisation -
suDSS /suA Ratio of direct simple shear strength over (plane strain) active shear strength -
ν' Poisson’s ratio -
ν Poisson’s ratio (undrained) -
α Coefficient -
m Power -
SHANSEP parameters A
su,min Minimum shear strength kN/m2

2.3.1 SHANSEP PARAMETERS α AND m

Based on Eq. (2.1), the α parameter represents the value of suA /σ '1 for a
normally-consolidated soil (OCR = 1). The power m is the value to which the OCR is
raised. The magnitude of m represents the rate of strength increase with OCR .
Ladd & DeGroot (2003) indicate that for most clayey soil types, α = 0.22 ± 0.03 and m =
0.80 ± 0.1. Results of SHANSEP tests performed by Seah & Lai (2003) on soft Bangkok
clay, which is a marine silty clay in the central area of Thailand, suggest the values of
αc = 0.265 and mc = 0.735 for compression tests and αe = 0.245 and me = 0.890 for

8 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018

 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

extension tests.
Santagata & Germaine (2002) studied the effects of sampling disturbance by conducting
single element triaxial tests on normally-consolidated resedimented Boston blue clay
(RBBC). The SHANSEP parameters obtained by undrained triaxial compression are αi =
0.33 and mi = 0.71 for the intact RBBC, and αd = 0.33 and md = 0.83 for the disturbed
RBBC.
Based on the studies presented above, it can be concluded that both SHANSEP
parameters α and m are stress path dependent. Even though the range of variation of
both parameters α and m is not wide, the proper way to estimate them is via calibration of
SHANSEP triaxial test results.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 present the influence of both parameters on the normalised shear
strength over the OCR . In Figure 2.1 the power m is constant and equal to 0.80, while
the coefficient α varies from 0.20 to 0.35. In Figure 2.2 the coefficient α is constant and
equal to 0.20, while the power m varies from 0.75 to 0.90. As expected, both parameters
result in an increase of the undrained shear strength as they grow. Variation of the
coefficient α has greater influence on the resulting Su /σ '1 .

α = 0.20 α = 0.25 α = 0.30 α = 0.35

2.4

2.0
m = 0.80
1.6
Su / σ'1

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OCR

Figure 2.1 Influence of the coefficient α on the normalised undrained shear strength

m = 0.75 m = 0.80 m = 0.85 m = 0.90

2.4

2.0
α = 0.20
1.6
Su / σ'1

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
OCR

Figure 2.2 Influence of the power m on the normalised undrained shear strength

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 9

THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

2.3.2 MINIMUM UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

To prevent zero or very small stiffness (Gur ) and strength (suA ) at small depths where σ '1
A
is equal to or approximately zero, a minimum value of the undrained shear strength su,min
A
can be selected as input parameter. PLAXIS determines the value of su as:
   
σ '1,max
suA = max ασ '1 m
, A
su,min (2.2)
σ '1
Additionally, the calculated ratio σ '1,max /σ '1 is not allowed to be smaller than 1.
A
A proper value for su,min can be determined from the field and/or laboratory
characterisation of the soil deposit.

2.3.3 INTERFACES TABSHEET

The Interfaces tabsheet contains the material data for interfaces, i.e. the interface
ref
oedometer modulus, Eoed , and the interface strength parameters c 'inter , φ'inter and ψinter .
Hence, the interface shear strength is directly given in strength parameters.
In addition, two parameters are included to enable stress-dependency of the interface
stiffness according to a power law formulation:
 
ref σ 'n UD-Power
Eoed (σ 'n ) = Eoed (2.3)
UD-Pref

where UD-Power, is the rate of stress dependency of the interface stiffness, UD-Pref is
the reference stress level (usually 100 kN/m2 ) and σ 'n is the effective normal stress in the
interface stress point.

Hint: PLAXIS will give a warning when a zero interface stiffness or strength is
defined, even if no interface elements are being used. In order to avoid this
ref
warning, a non-zero cohesion and Eoed should be specified.

2.3.4 INITIAL TABSHEET

Based on the value of φ'inter selected in the Interfaces tabsheet, the lateral stress
coefficient at rest K0 is automatically calculated as a default value to set up the initial
horizontal stress as:

K0 = 1 − sin(φ'inter ) (2.4)

However, note that this value is based on the interface friction angle rather than the soil
friction angle, since SHANSEP NGI-ADP does not have friction angle as a model
parameter. The suggested value may be changed by the user.

10 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018

 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP CONSTITUTIVE MODEL

2.4 MODELLING THE UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR

During the initial phase(s), before switching to the SHANSEP concept, undrained
behaviour can be ignored by selecting the calculations option Ignore undrained behaviour
in the Phases window. After switching to the SHANSEP concept, the model behaves
similarly to the Undrained (B) NGI-ADP model. However, as discussed below, the
SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is advantageous in comparison to the classic Undrained (B)
drainage type of the NGI-ADP model in the sense that the shear strength can be defined
and updated based on the (changed) effective stress level.

2.4.1 NGI-ADP MODEL LIMITATION

The undrained shear strength in the NGI-ADP model is given by Eq. (2.5). Such variation
of the suA over depth is valid only in case that horizontal soil layers are considered. The
reference depth (yref ) is a fixed value throughout the whole model. If the soil deposit is
inclined (in case of slope, embankment etc.), according to Eq. (2.5), as depth increases,
suA increases as well along the surface. This leads to a non-realistic distribution of the
undrained shear strength.

suA (y ) = su,ref
A A
+ (yref − y )su,inc y < yref (2.5)

2.4.2 THE ADVANTAGE OF THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model gives the advantage of a realistic, empirical way of
modelling the undrained shear strength su . Figure 2.3 illustrates a comparison between
the real behaviour of a soft soil (a) and the SHANSEP NGI-ADP concept (b) in terms of
the effective stress path (ESP) in p' − q plot. During the first undrained loading the model
behaves as the NGI-ADP model Undrained (B). A consolidation phase is introduced
afterwards and the effective stress increases, reaching the Re-initiation Point 1 (RP _1).
At that point the switch to the SHANSEP model occurs (see Section 2.2) and the
updated _1
undrained shear strength is updated from its initial value suinitial to su . The same
process is repeated again after the next undrained loading and the subsequent
updated _2
consolidation, leading to the updated undrained shear strength su . This behaviour
constitutes a better approach to reality in comparison with the standard NGI-ADP model,
in which no update of the undrained shear strength occurs.

Figure 2.3 Undrained behaviour of real soft soil (a) and SHANSEP NGI-ADP model (b)

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 11

THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

Hint: It is suggested that the consolidation phase does not lead to deviatoric stress
equal to the undrained shear strength, e.g. that the Re-initiation Point 1
(RP _1) in Figure 2.3 stays below the 2suinitial cap. If the opposite occurs, it is
suggested to split the consolidation phase in more than one phases with
shorter consolidation times and then re-initiate the undrained shear strength
after each one of them.

2.5 THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS

Apart from using the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model merely as a NGI-ADP model and then
switching to the SHANSEP concept as described in Section 2.2, it is possible to use it as
an 'extension' of any other constitutive model implemented in PLAXIS.
To switch from another soil model to the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model, the process
described in Section 2.2 has to be followed. However, apart from the use of the Special
option parameter to activate the SHANSEP concept, as described in Section 2.2.1, the
material of the soil cluster also has to be changed to the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model.
σ '1,max is always calculated at the beginning of the calculations and updated during the
calculation progress, irrespective from the constitutive model being used. So, after an
advanced constitutive model (or any other PLAXIS model) has been used, if the material
is switched to the SHANSEP NGI-ADP model and the SHANSEP concept is activated,
then the current σ '1,max is used in relation to the current effective stress state to calculate
(re-initiate) the undrained shear strength according to the SHANSEP formula (Eq. (2.1)).
The evaluation of the SHANSEP formula based on σ '1,max is available as from PLAXIS
2D 2018 and PLAXIS 3D 2017.01.

12 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018

 CONCLUSIONS

3 CONCLUSIONS

The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model is an advanced constitutive model developed to enable

the analysis of dikes and embankments according to the new design requirements (based
upon undrained Critical State calculations) within a FEM environment. It overcomes
limitations of the traditional NGI-ADP model with respect to the varying undrained shear
strength of soils due to load history. Three additional input parameters are needed for this
A
model, namely α, m and su,min . They are used to calculate (update) the undrained shear
A
strength su dependent on the effective stress history by using the SHANSEP concept.
The effect of parameters α and m was investigated and the results show that the effect of
α is more dominant. However, the range of variation of these two parameters is short.

PLAXIS 2018 | The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model 13

THE SHANSEP NGI-ADP MODEL

4 REFERENCES

[1] Andresen, L. (2002). Capacity analysis of anisotropic and strain-softening clay. Ph.d.
thesis, University of Oslo, Institute of Geology.
[2] Andresen, L., Jostad, H.P. (1999). Application of an anisotropic hardening model for
undrained response of saturated clay. Proc. NUMOG VII, 581–585.
[3] Grimstad, G., Andresen, L., Jostad, H.P. (2010). Anisotropic shear strength model for
clay. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
(Accepted for publication).
[4] Henkel, D.J. (1960). The shear strength of saturated remolded clays. In Proceedings
of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. University
of Colorado, Boulder, 533–554.
[5] Ladd, C.C., DeGroot, D.J. (2003). Recommended practice for soft ground site
characterization: Arthur casagrande lecture. In Proceedings of the 12th
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
[6] Ladd, C.C., Foott, R. (1974). New design procedure for stability of soft clays. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 100(7), 763–786.
[7] Parry, R.H.G. (1960). Triaxial compression and extension tests on remoulded
saturated clay. Géotechnique, 10(4), 166–180.
[8] Santagata, M.C., Germaine, J.T. (2002). Sampling disturbance effects in normally
consolidated clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
128(12), 997–1006.
[9] Seah, T.H., Lai, K.C. (2003). Strength and deformation behavior of soft bangkok clay.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26(4), 421–431.

14 The SHANSEP NGI-ADP model | PLAXIS 2018