Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model &

Parameter Selection

Short Course on Computational Geotechnics + Dynamics

Boulder, Colorado
January 5-8, 2004

Stein Sture
Professor of Civil Engineering
University of Colorado at Boulder
 Contents
Introduction
Stiffness Modulus
Triaxial Data
Plasticity
HS-Cap-Model
Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on
Loose and Dense Sands
Summary
Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection
 Introduction
Hardening Soils
Most soils behave in a nonlinear behavior soon after application of
shear stress. Elastic-plastic hardening is a common technique, also
used in PLAXIS.

Usage of the Soft Soil model with creep

Creep is usually of greater significance in soft soils.

qf
Rf 
qa

E ur  3E 50

Hyperbolic stress strain response curve of Hardening Soil model
Computational Geotechnics 
Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection
 Stiffness Modulus
Elastic unloading and reloading (Ohde, 1939)
We use the two elastic parameters ur and Eur
 ' m
c cot   
E urref  3
ref  p ref  100kPa
c cot   p 
1
Gur  E ur
2(1  )



Initial (primary) loading
m
 '
ref  3  c cot 

E 50  E 50  ref 
p  c cot  
  '3 sin   c cos  m
 E  ref
ref

p sin   c cos  
50

Definition of E50 in a standard drained triaxial experiment

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection


 Stiffness Modulus

Oedometer tests

Definition of the normalized oedometric stiffness

Values for m from oedometer test versus initial porosity n 0

ref
Normalized oedometer modulusE oed versus initial porosity n 0
Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Stiffness Modulus
Normalized oedometric stiffness for various soil classed (von Soos, 1991)

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Stiffness Modulus

Values for m obtained from triaxial test versus initial porosity n0

Normalized triaxial modulus E 50ref versus initial porosity n0



Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Stiffness Modulus
Summary of data for sand: Vermeer & Schanz (1997)

 'y
E oed  E oed
ref

p ref
 'x
E 50  E 50
ref

p ref
Comparison of normalized stiffness moduli from oedometer and
Triaxial test

Engineering practice: mostly data on Eoed


E ref
Test data: oed  E ref
50

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Triaxial Data on p  21p

qa q
21 
E 50 qa  q

m
  '
sin   c cos  
E 50  E 50
ref 3
 ref 
 p sin   c cos  
Equi-g lines (Tatsuoka, 1972) for dense Toyoura Sand

qf
qa   M( p  c cot  )R1
f
 Rf

6sin 
M
 3  sin 
Yield and failure surfaces for the Hardening Soil model

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Yield and hardening functions
qa q 2q
 p  1p  2p  3p  21p  21  21e  
E 50 qa  q E ur
qa q 2q
f   p 0
E 50 qa  q E ur

3D extension
In order to extent the model to general 3D states in terms of stress, we use
a modified expression for q in terms of q˜ and the mobilized angle of
internal friction  m

q˜  1'  ( 1) '2   '3

 3  sin  m  ˜ ( p  c cot  ) ˜  6sin  m
where  f  q˜  M M
3  sin  m 3  sin  m
Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection
 Plasticity
Plastic potential and flow rule
q  1'  ( 1) '2   '3

with
3  sin m 6sin  m
  g  q  M  ( p  c cot  m ) M 
3  sin m 3  sin  m

 
 

1 
p
 12  12 sin    12  12 sin  

p   g  g      
  2  12
p
 13  12 2  2 sin  13
1 1
0 
 12 13
 p  
 0 
 


1
 1 
2 sin 


2
 
3


Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Flow rule

 p  
v
  sin  m    sin  
v
p p

 p

with
sin  m  sin  cv
sin  m 
1 sin  m sin  cv
 cv   p   p

Primary soil parameters and standard PLAXIS settings
C [kPa] ’ [o]  [o] E50 [Mpa]
 0
Eur = 3 E50
30-40
Vur = 0.2
0-10

Rf = 0.9
40
m = 0.5 Pref = 100 kPa

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Hardening soil response in drained triaxial experiments

Results of drained loading: Results of drained loading:

stress-strain relation (3 = 100 kPa) axial-volumetric strain relation (3 = 100 kPa)

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Undrained hardening soil analysis
Method A: switch to drained
Input:
 c ' ; ' ; '

 ref
E 50
  0.2;E  3E ;m  0.5; p ref  100kPa
 ur ur 50

Method B: switch to undrained

 Input:
 c u ; u;

 ref
E 50
  0.2;E  3E ;m  0.5; p ref  100kPa
 ur ur 50

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Interesting in case you have data on Cu and not no C’ and ’
m
  3 sin  u  C u cos  u
' 
E 50  E 50  ref
ref
  E 50  const.
ref

p sin  u  Cu cos  u 

m
  sin  u  Cu cos  u
' 
E ur  E urref  ref3   E ur  const.
ref

p sin  u  Cu cos  u 

Assume E50 = 0.7 Eu and use graph by Duncan & Buchignani (1976) to estimate Eu

Eu  1.4 E50

2c
u

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Plasticity
Hardening soil response in undrained triaxial tests

Results of undrained triaxial loading:

stress-strain relations (3 = 100 kPa)
Results of undrained triaxial loading:
p-q diagram (3 = 100 kPa)

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 HS-Cap-Model
Cap yield surface
2
q˜
f c  2  p 2  pc2
M
Flow rule

gc  f c (Associated flow)

Hardening law
For isotropic compression we assume
 

p p 1  Kc
 
v
p
  p with H Ks
Kc Ks H Ks  Kc

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 HS-Cap-Model
 
For isotropic compression we have q = 0 and it follows from p  p c

 
g  
pc  H   H  c
p
 2H  c p
v
pc

For the determination of, we have another consistency condition:


 f c f c 
T 
fc  pc  0
 pc

 Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 HS-Cap-Model
Additional parameters

The extra input parameters are K0 (=1-sin) and Eoed/E50 (=1.0)

The two auxiliary material parameter M and Kc/Ks are determined

iteratively from the simulation of an oedometer test. There are no direct
input parameters. The user should not be too concerned about these
parameters.

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 HS-Cap-Model
Graphical presentation of HS-Cap-Model
I: Purely elastic response

II: Purely f rictional hardening with f

III: Material failu re according to Mohr-Coulomb

IV: Mohr-Coulomb and cap fc

V: Combined frictional hardening f and cap fc

VI: Purely cap hardening with fc

VII: Isotropic compression

2 3
Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in p-q space (left) and in the deviatoric plane (right)
Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection
 HS-Cap-Model
1 = 2 =
3

Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in principal stress space

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial
Tests on Loose and Dense Sands

Comparison of calculated () and measured triaxial tests on loose Hostun Sand

Comparison of calculated () and measured oedometer tests on loose Hostun Sand

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial
Tests on Loose and Dense Sands

Comparison of calculated () and measured triaxial tests on dense Hostun Sand

Comparison of calculated () and measured oedometer tests on dense Hostun Sand

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

 Summary
Main characteristics
•Pressure dependent stiffness
•Isotropic shear hardening
•Ultimate Mohr-Coulomb failure condition
•Non-associated plastic flow
•Additional cap hardening

HS-model versus MC-model

c,, As in Mohr-Coulomb model
ref
E 50 Normalized primary loading stiffness
 ur Unloading / reloading Poisson’s ratio
E urref Normalized unloading / reloading stiffness

 m Power in stiffness laws
 Rf Failure ratio

Computational Geotechnics Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection