Tengattini, A. et al. (2016). Gotechnique 66, No. 9, 695710 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.

164]

A constitutive modelling framework predicting critical state

in sand undergoing crushing and dilation
A. TENGATTINI
, A. DAS and I. EINAV

This paper explains why the critical state of sand is non-unique when expressed in terms of stress
and void ratio only. For this purpose, a thermodynamically consistent, micromechanically inspired
constitutive modelling framework with competing grain crushing and dilation is developed. While
grain crushing is described through the theory of breakage mechanics, dilation is modelled in a
novel way by acknowledging its negative contribution to the overall positive rate of dissipation. The
competition between dilation and grain crushing underpinned by this framework yields a unique
critical state in a space of stress, void ratio and breakage, in agreement with recent experiments. As
an example, a simple constitutive model with only five mechanical parameters is proposed, which
not only predicts the critical state but also quantitatively connects the full constitutive behaviour to
key index properties related to grading- and breakage-dependent minimum and maximum densities.

KEYWORDS: constitutive relations; particle crushing/crushability; sands

INTRODUCTION on only five mechanical parameters. The model illustrates

Recent experiments reveal that the critical state of crushable
sand cannot be solely defined in terms of stress and void
ratio. It appears to be a function of the loading history (see
Fig. 1(a), and Mooney et al., 1998; Finno & Rechenmacher,
2003) and the path-dependence of breakage evolution (see
Fig. 1(b), and Biarez & Hicher, 1997; Coop et al., 2004;
Bandini & Coop, 2012), with the former observation
potentially induced by the latter. These observations chal-
lenge a core idea in critical state soil mechanics, which
requires one to impose the critical state relation a priori
rather than predicting it. Within this classical framework
(Schofield & Wroth, 1968), it was proposed to rephrase the
critical state as a three-dimensional surface in void ratio,
stress and breakage space (Daouadji et al., 2001; Muir Wood
& Maeda, 2007). The determination of this surface for use in
critical state soil mechanics models is not necessarily trivial
and requires more experiments; also, its characterisation
requires the introduction of new phenomenological curve-
fitting parameters. Furthermore, this approach does not
answer how grain breakage evolves, and what determines the
critical state.
This paper presents an alternative approach to critical
state soil mechanics, with which the critical state is predicted,
rather than imposed a priori. For this purpose, a new con-
stitutive modelling framework is developed within the
thermodynamics framework of breakage mechanics (Einav,
2007a, 2007b), which explicitly depends on porosity and
captures the transition from compaction to dilation limited
by grading-dependent minimum and maximum porosities, as
proposed by Rubin & Einav (2011). Unlike Rubin & Einav
(2011), here the yield function and dilatancy are derived
directly from the rate of dissipation. A simple constitutive
model is then derived within this framework, which depends
Manuscript received 23 August 2014; revised manuscript accepted
10 March 2016. Published online ahead of print 19 April 2016.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 February 2017, for further
details see p. ii.

School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, India.
how dilation competes with breakage-driven compaction up
to a point of stable equilibrium, which determines the form
of the critical state. Subsequently, the derived model unravels
the dependence of critical state on the degree of breakage.
This model serves to illustrate that it is possible to use the
proposed framework to capture quantitatively an impressive
array of features of sand behaviour, while maintaining its
ability to predict the dependence of critical state on the
degree of breakage. Future work within this new framework
will include further model developments aimed at demon-
strating full quantitative fits against experimental stress
strain data.
STATE VARIABLES
Breakage
In the following sections a thermodynamically admissible
framework predicting critical state is developed within the
context of breakage mechanics (Einav, 2007a, 2007b). As
part of this theory the state of sand is described through the
current grain size distribution (GSD) using the breakage
internal variable, B (see Fig. 2). Specifically, B Bt/Bp, where
the total breakage Bt is given by the area between the current
cumulative GSD and a universal initial GSD as a Heaviside
function about the maximum grain size, and the breakage
potential Bp is given by the area between the ultimate
cumulative GSD and the universal initial GSD.
Porosity
Porosity is another important state variable of sand. Here,
ideas from Rubin & Einav (2011) are further advanced, where
the compressibility of the material was modelled directly
using the porosity, , and its rate of change, . As discussed in
the literature (Rubin, 2001; Collins & Einav, 2005; Jiang &
Liu, 2014), there are several physical reasons to abandon the
use of plastic strain as a state variable, and only the rate of
plastic strain will enter into the present formulation. A key
argument against the use of plastic strain is its dependence on
an arbitrary reference configuration. On the other hand,
porosity does not depend on a reference configuration, and is
therefore used here as the internal state variable.

695

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 696 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
16 CSL from Coop (1990)
090
e0 = 088 CSL for evolving breakage:
emax = 0875 Br = 014023
085 Br = 031035
12 Br = 042047
e0 = 0775
080

Void ratio, e
Void ratio, e

08
075

070 e0 = 0664
04
e0 = 075 076
065
e0 = 065 067

emin = 060 0
0 200 400 600 800 100 1000 10 000
Mean effective stress: kPa Mean effective stress, p: kPa
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Experiments revealing the non-uniqueness of critical state in a space defined solely in terms of stress and void ratio. (a) Dependence on the
initial void ratio e0, using drained plane strain compression tests on masonry sand (adapted from Finno & Rechenmacher, 2003). (b) Dependence
on grading (through relative breakage (Br, Hardin, 1985) using triaxial compression tests on Dogs Bay sand (adapted from Bandini & Coop,
2012); the latter results will be predicted using the new model in the section entitled Comparison with experimental data

100 et al., 2010)

Bt Universal initial
Bp distribution, F0 V T
v 2a
80 VT
B = Bt /Bp
V S
ev  2b
Percent finer: %

60 Current VS
distribution, F
p
40
Ultimate 2c
distribution, Fu

pv  2d
20 1
In the following, this latter approach is followed, which
implies that is a purely dissipative internal variable (see
Effective grain size, xg (log scale) equation (2d)).
X gm X gM Appendix 1 presents a more general expression that ex-
plicitly relates the porosity rate to strain rate for grains with
Fig. 2. Definition of breakage B (Einav, 2007a) based on a universal any grain mineral Poisson ratio, g. It recovers the above
initial distribution as a Heaviside step function about the maximum relations for g = 0 as well as the

more traditional
 assumption
grain size X M
g
in soil mechanics that v  =1  for (in fact, unrea-
listic) incompressible grains (i.e. g = 05).

The porosity and its rate are defined as follows

VS
1 1a Breakage-driven limits of porosity
VT Next, the ideas by Rubin & Einav (2011) are followed,
which considered porosity limits between experimentally
V T V S measurable grading-dependent minimum min and maximum
  1b max porosity values (Youd, 1973; Riemer et al., 1990; Cho
1 VT VS
et al., 2006). The expressions proposed by Rubin & Einav
where VT and VS are the total and solid volumes at the (2011) are adopted
current state, and V T and V S represent their rates.
Recalling the definition of the total volumetric strain rate min l 1  Bl 3a
(v V T =VT ) and adopting the common assumption in
soil mechanics that grains are incompressible (i.e. V S 0), it max u 1  Bu 3b
is found that v =1  . However, note that this equa-
tion does not prevent the development of negative porosities. where l and u are the lower and upper limit porosities at
This is a consequence of the grain incompressibility zero breakage, and the coefficients l and u depend on the
assumption. grain shape and roughness (Cho et al., 2006). Fig. 3 illus-
An alternative special case of the formulation is trates the ability of these expressions to capture experimen-
given by identifying ev V S =VS , which yields (Collins tally measured values.

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 697
where EB, E and q are the stress conjugates to B, and ps ,
075 max = u(1 B)u
respectively.
min = l(1 B)l
There are basically two ways to satisfy the non-
Crushed basalt negativeness of the dissipation rate above. The first method,
060 Sand mixture
adopted by Rubin & Einav (2011), is to propose a yield
function and flow rules for the internal variable rates directly,
tuned to satisfy the positiveness of the total dissipation rate.
045 The second approach, advanced by Houlsby & Puzrin
(2000), inverts this process; initially, an explicit function of
the dissipation rate is proposed and only then the yield func-
030 tion and flow rules are derived explicitly from the dissipation
rate. The second approach is followed in this paper.
Consider the following explicit rate of dissipation equation
015
(Einav, 2007b; Nguyen & Einav, 2009)
q
02 04 06 08 10 D2B D2 D2s 8
B
where DB, D and Ds are homogeneous first-order functions
Fig. 3. Dependence of the limiting porosities min and max on in the rates B, and ps , respectively. Clearly, in this case the
breakage B. The values of breakage were computed from the GSDs in rate of dissipation is guaranteed to be non-negative, for any
Youd (1973), where the limiting porosities were measured. (In the
form chosen for the D functions.
figure, u = 045 and l = 032 for the sand mixture; and u = 059 and
l = 044 for the crushed basalt. In both cases, u = 021 and l = 026.) However, it must be acknowledged that when dilation
occurs the volumetric strain develops in the opposite sense to
the confining stress, p. This implies that, while must remain
Finally, an auxiliary state variable of relative porosity is positive, dilation should reduce the total amount of the
introduced (after Rubin & Einav, 2011) dissipated energy. Therefore, consider a more general form,
 with three extra linear terms potentially reducing the overall
max 4
max  min amount of dissipation rate, depending on the signs of the D
functions
where the connection between this measure and the q
(grading-dependent) relative density Dr is trivial. D2B D2 D2s rB DB r D rs Ds 9

where rB, r and rs are chosen in a way that guarantees the

A CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR DILATANT, thermodynamics condition  0 will always still be satisfied.
CRUSHABLE GRANULAR MATERIALS It is noted that the three linear dissipation terms could be
Thermodynamics considerations either positive or negative, unlike the square root term, which
The two laws of thermodynamics for rate-independent is always positive. In this way the current framework can
materials in isothermal conditions are expressed as follows develop negative work, and thus accounts for the physics of
dilation in a thermodynamically admissible way.
W ; 0 5 As shown in Appendix 2, the general form of the yield
where W is the rate of mechanical work on the boundaries of function is then found using Legendre transformation for
first-order homogeneous functions
the representative elementary volume, is the non-negative !2
rate of energy dissipation and is the rate of Helmholtz free  2
EB E
energy. y*  rB p  r
The mechanical work W can be expressed in terms of @DB =@ B @D =@
 2 10
triaxial variables using q
 rs 1  0
W pv qs @Ds =@ps
!
  6 Next, consider the following three terms
p ev  q ev ps
1 p 2
EB EC B
DB 11a
where p is the mean effective stress, q is the triaxial shear stress, 1  Bcos hBi
and it is highlighted that equation (2d) was used. As mentioned
earlier, this is done for the purpose of brevity, although there is p
EB EC E
no problem in proceeding with the rather more general D 11b
porosity decomposition (for any c in equation (31b)). 1  Bsin EB

Ds Mpps 11c
Dissipation rates of dilatant crushable sand The first term DB in equation (11a) is the one proposed by
In general, the total rate of dissipation depends on Einav (2007b), which physically expresses the rate of loss of
contributions from the rates of the three dissipative internal residual breakage energy; that is, the rate of elastic energy
variables (i.e. rates of breakage, porosity and plastic shear loss needed to move a material at a given state towards an
strain). Assuming first-order homogeneity in these rates and ultimate GSD. The only change for DB from the original
consulting Appendix 2 formulation of Einav (2007b) is the use of the Macaulay
@ @ @ brackets function h i (i.e. hxi = 0 for x , 0, or x otherwise) in
B p ps 2
B =hBi. This is important for the current model, to ensure
@ B @ @ s 7
B  0 even during dilation, such that crushing is strictly
EB B E qps connected to grain size reduction. Therefore, the use of the

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 698 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
Macaulay brackets function is physically meaningful. Similar
use of this function has been introduced as a condition of
contact separation in various convex analysis solutions,
including in addressing contact breaking in soilfoundation
interaction problems (Einav & Cassidy, 2005; Houlsby &
Puzrin, 2007).
The second term D in equation (11b) is based on Einav
(2007b) and Nguyen & Einav (2009), and reflects the
idea that fragment rearrangement is a passive dissipative
mechanism to grain crushing. The form of equation (11b) is
slightly adapted from those works to include the rate of
porosity rather than the plastic volumetric strain rate.
The third term Ds as a function of the plastic shear
strain rate ps is taken from Einav (2007b) to capture a
Coulomb-type friction law.
It is highlighted that DB is always non-negative, irrespective
of the sign of B ( justifying the use of rB  0 below). Also, it is
noticed that D changes sign with the rate of porosity
dissipation E , and that this term controls volumetric
deformations through . Therefore, it can be a source of
negative rate of work and dilation when . 0 ( justifying the
use of 1  r  0 below). Similarly, it can be shown that Ds
controls material softening and does not affect the form of the
critical state. Thus, since the critical state is the main focus of
this paper, for the purpose of brevity, rs = 0 is employed below.
Furthermore, the potential of sand to dilate should increase
with density through the relative porosity and the proposed
framework acknowledges the coupling between breakage and
grain rearrangement through . Therefore, the following
expressions for rB, r and rs are adopted
rB cos 12a
r sin 12b
rs 0
where 1   0 is a material parameter controlling the
potential to dilate. More specifically, it will be shown later
that controls the transition from a purely dilative regime to a
compacting regime with breakage; its physical meaning will
be shown to connect directly to the energetics of these
two processes in terms of dissipation. Furthermore, it will
be shown later that can be calibrated using a single critical
state point/experiment. As proposed in Einav (2007b), the
coupling angle represents the potential of the material to
compact due to grain crushing, and as shown in the later
section entitled Constitutive response, this parameter can be
expressed using as well. Finally, introducing the above
factors into equation (9) confirms the condition  0.
Rates of inelasticity and conditions for critical state
Combining equation (10) with equation (11) the following
yield function can be derived directly from the explicit form
of the dissipation rate function
r 2  2
EB q
y 1  B  1  0 13
EC Mp
Also using equations (10) and (11) the following flow rules
are obtained, which determine the evolution of the dissipa-
tive internal variables
@y*
B (1 B)
@EB
r 
EB 1  B
2 1  B  p cos2 14a Fig. 4. The yield surface in a generalised stress-space, which
EC EB EC
Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
@y*
@E
r
EB 1  B EB 2
2 1  B  p sin 14b
EC EB EC E
@y* q
sp 2 14c
@q Mp2
where is the non-negative multiplier. These flow rules are
the direct result of the definition of an explicit non-negative
dissipation rate equation. Indeed, the positiveness of the
dissipation rate can be confirmed by inserting the last
equations into equation (7). Note that the presence of the
Macaulay brackets function h i in equation (14a) is a direct
result of the condition imposed in equation (11a) of no
breakage upon dilation.
The form of equation (13) is different from the one used in
Rubin & Einav (2011) through the addition of , as an
outcome of deriving the yield function from the explicit
dissipation rate. As such, notice the presence of the following
function in both the yield function (equation (13)) and the
flow rules (equation (14))
r
EB
F F EB ; B; 1  B  15
EC
This function plays a central role in determining the form of
the critical state, as explained next. First consider Fig. 4,
which depicts the yield surface in a generalised stress space
(i.e. in terms of the real stresses p and q, and the breakage
energy EB). The highest point along the y-axis (where
q = Mp) is associated with F = 0. To the right of this point
(F . 0), it is noticed using equations (14a) and (14b) that the
material undergoes both breakage and porosity reduction
(compaction). To the left (F , 0), breakage does not occur as
12c the Macaulay brackets function returns 0, while the porosity
increases (dilation). Also notice that parameter controls the
magnitude of F, and therefore it controls the elevation of
critical state in the EBB space. It will be shown later that,
since EB can be connected to p, q and B, and since at critical
state q = Mp, parameter could be determined using a single
critical state point in the pB space.
Therefore, the point F = 0 (where q = Mp) is a unique stable
equilibrium point of critical state towards which the material
flows and whose position depends on the competition
between crushing and dilation by way of the relative
porosity . Subsequently, since depends on the level of break-
age B, this model is capable of predicting the dependence
of the critical state on the amount of grain crushing.
q
Mp
Dilation regime
(F < 0)
Critical state (F = 0)
1
Crushing regime (F > 0)
EB
EC
highlights the various flow regimes and a unique critical state
 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 699
Finally, it is noticed that here the critical state marks the Linear elasticity. Employing the framework of breakage
transition between two distinct dissipative regimes. Rearrang- mechanics and adopting linear elasticity to denote the strain
ing equation (14) and using equation (7), the relation between energy stored in grains (Einav, 2007b)
the rate of dissipation components associated with the
breakage (B EB B) and the porosity ( E ) is
B HF cot2
where H is a Heaviside step function (i.e. H(x) = 0 for x , 0, or
1 otherwise). When F , 0, energy is dissipated by way of
dilation; when F . 0 breakage and pore collapse act together,
in proportions controlled by the material collapsibility through
. As parameter determines the value of F, and therefore the
value of H(F), has a clear energetic meaning. It determines
the state at which there is no longer breakage dissipation.
1  2 2
1  B Kev 3Ges 18
2
16 where ev and es are the volumetric and shear elastic strains.
The grading index 1  J2u/J20 describes how far the ulti-
mate GSD is from the initial one (here represented by
g
the maximum grain size, X M (Einav, 2007b)), while J2u and
J20 are the second-order moments of these distributions.
Assuming a zero minimum grain size and that the ultimate
GSD is fractal with a fractal dimension , it was shown by
Buscarnera & Einav (2012) that the grading index is indepe-
ndent of XMg and only dependent on the fractal dimension
2/(5  ). Using equations (17) and (18) the following
equation results
Helmholtz free energy @ 1  e2 2


Until now the focus has been on dissipative internal EB  Kv 3Ges 19a
variables. Next, it is essential to describe the stresses in terms @B 2
of the Helmholtz free energy potential. This will allow EB @
to be connected to the other state variables, so that the p 1  BKev 19b
critical state can be portrayed in a usual sense. Using the @ ev
first and second laws of thermodynamics and following
Appendix 2 @
q 1  B3Ges 19c
@ es
@
p e 17a
@ v Therefore, combining equation (19) with equation (13), the
yield surface of this model could be portrayed in the con-
ventional triaxial stress space as shown in Fig. 5 for various
@
q 17b values of B and .
@es As shown in Fig. 5(a) grain crushing induces yield hard-
ening (Einav, 2007a), whereas the evolution of porosity (Fig. 5
@ (b)) can either harden the material during breakage-induced
EB  0  u 17c compaction, or soften it when dilation occurs without break-
@B
age. At low confinements the yield surface in the stress space
p presents modest non-convexity that depends on . Convexity of
E  17d yield surfaces in true stress space is not a requirement of
1
thermodynamics (Collins & Kelly, 2002); but the yield surfaces
where 0 and u denote the elastic stored energy in the should indeed be convex in the thermodynamics stress space
system assuming the initial (reference) GSD and when the (as portrayed for the present model in Fig. 4).
GSD reaches its ultimate state, respectively. As all of those
stresses are derivable from the same potential, and as E is
directly related to pressure and porosity, EB can be expressed Non-linear elasticity. Experimental evidence (Hardin &
in terms of p, q, and B. The exact form of this connection Black, 1966; Viggiani & Atkinson, 1995) and theoretical
depends on the chosen expressions for the Helmholtz free considerations (Goddard, 1990) suggest that elastic stiffness
energy. Two forms are explored below. of granular materials is pressure dependent. In Nguyen &

750 300 =0
B=0
B = 03 = 03
B = 05 = 07
600 240
B = 08 = 10

450 p
180 p
M M
q: kPa
q: kPa

=
q
= q

300 120

150 60

0 0
150 300 450 600 750 60 120 180 240 300
p: kPa p: kPa
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. The dependence of the yield surface on (a) breakage B for = 05 and (b) the relative porosity for B = 0, when linear elasticity is employed
within breakage mechanics

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 700 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
Einav (2009), the following Helmholtz free energy potential entitled Rates of inelasticity and conditions for critical state,
was proposed to capture this property of sand within the the current model predicts critical state when
framework of breakage mechanics
  Fcs F pcs ; qcs ; Bcs ; cs 0 23
2 A3 3 e2
1  B pr pr GA 20 where subscript cs denotes state variables at critical state.
3 K 2 s
Therefore, the above equation predicts that critical state
where pr is a reference pressure (conveniently taken as 1 kPa), should not be unique in the pq space alone, but rather
and along the more general pqB space (i.e. highlighting
  dependence on grading). To explore critical state in this
K e space, either one of the proposed Helmholtz free energy
A 1 21 formulations can be employed to relate breakage energy EB
2 v
in equation (15) to the triaxial stresses.
where K and G are dimensionless bulk and shear stiffness
parameters, respectively. A similar Helmholtz free energy
potential was independently proposed even earlier (without Linear elasticity
including the effect of B) by Jiang & Liu (2003), which Using the hyperelastic constitutive relations in
further highlights the physical appeal of this non-linear equation (19) and using the definitions in equations (13),
elasticity law. Using equations (17) and (20) (15) and (23), the following analytical expression can be
 3  derived for the critical state pressure
@ 2A 3 e2
EB  pr GAs 22a  
@B 3 K 2 pcs 1  Bcs max Bcs  cs
24
C 1  Bcs max Bcs  min Bcs
@
p 1  BKev 22b p
@ev where C 6Ec KG=3G M 2 K. From equation (24) it
is evident that different critical state porosities can be
@ attained for a similar stress. This path dependency of the
q 1  B3Ges 22c critical state defines the family of critical state lines in the
@es
pressurevoid ratio plane in Fig. 7.
Therefore, combining the above with equation (13), the yield The effect of breakage can be seen along the constant
surface in this case can be depicted for various values of B relative density lines, while under constant breakage the
and , as shown in Fig. 6. Comparing this with the previous critical state can be defined only in terms of stress and
case in Fig. 5, the pressure-dependent elasticity case features porosity, as expected from conventional models that do not
a stronger dependence on the dissipative state variables. account for grain crushing. This family of lines is contained
under an upper bound envelope defined by two lines (high-
lighted with darker lines in the figure): the zero breakage
THE NON-UNIQUENESS OF CRITICAL STATE critical state line, and a line defined by the highest relative
The essence of the critical state concept is the idea that soil density, Dr = 1, under increasing breakage. Finally, notice
and other granular materials will reach a state determined by that the position of the critical state family is determined by
a single point in a pq space, if continuously distorted the value C in equation (24), which linearly depends on .
until they flow as a frictional fluid (Schofield & Wroth,
1968). However, as underlined by an increasing number of
experiments (Finno & Rechenmacher, 2003; Bandini & Non-linear elasticity
Coop, 2012), the critical state of sand should also depend Using the non-linear, pressure-dependent hyperelastic
on the GSD and its evolution by way of grain crushing. constitutive relations in equation (22) and using the defi-
Indeed, recalling the meaning of F in the earlier section nitions in equations (13), (15) and (23), it is possible to

2500 400 =0
B=0
B = 03 = 03
B = 05 = 07
2000 320
B = 08 = 10

1500 240 p
p M
M
q: kPa

q: kPa

= =
q q

1000 160

500 80

0 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 80 160 240 320 400
p: kPa p: kPa
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. The dependence of the yield surface on (a) breakage B for = 05 and (b) the relative porosity for B = 0 when non-linear
pressure-dependent elasticity is employed within breakage mechanics

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 701

16 16
B=0
B=0
Dr = 025
12 B = 03
Dr = 05
Dr = 075
Dr = 025 e 08 B = 07
12

Dr=
B = 03

1
04
Dr = 05
B = 095

e 08 Dr = 075
102 103 104
B = 07
p: kPa

Dr
=1
04

B = 095

0
3000 6000 9000 12 000
p: kPa

Fig. 7. Predicted family of critical state lines when linear elasticity is employed within breakage mechanics (equation (18)). Dashed lines show
constant B critical state lines; solid lines show constant Dr critical state lines. Darker lines show the upper bound envelope. Inset is a semi-log
representation

16 16
B=0
B=0 Dr = 025
12 B = 03
Dr = 05

Dr = 075
Dr = 025 e 08 B = 07
12 D
B = 03 r =
1
04
Dr = 05
B = 095

Dr = 075
e 08 B = 07 102 103 104
p: kPa
D
r =1

04

B = 095

0
3000 6000 9000 12 000
p: kPa

Fig. 8. Predicted family of critical state lines when non-linear, pressure-dependent elasticity is employed within breakage mechanics
(equation (20)). Dashed lines show constant B critical state lines; solid lines show constant DR critical state lines. Darker lines show the upper
bound envelope. Inset is a semi-log representation

express the critical state lines as an implicit relation between
pcs, cs and Bcs, as shown in Fig. 8.
The exact definition of critical state in terms of F = Fcs = 0
is expressed in terms of a number of material properties.
Therefore, the effect of these parameters on the critical state
can be explored within the context of the proposed frame-
work. For example, the effect of grains strength (by way
of parameter EC) and their potential to dilate (by way of
parameter ) on critical state can be seen by the upper bound
critical state envelope in Fig. 9. As mentioned before, this
envelope comprises two lines: the zero breakage critical state
line, and a line defined by the highest relative density, Dr = 1,
under increasing breakage. The figure shows that the grains
strength and their potential to dilate indeed increase the
critical state porosity for a given pressure, as one might expect
intuitively.
Comparison with experimental data
Reconsider the experimental results in Fig. 1(b) by Bandini
& Coop (2012). Rather than fitting lines to those experimen-
tal data points, it is now possible to use the new framework to
attempt an actual prediction. For that purpose, first the
parameters controlling the exact form of the critical state of

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 702 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
16
12
e e
08
04
101 102 103 104
p: kPa
(a)
Fig. 9. Dependence of the upper bound critical state envelope on (a) the materials potential to dilate through and (b) the grains strength through
the critical breakage energy, EC
Table 1. Constitutive parameters for Dogs Bay sand
Mechanical parameters
K
G M EC: kPa
800 10 000 165 5 095
Dogs Bay sand (a crushable carbonate sand) are determined.
These are grouped in terms of mechanical parameters from
stressstrain curves, and index properties from geometrical
tests such as sieve analysis and density measurements.
Index properties. The grading index 2/(5  )
(Buscarnera & Einav, 2012, using zero minimum grain size)
was evaluated assuming an ultimate fractal GSD with a
fractal dimension = 26, in agreement with the proposed
theoretical values in Sammis et al. (1986) and experimental
results from large ring shear by Coop et al. (2004). In the
absence of data on Dogs Bay sand, the power coefficients
u and l determining the progression of relative porosity
with B in equation (3) were assumed to be those deduced in
Fig. 3 for the data by Youd (1973). The limiting porosities at
zero breakage, l and u, were evaluated from the minimum
and maximum porosities measured in Golightly (1989) for
the corresponding grading.
Mechanical parameters. The non-dimensional bulk and
shear stiffness coefficients K and G were deduced from the
isotropic compression and bender element tests in Jovicic &
Coop (1997), respectively. The critical state friction coeffi-
cient, M = 165, was reported in Coop (1990). The critical
breakage energy EC can be expressed in terms of the yield
pressure in isotropic compression, pcr, by inserting equation
(22a) into equation (13) and solving for q = 0
" #2=3
3 12 Ec K 1  B
pcr pr 25
2pr 1  B1=3
where can be calculated using equation (4), using the
reported initial porosity. Then, EC is found by employing pcr
from the data in Coop (1990). Finally, the parameter
controlling the sands potential to dilate, , was determined
Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
16
=0 EC = 25 kPa
= 03
EC = 50 kPa
= 07
EC = 100 kPa
= 10 12
EC = 200 kPa
08
04
101 102 103 104
p: kPa
(b)
Index properties
u l u l
073 062 021 026 083
using a single critical state point in stressbreakageporosity
space. As discussed above, this parameter can be deduced
independently from critical state using the volumetric response
of the material and can then be used to predict the critical
state. Alternatively, it was shown that could be determined by
anchoring the critical state family of lines to pass through a
single critical state point/experiment. The rest of the critical
state relationship is truly predicted. This therefore disting-
uishes the current framework from previous methodologies
within critical state soil mechanics for crushable sand that
require curve-fitting many experimental critical state points
using material-dependent empirical relationships. The high
value of = 095 obtained (closer to 1 than 0) appears to reflect
the high angularity and strongly dilative behaviour of Dogs
Bay sand observed in Coop (1990).
The above parameters (mechanical and index properties)
are tabulated in Table 1. The corresponding theoretical
prediction of the family of critical state lines is shown in
Fig. 10, which the authors believe to be very encouraging,
especially considering the agreement is not a result of curve-
fitting. As can be observed in that figure, the proposed model
predicts non-linear critical state curves, unlike the linear ones
drawn ad hoc in Bandini & Coop (2012) and Muir Wood &
Maeda (2007). Furthermore, the new theory predicts the
reduced inclination of the critical state lines with increasing
breakage, in agreement with the experimental conclusion of
Bandini & Coop (2012) and Fig. 1(b).
CONSTITUTIVE RESPONSE
To complete the constitutive model and evaluate its
response, all that is left is to specify . As shown above,
this does not control the form of the critical state. The
parameter represents the sands tendency to undergo irre-
versible volume changes through fragment rearrangement.
Previously, this parameter was taken as a material constant
(Einav, 2007b), but now can be expressed in terms of the
relative porosity. More specifically, in the compacting
 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE
breakage regime (F . 0), fragment rearrangement should
dominate over breakage near = max, whereas breakage
should dominate around = min. Moreover, in the dilative
regime (F , 0), there should not be any breakage. Therefore,
and consulting equation (14), the following expression is
proposed
1  HF  26
2 compactive breakage. Starting from = max (Fig. 12),
which ensures having porosity between the minimum
(min(B)) and maximum (max(B)) values. For example,
during isotropic compression and starting from relatively
low porosity, breakage during yielding reduces the minimum
porosity (equation (3a)). On the other hand, starting from
relatively high porosities the yielding is accompanied by
extensive compaction through fragment rearrangement. The
Heaviside function reflects the distinct relationship between
breakage and volumetric rearrangement in the different
regimes. It is highlighted that this function does not introduce
any discontinuity in the inelastic rates since they converge
to zero in the vicinity of F = 0 (as can be observed from
equation (14)).
In the following sections a parametric study is presented,
which illustrates the effect of the initial state and loading
conditions on the model response. It should be recalled that
the proposed sand model depends on only five mechanical
parameters, and in this sense it is equivalent to the Cam
Clay model for clays. There is little to be gained in looking for
a perfect fit of such models against specific experiments.
Instead, the purpose of the parametric study is: (a) to explain
previously observed experimental phenomena in a concep-
tually new way, and (b) to use the model as a theoretical basis
for identifying new phenomena awaiting experimental
validation.
The adopted mechanical parameters and index properties
are listed in Table 2; these were chosen to be representative for
a range of common crushable sands.
Br = 014023
Br = 031035
B=0
24 Br = 042047
18
B = 05, Br = 02
e
B = 07, Br = 032
12
B = 09, Br = 044
06
0 Fig. 14 also the plots in figure parts (b) and (d) are presented
102 103 104
p: kPa
Fig. 10. Prediction of critical state lines for increasing breakage.
Data from Bandini & Coop (2012), on Dogs Bay sand
Table 2. Constitutive parameters used in the parametric study in Figs 1115
Mechanical parameters
K
G M EC: kPa
350 250 12 15
Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
703
Consolidated drained triaxial
Figure 11 and Fig. 12 demonstrate the influence of
initial pressure on a set of consolidated drained triaxial
tests for two relative porosity extremes. Starting from = min
(Fig. 11), the material dilates without breakage if the
pressure stays in the dry side of the critical state with
F , 0. Under larger pressures, the material enters the wet
side of the critical state with F . 0 where it undergoes
the material always stays on the wet side of the critical state
and develops considerably less breakage while undergoing
larger porosity variations, as expected. Conceptually similar
responses were observed experimentally by Lade & Bopp
(2005), although these experiments obviously show much
smoother stressstrain curves that are not bilinear as
suggested by the model. However, as demonstrated in
Appendix 3 it is possible to resolve this issue within the
proposed framework. As the Appendix shows this can be
done without altering the main solution at hand that of
predicting the critical state relationships. Of course, other
constitutive elements could be added to the model in order
to simulate other pre-failure phenomenological features, but
the frameworks capacity to predict critical state will remain.
Under sufficiently large strains the material approaches
the critical state. However, depending on the pressure and
therefore on the extent of grain crushing it approaches
different critical state lines (Fig. 11(c) and Fig. 12(c)). It is
noted that in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, the plots for parts (a),
(b) and (d) are presented only up to 30% axial strain, whereas
in order to produce Figs 11(c) and 12(c) the simulations were
continued until the true critical state has been reached (i.e.
under practically indefinite shear strain, within negligible
numerical threshold).
It is noted that at low porosities the model does not predict
stress softening. This can be easily achieved by removing the
simplifying hypothesis in equation (12c), although this goes
beyond the scope of this paper.
Consolidated undrained triaxial
Figure 13 and Fig. 14 present the model responses in
undrained triaxial tests for the two relative porosity extremes.
As expected, starting from initially low pressure and = min
the material flows towards the critical state and experiences
yield hardening with modest increase in porosity; on the
other hand, under higher confinements it experiences yield
softening with modest decrease of porosity under initially
higher pressures. For higher initial porosities, the material
experiences modest grain crushing and thus it flows to the
adjacent critical state lines. Analogous responses were
observed experimentally by Lade & Yamamuro (1996).
Again, as noted for Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, in Fig. 13 and
only up to 30% axial strain, whereas in order to produce
figure parts (a) and (c) the simulations were continued until
the true critical state has been reached (i.e. under practically
indefinite shear strain, within negligible numerical
threshold).
Index properties
u l u l
085 06 04 03 03 07
 704 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
125 024
p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr
100 018
p0 = 75% pcr

075 012
v
q/p

050 006

p0 = 5% pcr
025 0
p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr
0 006
006 012 018 024 030 006 012 018 024 030
a a
(a) (b)

100
p0 = 5% pcr p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr p0 = 40% pcr
12
p0 = 75% pcr 075 p0 = 75% pcr
B=0 Critical state
09

e B 050
06

B = 087 025
03 B = 093

0
0
300 600 900 1200 1500 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(c) (d)

Fig. 11. Drained triaxial test responses for 0 = min, for different initial pressures p0 = 5%, 40% and 75% of pcr: (a) stress ratio q/p with vertical
strain; (b) strain response; (c) evolution of void ratio from initial value to critical state; (d) evolution of breakage, B

Breakage and pressure at critical state in triaxial tests
A number of simulations were run up to critical state for
different initial relative porosities under the drained and the
undrained triaxial conditions presented above for increasing
confinements. This has been used to obtain Fig. 15 relating
critical state breakage Bcs and mean stress pcs. The role of the
initial relative porosity 0 is apparent at low confinements, but
vanishes at higher confinements, where breakage asympto-
tically approaches unity. The proposed model is in agreement
with previous breakage mechanics models (Einav, 2007c;
Nguyen & Einav, 2009) at the high-pressure regime they were
aimed at, and extends the scope of the original formulation
to lower pressures. Similar relations between pcs and Bcs were
observed experimentally by Lade et al. (1996), where relative
breakage (Hardin, 1985) was measured in both drained and
undrained triaxial tests on Cambria sand. Motivated by the
model, future experimental research is recommended to
explore the effect of the initial density on the pcsBcs
relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has dealt with the physical origins of the
experimentally observed dependence of critical state in sand
on grain crushing by means of a micro-mechanics based
constitutive model, developed under the theory of breakage
mechanics (Einav, 2007a, 2007b).
Porosity was introduced as a frame-independent internal
state variable, and its value was ensured to vary between
grading-dependent minimum and maximum porosities
(Rubin & Einav, 2011). A novel decomposition of the vol-
umetric strain rate was proposed, with which the traditional
simplifying assumption of grain incompressibility was re-
moved. This, in return, enabled the role of the solid skeleton
deformation to be considered in the mechanism of elastic
energy storage.
A novel thermodynamics framework was developed to
address the role of dilation in controlling energy dissipation,
which reflects its negative contribution to the rate of work.
From the proposed formulation, two competing regimes of
response have been identified: a dilative regime and a com-
pacting breakage regime. The transition between the two
regimes is marked by the critical state, as a unique stable
equilibrium point towards which the material flows in a
generalised thermodynamics stress space.
This competition between dilation and crushing produces
a family of critical state lines in a stressporosity plane, as
a function of the extent of breakage undergone by the
material. The critical state emerges as an explicit function
from the formulation itself, rather than being imposed
a priori. The family of the critical state lines is shown to
be a function of mechanical parameters, including the
friction angle, and the grains strength and stiffness; and
further depends on index properties, including the grading-
dependent minimum and maximum porosities and the
grading index.
The new breakage mechanics model depends on only
five mechanical parameters: two stiffness parameters, two
strength parameters and a parameter controlling the trans-
ition between the dilation and the breakage-dominant

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 705
125 030
p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr
100 024
p0 = 75% pcr

075 018
v
q/p

050 012

p0 = 5% pcr
025 006
p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr
0 0
006 012 018 024 030 006 012 018 024 030
a a
(a) (b)

p0 = 5% pcr 045 p0 = 5% pcr

p0 = 40% pcr p0 = 40% pcr
12
p0 = 75% pcr p0 = 75% pcr
B = 007
Critical state
030
09

e B

06
B = 088 015
B = 094
03

0
0
250 500 750 1000 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(c) (d)

Fig. 12. Drained triaxial test responses for 0 = max, for different initial pressures p0 = 5%, 40% and 75% of pcr: (a) stress ratio q/p with vertical
strain; (b) strain response; (c) evolution of void ratio from initial value to critical state; (d) evolution of breakage, B

regimes. The model also makes explicit use of index prop- For the elastic component (i.e. ignoring grain rearrangement),
erties, to be evaluated from the GSD and corresponding the difference between the solid volume after (VII S ) and before
minimum and maximum porosities. This is a powerful fea- deformations (VIS) over time (dt) allows the rate of change of the
ture of this model, which enables the framework to avoid the solid fraction to be specified in terms of an elastic expansion
coefficient (c)
use of ad-hoc mechanical fitting parameters while connect-
ing the constitutive behaviour to the evolving fabric. VS
V S V T 1  c 28
Finally, a parametric study was carried out that illustrated VT
that the proposed model qualitatively captures previous
Therefore, since the above applies only for the elastic component
observations of critical state and constitutive responses. It
is proposed to carry out further experimental investigations V S 1
into the effect of grading on the minimum and maximum ev  29
VS 1  c
porosities, and to explore the full parametric space for further e p
quantitative assessment of the model. The porosity rate involves both reversible ( ) and irreversible ( )
e p
contributions. Then, assuming and together with
equations (27) and (29)
APPENDIX 1. GENERAL STRAIN DECOMPOSITION ! !
e p
IN POROUS MEDIA
Recalling the definition of the total volumetric strain rate c v
e
v
p
0 30
1 1
(v V T =VT ) and its decomposition into elastic and plastic
strain rates (i.e. v ev pv ) equation (1) becomes Therefore, the relations between the rates can be grouped in terms of
the reversible and irreversible components
V S
pv    ev 27
VS 1  e
c1  ve 31a
Here two distinct phenomena accommodating volumetric strain
p
in granular materials can be identified: grain rearrangement and
inter-granular strain. Grain rearrangement is considered as a pv  31b
1
dissipative, irreversible process, and therefore it is connected to the
plastic strain rate. The inter-granular strain is associated with What is left is to determine the expansion coefficient, c. Before
the elastic energy stored in the system, and is therefore related to addressing porous granular materials, a bulk isotropic elastic solid
the elastic strain. Fig. 16 illustrates kinematical aspects of these two made out of the mineral constituting the grains will first be con-
mechanisms. sidered. From the theory of elasticity, c must depend on the grain-

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 706 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
1000
p0 = 5% pcr p0 = 5% pcr

p0 = 40% pcr p0 = 40% pcr

800 06
p0 = 75% pcr p0 = 75% pcr

600
q: kPa

04

q/pcr
400

02
200

0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(a) (b)

100
16 p0 = 5% pcr p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr 075 p0 = 75% pcr
12 Critical state
B=0

e B 050
08

B = 072
B = 077 025
04

0
0
200 400 600 800 1000 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(c) (d)

Fig. 13. Undrained triaxial test responses for 0 = min, for different initial pressures p0 = 5%, 40% and 75% of pcr: (a) stress paths in qp plane;
(b) stress ratio q/pcr with vertical strain; (c) evolution of void ratio from initial value to critical state; (d) evolution of breakage, B

mineral Poisson ratio g and the loading conditions. Under APPENDIX 2. MODEL DERIVATION
unconfined uniaxial compression c = 2g (one compressing principal Assuming rate independence, three distinct dissipative mechan-
strain); under biaxial compression c g/(1  g) (two compressing isms are expressed as homogeneous first order in the rate of the three
principal strains); whereas under isotropic triaxial compression c = 0 dissipative internal variables. Therefore, according to Eulers
(three compressing principal strains). theorem for first-order functions
For a granular assembly, which is intrinsically porous, it is further
expected that c will depend on the porosity . For ! 0 the material @ @B
approaches the behaviour of a bulk isotropic elastic solid, where B ; B B EB B 33a
@ B @ B
grains can no longer expand and c = 0. For highly loose materials c
should approach the idealisation of the unconfined uniaxial
compression, as most of the grain surfaces are free to expand. @ @
; E 33b
Therefore, the following expansion coefficient may be considered @ @
(for g  0)
@ p @s p
c 2vg 1= 32 s ; p s qps 33c
@ps s @s
which reflects the above idealisations with: (a) c = 0 when = 0 (for The stress conjugates to the dissipative internal variables can then be
g , 05); (b) c = 2g when = 1; and (c) c  g/(1  g) when  06; specified using equation (9)
furthermore, note that (d ) c = 1 for g = 05, irrespective of , which
represents the limit of an incompressible solid. 0 1
As the hypothesis of incompressibility is often taken in soil @ @DB B DB C @DB
mechanics to relate porosity with volumetric strain, the special case EB @q rB A 34a
@DB @ B D2 D2 D2 @ B
of g = 05 (c = 1) will now be considered. In the current formulation, B s
indeed, it follows from equation (28) that the solid fraction does 0 1
not change its volume. Therefore, using equation (1b), it is found
that v =1  , which recovers the usual approximation @ @D B D C @D
E @q r A 34b
in soil mechanics. However, taking quartz and silica as typical @D @ D D D2
2 2 @
B s
sand minerals with g = 017, and for typical porosities , 05, it is
estimated that c , 01, much smaller than 1 and closer to 0. 0 1
Therefore, it follows that equation (2) (following the assumption
that ev V S =VS ) is more realistic than the traditional relation in @ @Ds B Ds C @Ds
q @q rs A p 34c
equation (27) (following the grain incompressibility assumption that @Ds @ps D D D2
2 2 @s
B s
V S 0).

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 707
060
p0 = 5% pcr p0 = 5% pcr
400
p0 = 40% pcr p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr p0 = 75% pcr
045
300
q: kPa

q/pcr
030
200

100 015

0 0
100 200 300 400 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(a) (b)

16 045 p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr
12 B = 001
B = 007 030
B = 012
e B
08

015
p0 = 5% pcr
04 p0 = 40% pcr
p0 = 75% pcr
Critical state 0
0
100 200 300 400 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(c) (d)

Fig. 14. Undrained triaxial test responses for 0 = max, for different initial pressures p0 = 5%, 40% and 75% of pcr: (a) stress paths in qp plane;
(b) stress ratio q/pcr with vertical strain; (c) evolution of void ratio from initial value to critical state; (d) evolution of breakage, B

10 10

0 = 0 0 = 0
08 08
0 = 03 0 = 03
0 = 07 0 = 07
06 0 = 1 06 0 = 1

Bcs Bcs

04 04
q: kPa

q: kPa

02 02

p: kPa p: kPa
0 0
400 800 1200 1600 200 400 600 800
pcs: kPa pcs: kPa
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. The dependence of breakage on the pressure at critical state for different initial relative porosities in (a) drained triaxial compression and
(b) undrained triaxial compression. The inset of (a) shows the drained stress paths until critical state. The inset of (b) shows indicative undrained
paths for 0 = 0 until critical state

The general form of the yield function is then found by rearranging Also, using equation (34) and Eulers theorem for first-order
equation (34) functions
 2 !2 @ @ @
EB E B p ps
y*  rB  r @ B @ @ s 36
@DB =@ B @D =@
35 EB B E qs
 2
q which confirms the use of equation (9) as a valid rate of dissipation
 rs 1  0
@Ds =@ps potential.

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 708 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
Before (I)

El

ic
as

st
dt tic

a
Pl
dt
d pv After (II) d ev V IIs = Va + Vb
V IIs = V sI V
Va = V sI + VT s dt
VT
V
Vb = cVT s dt
VT

Fig. 16. Plastic and elastic deformations from grain rearrangement and inter-granular elastic strains, respectively. The volume of solids after
S can always be decomposed into a self-similar component Va and a superposed expansion component Vb
elastic deformation VII

060
100

045
075

q/pcr
q/p

030
050

s=1 s=1
025 s=2 015 s=2
s=4 s=4
s = 100 s = 100
0 0
002 004 006 008 010 002 004 006 008 010
a a

Fig. 17. Effect of the seismicity parameter, s, in equation (38) on the stressstrain responses of the model: (a) stress ratio q/p plotted against
vertical strain during drained triaxial tests for = min and p0 = 5% of pcr; (b) normalised deviatoric stress q/pcr plotted against vertical strain
during undrained triaxial tests for = min and p0 = 40% of pcr

Then, using the above, the first and second laws of thermo- follows
dynamics in equation (5), and the expression for the rate of work in
equation (6) @y*
B hi1 ys 2hi1 ys
@EB
     
r  38a
@ p @ EB 1  B
EB B E p  q s
p 1  B  p cos2
@B 1 @s EC EB EC
    37
@ @
 p e
 q es 0 @y*
@ev v
@es hi1 ys 2hi1 ys
@E
Finally, identifying p and q with the corresponding elastic strains r 38b
EB 1  B EB 2
and employing Zieglers orthogonality conditions, equation (17) 1  B  p sin
EC EB EC E
follows.

APPENDIX 3. A POSSIBLE MODEL EXTENSION
In the following it is demonstrated that the model can be extended
within the proposed framework to predict more realistic stressstrain
responses, if desired, without affecting the prediction of the critical
state. Here, a notable limitation of the simple model proposed is
addressed the issue of the non-smooth transition from elastic to
inelastic responses.
To resolve this issue, the recent theory of Einav (2012) is used;
this enables a simple extension of the hyper-plastic type of models
(that are incrementally bilinear) into a more general hypo-
plastic form (that is incrementally non-linear) that obeys thermo-
dynamics laws. In Einav (2012) such hypohyper thermodynamics
models were termed h 2 plastic models. In using h 2 plasticity
the constitutive behaviour is no longer split bilinearly using the
yield surface, but the yield function in equation (13) and the
plasticity multiplier are still used when defining the flow rules as
@y* q
sp hi1 ys 2hi1 ys 38c
@q Mp2
where the seismicity parameter s (Einav, 2012) controls the gradual
development of inelasticity observed through continuous acoustic
emission (e.g. Fernandes et al., 2010). These flow rules are activated
continuously, irrespective of the value of the function y or the
sign of . It could also be demonstrated that using the above flow
rules automatically enhances the models ability to simulate cyclic
stressstrain responses. Most importantly, the flow rules for the
porosity and breakage rates vanish under the same condition in
equation (15), that determines the critical state. Therefore, this
extension does not alter the predictions of critical state. Also,
since the difference between the above flow rules and those
in equation (14) is given by strictly positive terms, the rate of
dissipation is maintained non-negative by virtue of equation (7).
Along the lines of h 2 plasticity, it is also possible to introduce rate
dependence as recently proposed by Hollenstein et al. (2013).

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 A CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING FRAMEWORK PREDICTING CRITICAL STATE 709
125 024
p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr
100 018
p0 = 75% pcr

075 012
v
q/p

050 006

p0 = 5% pcr
025 p0 = 40% pcr 0

p0 = 75% pcr
0 006
006 012 018 024 030 006 012 018 024 030
a a
(a) (b)

10
p0 = 5% pcr
p0 = 40% pcr
12 08
p0 = 75% pcr
Critical state
09 06
e B

06 04

p0 = 5% pcr
B = 087
03 B = 093 02 p0 = 40% pcr

p0 = 75% pcr
0 0
300 600 900 1200 1500 006 012 018 024 030
p: kPa a
(c) (d)

Fig. 18. Drained triaxial test responses with s = 1 for 0 = min, for different initial pressures p0 = 5%, 40% and 75% of pcr: (a) stress ratio q/p with
vertical strain; (b) strain response; (c) evolution of void ratio from initial value to critical state; (d) evolution of breakage, B

The effect of s on the response of the model is highlighted in G shear elastic stiffness
Fig. 17, showing (for both drained and undrained triaxial con-
G non-dimensional material constant representing the shear
ditions) that under s ! the model recovers the response of the elastic stiffness in non-linear elasticity
model shown in the main body of the paper. Under finite s values the H Heaviside step function
model predicts smoother and more realistic responses. K bulk elastic stiffness
As a further illustration, the drained triaxial tests in Fig. 11 K non-dimensional material constant representing the bulk
for s = 1 will also be repeated. As shown in Fig. 18 the constitutive elastic stiffness in non-linear elasticity
response of the model is now more realistic (in terms of smoothness). l exponent controlling the evolution of limiting minimum
Note that in this model yielding is continuous and gradual, and thus porosity with breakage
pcr only indicates the pressure at which the rate of comminution M critical state friction coefficient
suddenly begins to increase. This is why breakage develops p mean stress
even prior to attaining this pressure level during isotropic com- pcr critical pressure: yield pressure in isotropic loading
pression, and prior to the start of shearing, as shown in Fig. 18(d) pr reference pressure for pressure-dependent model
for p0 = 75% pcr. q deviatoric stress
rB multiplicative term of the rate of dissipation related to
breakage
rs multiplicative term of the rate of dissipation related to shear
NOTATION r multiplicative term of the rate of dissipation related to
A symbol linked to the pressure-dependent model, see equation porosity evolution
(21) s seismicity parameter
B breakage variable: measure of the advancement of grain u exponent controlling the evolution of limiting maximum
crushing porosity with breakage
C combination of model parameters, used in equation (24) VS volume of solids
c elastic expansion coefficient VT total volume
D contribution to rate of dissipation in coupled model W rate of mechanical work on the boundaries of the RVE
Dr relative density (representative volume element)
g
EB breakage energy, energy conjugate to B XM maximum effective grain size
EC critical breakage energy X gm minimum effective grain size
E porosity energy, energy conjugate to xg effective grain size
e void ratio y yield surface
F function controlling the transition from dilative to compac- y* general form of the yield function
tive regime, expressed in equation (15) l minimum porosity at breakage B = 0
Fcs locus of F = 0, corresponding to critical state u maximum porosity at breakage B = 0

Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 710 TENGATTINI, DAS AND EINAV
material parameter, related to grain angularity, controlling its
tendency to dilate
ij strain tensor
grading index
plastic multiplier
g grain-mineral Poissons ratio
ij stress tensor
relative porosity, introduced in equation (4)
rate of energy dissipation
porosity
max maximum porosity
min minimum porosity
Helmholtz free energy
coupling angle between grain crushing and fragment
rearrangement
Subscripts and superscripts
cs subscript denoting the value at critical state of a variable
e superscript indicating the elastic component
p superscript indicating the plastic component
s subscript denoting the shear component
u subscript for final condition
v subscript denoting the volumetric component
0 subscript for initial condition
REFERENCES
Bandini, V. & Coop, M. R. (2012). The influence of particle
breakage on the location of the critical state line of sands. Soils
Found. 51, No. 4, 591600.
Biarez, J. & Hicher, P. Y. (1997). Influence de la granulomtrie et
de son volution par ruptures de grains sur le comportement
mcanique de matriaux granulaires. Revue Francaise de Gnie
Civil 1, No. 4, 607631 (in French).
Buscarnera, G. & Einav, I. (2012). The yielding of brittle unsaturated
granular soils. Gotechnique 62, No. 2, 147160, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1680/geot.10.P.118.
Cho, G. C., Dodds, J. & Santamarina, J. C. (2006). Particle shape
effects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: natural and
crushed sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 132, No. 5,
591602.
Collins, I. F. & Einav, I. (2005). On the validity of elastic/plastic
decompositions in soil mechanics. Proceedings of the symposium
on elastoplasticity, Kyushu University, Japan, vol. 167,
pp. 193200.
Collins, I. F. & Kelly, P. A. (2002). A thermomechanical analysis of a
family of soil models. Gotechnique 52, No. 7, 507518, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.7.507.
Collins, I. F., Muhunthan, B. & Qu, B. (2010). Thermomechanical
state parameter models for sands. Gotechnique 60, No. 8,
611622, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.P.127.
Coop, M. R. (1990). The mechanics of uncemented carbonate sands.
Gotechnique 40, No. 4, 607626, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1990.40.4.607.
Coop, M. R., Sorensen, K. K., Bodas Freitas, T. & Georgoutsos, G.
(2004). Particle breakage during shearing of a carbonate sand.
Gotechnique 54, No. 3, 157163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2004.54.3.157.
Daouadji, A., Hicher, P. Y. & Rahma, A. (2001). An elastoplastic
model for granular materials taking into account grain break-
age. Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 20, No. 1, 113137.
Einav, I. (2007a). Breakage mechanics. Part I: theory. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 55, No. 6, 12741297.
Einav, I. (2007b). Breakage mechanics. Part II: modelling granular
materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 55, No. 6, 12981320.
Einav, I. (2007c). Soil mechanics: breaking ground. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. 365, No. 1861, 29853002.
Einav, I. (2012). The unification of hypo-plastic and elasto-plastic
theories. Int. J. Solids Structs 49, No. 11, 13051315.
Einav, I. & Cassidy, M. J. (2005). A framework for modelling rigid
footing behaviour based on energy principles. Comput. Geotech.
32, No. 7, 491504.
Downloaded by [] on [11/12/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Fernandes, F., Syahrial, A. I. & Valdes, J. R. (2010). Monitoring
the oedometric compression of sands with acoustic emissions.
ASTM Geotech. Testing J. 33, No. 5, 410415.
Finno, R. J. & Rechenmacher, A. L. (2003). Effects of consolidation
history on critical state of sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng,
ASCE 129, No. 4, 350360.
Goddard, J. D. (1990). Nonlinear elasticity and pressure-dependent
wave speeds in granular media. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A:
Math. Phys. Sci. 430, No. 1878, 105131.
Golightly, C. (1989). Engineering properties of carbonate sands.
PhD thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Hardin, B. & Black, W. (1966). Sand stiffness under various triaxial
stresses. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 92, No. 2, 2742.
Hardin, B. O. (1985). Crushing of soil particles. J. Geotech. Engng,
ASCE 111, No. 10, 11771192.
Hollenstein, M., Jabareen, M. & Rubin, M. B. (2013). Modeling
a smooth elastic-inelastic transition with a strongly objective
numerical integrator needing no iteration. Comput. Mech. 52,
No. 3, 649667.
Houlsby, G. T. & Puzrin, A. M. (2000). A thermomechanical
framework for constitutive models for rate-independent dissipa-
tive materials. Int. J. Plasticity 16, No. 9, 10171047.
Houlsby, G. T. & Puzrin, A. M. (2007). Principles of hyperplasticity.
London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
Jiang, Y. & Liu, M. (2003). Granular elasticity without Coulomb
condition. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, No. 14, 144301.
Jiang, Y. & Liu, M. (2014). Granular solid hydrodynamics (GSH):
a broad-ranged macroscopic theory of granular media. Acta
Mechanica 225, No. 8, 23632384.
Jovicic, V. & Coop, M. R. (1997). Stiffness of coarse-grained soils at
small strains. Gotechnique 47, No. 3, 545561, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1997.47.3.545.
Lade, P. V. & Bopp, P. A. (2005). Relative density effects on drained
sand behavior at high pressures. Soils Found., Jap. Geotech. Soc.
45, No. 1, 113.
Lade, P. V. & Yamamuro, J. A. (1996). Undrained sand behavior in
axisymmetric tests at high pressures. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE
122, No. 2, 120129.
Lade, P. V., Yamamuro, J. A. & Bopp, P. A. (1996). Significance of
particle crushing in granular materials. J. Geotech. Engng,
ASCE 122, No. 4, 309316.
Mooney, M. A., Finno, R. J. & Viggiani, G. (1998). A unique critical
state for sand? J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 124,
No. 11, 11001108.
Muir Wood, D. & Maeda, K. (2007). Changing grading of soil:
effect on critical states. Acta Geotechnica 3, No. 1, 314.
Nguyen, G. D. & Einav, I. (2009). The energetics of cataclasis
based on breakage mechanics. Pure Appl. Geophys. 166, No. 10,
16931724.
Riemer, M. F., Raymond, B. S., Nicholson, P. G. & Jong, H. L.
(1990). Steady state testing of loose sands: limiting minimum
density. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 116, No. 2, 332337.
Rubin, M. B. (2001). Physical reasons for abandoning plastic
deformation measures in plasticity and viscoplasticity theory.
Archs Mech. 53, No. 45, 519539.
Rubin, M. B. & Einav, I. (2011). A large deformation breakage
model of granular materials including porosity and inelastic
distortional deformation rate. Int. J. Engng Sci. 49, No. 10,
11511169.
Sammis, C. G., Osborne, R. H., Anderson, J. L., Banerdt, M. &
White, P. (1986). Self-similar cataclasis in the formation of fault
gouge. Pure Appl. Geophys. 124, No. 12, 5378.
Schofield, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state soil mechanics.
New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Viggiani, G. & Atkinson, J. (1995). Stiffness of fine-grained soil
at very small strains. Gotechnique 45, No. 2, 249265, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1995.45.2.249.
Youd, T. L. (1973). Factors controlling maximum and minimum
densities of sands. In Evaluation of relative density and its role
in geotechnical projects involving cohesionless soils (eds E. T.
Selig and R. S. Ladd), ASTM Special Technical Publications
No. 523, pp. 98112. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International.