Plastic Hardening Model Theory

Date: July 1, 2015
To: FLAC3D Development Files and Itasca Website

From: Joe Cheng (author), Andrey Pyatigorets (reviewer)
Re: Plastic Hardening Model: Theory and Examples
Ref: 8506
This document provides description and theoretical background for the newly developed FLAC3D
constitutive model – Plastic Hardening. The document contains the list of properties and key-
words used by the model and a number of single zone and benchmark examples that illustrate
model usage, its features, and comparison with other models and lab/test data. The last section is
devoted to the description of material parameter calibration techniques. A list of references con-
cludes this manual.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 1 www.itascacg.com

Minneapolis, Minnesota (612) 371-4711
Plastic Hardening Model: Theory and Examples 7/1/2015
Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Theory ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Incremental Elastic Law .................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Yield and Potential Functions ........................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Shear hardening ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Volumetric hardening................................................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Tension failure ............................................................................................................. 8
3.0 Model Properties and keywords ............................................................................................ 9
4.0 Verification Examples ......................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Comparison with MC model ........................................................................................... 12
4.2 Isotropic Compression Test ............................................................................................. 13
4.3 Triaxial Compression Test .............................................................................................. 14
4.4 Oedometer Test ............................................................................................................... 16
4.5 Rough Strip Footing on a Cohesive Frictionless Material .............................................. 19
5.0 Example Applications ......................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Installation of a Triple-Anchored Excavation Wall in Berlin Sand ................................ 22
6.0 Calibration of Material Parameters Using Lab Data ........................................................... 29
7.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 36

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The new Plastic Hardening (PH) model is a shear and volumetric hardening constitutive model for
the simulation of soil behavior. When subject to deviatoric loading, soils usually exhibit a decrease
in stiffness, accompanied by irreversible deformation. In most cases, the plot of deviatoric stress
versus axial strain obtained in a drained triaxial test may be approximated by a hyperbola. This
feature was discussed by Duncan and Chang (1970) in their well-known “hyperbolic-soil” model,
which is formulated as a non-linear elastic model.
The new PH model is formulated within the framework of hardening plasticity (Schanz et al.,
1999), allowing it to remove the main drawbacks of the original non-linear model formulation
(e.g., detection of loading/unloading pattern, nonphysical bulk modulus).
The main features of the new PH model are:

 hyperbolic stress strain relationship in axial drained compression;
 plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening);
 plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening);
 stress-dependent stiffness according to a power law;
 elastic unloading/reloading compared to virgin loading;
 memory of pre-consolidation stress; and
 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
The model is easy and straightforward to calibrate using either lab tests or in-situ tests. It is well
established and used world-wide, especially for soil-structure interaction problems, excavations,
tunneling, and settlements analysis, among many other applications.
Einstein notation (summation over repeated indices) is adopted in the document. Stresses are as-
sumed to be effective stresses; tension is taken to be positive, if not explicitly stated. For principal
stress, the assumed order is .

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
2.0 THEORY
2.1 Incremental Elastic Law

The PH model adopts hypo-elasticity for the description of elastic behavior,
∆ ∆
∆ 2 ∆ ,
where p is the mean pressure defined as /3, is the volumetric elastic strain defined as
, and and are the deviatoric stress tensor and deviatoric elastic strain tensor, respec-
tively. K and G are the elastic bulk and shear moduli, which can be derived from the unloading-
reloading Young’s modulus, Eur, and the elastic unloading-reloading Poisson’s ratio, , using the
relations
3 1 2
2 1
In the PH model, the Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be a constant parameter with a typical value of
0.2 (if otherwise not provided at input), while the Young’s modulus is a stress-dependent param-
eter:
∙ cot
∙ cot
where , m, c, and are user-defined parameters. is the reference unloading-reloading

stiffness modulus corresponding to the reference pressure . The actual unloading-reloading
stiffness modulus depends on the maximum principal stress , the cohesion c, and the ultimate
friction angle , as well as power m. For clays, m is usually close to 1. For sands, m is usually
between 0.5 and 1.
PH model also employs another stiffness measure, , which defines the shape of the primary
shear hardening surface and takes the following power law:
∙ cot
∙ cot

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Here is a material parameter, which could be estimated from multiple sets of triaxial com-
pression tests with various cell stresses.
2.2 Yield and Potential Functions

2.2.1 Shear hardening
The shear yield function is defined as
2 2
0
where 2 / 2 , , and is given as
1 2 sin
∙ cot
1 sin
The failure ratio should have a value smaller than 1, and 0.9 is chosen for most cases.
The ultimate deviatoric stress still abides by the MC failure law (Figure 1).
qa
qf
E50
axial strain
Figure 1. Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary shear loading.
The shear hardening parameter is defined as
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Due to the increase of , the shear yield surface will expand, but the ultimate surface is still the
conventional MC failure surface.
The PH model uses the following flow rule between plastic volumetric and shear strain:
Δ sin Δ
where is the mobilized dilation angle, which is distinct from the user-defined ultimate dilation
angle . The Rowe (1962) law used for the mobilized dilation angle is
sin sin
sin , sin sin
1 sin sin
sin sin
sin , sin sin
1 sin sin
where is a parameter denoting the scale factor of contraction, with an allowable range of 0 to
0.25 and a default value of 0.0 for most soils. The critical state friction angle is defined as
sin sin
sin
1 sin sin
The mobilized friction is defined in terms of the current stress state
sin
2 ∙ cot
As in the case for MC flow rule, a non-associated flow rule is proved to be consistent to the above
relation of the plastic volumetric and shear strain measurement. The shear potential function is
defined as
1 sin 1 sin
2 2
In order to avoid over-dilatancy when soil reaches its critical void state with , the dilation
angle needs a minor modification. One way proposed by Schanz et al (1999) is to set a cut-off rule,
so that
sin 0, if
Here we introduce a smoothing technique to avoid sudden change of dilation angle:

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
sin 100 1 , if 0.99
The dilation rules with cut-off and the smoothing technique are compared with the case without
dilation cut-off in Figure 2.
No Cutoff
Cut‐off
Smoothing
Volumetric Strain
Axial Strain
Figure 2. Volumetric strain curve for a standard triaxial compression test with dilation cut-off
and smoothing.
2.2.2 Volumetric hardening

The volumetric (cap) yield function is defined as
where is an internal variable derived from other material parameters; is a shear stress measure
defined as 1 , and 1 sin / 1 sin . The hardening pa-
rameter , which denotes the pre-consolidation pressure, can be determined using the initial stress
state and an input material parameter ocr, so that
, ∗

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
If ocr has a very large value, the model nearly becomes a no-cap model.
The associated flow rule is adopted for volumetric hardening, which means that the potential vol-
umetric function is assumed to be the same as the volumetric yield function.
Evolution of the hardening parameter is given by the relation:
∙ cot
Δ Δ
∙ cot
where , again, is an internal parameter that can be derived from other material parameters.
Instead of taking and as input material parameters, another two parameters, and are
required as input. denotes normal consolidation coefficient and stands for the tangent
oedometer stiffness at the reference pressure . If is not provided by the user, the default
is calculated as 1 .
2.2.3 Tension failure

The model will check for the tension failure condition. The tension failure and potential functions
are
where is the tension limit. By default, is zero and user can provide value up to the upper
limit / tan .

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
3.0 MODEL PROPERTIES AND KEYWORDS
Plastic Hardening – MODEL phardening
The material properties are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. PH model material properties

Sym Notes / default values (used if prop-
Name Description Adv1
bol erty is not provided on input)
Basic Properties:
Secant stiffness at 50%
of the ultimate devia- Material parameter determining the
E50_ref
toric stress when stress-strain behavior before failure.
= 4.0*E50_ref by default. A range

Unloading-reloading
of 3 5 is common for
Eur_ref stiffness when y
most soils. Values lower than 2
are not allowed.
Tangent stiffness at a
= E50_ref by default. A range of
vertical stress of
Eoed_ref y 0.5 2 is common for
in an oe-
most soils.
dometer condition
Required input parameter. Zero
p_ref Reference pressure
value is not allowed.
For sand, m is usually in the range of
0.5 1; for clay, m is usually close
Elastic modulus expo-
m to 1.0.
nent
Lower limit is 0.0.
Upper limit is 0.999.
= 0.2 by default. A range of 0.15
poisson Poisson’s ratio y
0.35 is common for most soils.
Rf Failure ratio y = 0.9 by default.
Normal consolidation = by default. Input
Knc y
coefficient value cannot be lower than .A
1
Advanced property (y/n)

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
range of 0.5 0.7 is common for

most soils.
= 0.0 by default. Allowable range is
Fc Contraction factor. y
0.0 0.25.
Primary Mohr Properties:

If < 0.001deg, is set to
friction Ultimate friction angle
0.001deg for numerical stability.
= 0.0 by default. A good estimation
dilation Ultimate dilation angle
is ( 30) for sand and 0.0 for clay.
cohesion Cohesion = 0.0 by default.
= 0.0 by default. If ⁄tan ,
tension Tension limit y
is set to ⁄tan .
void_max Maximum void ratio y = 999.0 by default.
Primary Initial Properties:

These parameters must be provided
Initial minimum prin-
sig1 first time the PH model is called due
cipal effective stress
to the fact that PH is a stress-de-
pendent model. A FISH function
Initial middle principal
sig2 (provided after Table 1) may be used
effective stress
to obtain principal effective stresses
from the known stress state. Nega-
Initial maximum prin-
sig3 tive values denote compressive
cipal effective stress
stress.
= 100.0 by default, which denotes
Over consolidation ra-
ocr ocr y that the model would not consider
tio
cap hardening.
void_ini Initial void ratio y = 1.0 by default.
= 0 by default; the internal parame-
ters will not be re-calculated for the
Flag to allow the inter- following cases:
nal parameters to be re- (1) some material constant parame-
flag_ini y
calculated if the value ters are modified;
is 1. (2) every certain number of cycles
with large strain mode;
(3) new cycle command.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Read Only Properties:

Dimensionless param-
alpha eter in the cap yield Initialized internally.
function
Hardening modulus for
Hc Initialized internally.
cap pressure
Internal parameter, determined by
Pc Cap pressure the current stresses, alpha and ocr.
Updated internally.
Current unloading-re-
bulk Updated internally.
loading bulk modulus
Current unloading-re-
shear Updated internally.
loading shear modulus
Accumulated plastic
shear_hardening Initialized and updated internally.
hardening parameter
Accumulated plastic
volume_hardening volumetric hardening Initialized and updated internally.
parameter
void_current Current void ratio Initialized and updated internally.
Notes: The example FISH function for FLAC3D to assign sig1, sig2, and sig3:
def iniprin
loop foreach local _z z_list
local pp = z_pp(_z)
z_prop(_z, 'sig1') = z_sig1(_z) + pp
endloop
end
@iniprin

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Data- and project files for the examples in Sections 4-6 are provided separately.
4.0 VERIFICATION EXAMPLES

4.1 Comparison with MC model
This example is designed to compare the Plastic-Hardening and Mohr-Coulomb models. Both
models are used in a one-zone triaxial compression test with a constant cell pressure of 100 kPa.
The strength parameters including friction angle, dilation angle, and tension limit are the same for
both models. The stiffness of the PH model is used as Young’s modulus for MC model and
is assumed to be three times of the . Material properties for this example are summarized
in Table 2.
Table 2. Material properties for the PH-MC comparison example

Property \ Model PH MC
Density, kg/m3 1000 1000
Young’s Modulus, kPa - 20000
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2
Friction angle, deg 30 30
Dilation angle, deg 10 10
E50_ref, kPa 20000 -
Eur_ref, kPa 60000 -
p_ref, kPa 100 -
Rf 0.9 -
m 0.6 -
sig1, kPa -100 -
sig2, kPa -100 -
sig3, kPa -100 -
Figure 3 shows deviatoric stress versus axial strain for both PH and MC models. It is easy to verify
from the figure that:
(1) The ultimate failure deviatoric stresses are the same for both models, as expected;
(2) For the pre-failure curve, PH and MC models are crossing at the half of the failure stress, which
is consistent with the concept of stiffness;
(3) The unloading stiffness in the MC model is the same as the loading stiffness while these stiff-
nesses are different in the PH model.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 3. Comparison of PH and MC models for a triaxial compression test.
4.2 Isotropic Compression Test

This example presents the simulation of the isotropic compression test for dense, medium and
loose sands. The initial stress state is isotropic; the magnitude of the confining stress is 100 kPa.
The sands are normally consolidated with ocr = 1. Material properties for this example are sum-
marized in Table 3.
Table 3. Material properties for the Isotropic Compression Test example

PH model property Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand
Friction angle, deg 30 35 40
Dilation angle, deg 0 5 10
E50_ref, kPa 20000 30000 40000
Eoed_ref, kPa 16000 24000 32000
Knc 0.5 0.43 0.36
3
Density, kg/m 1000
Poisson’s ratio 0.2
p_ref, kPa 100
Rf 0.9
m 0.5
ocr 1
sig1, kPa -100
sig2, kPa -100
sig3, kPa -100

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
The resulting plots of mean stress versus axial strain are presented in Figure 4 and show the non-
linear behavior (corresponding to power law) of the cap hardening surface.
Figure 4. Mean stress vs. axial strain for dense, medium, and loose sands in an isotropic compression.
4.3 Triaxial Compression Test

Drained triaxial tests on dense, medium and loose sands are simulated using the PH model. The
ocr is set to a large value in order to prevent yielding on the cap. All material properties are pro-
vided in Table 4.
Table 4. Material properties for the Triaxial Compression Test example

E50_ref, kPa 20000 30000 40000
Knc 0.5 0.43 0.36
Density, kg/m3 1000
p_ref, kPa 100
Rf 0.9
m 0.5
ocr 100
void_max 1.02
sig1, kPa -100
sig2, kPa -100
sig3, kPa -100

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 5. Drained triaxial deviatoric stress versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose sands.
Figure 6. Volumetric strain versus axial strain for dense, medium and loose sands.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
A plot of deviatoric stress versus axial strain is shown in Figure 5. As expected, the plots show a
hyperbolic behavior. The unloading-reloading paths are also shown in the figure. The plot of vol-
umetric strain versus axial strain is shown in Figure 6. The dilatancy of the denser sands is clearly
present. The smooth decrease of the dilation angle when the void ratio is approaching the critical
state is distinct due to introduced dilation smoothing technique (compare with Figure 2).
4.4 Oedometer Test

This section presents the simulation of an oedometer test and shows the capability of the PH model
to reproduce the evolution of lateral stress ratio ⁄ . Three kinds of sand with friction
angles of 30, 35, and 40 degrees are used in simulations and the default consolidation coefficient
is calculated as 1 . Other material properties are provided in Table 5.
Initially the model is in equilibrium with an isotropic stress state in each zone, 0.1 kPa.
Oedometer compression follows for 1000 steps. The results of stress ratio evolution due to com-
pression are shown in Figure 7, and it is seen that they correctly reproduce the expected evolution
path. Figure 8 presents vertical oedometer pressure versus vertical strain, which reproduces the
expected oedometer stiffness at the reference vertical pressure of 100 kPa.
The test is repeated this time using predefined values of 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5. The results for
are plotted in Figures 9 and 10. Again, correct paths and oedometer stiffness at the reference
vertical pressure are successfully reproduced.
Table 5. Material properties for the Oedometer Test example

E50_ref, kPa 20000 30000 40000
Knc (for case #2) 0.7 0.6 0.5
3
Density, kg/m 1000
p_ref, kPa 100
Rf 0.9
m 0.5
sig1, kPa -0.1
sig2, kPa -0.1
sig3, kPa -0.1

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 7. path calculated from the oedometer test with friction angles of 30, 35 and 40 de-
grees and default values.
Figure 8. Vertical pressure versus vertical strain from the oedometer test with friction angles of
30, 35 and 40 degrees and default values.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 9. path calculated from the oedometer test with friction angles of 30, 35 and 40 de-
grees and specified values.
Figure 10. Vertical pressure versus vertical strain from the oedometer test with friction angles of
30, 35 and 40 degrees and specified values.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
4.5 Rough Strip Footing on a Cohesive Frictionless Material

The prediction of the bearing capacity of a strip footing placed on a cohesive frictionless material
is addressed in Example 3 in FLAC3D Verification Problems manual. In that example the soil was
modeled with the MC model. The bearing capacity predicted by the MC model was found to be in
agreement with the closed-form solution from the “Prandtl’s Wedge” method (Figure 11). How-
ever, the pre-failure part of the load-displacement curve for the MC model is based on the assump-
tion that the soil has constant stiffness before failure, which may not be realistic.
Figure 11. Prandtl mechanism for a strip footing.
The problem is modeled again using the PH model. The cohesion, friction, and dilation angles are
kept the same as for the MC model. In order to avoid possible numerical instability, a zero-degree
friction angle is replaced by 0.01 deg, which has insignificant impact on the final results. The
material parameters are summarized in Table 6 and the dimensions and boundary conditions for
the problem can be found in Example 3 of FLAC3D Verification Problems manual (velocity mag-
nitude is reduced to 10 m⁄step). Three cases, ocr = 100, 2, and 1, are considered for the PH
model. A high value of ocr = 100 approximately represents the effect of no cap hardening.
Table 6. Material parameters for the problem of a strip footing on cohesive frictionless material
Property \ Model PH MC
3
Density, kg/m 1500 1500
Young’s Modulus, MPa - 257
Poisson’s ratio 0.2857 0.2857
Friction angle, deg 0.01 0.01
Dilation angle, deg 0 0
Cohesion, MPa 0.1 0.1
Tension limit, MPa 107 107
E50_ref, MPa 257 -
Eoed_ref, MPa 205.6 -
p_ref, MPa 0.1 -
Rf 0.9 -
m 0.9 -
Knc 0.6 -
ocr 100, 2, 1 -

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
First, the initial equilibrium stress state under gravitational loading is calculated using the SOLVE
elastic command. After this calculations are proceeded using the MC and PH models. For the PH
model, the effective principal stresses are assigned using FISH function presented in Section 3.
The velocity fields at the collapse load are plotted in Figure 12 for the MC model and in Figure 13
for the PH model with ocr = 1. The velocity fields at the collapse load are very close for these two
models.
As it can be seen from Figure 14, the MC and PH models predict approximately the same bearing
capacity, which is expected as the PH model adopts the MC failure surface. However, the pre-
failure regions of the load-displacement curves are quite different. Two points can be noted on the
results. First, when using the PH model, the resulting load-displacement curves are smooth, while
same curve has distinct kinks when using the MC model. Second, using lower ocr values in the
PH model leads to lower initial tangent stiffness of the load-displacement curve.
This example illustrates the advantage of using the PH model when accurate predictions of the
pre-failure behavior is crucial for the problem, even though both MC and PH models predict sim-
ilar ultimate bearing capacity.
Figure 12. Velocity field at the collapse load for the MC model.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 13. Velocity field at the collapse load for the PH model with ocr = 1.
non-smooth corner when using MC model
Figure 14. Load-displacement curves for the MC and PH models.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
5.0 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS

5.1 Installation of a Triple-Anchored Excavation Wall in Berlin Sand
The benchmark exercise of a deep excavation in Berlin sand (Schweiger, 2002) is simulated by
the PH model in FLAC3D. The geometry, basic assumptions, and computational steps adopted for
this simulation are taken from the benchmark exercise2. A sketch of the problem is provided in
Figure 15. The soil profile consists of two horizontal sand layers. The thickness of the top layer
(Layer 1) is 20 m, and the bottom layer (Layer 2) extends to a 100 m depth below the surface. The
excavation is 60 m wide, and the final depth is 16.8 m. Plane strain and half symmetry conditions
are used for the problem. Several specifications, taken from Schweiger (2002) are adopted for this
example:
• The influence of the diaphragm wall construction is neglected.

• The diaphragm wall is modeled using liner structural elements (Young’s modulus =
30GPa, Poisson’s ratio = 0.15, thickness = 0.8 m).
• The horizontal hydraulic cutoff at 30m depth is not considered as structural support; the
mechanical properties are assumed to be the same as for the surrounding soil.
• Hydrostatic water pressures, corresponding to water levels, hold inside and outside the
excavation (full groundwater lowering inside the excavation is performed before the exca-
vation starts).
• Anchors are modeled as pre-stressed cables. The grouted part allows load transfer to the
soil.
The analysis described by Schweiger (2002) includes nine steps:
Stage 1 – Initialize stress state, including groundwater table, 3 m below soil surface.
Stage 2 – Activate diaphragm wall and lower water level to -17.90 m in the pit.
Stage 3 – Excavation step 1 (to level -4.80 m).
Stage 4 – Activate anchor row 1 at level -4.30 m and pre-stress anchors.
The zone profile and the structural elements are shown in Figure 16. The soil is modeled with the
PH model and material properties are provided in Table 7. The wall is model by linear elastic liner
2
This problem is also solved using the Cysoil model in FLAC Example Application manual, Example 17

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
structural elements. The anchors are modeled by cable structural elements. The connection be-
tween the liner and the cables is through beams with rigid links representing anchored breasting
beams. Material and geometrical properties for the structural elements are provided in Table 8 and
in Figure 15.
The calculated wall deflection is plotted in Figure 17 to compare with the measured data (Schwei-
ger, 2002). A good match is observed between the FLAC3D simulation results and the measured
data.
The calculated surface settlement profile behind the wall is presented in Figure 18. It is seen from
the figure that the PH model predicts realistic lifting of the soil behind the wall. The axial force in
the anchors after the final excavation is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 15. Problem geometry and excavation stages (after Schweiger, 2002).

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Table 7. Berlin sand soil properties3

Mohr-Coulomb model Plastic Hardening model
Material Property Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 2
( 20 m) (> 20 m) (20 m) (> 20 m)
Cohesion (c, kPa) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Tension limit (t, kPa) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Friction angle (, °) 35 38 35 38
Dilation angle (, °) 5 6 5 6
Poisson’s ratio (, -) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Dry density ( , kg/m3) 1900 1900 1900 1900
The same values as in the
Young’s modulus (E, kPa) ---- -----
PH model for each zone
Secant stiffness ( , kPa) when is at the ref-
---- ----- 4.5e4 7.5e4
erence pressure
Oedometer tangent stiffness ( , kPa) when
---- ----- 4.5e4 7.5e4
is at the reference pressure
Unloading-reloading stiffness ( , kPa) when ---- ----- 18.0e4 30.0e4
is at the reference pressure
Reference pressure (pref, kPa) ---- ----- 100 100
Elastic modulus exponent (m, -) ---- ----- 0.55 0.55
Failure ratio (Rf, -) ---- ----- 0.9 0.9
Normal consolidation coefficient (Knc, -) ---- ----- 0.426 0.384
Over-consolidation ratio (ocr, kPa) ---- ----- 1.01 1.01
Porosity 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Permeability (k, m3s/kg) 1.0e-13 1.0e-13 1.0e-13 1.0e-13
Water density ( , kg/m3) 1000 1000 1000 1000
Table 8. Properties of structural elements

Cable, Cable, Cable,
Property Liner Beam
row 1 row 2 row 3
Density, kg/m3 2400 ---- ---- ---- ----
Young’s Modulus, GPa 30 2100 210 210 210
Poisson’s ratio 0.15 0.15 ---- ---- ----
Normal coupling spring stiffness – side 1,2 (kn, kN/m3) 3e8 ---- ---- ---- ----
Shear coupling spring stiffness – side 1,2 (ks, kN/m3) 3e8 ---- ---- ---- ----
Normal coupling spring tensile strength – side 1,2 (ft, kPa) 0 ---- ---- ---- ----
Shear coupling spring cohesion – side 1,2 (c, kPa) 0 ---- ---- ---- ----
Shear coupling spring friction angle – side 1,2 (, °) 26.25 ---- ---- ---- ----
Cross-sectional area (A, m2) ---- 0.1 0.00176 0.0015 0.0015
Second Y-moment (Iy, m4) ---- 0.1 ---- ---- ----
Second Z-momen (Iz, m4) ---- 1 ---- ---- ----
Polar moment of inertia (J, m4) ---- 0.2 ---- ---- ----
Ydirection ---- (0, 0, 0) ---- ---- ----
Grout stiffness (kg, kN/m2) ---- ---- 2.0e9 2.0e9 2.0e9
Grout cohesive strength (cg, kN/m) ---- ---- 1.0e8 1.0e8 1.0e8
Grout exposed perimeter (pg, m) ---- ---- 0.15 0.1373 0.1373
3
Adapted from Plaxis Material Models Manual (2002)
Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 16. Zone profile and structural elements.
Wall Deflection (m)
‐0.04 ‐0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0
‐5
‐10
‐15
Depth (m)
PH model
MC Model
‐20
Measured
‐25
‐30
‐35
Figure 17. Comparison of wall deflection between the field data and results from the PH and
MC models at the final excavation stage.
Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 18. Surface settlement profile calculated by FLAC3D.
Figure 19. Axial forces in the anchors after the final excavation.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
It is notable to compare the simulation results between the PH and MC models. For this, the prob-
lem is solved using the MC model in which the Young’s modulus is taken equal to E50 of the PH
model and other parameters, including the friction and dilation angles, cohesion, Poisson’s ratio,
and tension limit are same as for the PH model (see Table 7). The comparison of the results is
presented in Figures 17 and 20-21.
Analysis of Figures 17 and 20-21 reveals the following advantages of the PH model over using the
MC model in the current example:
a) The MC model predicts wall deflection in the positive direction at the top portion of the
excavation, which is unrealistic. The deflection predicted by the PH model is in negative
direction and matches field data (Figure 17).
b) The PH model predicts expected ground settlement behind the wall (Figures 18, 20), while
the MC model predicts unrealistic ground lifting.
c) The PH model predicts more realistic lifting for the excavation base at the final stage of
excavation, while the MC model predicts over-lifting (Figure 21).
0.06
PH model
0.04 MC Model
Settlement (m)
0.02
‐0.02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from the wall (m)
Figure 20. Comparison of the ground settlements calculated by the PH and MC models at the
final excavation stage.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
0.3
PH model
MC Model
Settlement (m)
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from the plane of symmetry (m)
Figure 21. Comparison of the excavation base lifting calculated by the PH and MC models at the
final excavation stage.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
6.0 CALIBRATION OF MATERIAL PARAMETERS USING LAB DATA

This section presents how most material parameters can be readily calibrated from the conven-
tional geotechnical laboratory tests. The calibration example uses original test results obtained
from the triaxial compression tests of Monterey Sand (Lade, 1972). The triaxial test consisted of a
loading of the specimen and is followed by unloading-reloading regimes. The original test data are
provided in Figures 22-23.
The data are based on three sets of triaxial compression tests with confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6,
and 0.3 MPa. The initial void ratios are 0.783, 0.786, and 0.781, respectively.
3.5
2.5
2
q (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axial Strain (%)
Figure 22. Original curves for the confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6, and 0.3 MPa of the tri-
axial compression tests of Monterey Sand (Lade, 1972).

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
‐0.8
‐0.7
‐0.6
‐0.5
Volumetric Strain (%)
‐0.4
‐0.3
‐0.2
‐0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
Axial Strain (%)
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure 23. Original curves for confining pressures of 1.2, 0.6, and 0.3 MPa of the triax-
ial compression tests of Monterey Sand (Lade, 1972).
6.1 Calibration of friction angle ϕ and cohesion ϲ

1. Plot deviatoric stress q vs. normal stress p using triaxial compression test lab data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the Mohr-Coulomb envelope.
3. The slope of the line 6 sin / 3 sin , which determines friction angle .
4. The intercept of the line 6 ∙ cot / 3 sin , which determines cohesion c, as the fric-
tion angle is already known.
The slope of the trend line of the Mohr-Coulomb envelope presented in Figure 24 is 1.403. Based
on this, the friction angle is calculated as 34.65°. The intercept is zero, which implies that the
cohesion is zero.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
y = 1.403x
R² = 0.9999
q
0 1 2 3
p
Figure 24. Determination of friction angle and cohesion from the triaxial compression test data.
6.2 Calibration of , and

1. Plot the curve of / vs. / using the triaxial compression test lab data.
2. Use a trend line to fit the data. The slope of the line is , the intercept is 1/ .
3. Three sets of triaxial compression tests with three different confining pressures can be used to
produce three pairs of ( , ) . The final is the averaged one, and the pairs of ( , ) will
determine and .
Figure 25 plots the curves of / vs. / using triaxial compression test lab data of the Monte-
rey Sand with confining pressures 1.2, 0.6, and 0.3 MPa. The slopes of these lines are , the
intercepts are 100/ (as strain is given in %).
This figure determines three pairs of ( , ), which are summarized in Table 9. The average
is 0.957. Parameter needs no calibration and its value is assumed to be 0.1 MPa. Finally, plot
parameters ln / vs. ln , as shown in Figure 26 (remember that cohesion 0). The
slope of the trend line in Figure 26 determines 0.707 and the intercept determines
exp 4.63 102.5 MPa.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
y = 0.9558x + 0.2459
R² = 0.9997
e1/q
y = 0.9678x + 0.1286
R² = 0.9997
y = 0.9476x + 0.093
R² = 0.9997
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1/qf
Figure 25. Determination of and from three sets of triaxial compression tests with three
different confining stresses.
Table 9. Determination of , and

∙ cot
1/ ln ln
∙ cot
-0.3 0.9558 0.002459 406.7 212.3 5.358 1.099
-0.6 0.9678 0.001286 777.6 401.3 5.995 1.792
-1.2 0.9476 0.00093 1075.3 565.8 6.338 2.485

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
ln(E50)
y = 0.707x + 4.6302
R² = 0.971
0 1 2 3
ln(3/pref)
Figure 26. Determination and from three sets of triaxial compression tests with three dif-
ferent confining stresses.
6.3 Calibration of
After the calibration of parameter m it is straightforward to calibrate using the unloading-

reloading moduli obtained from the original vs. data in triaxial compression test. The final
value of can be the averaged using data for different confining pressures.
For the example of Monterey Sand, is determined to be 320.0 MPa. If the unloading-reloading
moduli are not available, a value in the range of 3 5 can be used for most soils. The
PH model uses a default value of 4 ∙ if no input is provided for .
6.4 Calibration of dilation angle

The dilation angle can be calibrated from the data of the triaxial compression tests. The
primary dilation slope of the curve is approximately 2 sin / 2 sin . For this example
of the Monterey Sand, the dilation angles are 6–7°. The values are summarized in Table 10.
6.5 Calibration of and

These two parameters can be calibrated from the oedometer tests. The ultimate value of ⁄
from the oedometer test is . For the case when , the tangent modulus of curve
is . Using and values of m and cohesion determined previously, can be determined.
If the data of oedometer tests are not available, the PH model uses the default values: 1
sin , . For most soils, values for are in the range 0.5 0.7.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
6.6 Calibration of elastic Poisson’s Ratio

Elastic Poisson’s ratio can be estimated from the unloading-reloading slope of the curve.
However, the original unloading-reloading data for curves are often unreliable. Experience
shows that results are not very sensitive to changes in Poisson’s ratio, and therefore Poisson’s ratio
in the range of 0.15 to 0.35 is typically used. In this example, Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be 0.3.
6.7 Calibration of void_max

Typically, the maximum void ratio for soils is 1% 4% higher than the initial void ratio. For this
example, value of 2.5% is adopted and an average initial void ratio (see Table 10) is used. This
produces an estimate for void_max  0.803.
6.8 Calibration of other parameters

Such material parameters as sig1, sig2, sig3, void_ini, and ocr are known initial parameters and
should be consistent with the initial conditions.
Summary of all material properties determined for the Monterey Sand is provided in Table 10.
Using these parameters, the triaxial compression tests can be reproduced by the PH model. The
results presented in Figures 27 and 28 reveal close match of simulated results and lab test data.
Table 10. Calibrated Material Parameters for Loose Monterey Sand

Material Parameters S3 = 1.2 MPa S2 = 0.6 MPa S3 = 0.3 MPa
(MPa) 102.5
(MPa) 320.0
m 0.707
Rf 0.957
ref
p (MPa) 0.1
Poisson’s ratio (, -) 0.3
Friction angle (, °) 34.65
Cohesion (c, MPa) 0.0
Max void ratio ( 0.803
sig1, sig2, sig3 1.2 0.6 0.3
ocr (MPa) 1.0 2.0 4.0
Initial void ratio ( 0.783 0.786 0.781
Dilation angle (, °) 6.1 6.4 7.0
all other default values

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
Figure 27. Deviatoric stress vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial compression tests on
fine Monterey Sand.
Figure 28. Volumetric strain vs. axial strain for consolidated drained triaxial compressor tests on
fine Monterey Sand.

Ref. 8506 J. Cheng
7.0 REFERENCES
Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.Y. (1970). “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soil”, J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div. 96(5), pp.1629-1653.
Lade, P.V. (1972). “The stress-strain and strength characteristics of cohesionless soils”, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Rowe, P.W. (1962). “The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles
in contact”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A. 269(1339), pp.500-527.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G. (1999). “The hardening soil model: formulation and
verification”, in Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics -10 Years of Plaxis, R.B.J.
Brinkgreve, Ed. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Schweiger, H.F. (2002) “Results from numerical benchmark exercises in geotechnics”, in 5th Eu-
ropean Conference Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 305–314. Presses
de l’ENPC/LCPC, Paris.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1967). “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, 2nd Ed., New
York: John Wiley and Sons.


Plastic Hardening Model Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plastic Hardening Model Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date: July 1, 2015

To: FLAC3D Development Files and Itasca Website

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 1 www.itascacg.com

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 www.itascacg.com

The main features of the new PH model are:

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 3 www.itascacg.com

2.1 Incremental Elastic Law

where , m, c, and are user-defined parameters. is the reference unloading-reloading

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4 www.itascacg.com

2.2 Yield and Potential Functions

where 2 / 2 , , and is given as

The shear hardening parameter is defined as

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5 www.itascacg.com

The mobilized friction is defined in terms of the current stress state

Here we introduce a smoothing technique to avoid sudden change of dilation angle:

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6 www.itascacg.com

sin 100 1 , if 0.99

2.2.2 Volumetric hardening

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7 www.itascacg.com

Evolution of the hardening parameter is given by the relation:

2.2.3 Tension failure

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8 www.itascacg.com

3.0 MODEL PROPERTIES AND KEYWORDS

Plastic Hardening – MODEL phardening

The material properties are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. PH model material properties

= 4.0*E50_ref by default. A range

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9 www.itascacg.com

range of 0.5 0.7 is common for

Primary Mohr Properties:

Primary Initial Properties:

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10 www.itascacg.com

Read Only Properties:

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 11 www.itascacg.com

4.0 VERIFICATION EXAMPLES

Table 2. Material properties for the PH-MC comparison example

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12 www.itascacg.com

Figure 3. Comparison of PH and MC models for a triaxial compression test.

4.2 Isotropic Compression Test

Table 3. Material properties for the Isotropic Compression Test example

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13 www.itascacg.com

4.3 Triaxial Compression Test

Table 4. Material properties for the Triaxial Compression Test example

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 14 www.itascacg.com

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15 www.itascacg.com

4.4 Oedometer Test

Table 5. Material properties for the Oedometer Test example

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 16 www.itascacg.com

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17 www.itascacg.com

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 18 www.itascacg.com

4.5 Rough Strip Footing on a Cohesive Frictionless Material

Figure 11. Prandtl mechanism for a strip footing.

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 19 www.itascacg.com

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20 www.itascacg.com

non-smooth corner when using MC model

Figure 14. Load-displacement curves for the MC and PH models.

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 21 www.itascacg.com

5.0 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS

• The influence of the diaphragm wall construction is neglected.

The analysis described by Schweiger (2002) includes nine steps:

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 22 www.itascacg.com

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Page 23 www.itascacg.com