New Constitutive Material

Models in RS 2

1.0 The Softening-Hardening Material Model

Experimental evidence indicates that plastic deformation in soils starts from the early stages of loading. The
typical elasto-perfect plastic models are not adequate for capturing such behavior in a constitutive model.
To simulate such behavior, constitutive models that utilize a hardening law after initial yielding are required.

The Softening-Hardening Model in RS2 has been developed to meet the afore-mentioned need. The model
can utilize up to three yield surfaces that include deviatoric (shear), volumetric (cap), and tension cut off. The
yield surfaces and hardening characteristics of this model are illustrated in Figure 1 below. The formulations
of these three mechanisms, definitions of yield surfaces, and their corresponding plastic potential and
hardening laws are presented in the following sections.

q q
1 1

M f
M f

Yield Surface Yield Surface

Hardening Hardening

pc p pc p
(a) (b)
Figure 1. The yield surfaces of the Softening-Hardening model; a) deviatoric yield surface (red) and the vertical cap (green); b)
the deviatoric yield surface (red) and elliptical cap (blue)

RocNewsSpring2015
1.1 The Deviatoric Mechanism

The deviatoric yield surface is very similar to the yield surface of the Mohr-Coulomb model.

The equation for the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface (Pietruszczak, 2010) using the , , invariants is given
by equation 1 (the convention is compression positive).

0 ; Eq. 1

The hardening for this yield surface is considered for the mobilized friction angel (and cohesion) and it is
attributed to plastic distortion. In the above equation is the ultimate/failure friction angle and and are
the mobilized cohesion and friction angle, respectively.

There are two types of hardening laws considered for this model. The first one uses a relationship between
tan and the deviatoric plastic strain, presented in equation 2.

tan tan Eq. 2

where: is the deviatoric plastic strain, and

is the hardening parameter (positive and constant).

The second hardening law uses custom tabular piecewise linear values for the mobilized friction angel and
cohesion with deviatoric plastic strain, , & , .

The advanced option for plastic potential is to define a compaction-dilation angle in such a way that when
the mobilized friction angle ( ) is less than this angle ( ) the volumetric plastic strain is positive
(compaction) and when the mobilized friction angle is greater than the volumetric plastic strain is negative
(dilation).

1.2 The Volumetric Mechanism

There are two options for the yield surface of the volumetric mechanism, or the cap: vertical and elliptical.

The yield surfaces are defined as follows.

(Vertical Cap), 0 (Elliptical Cap) Eq. 3

Where is the location of the intersection of this yield surface with the axis.

RocNewsSpring2015
The elliptical cap is very similar to the yield surface of the modified Cam-Clay model with an offset to
consider the cohesion.

The hardening for these yield surfaces is considered for and it is attributed to volumetric plastic strain.
The build in function for the hardening follows the same hardening law as in the Modified Cam-Clay model.
Tabular hardening law which uses custom tabular pricewise linear values for versus volumetric plastic
strain , is also available for this model. The flow rule is associated for this yield surface.

1.3 The Tension Cut-Off Mechanism

This mechanism is to incorporate the tensile strength of the material to this model. In this mechanism the
minor principal stress is limited to the tensile strength of the material. The flow rule is associated and the
mechanism has no hardening.

2.0 Numerical Examples

The applicability of the Softening-Hardening model is demonstrated in simulations of tunnels and retaining
walls in the following sections.

2.1 Tunnel with Nearby Building Load

The 2D model ground consists of a mix of 1.6 and 3.0 mm aluminum rods in the ratio of 3:2 by weight. The
ground is prepared by piling up the stack of aluminum rods from the bottom (Nakai, 2013).

Figure 2. Material used in building 2D scaled model

The biaxial test results of this material are presented in the following figure. The simulated result using the
Hardening Softening model is in very good agreement with the observed behavior. Since the material is

RocNewsSpring2015
inherently frictional, the deviatoric mechanism would be dominant for this material and thus the cap yield
surface is not activated for modelling the behavior of this material.

Figure 3. Biaxial Compression Test results (2=19.6 kPa)

The scaled model for tunnel with nearby building is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Apparatus for 2D foundation and tunnel model tests

RocNewsSpring2015
The bearing capacity of the foundation without excavation of the tunnel is presented in Figure 5. The RS2
results are in very good agreement with the observed behavior. The numerical results published in Nakai
(2013) overestimate the bearing capacity.

Figure 5. Load-displace and bearing capacity of the rigid strip shallow foundation

The surface settlement profiles for the tunnel excavation for the case of greenfield and nearby surface load
are presented in Figure 6. The distribution of deviatoric strain in the ground, which is an indication of slip
surfaces, is demonstrated in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Surface settlement profile; Tunnel with nearby building load

RocNewsSpring2015


Figure 7. Distributions of the deviatoric strains in the ground, Fixed Invert

The failure pattern and settlement profile is in good agreement with the observations.

2.2 Tieback Retaining Wall

The benchmark exercise described by Schweiger (2002), consisting of a deep excavation problem in Berlin
sand, is the basis for this comparison. Figure 8 shows the geometry and the excavation steps of the problem.

Figure 8. Problem geometry and excavation stages (Schweiger, 2002)

RocNewsSpring2015
To identify the material properties the material properties reported for a Hardening Soil model in the PLAXIS
Material Models Manual were used to first simulate some triaxial test data. Then the simulated triaxial tests
were used to identify the material properties of the Softening-Hardening model. The results of the triaxial
test on layer 1 is presented in Figure 9. Since the material is Sand the deviatoric mechanism is dominant
and so the cap is not used in the constitutive modelling of the materials in this problem.

Figure 9. Drained Triaxial Compression Test results (3=100 kPa)

The results of the excavation problem is presented in the form of the deflection of the retaining wall. Figure
10 shows the observed deformation versus the simulation result produced by RS2, FLAC and PLAXIS.

Walldeflection(m)
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0
0

5
Depthbelowthesurface(m)

10

15

20

25
Measured
Plaxis
30
Flac
RS2
35

Figure 10. Lateral wall deflection at the final stage of excavation

RocNewsSpring2015
3.0 The User Defined Material Models
The latest version of RS2 has the option of accepting user defined material models by dll. The dll file that is
included in the install folder includes the Double-Yield, ChSoil, and CySoil of FLAC as well as the Hardening
Soil and HSS Small soil of PLAXIS. The excavation problem in Berlin sand was simulated by the CySoil model
in RS2 and the results are presented in Figure 11 below.

Walldeflection(m)
0.03 0.02 0.01 0
0

Depthbelowthesurface(m)
10

15

20

25
Measured
Flac
30
RS2CySoil
35
Figure 11. Lateral wall deflection at the final stage of excavation

4.0 References
Nakai, T. Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials: Principles and Applications, Taylor & F. Boca Raton: CRC
Press, 2013

Pietruszczak, S. Fundamental of Plasticity in Geomechanics, Taylor & Francis Group, Leiden/London/New

York, 2010.

Schweiger, H.F. Benchmarking in Geotechnics, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Graz University of Technology, Austria 2002.

RocNewsSpring2015