}
(12)
where {F} is the element nodal force vector and
w
is the unit weight of water.
25
Figure 9. Removal of Materials or Sequential
Construction Excavation
{Ao
o
} Initial Stresses
{o
i
}={o
o
}+E{Ao
i
} Final Lift





Stress Free Surface
Nodal Point
Forces
{Ao
1
} First Lift
26
Note that Eq. (12) applies only to elements which were submerged earlier and are now above the
watertable due to the dewatering. Figure 10 shows the dewatering in which only elements 1, 2
and 3 have body force loads due to dewatering, and the remaining elements are affected
indirectly by the loading from these three elements.
(vi) Support Systems
Structural Supports or TieBacks: Installation of support system such as tiebacks, Fig.
11, can be considered similar to the prestressing of concrete beams, and introduces compressive
stresses to counteract extension and tensile stresses. The installation of tiebacks involves four
simulation steps: drilling/boring a hole (at an angle to the horizontal), placing the tieback,
grouting the tieback, and then tensioning the tieback to provide the design compressive stress.
A tieback usually consists of either steel cables or steel reinforcing rods or other
structural supports. In the case of geotechnical systems, only the last portion of the tieback is
grouted to form an anchor, and the rest of it is usually encased in a sheath to prevent transfer of
load to the excavated face.
In the simulation of the tiebacks installation in the FEM procedure, the first two steps are
not considered, and the procedure followed is
1. Apply a force along the direction of the tieback equal and opposite to the tension
force in the tieback.
2. Solve for new displacements and stresses.
3. Add the bar elements which simulate the tiebacks.
4. Set the bar elements stresses to the initial tension in the tieback.
The order of these steps may not follow the actual construction procedure. In the
construction procedure, the bar is placed first before the tensioning force is applied. If this is
27
Figure 10. Dewatering
Initial Water Level
Final Water Level
1
2 3
4 5 6
9
7 8
28
followed in the numerical procedure, bar elements will resist the tensioning forces, which is not
correct. The wrong and correct sequences are illustrated in Fig. 11.
(vii) Mesh Change Option
During any increment of the loading, the mesh can be changed, i.e., some elements can
be added or deleted, or some nodes added or deleted and/or material number of elements is
changed. This option is used to simulate embankment construction and excavation. The material
number may be changed in the case of dewatering.
(viii) Boundary Conditions
The prescribed boundary conditions (e.g., fixity) are imposed in such a manner as to
minimize the number of equations to be solved. This is achieved by not formulating equations
corresponding to degreesoffreedom at nodal points where displacements are zero, because of
the boundary conditions.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The finite element equations for dynamic analysis are given by
  { }   { }   { } ( ) { } t Q = q K + q C + q M (13)
Where [M], [ C ] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffnesses matrices, respectively, {q} is the
vector of nodal displacements, {Q(t)} is the vector of time dependent nodal forces and the
overdot denotes time derivative.
The mass matrix can be consistent when it is evaluated from the expression resulting
from energy considerations, while it is evaluated as lumped when the mass is lumped at nodes
and appears only on the diagonals of the matrix (Desai and Abel, 1972).
Details of the frequency and time domain solutions for the dynamic equations are given
in Desai and Abel (1972) or in other texts on the finite element method. For the time domain
29
Figure 11. Schematic of Supports or Tie Backs
2P
Wrong Sequence
Correct Sequence
2P
Step 1
Step 2
2P
Physical Problem
P
P
30
analysis, Equations 13 are integrated in the time domain, particularly for nonlinear analysis, by
using various time integration schemes such as Euler, Newmark Method, and Wilsons u
Method. In the present code, Newmark and Wilsons umethods are used. At time t
n+1
= t
n
+ At,
where At is the time step and t
n
is the previous time level at which quantities are known, Eq. (13),
are derived as
  { } { } Q = q
K
*
1 + n
*
(14)
where (i) for Newmark Method
        K + C
t
+ M
t
1
=
K
2
*
A A 

(15a)
{ } { }  
{ } { }
{ }
  { } { } { }
)
`
A


.

\



.

\

A
)
`


.

\

A A
q t 1 
2
+ q 1  + q
t
C +
q 1 
2
1
+
t
q
+
t
q
M + Q = Q
n n n
n
n
2
n
1 + n
*
  
(15b)
in which ,  are integration parameters in the Newmarks scheme. For conditional stability: 2
> > 0.5.
(ii) for Wilson uMethod
 
( )
      K C
t
M
t
K +
A
+
A
=
3
6
*
2
u u
(16a)
{ } { } { } { } ( )
 
( )
{ } { } { }
  { } { } { }
)
`
A
A
)
`
A A
q
2
t
+ q 2 + q
t
3
C +
q 2 + q
t
6
+ q
t
6
M +
Q  Q + Q = Q
n n n
n n n 2
n 1 + n n
*
u
u
u u
u
(16b)
in which u is a parameter, usually taken as 1.4.
31
It is often difficult to define the damping matrix [C]. Hence, approximate procedures are
sometimes employed; in one such method, the damping matrix is expressed as (Clough and
Penzien, 1993):
      M + K = C
M k o o
(17)
where o
k
and o
M
are constants adopted by the user.
In the case of cyclic material behavior, the hysteretic damping is included through the
tangent stiffness matrix, [K*], and it may not be necessary to include the damping in the
analysis.
Mass Matrix
The code allows for two options: consistent mass and lumped mass. The consistent mass
matrix is fully populated and is derived from the energy formulation. In the case of lumped mass,
the matrix is diagonal and the tributary masses are lumped at the element nodes.
Absorbing Boundaries
In dynamic analysis, the waves radiating from a structure are reflected back in the mesh
(body) from the artificial or discretized end boundaries. This can cause spurious errors in the
computed response. One way to reduce this effect is to select the end boundaries far enough such
that the waves are absorbed by internal damping of the material. However, if the end boundaries
are close to the structure, it is desirable to provide for the absorption of the waves at the end
boundaries. In this code, the viscous damping model proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer
(1969) is implemented. Since this model is not very efficient in absorbing surface waves, it is
advisable to extend the (lateral) end boundaries as far as possible away from the structure.
Cyclic or Repetitive Loading
32
Details of cyclic or repetitive loading involving loading, unloading and reloading and
cyclic hardening are given in Appendix I.
Creep Behavior
The code includes the general DSC model which allows for microstructural changes
leading to fracture, failure or liquefaction and available continuum models such as elastic, plastic
and creep. For the latter, viscoelastic (ve), elasticviscoplastic (evp), and viscoelasticviscoplastic
(vevp) models can be used (Desai, 2001).
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Appendix IV gives details for the determination of material constants for the above
models, based on appropriate laboratory tests for solids and interfaces/joints. It also gives details
of the determination of initial hardening and yield surface based on in situ stresses. Further
details for the HISS and DSC are also discussed in various references. Desai, et al. (1986), Desai
and Zhang (1987), Desai (1994, 1995, 2001), Desai, et al. (1995), Katti and Desai (1995), Desai
and Toth (1996), Desai, et al. (1997).
ORGANIZATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
The computer program consists of a main program and about 65 subroutines. The
program is coded in FORTRAN 90. All storage is allocated at the time of execution, and if
desired, the storage can be readily adjusted to the minimum required for the problem to be
analyzed.
33
APPENDIX I
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
This Appendix describes various constitutive models including the unified Disturbed State
Concept (DSC).
Linear and Nonlinear Elastic Models
Linear Elastic Model
It is simplest, but probably the least applicable model for the realistic simulation of
nonlinear behavior. Its main use can be for preliminary studies, and for limited situations
involving mainly the linear behavior.
The constitutive relation for the linear elastic case is given by
{ }  { }
C
=
e
c o (I.1)
where [C
c
] is the elastic constitutive matrix, which, for linear elastic and isotropic material, is a
function of two elastic constants, Youngs modulus, E, and Poissons ratio, v [Desai and
Siriwardane (1984); Desai (2001)].
Nonlinear Elastic Models
In the computer program, hyperbolic model proposed by Kondner (1963) and formalized
by Kulhawy, et al. (1969) and Duncan and Chang (1970) is included to represent the nonlinear
elastic behavior of solid or soil materials. The tangent modulus, E
t
and tangent Poissons ratio,
v
t
, are given by (Desai and Abel, 1972)
( ) ( )
(


.

\

n i s 2 + s o c c 2
 n i s  1
R
 1
p
p K =
E
3
3 1 f
2
a
3
n
a
t

o

o o

o
(I.2)
and
( )
( ) A  1
p / g o l F  G
=
2
a
3
t
o
v
34
where
( )
( ) ( )
(


.

\

n i s 2 + s o c c 2
 n i s  1
R
 1
p
p K
 d
= A
3
3 1 f
a
3
n
a
3 1

o

o o

o
o o
(I.3)
o
1
and o
3
are major and minor principal stresses, respectively, c is cohesion,  is the angle of
internal friction, p
a
is atmospheric pressure, R
r
is failure ratio, n is modulus exponent, R is
modulus number, and G, F and d are Poissons ratio parameters.
A total of eight parameters, K , n , R
f
, c, , G, F and d are required to compute E
t
and
v
t
. If the Poissons ratio is assumed constant, five parameters, K , n , R
f
, c, and  are required.
For the joint/interface elements, the normal stiffness, k
n
, is often assumed constant (with
a high value) for compressive normal stress and the shear stiffness, k
s
, is represented by the
hyperbolid model; it is expressed as (Kulhawy, et al., 1969; Desai, 1974).
(


.

\

n a t +
c
R
 1
p
K
=
k
a
n a
*
f
2
a
n
n
w
*
t s
*

o
t
o
(I.4)
where t and o
n
are shear and normal stresses, respectively, c
a
is adhesion, 
a
is angle of interface
friction,
w
is unit weight of water and K
*
, n
*
and
*
f
R are constants. Thus, for the interface, six
constants, k
n
, K
*
, n
*
c
a
and 
o
, are required.
Plasticity Models
Various plasticity models with relevant yield criteria swhave been incorporated in the
program. The details of these criteria can be found in Desai and Siriwardane (1984), Desai
(1994), Desai, et al. (1986), Desai (1995, 2001). Here, the expressions for the yield criteria are
presented with description of parameters. Compressive stresses are assumed positive.
35
1. von Mises yield criterion
0 = 
J
= F
y D 2 o
(I.5)
where J
2D
is the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, S
ij
, and o
y
is the yield stress in
simple tension or compression.
2. MohrCoulomb yield criterion
0 = s o c c 
3
n i s n i s
 s o c
J
+ n i s
3
J
 = F
D 2
1

u 
u  
.

\

(I.6)
where J
1
is the first invariant of the stress tensor, o
ij
,  is the angle of internal friction, c is
cohesion, and u is Lode angle given by
6 6

J
J
2
3 3
n
i s
3
1
=
5 . 1
D 2
D 3 1 
t
u
t
u
s s


.

\

(I.7)
in which J
3D
is the third invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, S
ij
.
3. DruckerPrager yield criterion
0 = k 
J

J
= F
1
*
D 2 o
(I.8)
where o* and k are material constants, e.g., for plane strain conditions:
 

o
n
a t 12 + 9
c 3
= k ,
n
a t 12 + 9
n a t
=
2 2
*
(I.9)
4. Modified Camclay model (Schofield and Wroth, 1968)
0 = 1 
p
p
+
p p
M
q
= F
o o
2
2
(I.10)
where p
o
is the semimajor size of the ellipse, Fig. I.1, M is the slope of critical state (CS) line,
and p = (o
1
+ 2o
3
)/3 and
2D 3 1
J 3 = = o o q . If the critical state line is considered similar to
the MohrCoulomb failure envelope (Eq. I.6), then
36
Figure I.1 Yield Locus for Critical State Model
d
p
Ac
p
Critical State Line
Mcs
A
M
Ac
v
p
J
1
/3
q=\3J
2D
2p
o
37
( ) n i s n i s  s o c 3
n i s 3
= M
u  u

(I.11)
The size of ellipse, p
o
, is an exponential function of the hardening parameter
v
= plastic
volumetric strain
p
v
c :
( ) p x e p = p
v o c o
_ (I.12)
where p
co
= initial value of p
o
,
_ = hardening constant =
k
+
o
e 1
,
e
o
= initial void ratio,
= compression index,
k = swelling index, and
v
= trajectory or volumetric plastic strain.
5. Cap Model
The Cap model proposed by DiMaggio and Sandler (1971) has been adopted here. It
consists of a failure envelope (F
f
) and a Cap surface (F
c
), Figure I.2, the expressions for which
are
( )   0 =
J
 p x e  
J
=
F 1
/ /
/
D 2 f

o
(I.13)
and
( ) ( ) 0 = L 
J
+ L  X 
J R
=
F
1
2 2
D 2
2
c
(I.14)
where o
/
, 
/
and
/
are material parameters, and R, X and L refer to the geometry of the cap
(Figure I.2) which are related as
( )   L  p x e  R + L = X 
o
/ /
/
(I.15)
The yielding (hardening) defined by the cap is function of the plastic volumetric strain,
p
v
c , which is denoted by the hardening parameter =
p
v
c . The hardening rule is expressed as
38
Figure I.2 Failure and Hardening Surfaces in Cap Model
DruckerPrager Surface
F
f
F
c
Rb
\J
2D
J
1
L Z X
von Mises Surface
39
Z +
W
 1 n
D
1
 = X 
.

\

(I.16)
where D and W are material parameters, and Z is related to initial cap.
6. HoekBrown Model Yield Criterion (Fig. I.3)
Hoek and Brown (1980) proposed a yield (failure) criterion for rock masses as
o o o o o
2
c 3 c 3 1
s + m   = F (I.17)
where o
1
and o
3
are major and minor principal stresses, respectively, o
c
is uniaxial compressive
strength of intact rock material, and m and s are constants which depend upon the properties of
rock and upon the extent to which it has been broken before being subjected to stresses o
1
and
o
3
. The constant m has a finite positive value which ranges from about 0.001 for highly
disturbed rock masses to about 25 for hard intact rock. The maximum value of s is unity for
intact rock, and the minimum value is zero for heavily jointed or broken rock in which tensile
strength is reduced to zero.
In terms of stress invariants, Eq. (I.17) can be written as
0 = s 
3
J
m 
J
3
n i s
+ s o c m +
s
o c
J
4
= F
c
1
D 2
c
2
D 2
o
u
u
o
u

.

\

(I.18)
where u is the Lode angle (Eq. 1.7).
7. Hierarchical Single Surface (HISS) Models (Desai, et al., 1986; Desai, 1995, 2001)
Advantages of the HISS model with respect to the foregoing models are listed in Chapter
1.
The two hierarchical models, isotropic hardening with associative behavior (o
0
model)
and isotropic hardening with nonassociative behavior (o
1
model), have been incorporated in the
program.
40
Figure I.3 HoekBrown Model
o
3
o
1
o
c
Uniaxial
compresssion
Tension o
t


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRESS AT FAILURE
Minor principal stress or confirming pressure o
3
M
a
j
o
r
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
s
t
r
e
s
s
o
1
a
t
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
Compression
Uniaxial tension
Triaxial
compresion
41
The continuous yield function (Fig. I.4) in the HISS plasticity Model:
( ) 0 =
S
 1
p
J
+
p
J
 
p
J
= F
r
m
a
1
2
a
1
n
2
a
D 2
 o
(
(


.

\



.

\

(I.19)
where o, , m and n are material parameters, p
a
is atmospheric pressure, S
r
is the stress ratio
5 . 1
2 3
2
27
D D
J J = , and o is a yield or hardening function defined as (Desai, et al. 1986; Desai and
Hashmi, 1989):
o
q
1
/
a
=
1
(I.20a)
or


.

\



.

\

b
+
b
 1
b
 p x e
b
=
D
4 3
D
2 1
o (I.20b)
in which a
1
, q
1
, and b
1
to b
4
are material constants, ( )
}
=
2 / 1
p
ij
p
ij
d d c c is the trajectory of or
accumulated plastic strains, including the volumetric plastic strain (
v
) and deviatoric plastic
strain (
D
) trajectories: ( )
}
= =
2 / 1
D
; 3 /
p
ij
p
ij
p
v v
E d E d c ; where
p
ij
E = tensor of deviatoric
plastic strains.
The plastic potential function Q is expressed as
( )
S
 1
p
J
+
p
J
 
p
J
= Q
r
m
a
1
2
a
1
n
Q
2
a
D 2

o
(
(


.

\



.

\

(I.21)
where
( )( )
r
 1  + =
v o Q
o
o
k o
o
(I.22)
in which /
v v
r = , o
o
is value of o at the beginning of shear loading, and k is a nonassociative
parameter. Equations I.19 and I.21 are used for the nonassociative (
1
) model.
Initial Values of o and
Solution for o in Eq. (I.19) leads to (Desai, et al., 1991; Desai, 1995, 2001)
42
Figure I.4 Basic, o
0
, and Nonassociative, o
1
, Models
cF/co
90 FQ
\
C
a
\
C
a
J
1
\
J
2
D
(a) o
0
model
cF/co
cQ/co
\
C
a
\
C
a
J
1
\
J
2
D
(b) o
1
model
F
Q
43
( )


.

\

(
(
p
J
S
 1
J
J
 =
a
1
n  2
m
2
1
D 2

o (I.23)
The initial value of o = o
o
is obtained by substituting J
1
, J
2D
, S
r
based on the initial state
of stress and the knowledge of the material constants , , n and m = 0.5. Then, the initial value
of =
o
is found from Eq. (I20) as the values of a
1
, q
1
, etc. are known. The value of the
volumetric plastic strain trajectory
v
is found from (Desai, et al., 1991):


.

\

c
c
c
c
c
c
Q
Q
3
Q
=
j i j i
2 / 1
i i
vo
o o
o
(I.24)
where Q is defined based on the initial stresses. Then,
2
v
2
o D
 = (I.25)
In the case of isotropic or hydrostatic initial stress:
Interface/Joint Elements
The yield function and plastic potential function for the twodimensional case are given
by [Desai and Fishman (1991); Desai and Ma, 1992; Desai (1995)]
0
2 2
=


.

\



.

\

+


.

\

a
n
n
a
n
a
p p p
F
o
o
o
t
(I.26)
0
2 2
=


.

\



.

\

+


.

\

a
n
n
a
n
Q
a
p p p
Q
o
o
o
t
(I.27)
( )
0 =
/
a
= =
p
J
=
D
o o
/ 1
0
a
1
n  2
o
1
o
q


.

\

44
where t and o
n
are shear and normal stresses, respectively, n and are related to phase change
and ultimate envelope, and o and o
Q
are hardening parameters for o
0
and o
1
, respectively. A
simple form of hardening function is given by
in which
p
r
du and
p
r
dv are the incremental plastic shear and normal relative displacements,
respectively, a and b are hardening parameters, and o
Q
is similar to that in Eq. (I.22).
Cohesive and Tensile Strengths
The yield function in the HISS model is extended to include cohesive or tensile strengths
by transforming the stress tensor as (Fig. I.4)
o o o j i j i
*
j i
R + = (I.28a)
where R is related to cohesive or tensile strength. Details are given in Appendix IV.
Here, R can be found from empirical relations (see Appendix IV). It can also be found as
/ c = R
a
(I.28b)
where
a
c is the intercept along \J
2D
axis (intersection of \J
2D
axis and ultimate yield surface)
and is related to the cohesive strength, and is related to the slope of the ultimate yield envelope,
Fig. I.4.
Creep Models
Various models including elastoviscoplastic (evp) by Perzyna (1966) have been used to
characterize the creep behavior, Fig. I.5 (Cormeau, 1976; Owen and Hinton, 1980; Desai and
Zhang, 1987; Desai, et al., 1995; Samtani, et al., 1995). Overlay model for creep has been
proposed in (Zienkiewicz, et al., 1972; Pande, et al., 1977; Owen and Hinton, 1980). A general
( ) ( )  
v
d =
v
d +
u
d
=
/ a =
p
r
v
p
r
2
p
r
2
2 / 1
b
}
}
o
45
Figure I.5 Schematic of StrainTime Response Under Constant Stress
t
2
h
Primary creep
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
i
t
1
Secondary creep
Tertiary creep
Failure
Permanent set
Time
S
t
r
a
i
n
0
46
approach called Multicomponent DSC (MDSC) has been proposed by Desai (2001). If the strains
in the component overlays, Fig. I.6, is assumed to be the same, the MDSC model specializes to
the overlay model.
Viscoelasticplatic (vep) or Perzyna Model
MDSC model contains various versions, such as elastic (e), viscoelastic (ve),
elastoviscoplastic (evp), and viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp). Figure I.7(b) shows the general
rheological representation of MDSC model, from which various versions can be extracted
(Desai, 2001). For instance, the evp, Perzyna type model is shown in Fig. I.7(a), which is based
on the following expression for viscoplastic strain rate vector, { }
vp
c :
} {
Q
} {
p v
o c
c
)  ( I =
c (I.29)
N
o
F
F


.

\

=  (I.30)
where I is the fluidity parameter,  is the flow function, N is the power law parameter, and F
o
is
the reference value (e.g., yield stress, atmospheric constant, etc.). For associative plasticity, F
Q.
Multicomponent (MDSC) or Overlay Models
In the overlay model (Fig. I.6), the behavior of a material is assumed to be composed of
those of several overlays, each of which undergoes the same deformation (strain) and provides a
specific material characterization. The total stress field is obtained as the sum of different
contributions from each overlay. By introducing a suitable number of overlays and assigning
different material properties (parameters) to each, a variety of special models can be reproduced,
as shown below.
47
The typical straintime (creep) relationship under constant stress is shown in Fig. I.5. The
instantaneous elastic strain. oa, is followed by a primary creep, ab, during which, if unloading
Figure I.6 Rheological Overly Model and Elasticviscoplastic Models
E
I
o
y
(a) Viscoplasticity
E
1
,v
1
E
2
,v
2
E
k
,v
k
F1( o
y1)
F2( o
y2)
Fk ( o
yk)
   

I
1
,
N
1
I
2
,
N
2
I
k
,
N
k
(b) Overlay Model
48
occurs, an instantaneous elastic recovery, bc, is followed by delayed elastic recovery, cd. If the
load is continued beyond the primary creep range, secondary creep (be) begins which is
accompanied by irreversible deformations. Unloading at any time during be leaves a permanent
deformation or set (strain). On continued loading, tertiary creep begins leading to failure.
The overlay model for the twodimensional problem is illustrated in Fig. I.6. Each
overlay can have different thicknesses and material properties. The overlays do not experience
relative motion, or they are glued together. Therefore, the overlay models exhibit the same
deformation under given loading.
In the MDSC (overlay) model developed here, a number of units are arranged in parallel,
Fig. I.7. This results in different stress fields, {o
j
}, in each overlay (j) which contributes to the
total stress field {o} according to the overlay thickness, t
j
; hence,
{ } { }
t
=
j j
k
1 = j
o
o
(I.31)
in which k is the total number of overlays in the model, and
1 =
t j
k
1 = j
(I.32)
The equilibrium equations for a (finite) element become:
  { } { } Q = V d
t
B
j j
k
1 = j
T
V
o
}
(I.33)
in which {Q} is the load vector.
From Eq. (I.33), the element stiffness matrix is obtained as
        V d B
t
C
B = k
j j
k
1 = j
T
V


.

\

}
(I.34)
49
where [C
j
] is the constitutive matrix. This matrix will be different for each overlay, according to
the material properties.
Figure I.7 The Overlay Model in TwoDimensional Situation (Pande, et al.,1997)
t
i
1
50
The solution procedure (see later) is then identical to that of standard viscoplasticity (Perzyna
type) involving time integration, with stress being calculated for each overlay (Owen and Hinton,
1980). It should be noted that the viscoplastic strain in an overlay will be different due to
differences in threshold yield values and flow rates, but the total strains in all overlays are the
same.
Specializations of MDSC (Overlay) Model
The material parameters for elastic, viscous and yield characterizations are shown in Fig.
I6. By adopting different values of the parameters, the overlay model can specialize to various
versions. For instance, consider the overlay model with two viscoplastic units; such a two
overlay model is commonly adopted; Table 1 gives examples of specializations.
Table I.1: Specializations of MDSC (Overlay) Models
Specialization
Plasticity
Model
No. of
Overlays
Thickness
Parameters
Elastic (e)
1
von Mises
1
1.0
E, v, I, N and very
high o
y
Viscoelastic (ve)
2
von Mises
2
0.5, 0.5
E
1
, v
1
, I
1
, N
1
, o
y1
= 0;
E
2
, v
2
, I
2
, N
2
, o
y2
=
very high
Elastoviscoplastic
(evp)
3
(Perzyna type)
Any
1
1.0
E, v, I, N, o
y
or F
Viscoelasticviscoplastic
(ve vp)
4
von Mises
Any
1
= 2
1
0.5
0.5
E
1
, v
1
, I
1
, N
1
, o
y1
= 0
E
2
, v
2
, I
2
, N
2
, o
y2
or F
14
The following notes show resultant models with the specific choice of parameters.
51
Notes:
1
Here, as
y
is high, only the elastic spring will be operational because the dashpot slider
unit will be essentially not operational.
2
Here, for overlay 1 as o
yl
= 0, only the spring and dashpot will operate, as o
y2
> > , only the
spring will operate in overlay 2.
3
Here, with one overlay, all units are operational.
4
Here, the first overlay (with o
y1
= 0), leads to the spring and dashpot, and, in the second
overlay, all units are operational.
Number of Overlays and Thicknesses
Usually, two overlays are sufficient and the thickness of each overlay is prescribed as 0.5.
Layered Systems with Different Material Properties
When a problem with layered material (e.g., pavement) is to be analyzed, some materials
may behave as viscoelasticviscoplastic (vevp), and others are elastic or elastoplastic, the
following procedure can be used:
(i) For the material with vevp response, two overlays (Table I.1) can be used.
52
(ii) For the elastic response, the material is considered with one overlay and infinitely large
yield strength (Table I.1).
(iii) For the elastoplastic response of the material, one overlay is used and the fluidity
parameter, I, is taken to be very small, approximately 1/600 of fluidity parameter prescribed for
the vevp material, and N = 1.
DISTURBED STATE CONCEPT (DSC)
The DSC is considered as the culmination of various models developed previously. It is
general and unified from which most of the other models can be obtained as special cases. Its
hierarchical nature allows formulation of general constitutive matrix in computer (finite element)
procedures; hence, a chosen model can be achieved by inserting material parameters for that
model, say, elastic or continuous yield plasticity.
The DSC has been covered in a number of publications (Desai and Ma, 1992; Desai,
1995, 2001; Desai and Toth, 1996; Katti and Desai, 1995; Desai, et al., 1998a,b). Hence, brief
description is given below.
In the DSC, a deforming material element is assumed to consist of various components.
For instance, for a dry material, it is assumed to contain two components: continuum or relative
intact (RI) and discontinuum or fully adjusted (FA) phases. These components interact and
merge into each other, transforming the initial RI phase to the ultimate FA phase. The
transformation occurs due to continuous modifications in the microstructure of the material. The
disturbance or microstructural changes act as a coupling mechanism between the RI and FA
phases.
The incremental constitutive equations for the DSC can be expressed as follows:
53
{ } ( ) { }
 { }
{ } { } ( )
i c
c c
i i a
dD
d C D
d C D d
o o
c
c o
+
+
= 1
(I.35a)
where a,i, and c denote observed, RI and FA states, respectively, {o} and {c} are the stress and
strain vectors, and dD the increment (or rate) of disturbance, D.
Degradation and Softening
The disturbance can be defined on the basis observed (laboratory and/or field) behavior
in terms of stressstrain, volumetric strain, pore water pressure, ultrasonic properties as P and S
waves, e.g., shear wave velocity (Desai, 2001). For instance, D can be expressed (Fig. I.8) as
c i
a i
D
o o
o o
= (I36a)
Disturbance can be expressed in terms of an internal variable such as accumulated deviatoric
plastic strain (
D
) or worki:
( )
z
D
A
u
e D D
= 1 (I36b)
where D
u
, A, and Z are parameters determined by using Eq. (I35).
The continuum or RI phase can be characterized by using models based on continuum
elasticity, plasticity or viscoplasticity. For instance, the constitutive matrix [C
i
] can be defined by
the HISS plasticity or conventional plasticity model. The FA part can be modeled in various
ways by assuming that FA part (i) has no strength like conventional damage model by Kachanov
(1986), (ii) has hydrostatic strength like in classical plasticity, and (iii) has strength
corresponding to the critical state (Schofield and Wroth, 1968), at which the material deforms
without change in volume or density. For instance, if we assume that the FA part has only
hydrostatic strength, defined by bulk modulus, K, Eq. (I35a) reduces to:
54
Figure I.8 Schematic of Elastoplastic and softening (DSC) Responses
c
o
Elastoplastic(virgin)
(a) Elastoplastic Response with Unloading and Reloading
c
o
Elastoplastic(i)
(b) DSC Softening with Unloading and Reloading
Softening: Observed(a)
Fully Adjusted(c)

D
55
{ } ( ) { } { }
{ }
i
ii
i i a
S dD
I
D
d C D d
+ = o c o
3
1
(I35b)
where {I} is the unit vector and {S} is the vector of shear stress components. Here, it is assumed
that the mean pressure p (= J
i
/3 = o
ii
/3) and the strains are the same in the RI and FA parts. In
that case, eq. (I35a) can be written as
{ }  { } c o d C d
DSC a
= (I35c)
where [C
DSC
] is the general constitutive matrix and dD = {R}
T
{dc
i
}, R is derived on the basis of
the adopted yield function (Desai, 2001). The constitutive matrix is given by
  ( )   
{ } { } { } ( )
i c T
c i DSC
R
C D C D C
o o +
+ = 1
(I35d)
Specializations
If D = 0, that is, the material is considered as a continuum, Eq. (I35a) reduces to
{ }  { }
i i
d C d c o = (I35e)
where [C
t
] can be elastic, elastoplastic, or elastoviscoplastic model.
THERMAL OR INITIAL STRAINS
Thermal and mechanical (loading) cycles are available in the finite element code. The
implementation aspects for various characterizations and cyclic (loadingunloadingreloading)
are described below.
Elastic Behavior
In the case of elastic behavior, the effect of known temperature change causing initial
strains, are given below for various twodimensional idealizations:
56
Plane Stress
( )
( )
( ) 0 . 0
=
=
=
T
dT T
dT T
xy
T y
T x
o c
o c
(I.37)
where o
t
is the coefficient of thermal expansion and dT is the temperature change = T T
o
, T
o
is
initial (previous) temperature and T is the current temperature.
Plane Strain
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) dT E T
T
dT T
dT T
T z
xy
T y
T x
o o
v o c
v o c
=
=
+ =
+ =
0 . 0
1
1
(I.38)
where E and v are the elastic parameters.
Axisymmetric
( )
( )
( )
( ) 0 . 0 =
=
=
=
T
dT T
dT T
dT T
rz
T
T z
T r
o c
o c
o c
u
(I.39)
Then the incremental elastic constitutive relation is given by
{ }  { }
  { } ( ) { }   T d d C
d C d
e
e e
c c
c o
=
=
(I.40)
where [C
e
] is the elastic (tangent) constitutive matrix, and {d c}, [d c
e
} and {d c(T)} are the
vectors of total, elastic and thermal strains, respectively.
57
If the parameters E and v vary with temperature, they can be expressed in terms of
temperature as (Desai, et al., 1997; Desai, 2001):
T
C
t
r
T
T
E E


.

\

= (I.41a)
v
v v
C
r
r
T
T


.

\

= (I.41b)
where E
r
and v
r
are values at reference temperature, T
r
(e.g., room temperature = 300 K), and c
T
and c
v
are parameters found from laboratory tests.
Thermoplastic Behavior
The normality rule gives the increment of plastic strain vector {dc
p
(T)} as
( ) { }
{ } ( )
)
`
c
c
=
o
o
c
T Q
T d
p
, ,
(I.42)
where Q is the plastic potential function; for associative rule, Q F, where F is the yield
function. Now, the total incremental strain vector {dc
t
} is given by
( ) { } ( ) { } ( ) { } ( ) { } T d T d T d T d
p e t
c c c c + + = (I.43)
where {dc(T)} is the strain vector due to temperature change. Hence,
( ) { } { } ( ) { } T d
Q
d T d
e
c
o
c c
)
`
c
c
= (I.44a)
and
{ } ( )  { }
( )   { } { }


.

\

)
`
c
c
=
=
dT I
Q
T C
T C d
T
e
e
0
1
e
e
d
d
o
o
c
c o
(I.44b)
where { } 0] 1 1 [
0
1
= I for twodimensional case and [1 1 1 0 0 0] for threedimensional case.
Now, the consistency condition gives
{ } ( ) 0 T , , = o dF (I.45)
58
Therefore,
{ } dT
T
F
d
F
d
F
dF
T
c
c
+
c
c
+
)
`
c
c
=
o
o
(I.46)
Then, use of Eqs. (I.44) and I.46) gives
( )  { } ( )  { }
( )  
2 / 1
o
I d


.

\

)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
c
c
+
)
`
c
c
=
o o o o
o
o c
Q Q F Q
T C
F
dT T C
F
dT
T
F
T C
T
F
T
e
T
e
T
T
e
T
(I.47a)
Therefore,
{ } ( )    
( )  
( )  
{ }
( )   { }
( )  { }
( )  
dT
Q Q F Q
T C
F
Q
T
F
I T C
F Q
I T C
d
Q Q F Q
T C
F
T C
F Q
T C d
T
e
T
o e
T
T
o e
T
e
T
e
T
e






.

\



.

\

)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c






.

\



.

\

)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
=
2 / 1 T
2 / 1
I
o o o o
o o o
o
o
c
o o o o
o o
o
(I.47b)
The parameters in the elastoplastic model, e.g., HISSo
0
. can be expressed as function of
temperature as
( )
c
r
r
T
T
P T P


.

\

= (I.48)
where P is any parameter such as E, v, Eq. (I.40); , , R, n, Eq. (I.19); a
1
, q
1
, Eq. (I.20); P
r
is its
value at reference temperature T
r
, and c is parameter found from laboratory tests.
Thermoviscoplastic Behavior
The total temperature dependent strain rate vector, { } c , is assumed to be the sum of
thermoelastic strain rate, { } ) (T
e
c , thermoviscoplastic strain rate, { } ) (T
vp
c , and the thermal strain
rate due to temperature change dT, { } ) (T c , as
{ } ( ) { } ( ) { } ( ) { } T T T
vp e
c c c c + + = (I.49)
Here, the thermoviscoplastic strain is contributed by rheologic or creep and temperature effects.
59
With Perzynas (1966) viscoplastic theory, Eq. (I.29), Eq. (I.49) can be written as
{ } ( ) { } ( )
( )
( ) { } T
F
F
T F
T T
e
o
e
c
o
 c c +
)
`
c
c


.

\

I + = (I.50)
where I and  are temperature dependent fluidity parameter and flow function, respectively.
Then the constitutive equations are given by
{ } ( )   { } ( )
( )
( ) { }


.

\

)
`
c
c


.

\

I = T
F
F
T F
T T C
o
e
c
o
 c o (I.51)
Viscous or creep behavior requires integration in time. The thermoviscoplastic strain rate
is evaluated from Eq. (I.29) at time step n, Fig. I.9. Then the strain rate at step (n + 1) can be
expressed by using Taylor series expansion as (Desai, et al., 1995); Owen and Hinton, 1980)
( ) { } ( ) { }
( ) { }
( ) { }
( ) { }   { }     I dT G d G T
I dT
T
T
d
T
T T
n n n n
n
vp
n
n
vp
n
n
vp
n
vp
n
vp
+ + =
c
c
+
c
c
+ =
+
2 1
~
~
~
1
o c
c
o
o
c
c c
(I.52a)
where { }
n
d
~
o is the stress increment, dT
n
is the temperature increment, and [G
1
]
n
, [G
2
]
n
denote
gradient matrices at time step, n.
The increment of viscoplastic strain, { }
n
vp
T d ) ( c , can be found during the time interval
At
n
= t
n+1
 t
n
, Fig. I.9, as
( ) { } ( ) ( ) { } ( ) { }  
1
1
+
+ A =
n
vp
n
vp
n
vp
T T t T d c _ c _ c (I.53)
where 0s _s 1. For _ = 0, Eq. (I.53) gives the Euler scheme, for _ = 0.5 the CrankNicolson
scheme and so on. The present code allows for _ = 0 and 0.5.
Now, Eq. (I.51) can be written in the incremental form as
60
Figure I.9 Time Integration for Viscoplastic Strains
c
n
vp

t
n
t
n+1
t
At
n
Ac
n
vp
c
vp
c
n+1
vp

61
{ } ( )  { } (
( ) { } ( ) { }) T d T d
d T C d
n
vp
n e n
c c
c o
=
~
(I.54)
Use of Eqs. (I.52) and (I.54), leads to
{ } ( )   { } ( ( ) { }
  ( ) { }) T dT t G
t T d T C d
n
n
n
2
n
n
vp
n ~
evp n
~
c A _
A c c = o
(I.55)
where
( )   ( )     ( )     
1
1
A + =
n
n e e evp
t G T C I T C T C _
DSC Model
In the case of the DSC model, Eq. (I.35), the RI response can be simulated as elastic, Eq.
(I.40), elastoplastic, Eq. (I.47b), or elastoviscoplastic, Eq. (I.55), which include the temperature
dependence.
With the general DSC model, Eq. (I.35), the disturbance parameters, D
u
, A and Z, Eq.
(I.36b) can be expressed as functions of temperature, by using Eq. (I.48). Their values
determined from tests at different temperatures, which are used to define the function in Eq.
(I.48).
CYCLIC AND REPETITIVE LOADING
Cyclic and repetitive loading, involving loading, unloading and reloading, occur in many
problems such as dynamics and earthquakes, thermomechnical response such as in electronic
packaging and semiconductor systems, and pavements. If the simulated behavior involves
continuing increase in stress along the same loading path, without unloading and reloading, Fig.
I.10, it is often referred to as monotonic or virgin loading. The unloading and reloading are often
referred to as nonvirgin loading. Loading in the opposite side, i.e., negative side of the (stress)
response, is sometimes referred to as reverse (reloading) loading. Cyclic loading without stress
62
Figure I.10 Schematic of Loading, Unloading, and Reloading
Reloading(Reverse)
Unloading
Reloading
Loading
Virgin
A
Unloading
o
c
63
reversal is often referred to oneway, while with stress reversals, it is referred to as twoway. In
the case of degradation or softening, decrease in stress beyond the peak occurs, but it is
considered different from unloading.
For the virgin loading, the constitutive equations, Eq. (I.35), apply. For nonvirgin
loading, it is required to consider additional and separate, often approximate, simulations.
In the case of elastoplastic model (e.g., HISSo
0
), the simulated virgin response allows
for the effect of plastic strains and plastic hardening or yielding, Fig. I.11(a). In the case of the
softening behavior, the plasticity model can simulate the RI behavior, and the use of DSC allows
for the degradation, Fig. I.11(b).
Plastic deformations can occur during unloading and reloading, and can influence the
overall response, Fig. I.11. Although models to allow for such behavior have been proposed in
the context of kinematic hardening plasticity (Mroz, et al., 1978); Somasundaram and Desai,
1988), they are often relatively complex and may involve computational difficulties. Hence,
approximate schemes that are simple but can provide satisfactory simulation have often been
used; one such method implemented in the present code, is described below.
Unloading
As indicated in Fig. I.10, the unloading response is usually nonlinear. However, as a
simplification, it is often treated as linear. Here, both linear and nonlinear elastic simulations are
included. For the nonlinear case, of which the linear simulation is a special case, the procedure
proposed by Shao and Desai (1998a,b) is used. During unloading, the following incremental
stressstrain equation is used:
{ }  { } c o d C d
UL
= (I.56)
64
Figure I.11 Unloading Interpolation Function for CTC and SS Tests
G
e
G
b
e
(b) Simple Shear Test
t

E
e
E
u
E
b
Current
c
1
p
c
1
e
c
1
A
(a) CTC Test
o
1
o
3
65
where [C
UL
] is the elastic constitutive matrix with variable elastic unloading modulus, E
u
, Fig.
I.11, and the Poissons ratio, v, is assumed to be constant. The modulus E
u
is given by
p b u
E E E
1 1 1
+ = (I.57)
where E
b
is the slope of the unloading curve (response) at the point (A) of unloading, Fig.
I.11(a), and E
p
is the plastic modulus, which is evaluated by using the following equation:
2
2 2
1
K
D
b
D
a
a
p
J J
p
K p E
(
(
= (I.58)
where K
1
and K
2
are constants, p
a
is the atmospheric pressure (used for nondimensionalization,
and
b
D
J
2
and J
2D
and the second invariants of the deviatoric stress tensor, S
ij
, at the start of
unloading (point A), and at the current state during unloading, respectively.
The values of K
1
and K
2
are found from laboratory tests. For triaxial compression CTC:
o
1
> o
2
= o
3
) and simple shear (SS) tests, their values are derived as follows:
Triaxial Compression (CTC) Test
( )
0 . 1
1 1
3
1
2 2
2

.

\

=
b e p
D
b
D
E E
J J
K
c
(I.59a)
( )
1
2 2
1 2
1
2
1
3
+
(
(
+
=
K
a
D
b
D
p
p
J J
K
K
c
(I.59b)
where E
e
is the elastic modulus (slope) at the end of unloading and
p
1
c is the plastic strain, Fig.
I.11(a).
Simple Shear (SS) Test, Fig. I.11(b)
The relation between the elastic (Youngs) and shear moduli (G) are given by
( )
b b
G E v + = 1 2 (I.60a)
66
( )
e e
G E v + = 1 2 (I.60b)
Substitution of Eq. (I.60) into Eq. (I.59) and replacing
D
J
2
by t (shear stress) and
p
1
c
by ( ) v + 1 2 / 3
p
, where
p
is the plastic shear strain, Fig. I.11(b), leads to
0 . 1
1 1
2

.

\

=
G G
K
e p
b
t t
(I.61a)
( )
1
2
1
2
1
1
+
(
+
+
=
K
a
b
p
p K
K
t t
v
(I.61b)
where t
b
and t are the shear stresses at the point of unloading, and during unloading,
respectively.
The values of
p
1
c and
p
are evaluated by using the following equations:

.

\

=
b e
b
p
E E
J
D
1 1
2
3
2
1
c (I.62a)
and

.

\

=
b e
b
p
G G
1 1
2
t
(I.62b)
Reloading
Figure I.12 shows two cases of reloading, for the oneway and twoway. In both cases,
the following constitutive equation is used:
{ }  { } ( ) { } c c o d C R d C R d
e DSC a
+ = 1 (I.63)
where R is the interpolation parameter such that 0 s R s 1; R = 0 for the beginning of
reloading and R = 1 at the end of reloading. Thus, at the beginning of reloading, the behavior is
elastic, given by
{ }  { } c o d C d
e a
= (I.64a)
at the end of reloading, virgin response resumes:
67
Figure I.12 Two Reloading Cases
E
b
E
br
=E
b
E
Unloading
Reloading
A
c
o
B
(a)Reloading case 1: A B (oneway)
Unloading
E
br
=E
e
Reloading(Reverse)
Unloading
A
B
c
o
(b)Reloading case 2: A B (twoway)
68
{ }  { } c o d C d
DSC a
= (I.64b)
The elastic modulus, E
R
, for the two cases, Fig. I.12, is different. For case 1, the elastic
modulus at the start of reloading, E
br
, is given by
b br
E E = (I.65a)
where E
b
is the unloading slope at the beginning of unloading, Fig. I.13(a). For case 2,
e br
E E = (I.65b)
where E
c
is the slope at the end of unloading, Fig. I.13(b).
The interpolation parameter, R , for both cases is found as
b
D
D
J
J
R
2
2
= (I.66)
where
b
D
J
2
and J
2D
are the second invariants of the shear stress tensor at the beginning of the last
unloading and current level, respectively.
In computer (finite element) analysis, the reloading stress path may be between the above
two cases. Then, a parameter, S, is defined as an indicator of the direction of reloading:
{ } { } ( ) { }
{ } { } o o o
o o o
d
=
b
T
b
d
S (I.67)
where 1 s S s 1, {o
b
}, {o} and {do} are the stress vectors before unloading, the current stress
vector and the next stress increment respectively. S = 1 indicates case 1 reloading, while S = 1
indicates case 2 reloading. Now, E
br
is interpolated between E
b
and E as
e b br
E
S
E
S
E 2
1
2
1 1 +
+
= (I.68a)
Then, the modulus for reloading, E
R
, is found as
E
R
E
R
E
br R
+
=
1 1
(I.68b)
69
where E is the elastic modulus of the material, which is often found as (average) slope of the line
joining the unloading and end of unloading points or the initial slope, Fig. I.13(a). Then at the
beginning of reloading when R = 0, E
R
= E
br
, which ensures smooth transition from unloading to
reloading, Fig. I.12(b). At the end of reloading (R = 1), E
R
 = E, which ensures smooth transition
from reloading to the virgin loading.
Cyclic Hardening
In the case of elastoplastic behavior, there exists a yield surface (F
o
) corresponding to the
initial or past state of stress experienced by the material before the present cyclic or repetitive
load is applied, Fig. I.13. When unloading occurs, the plastic strains can change (increase or
decrease), and hence, for the reloading after the unloading, the yield surface that defines the
elastic limit usually expands from F
o
to the initial surface, F
i
, corresponding to each cycle N (= 1,
2, ). As a result, the magnitudes of plastic strains decrease from one cycle to the next, which is
often referred to as cyclic hardening.
For a given load or stress (increment), the final or bounding surface, F
b
, can be defined
by solving the incremental constitutive equations, (I35). In the case of repetitive loading under
constant amplitude of load (stress), Fig. I.13(b), the maximum load (P
max
) will be the amplitude
of the load (stress). In the case of cyclic (oneway) loading, Fig. I.13(c), the bounding surface,
F
b
, would change for each stress increase. Note that in the repetitive load analysis, here, the time
effects are not included.
Mroz, et al. (1978) proposed a model for cyclic hardening, which was adopted by
Bonaquist and Witczak (1997) for materials in pavement structures. The approximate (modified)
method for cyclic hardening implemented in the present code is similar, and is described below.
70
Figure I.13 Cyclic Hardening Under Repeated Loading
O
B
A
C
B
F
0
F
1
F
2
F
b
J
1
\J
2D
(a)Cyclic hardening
B
A
C
B

O
o
c
(c)LoadingUnloadingReloading
O
B
A
P
max
P
Time
(b)Repeated wheel load
71
For the given load or stress increment, two bounding surfaces are defined, F
o
and F
b
, Fig.
I.13, and the corresponding hardening functions and parameters are o
o
and o
b
, Eq. (I.20), and
o
and
b
, respectively. Here, denotes the accumulated plastic strains:
{ } { } ( )
}
=
2 / 1
p
T
p
d d c c (I.69)
where {dc
p
} is the vector of incremental plastic strains. Then the initial yield surface parameter,
i
, for a given cycle, i, is expressed as
( )
o h o i
c
N

.

\

+ =
b
1
1 (I.70a)
where h
c
is the cyclic hardening parameter, determined from laboratory repetitive tests. It
controls the rate of expansion of the initial yield surface, F
i
, at the end of unloading for a given
cycle, N. If h
c
= 0, no cyclic hardening occurs.
Bonaquist and Witczak (1997) considered repeated tests involving the same stress
(amplitude) to an initially unstrained material specimen,
o
= 0. Then, Eq. (I.70a) becomes
b h i b
c
N
1
= = (I.70b)
or
c
h
b
N
1
=
where
is the plastic strain trajectory up to cycle N. Plots of normalized trajectory /
b
vs
number of cycles are used to find h
c
through a least square procedure. For the granular material,
h
c
= 1.06 was found (Bonaquist and Witczak, 1997).
With the above formulation, the value of
i
, Eq. (I.70) is used to evaluate the hardening
function, o
i
, Eq. (I.20). It is used to define the elastoplastic constitutive matrix [C
ep
] = [C
i
], Eq.
(I.36e), the general DSC matrix [D
DSC
], Eqs. (I35e), and (I.63), when reloading occurs
72
APPENDIX II
ELASTOPLASTIC EQUATIONS
The incremental total strain vector {dc} is the sum of incremental elastic, {dc
e
} and
plastic, {c
p
} strain vectors, i.e.,
{ } { } { } d + d = d
p e
c c
c (II.1)
The incremental elastic strain is related to the incremental stress as
{ }  { } d
C
= d
e e
c
o (II.2)
where {do} is the incremental stress vector and [C
e
] is the elasticity matrix.
Using the theory of plasticity, the incremental plastic strain vector is given by the flow
rule
{ }
)
`
o c
c
c
Q
= d
' p
(II.3)
where
/
is the scalar constant of proportionality.
The consistency condition is
dF = 0 (II.4)
Equations (II.1) to (II.4) are combined to obtain the incremental stressstrain relation
{ }  { } d
C
= d
p e
c o (II.5)
where [C
ep
] is the elastoplastic constitutive matrix.
The expression for
/
and [C
ep
] are derived as
  { }
  H 
Q
C
F
d
C
F
=
e
T
e
T
'
)
`
o c
c
)
`
o c
c
c
)
`
o c
c
(II.6)
and
73
   
   
  H 
Q
C
F
C
F
Q
C

C
=
C
e
T
e
T
e
e p e
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
o o
o o
(II.7)
where H is the term due to hardening. For nonhardening yield function, H = 0 and for hardening
yield functions, H is defined as follows:
(i) Critical State and Cap model
F
F
= H
c
c
(II.8)
where


.

\

c
c

c
c
F
F
=
j i j i
2 / 1
F
o o
(II.9)
(ii) HISS model (nonassdociative)
D Q
D
Q
F
+
F
= H
c
c
c
c
(II.10)
where


.

\

c
c
c
c
Q
Q
=
j i j i
2 / 1
Q
o o
(II.11)
and
(
(


.

\

c
c



.

\

c
c
Q
Q
=
j i
D
j i
D
2 / 1
D Q
o o
(II.12)
where D denotes deviatoric part. For associative model Q F.
The elastoplastic constitutive matrix [C
ep
] represents the response of the material in the
relative intact (RI) state and forms a part of the general DSC matrix, Eq. (I.35c), when
disturbance (softening or degradation) is considered.
Derivations for creep and DSC models are given by Desai (2001).
74
APPENDIX III
DRIFT CORRECTION AND DSC COMPUTER ALGORITHM
Under a given stress increment, {do}, the stresses at point B do not lie on the yield
surface, Fig. 6 (in the main text), i.e., F ({o
B
}, o
B
) > 0, where o is the hardening function. The
stress vector {o
B
} and o
B
are to be corrected so that F ({o
B
}, o
B
) ~ 0. The method, designated as
correction method by Potts and Gens (1985) and modified by Desai, et al. (1991), is described
below.
The correction is carried out by an iteration procedure. At the nth iteration, the stresses
and hardening parameters are given by
{ } { }  
)
`
c
c
=
o
o o
Q
C
e /
1 n n
(III.1)
d
n n
+ =
1
(III.2)
v v vn
d
n
+ =
1
(III.3)
D D Dn
d
n
+ =
1
(III.4)
where
{ } ( )
  H C
F
e
T
n
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
=
o o
o o
Q
F
,
1  n 1 /
(III.5)
F
d
/
= (III.6)
FV v
d
/
= (III.7)
FD D
d
/
= (III.8)
75
0in which


.

\

c
c

c
c
F
F
=
j i j i
2 / 1
F
o o
(III.9)
3 /
F
=
i i
V F
o
c
c
(III.10)
(
(


.

\

c
c



.

\

c
c
F
F
=
j i
D
j i
D
2 / 1
D F
o o
(III.11)
For nonhardening, yield function, H = 0 in Eq. III.5 and for hardening yield function, H
is given by Eq. II.8 or Eq. II.10 of Appendix II.
The derivatives
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
o o
Q F
, and
D
F F
c
c
c
c
, are evaluated at the stress point {o
n1
}. The
iterations are performed until the yield function is satisfied, i.e., F ({o
n
}, o
n
) ~ 0 within the
tolerance of 10
6
or less. For the first iteration, {o
o
} is taken as {o
B
} and o
o
as o
B
.
DSC Computer Algorithm
According to Eq. (I.35a), the DSC incremental finite element equations are given by
~ ~
o
~ ~
~
Q  Q d Q q d k
i DSC
= = (III.12)
where
DSC
k
~
is the nonsymmetrical stiffness matrix,
i
q d
~
is the vector of nodal increment
displacements,
~
Q is the applied load vector,
)
`
~
o
Q is the balanced load vector. Incremental
iterative solution of Eq. (III.12) involves negative definite stiffness matrix in the softening zone
(Desai and Toth, 1996). However, a number of approximate but simplified strategies can be used
(Desai and Woo, 1993; Desai, et al., 1999; Desai, 2001). One such scheme is to first solve for the
76
RI response by considering only the symmetric part of
DSC
k
~
that defines the RI behavior. Hence,
the following RI equations are first solved:
~
1
~ ~
i
n
i
n
i
n
Q d q d k
+
= (III.13)
where
i
k
~
is based on elastic, elastoplastic or other suitable model for the RI behavior,
i
Q d
~
, is
the vector of applied loads, and n denotes incfremental step. For elasticplastic model, the drift
correction will lead to convergent solution for incremental displacements,
i
in
q d
1
~
+
, which in turn
can be used for computing the RI strains,
i
in
d
1
~
+
c and stresses,
i
in
d
1
~
+
o , Fig. III.1. Then by
considering the observed and RI strains to be at the same level, i.e.,
a i
in in 1 1
~ ~
+ +
= c c , the observed
stress,
i
in 1
~
+
o , is found by using Eq. (I.35) through an iterative procedure in which the
disturbance, Eq. (I.36), is found and updated. Details of the procedure are given in Desai (2001).
77
APPENDIX IV
DETERMINATION OF CONSTANTS FOR VARIOUS MODELS
Procedures for the determination of constants for the HISSo
0
and o
1
models are first
described below, Desai and Wathugala (1987), Desai (1990), Desai (1994). Brief details for
determination of constants for other models, elastoviscoplastic, and disturbance (softening or
degradation) are given later.
As stated before, the constants involved in the HISS models have physical meanings and
can be determined from uniaxial, shear, hydrostatic, triaxial (cylindrical) and multiaxial (cubical)
tests.
 In fact, the constants can be estimated from One Compression and One Extension
Test.
 If the angles of friction in compression and extension are assumed to be equal,
i.e., 
c
= c, then three compression test can be used to find constants.
 For o
0
and o
1
models, computer code (see below) can be used to calculate the
constants.
Schematic plots required to find the constants and brief details are given below.
Elastic Constants, Fig. IV.1
Fig. IV.1. Elastic Constants
E
o
1
o
3
e
1
(a) E and v
e
v
e
1
v
78
1. Find (average) E and v from unloading slopes of (o
1
 o
v
) vs. c
1
and c
v
vs. c
1
curves,
Fig. IV.1(a)
2. For G and K use curves in terms of t
oct
vs.
oct
and
3
1
J
vs. c
v
, Fig. IV.1(b).
3. Relations between elastic constants and unloading (reloading) slopes (S) for different
stress paths are given in the following Table IV.1
Figure IV.1 (continued)
t
G
c
1
t
oct
S
1
S
2
S
3
c
3
c
2
c
2
,
c
3
(b) Shear Modulus, G, and Bulk Modulus,
K
(c) Slopes in StressStrain
Curves
c
v
J
1
/
3
K
79
Table IV.1
Figure IV.2. Ultimate Parameters: and 
e
i
o
i
Ultimate(Asymptotic
)
\J
2D
J
1






Compressio
n
Extension
, 

\2o
2
=\2o
3
o
1
HC
CTE
CTC
TE
RTE
PL
RT
C
SSTC
Note: The elasticity parameters can be expressed as nonlinear functions of factors such
as shear stress and mean pressure.
Plasticity Constants
Ultimate: ,  (Fig. IV.2, IV.3)
Test E
CTC
RTE
3S
1
\2
2 S
1
S
2
+ S
3
S
2
+ S
3
4 S
1
3\2 S
1
(S
2
+ S
3
)
4 S
1
+S
2
+ S
3
)
TC
TE
CTE
RTC
v
\3
2\2
(1+v)( S
1
+ S
3
)
3S
1
\2
(1+v)( S
1
+S
2
+ S
3
)
SS
CTC (o
1
>o
2
=o
3
), and so on.
Where SI =(average) slope of the unloading/reloading curve,
t
oct
VS
ci (i=1,2,3)
plot, Fig Iv.1(c)
80
Figure IV.3 Ultimate Envelopes in Different Stress Spaces
u
E
u
S
u
C
\J
2D
J
1
(a) Ultimate Envelopes in \J
2D
 J
1
Space
C=Compression
S=Simple shear
E=Extension

E

S

C
t
o
(b) Ultimate Envelopes in MohrCoulomb (to) Space
81
1. Find ultimate (asymptotic) stresses for given stressstrain curve under initial values of J
1
.
Ultimate value can be found by drawing an asymptote to the curve or by taking a value of about
5 to 10% higher than stress at peak.
2. Plot
D
J
2
vs. J
1
for ultimate values for compression, extension and/or simple shear
paths. At least two such points are needed. If the angle of friction is compression 
c
=
angle of friction in extension 
E
, only one point can be sufficient.
3. Use lease square fit to find and  from F = 0 with o = 0.
( ) ( ) 2
E
2
c
1
tan
1
tan
m m

u

u
= (IV.1
m
m
p
p
2
2
) ( 1
) ( 1
+
=  (IV.1b)
where


.

\

+
=


.

\

= =
E
e
E
c
c
c
E
c
p

u
u
u
sin 3
sin
3
2
tan and
sin 3
sin
3
2
tan ,
tan
tan
.

c
, 
s
, 
E
and u
c
, u
s
, u
E
, are shown in Fig. (IV.3).
Phase Change (Fig. IV.4)
Figure IV.4. Phase Change Parameter: n
e
1
o
e
1
e
v
Contraction to
Dilation
cF/cJ
1
=0
\J
2D
J
1
\
o=0.04
0.014
(a) In J
1
\J
2D
Space
82
1. Find the state of stress at which the volume change = 0 (i.e.,
1
J
F
c
c
= 0).
2. Find n by substituting the stresses in the following equation:
F
1
J
J
 1
2
= n
s
2
1
2D


.

\

(IV.2)
(at zero volume change)
The value of n can also be found from HC test by usng the following formula (Wathugala
and Desai, 1991)
dJ
2)  (n 3 = d
J 1 k k
1  n
1
c
(IV.3)
where dJ
1
and dc
kk
are increments in the J
1
vs. c
kk
curve.
Although it may depend on factors such as initial density, an average constant value of n
can be often used. For dense sands, the value of n may be around 3.0, while for loose sands and
other materials such as rock and concrete, it would be higher, often of the order of 7 to 10.
Cohesive Materials (Soils): In the case of cohesive soils, usually the (undrained) stress path may
not reach the ultimate (asymptotic) curve, and failure can occur as the phase change or the
critical state line, Fig. (IV.5), is approached (Wathugala and Desai, 1991). Then, the parameter n
is found from
n
2
=
J
J
2  n
1
1m
1a

.

\

(IV.4)
where J
lm
= maximum value of J
1
of a yield surface and J
ia
= intersection of the phase change line
and the same yield surface, Fig. (IV.5). J
lm
can be obtained from the effective consolidation p
/
as
p 3 =
J1m
' (IV.5)
n can also be found from the slopes of the phase change line, S
PC
, and the ultimate line
(curve), S
UL
as
83
Figure IV.5 Phase Change Parameter for Cohesive (Soil) Materials
2
1

.

\

n
2  n
=
S
S
UL
PC
(IV.6)
The values of and  are found by least square or an optimization procedure from:
0.5)  = (m 1 =
S
+
2  n
n
1
2
J
J
r
m
1

m
1
2D
pc

(
(
(
(
(

.

\





.

\

(IV.7)
where the subscript pc denotes stress quantities at the phase change; a minimum of two such
values are needed for two stress paths such as compression and extension.
Hardening Parameters: (Fig. IV.6)
Yield Surface
\
J
2
D
J
1
J
1m
J
1a
S
UL
S
PC
A
Phase Change Line
Ultimate Line
84
Figure IV.6. Hardening Parameters: a
1
and q
1
1. For a given stress increment find
p
3
p
2 1
d , d , c c c
p
d based on unloading modulus. Then find
.
2. Substitute the state of stress in F = 0, from which find corresponding o.
3. Plot ln vs. ln o for different stressstrain curves. In many cases, the results will form a
narrow band. Then draw an average straight line. The slope gives q
1
and the intercept
along ln o gives a
1
, at n = 0.
If the points are scattered, it may be necessary to express a
1
and/or q
1
function of factors
such as initial pressure and density.
q
1
ln
a
1
lno
q
o
i
c
i
dc
i
p
pp
=( dc
ij
dc
ij
)
1/2
; F=0
p
pp
p
pp
S
u
K
Nonassociative
85
4. For nonassociative parameter k, find the (constant) slope, S
u
, Fig. IV.6, of the final
portion of the c
v
vs c
1
curve. Use S
u
in the following equation to find k.
(
o
o
o
k 
Z
Y
)
r
 (1 )  (
1
=
v o
(IV.8)
where
2 / 3
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
n
1
2 / 1
D 2
2 / 3
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
n
1
2 / 5
D 2 D 3 11
p
2 / 1
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
p 1 n
1
2 / 3
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
2
1
2 / 1
D 2
2 / 3
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
11
p
2
1
2 / 5
D 2 D 3 11
p
2 / 1
2 / 3
D 2 D 3
p
1
) J J 27 1 ( J J 3 2
) J J 27 1 (
J J J 3 S
) J J 27 1 )( 3 ( nJ Y
) J J 27 1 (
J J 3 2 ) J J 27 1 (
S J J J 3 S
) J J 27 1 )( 3 ( J 2 Z
 +
 +
 u +
 + u =
 +
+
u  + u
 + u =
and
c
3 /
= / =
r
p
v
v
v
Cohesive and Tensile Strengths (Fig. IV.7)
If a material possesses cohesive and tensile strengths, the yield function F is shifted in the
stress space shown in Fig. (IV.7). Then the transformed stress tensor, o
ij
, is expressed as
86
f
t
o
1
\2 o
2
=\2 o
3
\2 (o
2
+R)=\2 (o
3
+R)
R
\2R
\2 o
2
=\2 o
3
* *
Uniaxial Tensile Strength
o
1
=o
1
+R
*
Hydrostatic Axis
Ultimate Envelope
Ultimate Envelope
Compression
Extension
Fig. IV.7 Cohesive and Tensile Strengths
o o o ij ij
*
ij
R + = (IV.9)
where the term R is related to c and , Fig. I.4, and o
ij
= Kronecker delta; R = 0 for
cohesionless materials. R can be related to the uniaxial tensile strength of the material, f
t
. An
empirical relation is given as (Salami and Desai, 1990; Lade, 1982):
f 1.014 R f 1.003
t t
s s (IV.10)
Once R is known,
*
ij
o is used in F
*
= 0 Fig. (IV.7), and the plasticity parameters ( and ) are
found based on the modified F.
For rocks, f
1
can be found from the following expression (Hoek and Brown, 1980)
( ) s 4 +
m
 m
2
1
= f
2
c
t
o
(IV.11a)
where o
c
= unconfined compressive strength, s
1
= 1.0 for intact rock, and parameter m is found
from compression test results.
87
The value of R can also be obtained in a simplified procedure, as
/ c = R
a
3 (IV.11b)
where
a
c = the intercept of
D
J
2
 axis with respect to the ultimate yield surface and is related
to the cohesive strength, and is related to the slope of the ultimate yield surface (line).
COMPUTER CODE TO FIND CONSTANTS FOR o
0
 AND o
1
MODELS
Based on the information above, and in Desai (2001), the parameters can be found by
using EXCEL.
A computer code has also been prepared to evaluate the parameters for the o
0
 and o
1

models. Here, the user needs to input available stressstrain data, and the constants are computed
and printed out.
Viscoplastic and Creep Models, o
0 + vp
: Figs. (IV.8), (IV.9)
For the viscoplastic model (Samtani and Desai, 1991; Desai, et al., 1995; Perzyna, 1966):
F
F
=
Q
=
ij
vp
d =
j i
vp
N
o
ij


.

\

c
c


.

\

I


o
 c c
o
F
F
(IV.12)
where I = fluidity parameter and N is power law parameter.
Thus with cohesive/tensile strength, the number of constants for
o
o
model will be 7 + 1* = 8 (9 with Hoek Brown f
t
)
and for
o
1
model will be 8 + 1 = 9.
*If cohesive/tensile strength is included.
88
Mechanics of Viscoplastic Solution
Figure IV.8. Mechanism of Viscoplastic Behavior
From creep tests (on rock salt), general expression for axial strain, c
1
, is given by
(Hermann, et al., 1980)
T
)  (
t
K =
p
N
3 1
q
1 o o c
(IV.13)
t=0
t=
(a)
A
+
B
(ci)
J
1
\
J
2
D
A
+
B
(cii)
J
1
\
J
2
D
A
+
B
(ciii)
J
1
\
J
2
D
A
+
B
(civ)
J
1
\
J
2
D
V plastic
e
(d)
V plastic
vp
(e)
o= a
1
/
v
q1
o
(f)
o
A
o
B
F=J
2D
(oJ
1
n
+J
1
2
)(1S
r
)
m
F
(g)
F=0
(b)
89
where t = time, T = temperature, o
1
 o
3
= o
d
= stress difference, and q, N and p are parameters.
From creep tests, Eq. (IV.13) can be established by finding the constants using least square fit.
For a rock salt, average values q = 0.4 and N = 3.0 were found. Now, a general form of rate
vp
c
is written as (Desai and Zhang, 1987)
{ }
)
`
c
c


.

\

F
F
F
t
K q =
N
o
1  q p v
o
c (IV.14a)
Then the fluidity parameters I can be expressed as
dt
t
K
t
1
=
1  q
t
0
}
I (IV.14b)
t = total time during creep test, Fig. (IV.9). Then Eq. (IV.14b) can be integrated numerically
over total time, t , Fig. (IV.9a), and the average value of I can be found. For the rock salt I =
5.06 x 10
7
(day
1
) was found based on 22 tests on rock salt (Desai and Zhang, 1987).
90
Fig. IV.9 (continued)
Point 1
Time, Seconds(10
5
)
A
x
i
a
l
S
t
r
a
i
n
,
e
1
t
Point 1
Point
2
Point 1
Time, Seconds(10
5
)
o
d
1 psi=6.89kPa
(a) Typical Creep Test for Rock Salt(Hermann, et al.,1980)
Point 1
Time, Seconds(10
5
)
o
0
Figure IV.9 Creep Parameters: I and N
c
t
I,N
(b) Schematic of Creep Curve
91
lnI
ln(F/F
0
)
ln_
N
(c) Evaluation of Creep Parameters
_
F/F
0
Fig. IV.9 (continued)
92
In general, the creep parameters I and N can be found from laboratory creep tests.
Equation (IV.12) is expressed as (Desai, et al., 1995):
{ } { }
_
o o
c c
 =
c
c


.

\

c
c
=


.

\

I
~ ~
F
F
T
vp
T
vp
N
o
F
F
(IV.15a)
Hence,
_ n
F
F
n N n
o
=
(


.

\

+ I (IV.15b)
The values of F/F
o
and _ are found from test data [Fig. IV.9(b)] for various stress increments
(levels). Then nI vs n (F/F
o
) are plotted, Fig. IV.9(c). The average slope gives the value of N
and the intercept when n (F/F
o
) = 0 gives the value of I, the fluidity parameter.
Thus for o
0 + vp
model, the number of
constants = 7 (8) + 2 = 9 (10).
Elastoviscoplastic: MDSC (Overlay Models
The foregoing gives details of the viscoplastic model according to Perzynas theory,
which is a special case of the general elastoviscoplastic (vevp) model available in the code; it is
based on the overlay model (Appendix I) and provides four options: elastic (e), viscoelastic (ve),
elastoviscoplastic (evpPerzyna) and general vevp model.
It is useful to note that the parameters in the elastoviscoplastic models are essentially the
same as elastic, plastic and viscous, Table I.1 (Appendix I). Hence, their determination follows
the same procedures as for elastic, plastic, viscous, etc., models.
93
Some of the advantages of the MDSC (overlay model) are:
1. It allows for four hierarchical options, Table I1.
2. The parameters are the same as those required for various characterizations such as
elastic and elastoplastic, and creep.
3. The disturbance (DSC) model including microcracking, fracture and degradation
(damage) can be used directly with the evep models to characterize the relative intact (RI)
behavior. Thus, creep effects can be integrated with disturbance (or damage).
4. The parameters have physical meanings as they are related to specific deformation
states, and hence, the need for regression (which may lose the physical meanings) is minimized.
5. The model can allow implicitly for elastic, plastic and creep strains with
microcracking, damage (or degradation) in a single framework.
6. The implementation of the models in computer (finite element) procedures is straight
forward and standard, and includes the available convergence and rebustness characteristics
(Appendices II and III).
As a result, the MDSC (overlay) model can provide an integrated and unified approach
with compactness of parameters, and can lead to significant advantages and simplification
compared to the closedform models (e.g., Schapery, 1969, 1984).
Disturbance Model: (Fig. IV.10)
Details are given in Desai and Ma (1992), Desai (1995, 2001), Katti and Desai (1995),
Desai and Toth (1996).
In this model, the intact behavior is represented by using the o
0
model (7 or 8 constants).
It can also be simulated as linear or nonlinear elastic (Desai and Toth, 1996).
94


D
Peak
Relative
Intact Behavior(i)
Observed Behavior(a)
Fully Adjusted(c)
\J
2D
\I
2D
Ultimate(D
u
)
Ultimate
Figure IV.10 (a) RI, Observed and FA Responses and Disturbance
Figure IV.10 (b) Schematic for Determination of A and Z
ln(
D
)
Z
1
ln(A)
l
n
[

l
n
(
)
]
D
u

D
D
95
The behavior of the material part in the fully adjusted (FA) state can be simulated in various
ways (Desai, 1995); Desai and Toth, 1995): (i) it has no strength, like in classicalo continuum
damage model (Kachanov, 1986), (ii) as a constrained liquid with no shear strength but with
hydrostatic strength, or (iii) as critical state (Roscoe, et al., 1958) when the material can carry
shear stress reached up to that state for a given hydrostatic stress and deform at constant volume.
In the present code, the constrained liquid simulation is used.
For the disturbance and softening behavior, three additional constants, D
u
, A and Z, are
needed in the following equations for the disturbance, D.
( )   A  p x e  1 
D
= D
Z
D
u
(IV.16)
where D
u
= ultimate disturbance and A and Z are parameters.
Disturbance D can be defined approximately as (Fig. IV.10a):
J

J
J

J
= D
c
2D
i
2D
a
2D
i
2D
(IV.17)
where a, i, and c denote observed, intact and fully adjusted responses, respectively. It can also be
found from other test data such as void ratio (or volume), effective stress or pore water pressure,
and nondestructive properties such as velocities (Desai and Toth, 1996; Desai, 1995; Desai, et
al., 1998).
Now, from Eq. (IV.16)
u
u
D
D D
D
Z
=


.

\

A  exp (IV.18a)


.

\

=
u
u
D
D D
n
D
Z
A  (IV.18b)
and
96
(


.

\

D
D 
D
n  n = ) A ( n + ) ( n Z
u
u
D
(IV.18c)
The values of
D
and D (Eq. IV.17) are found for a number of points on the stressstrain
curve and a plot of Pn (
D
) versus n
(


.

\

u
u
D
D D
n is obtained. Then the slope gives Z and
the intercept gives A, Fig. (IV.10b).
Thus for the DSC model, the number of constants:
Plasticity (o
0
) model: = 7 (8) + 3 = 10 (11)
Disturbance: = 3
CYCLIC LOADING AND LIQUEFACTION
An anisotropic hardening model (o
2
) in the context of HISS models for sands is available
in Somasundaram and Desai (1988). A similar model (o
*
0
) for clays is available in Wathugala
and Desai (1993). These models have been implemented in dynamic coupled finite element
procedures. However, the disturbed state concept (DSC) provides a relatively simple procedure
for including the cyclic behavior. Hence, the DSC model for soils, interfaces and solders (Katti
and Desai, 1995; Desai, et al., 1995; Desai, et al., 1997; Park and Desai, 1997; Shao and Desai,
1998a,b) is implemented in separate code that allows for static and cyclic behavior of solids,
geologic materials and interfaces; it also allows identification of instability and liquefaction
(Desai, et al., 1998b). This code (DSC_DYN2D) and its documentation can be available
separately.
Cyclic or Repetitive Loadings, Unloading and Reloading
The present codes are based on use of the o
0
or o
1
model for virgin loading; hence, the
parameters are the same as those above for the virgin loading. The unloading and reloading are
97
simulated by using special procedures described in Appendix I. The elastic parameters involve
slopes of unloading and reloading curves (Appendix I), and cyclic hardening involves parameter
h
c
; they are found from appropriate laboratory tests.
INITIAL CONDITIONS (Desai, 2001)
To introduce initial (stress) conditions, the values of o and need to be found to establish
the starting conditions and the corresponding yield surface.
From Eq. (I.20), o can be expressed as
 
J
)
S
 (1
1
2
J
J
 =
1
n  2
r
m
2D
(
(
(
(
(

o (IV.19)
where the overdot denotes nondimensional quantity using p
a
.
For general initial stress conditions {o
o
}, Eq. (IV.19) is used to find o = o
o
. Then
0
is
found from
) /
a
( =
1
1/
0 1
0
q
o
(IV.20)
For hydrostatic initial stress (o
x
= o
y
= o
z
; t
xy
= t
yz
= t
zx
= 0), Eq. (IV.19) reduces to
=
v
(
D
= 0), and
0
is found from Eq. (IV.20).
Environmental Effects
Fluid or Water
The DSC model has been developed for saturated porous materials, and is implemented
(as stated above) for dynamic and liquefaction analysis (Park and Desai, 1997; Desai, et al.,
1998b). Here, the effective stress approach is used. Separate codes (DSCDYN2D and DSC
SST3D) are available for this problem.
( )
J
=
1
n  2
0
o
98
The DSC model has been developed for partially saturated materials by incorporating
suction (or saturation); details are given in (Desai, et al., 1996; Geiser, et al., 1997).
INTERFACE/JOINT BEHAVIOR: Fig. (IV.11)
Same framework as for solids
Figure IV.11. HISS Model for Interfaces/Joints
F(t)
P(o
n
)
R=Roughness
200 150 175 125 100 0 75 50 25
0
50
40
3
0
2
0
10
t
o
(b)
Ultimate
Phase Change
Smooth Interface
o=0
Phase Change
200 1500 175 125 100 0 75 50 25
0
50
40
3
0
2
0
10
t
o
(a)
Ultimate
Rough Interface
o=0
99
The procedures for finding material constants for interfaces/joints are similar to those for
solids, and are described in Desai (1994, 2001) and other references on joints and interfaces:
Navayogarajah, et al. (1991), Desai and Fishman (1991), Desai and Ma (1992).
MATERIAL CONSTANTS
A summary of material constants in various versions of the DSC/HISS models are given
below; the first four models and the overlay model are included in the present code.
Model
Constants for
o
0
model
Additional
Constants
Total
o
0
Associative
7 (8)*

7 (8)
o
1
Nonassociative 7 (8) 1 8 (9)
o
0 + vp
Viscoplastic 7 (8) 2 9 (10)
o
0 + D
Disturbance 7 (8) 3 10 (11)
o
0
o
0
+ vp
: Disturbance 9 (10) 3 12 (13)
Temperature 7 m 7 + m (depends on
how many parameters
are functions of T)
Elastoviscoplastic: Overlay Model See Table I.1
*8 Constants if R is included.
Material constants for typical materials and interfaces/joints are given at the end of this
Appenedix.
IMPLEMENTATION and APPLICATIOINS
Various versions described before have been implemented in static and dynamic
nonlinear finite element procedures. A computer subroutine for o
0
 and o
1
models that the users
can implement in their specific codes is given by Desai, et al. (1991).
Some of the practical problems solved and validated are stated below:
Including Verification with respect to measured responses in Field and
Laboratory
 Beams
100
 Footings
 Piles: Static, Dynamic, Saturated Soils
Single, Group
 Retaining (Reinforced) Walls
 Dams and Slopes
 Tunnels
 Building Foundation Systems
Nuclear Power Plant Structures
 Multilayer Systems
Railway Beds
1D,. 2D, 3D
Pavements
 Semiconductor Chipsubstrate Systems
101
MATERIAL CONSTANTS for TYPICAL MATERIALS
Material Constants for Leighton Buzzard, Munich and
McCormick Ranch Sand, (o
0
/o
1
Models) (Desai, 1990; Desai and Hashmi, 1989)
Material
Constant
Leighton
Buzzard
Munich
Sand
McCormick
Ranch Sand
Elastic
Constants
E
v
11500 (psi)
(79328 kPa)
0.29
16500 psi
(113685 kPa)
0.36
90000 psi
(620100 kPa)
0.30
Ultimate
State
Parameter

0.1021
0.36242
0.1051
0.747
0.0519
0.36
Phase Change
Parameter
n
2.5
3.2
4.0
Hardening
Constants
b1
b2
b3
b4
0.135
450.0
0.0047
1.02
0.1258
1355.0
0.001
1.11
4.88x10
4
714.0
0.004
1.04
Nonassociative
Constant
k
0.29
0.35
*Usually, the hardening function, Eq. (1.20a) is used. However, when the effect of hydrostatic
(HC) and proportional loading is significant, a mixed form of o can be used (Eq. I.20b)
which for HC loading reduces to
Then b
1
and b
2
are found from HC tests and then b
3
and b
4
are found from shear tests.
(
(


.

\

b
+
b
 1
b
 p x e
b
=
D
4 3
D
2 1
o
( )
b
 p x e
b
=
v
2 1
o
102
MATERIAL CONSTANTS FOR SOAPSTONE FROM DIFFERENT
STRESS PATH TESTS (o
0
MODEL) (Salami and Desai, 1990)
E
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
ENGLISH UNITS SI UNITS
K 449.51 ksi 3099.37 MPa
G 614.99 ksi 4240.4 MPa
E 1327.39 ksi 9152.4 MPa
v 0.0792 0.0792
Cohesive
and Tensile
Strengths
R 0.155 ksi 1.067 MPa
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
m 0.50 0.50
0.0468 0.0468

0
0.74922 0.74922

1
6.8410
4
6.8410
4
Phase
Change
n 7.0 7.0
H
a
r
d
e
n
i
n
g
q 0.747 0.747
a
1
1.21510
12
1.21510
12
Note: All constants, except where indicated, are nondimensional.
103
Material Constants for Rock Salt (o
ov
Model)
(Desai and Zhang, 1987; Desai and Varadarajan, 1987)
K 14,989 MPa
Elasticity G 8,143 MPa
E 20,685 MPa
v 0.27
Cohesive/Tensile Strength R 1.79 MPa
m 0.50
Ultimate 0.0945
 0.995

1
0.00049
Plasticity Phase Change n 3.0
a
1
1.80910
5
Hardening q
1
0.2322
Non
associate k 0.275
Viscoplastic Fluidity =5.06 10
7
per day
Parameter N=3.0
104
MATERIAL CONSTANTS FOR PLAIN CONCRETE FROM
DIFFERENT STRESS PATH TESTS (o
0
MODEL) (Salami and Desai, 1990)
MATERIAL CONSTANT FOR PLAIN CONCRETE
ELASTIC
CONSTANTS
ENGLISH UNITS SI UNITS
K 487.86 ksi 3363.8 MPa
G 440.36 ksi 3036.3 MPa
E 1012.82 ksi 6983.4 MPa
v 0.154 0.154
CONSTANTS
FOR
ULTIMATE
YIELDING
o=3R 1.1833 ksi 8.1589 MPa
0.1130 0.1130

0
0.8437 0.8437

1
3.9710
4
3.9710
4
n 7.0 7.0
CONSTANTS
FOR
HARDENING
q
1
0.4388 0.4388
a
1
6.4010
12
6.4010
12
*Here  is dependent on J
1
, given by =
0
u
1J1
105
Material Constants for Plain Concrete
o
0 + D
Disturbance Model, Desai and Woo (1993)
Constant
Value
Units
Disturbance
D
u
0.875
Z
1.502
A
668.0
Plasticity

0.750
0.0678
n
5.24
a
1
4.6 x 10
11
q
1
0.83
R
1.50
MPa
Elasticity
E (Young's Modulus)
37,000
MPa
v (Poisson's Ratio)
0.25
Note: No units indicates dimensionless constant
106
Material Constants for Solder (Pb/Sn)
Material parameters for various solders (e.g., Pb/Sn) are evaluated based on available test
data; they are reported, e.g., by Desai, et al. (1997, 1998a), and Desai (2001). The elastic, plastic,
creep and disturbance parameters for 40 Pb/60 Sn solder at strain rate sec / 02 . 0 = c including
temperature dependence, Eq. (I.48), are given below.
Elastic and plastic constants for PbSn solders at different temperatures sec / 02 . 0 = c
Temperature 208K 273K 348K 373K
Ultimate Parameter
0.00083 0.00082 0.00082 0.00081
State Change
Parameter, n
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Hardening Parameter
a
1
(10
6
)
q1
q1(average)
8.3
0.431
0.615
2.93
0.553
0.615
1.25
0.626
0.615
0.195
0.849
0.615
Youngs Module, E
(Gpa)
26.097 24.105 22.455 22.005
Poisson Ratio, v 0.38 0.395 0.408 0.412
Thermal Expansion
Coefficient, oT(1/K)
(10
6
)
2.75 2.93 3.11 3.16
Yield Stress, o
Y
37.241 31.724 20.690 15.172
Bonding Stress, R
(MPa)
395.456 288.168 175.196 122.105
;
a
,
300
) (
1
1
300
5 . 5
300
q
= o 
.

\
 u
o = u o
; 00082 . 0 ,
300
) (
300
034 . 0
300
= 
.

\
 u
= u
; MPa 67 . 240 R ,
300
R ) ( R
300
91 . 1
300
= 
.

\
 u
= u
; GPa 45 . 23 E ,
300
E ) ( E
300
292 . 0
300
= 
.

\
 u
= u
4 . 0 ,
300
) (
300
14 . 0
300
= v 
.

\
 u
v = u v ;
6 300
T
24 . 0
300
T T
10 0 . 3 ,
300
) (
= o 
.

\
 u
o = u o .
107
Viscous constants for PbSn solders at different temperatures
Temperature 293K 313K 333K 373K 393K
Fluidity Parameter
I
0.5784 2.058 3.475 4.61 6.96
Exponent, N
average
2.655
2.67
2.645
2.67
2.667
2.67
2.448
2.67
2.74
2.67
sec / 8 . 1 ,
300
) (
300
185 . 6
300
= I 
.

\
 u
I = u I
Disturbance constants for PbSn Solders at different temperatures
Temperature
223K 308K 398K 423K
Plastic strain range
p
Disturbance, D
Z
0.103 0.307 0.04 0.082 0.022 0.102 0.036 0.039 0.097
0.733 0.870 0.521 0.603 0.700 0.591 0.661 0.701 0.722
A 0.056 0.072 0.188 0.130 0.500 0.146 0.197 0.202 0.170
Load Drop, 
A
0.026 0.062 0.068 0.054 0.007 0.069 0.046 0.039 0.058
b 0.567 0.617 0.377 0.470 0.630 0.453 0.505 0.586 0.578
102 . 0 A ,
300
A ) ( A
300
55 . 1
300
= 
.

\
 u
= u
Z(average) =0.676
108
REFERENCES
Bonaquist, R.F. and Witczak, M.W. (1997). A Comprehensive Constitutive Model for Granular
Materials in Flexible Pavement Structures, Proc., 8
th
Int. Conf. on Asphalt Pavements,
Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 783802.
Brown, C.B. and King, I.P. (1966). Automatic Embankment Analysis, Geotechnique, Vol. 16,
No. 3.
Chia, J. and Desai, C.S. (1998). Constitutive Modeling of Thermomechanical Response of
Materials in Semiconductor Devices with Emphasis on Interface Behavior, Report to
NSF, Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng. Mechs., The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
USA.
Chowdhury, R.N. (1978). Slope Analysis, Developments in Geotech. Engr., Vol. 22, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993).Structural Dynamics , McGrawHill, New York.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993). Structural Dynamaics, McGrawHill, Inc., New York,
USA.
Cormeau, I.C. (1976). Viscoplasticity and Plasticity in Finite Element Method, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Univ. College of Swansea, U.K.
Damjanic, F. and Owen, D.R.J. (1984). Mapped Infinite Elements in Transient Thermal
Analysis, Computers and Structures, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 673687.
Desai, C.S. (1974). Numerical Design Analysis of Piles in Sand, J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE,
Vol. 100, GT6, pp. 613635.
109
Desai, C.S. (1979). Elementary Finite Element Method, PrenticeHall, revised version
published as Desai, C.S. and Kundu, T. (2001), Introductory Finite Element Method,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Desai, C.S. (1989). Letter to Editor on Single Surface Yield and Potential Function Plasticity
Models: A Review, Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, pp. 319335.
Desai, C.S. (1990). Modelling and Testing: Implementation of Numerical Models and Their
Application in Practice in Numerical Methods and Constitutive Modelling in
Geomechanics, C.S. Desai and G. Gioda (eds), SpringerVerlag, Vienna.
Desai, C.S. (1992). Discussion to SingleHardening Model with Application to NC Clay by
Lade, P.V., J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2, pp. 337341.
Desai, C.S. (1994). Hierarchical Single Surface and the Disturbed State Constitutive Models
with Emphasis on Geotechnical Applications, Chap. 5 in Geotechnical Engineering:
Emerging Trends in Design and Practice, Saxena, K.P. (ed), Oxford & IBH Publ. Co.,
New Delhi, India.
Desai, C.S. (1995). Constitutive Modelling Using the Disturbed State as Microstructure Self
Adjustment Concept, Chapter in Continuum Models for Materials with Microstructure,
H.B. Mhlhaus (ed), John Wiley and Sons, U.K.
Desai, C.S. (2001). Mechanics of Materials and Interfaces: The Disturbed State Concept, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Desai, C.S. and Abel, J.F. (1972). Introduction to the Finite Element Method, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Desai, C.S., Basaran, C., Dishongh, T. and Prince, J. (1998a). Thermomechanical Analysis in
Electronic Packaging with Unified Constitutive Model for Materials and Joints,
110
Components, Packaging and Manuf. Tech., Part B: Adv. Packaging, IEEE Trans., Vol.
21, No. 1, pp. 8797.
Desai, C.S., Chia, J.., Kundu, T. and Prince, J. (1997). Thermomechanical Response of
Materials and Interfaces in Electronic Packaging: Parts I & II, J. of Elect. Packaging,
ASME, Vol. 119, pp. 924305.
Desai, C.S. and Fishman, K.L. (1991). Plasticity Based Constitutive Model with Associated
Testing for Joints, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.
1526.
Desai, C.S. and Hashmi, Q.S.E. (1989). Analysis, Evaluation, and Implementation of a
Nonassociative Model for Geologic Materials, Int. J. Plasticity, Vol. 5, pp. 397420.
Desai, C.S. and Ma, Y. (1992). Modelling of Joints and Interfaces Using the Disturbed State
Concept, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 16, No. 9, pp. 623653.
Desai, C.S., Park, I.J. and Shao, C. (1998b). Fundamental Yet Simplified Model for
Liquefaction Instability, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech,., Vol. 22, pp. 721748.
Desai, C.S., Samtani, N.C. and Vulliet, L. (1995). Constitutive Modeling and Analysis of
Creeping Slopes, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 1, pp. 4356.
Desai C.S., Shao, C. and Park, I. (1997). Disturbed State Modelling of Cyclic Behavior of Soils
and Interfaces in Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction, Keynote Paper, Proc., 9
th
Int.
Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomech., Wuhan, China.
Desai, C.S., Sharma, K.G., Wathugala, G.W. and Rigby, D. (1991). Implementation of
Hierarchical Single Surface o
0
and o
1
Models in Finite Element Procedures, Int. J. Num.
Analyt. Meth. in Geomech., Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 649680.
111
Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Desai, C.S., Somasundaram, S. and Frantziskonis, G.N. (1986). A Hierarchical Approach for
Constitutive Modelling of Geologic Materials, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomech,,
Vol. 10, pp. 225257.
Desai, C.S. and Toth, J. (1996). Disturbed State Constitutive Modelling Based on StressStrain
and Nondestructive Behavior, Int. J. Solids and Struct.Solids and Struct., Vol. 33, No.
11, pp. 16191650.
Desai, C.S. and Varadarajan, A. (1987). A Constitutive Model for ShortTerm Behavior of
Rock Salt, J. of Geophys,. Res., Vol. 92, No. 11, pp. 1144511456.
Desai, C.S., Vulliet, L., Laloui, L. and Geiser, F. (1996). Disturbed State Concept for
Constitutive Modeling for Partially Saturated Porous Materials, Report, Laboratoire de
Mecanique des Sols, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Desai, C.S., Wang, Z. and Whitenack, R. (1999). Unified Disturbed State Constitutive Models
for Materials and Computer Implementation, Plenary Paper, Proc., 4
th
Int. Conf. of
Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, R.C. Picu and E. Krempl (Editors),
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, New York.
Desai, C.S. and Wathugala, G.W. (1987). Hierarchical and Unified Models for Solids and
Discontinuities (Joints/Interfaces), Notes for Short Course, Tucson, Arizona.
Desai, C.S. and Woo, L. (1993). Damage Model and Implementation in Nonlinear Dynamic
Problems, Int. J. Computational Mechanics, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp. 189206.
Desai, C.S., Zaman, M.M., Lightner, J.C. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). Thin Layer Elements
for Interfaces and Joints, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomech., Vol. 8, pp. 1943.
112
Desai, C.S. and Zhang, D. (1987). Viscoplastic Model for Geologic Materials with Generalized
Flow Rate, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Methods in Geomech., Vol. 11, pp. 603620.
DiMaggio, F.L. and Sandler, I.S. (1971). Material Model for Granular Soils, J. Engg. Mech.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 97, EM3, pp. 935950.
Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.Y. (1970). Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils, J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp. 16291653.
Geiser, F., Laloui, L., Vulliet, L. and Desai, C.S. (1997). Disturbed State Concept for Partially
Saturated Soils, Proc., Numerical Models in Geomech. Conf., Montreal, Canada.
Goodman, L.E. and Brown, C.B. (1963). Dead Loud Stresses and the Instability of Slopes, J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM3, pp. 103134.
Goodman, R.E., Taylor, R.L. and Brekke, T.L. (1968). A Model for the Mechanics of Jointed
Rock, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, SM3, pp. 637659.
Herrmann, W., Waversik, W.R. and Lauson, H.S. (1980). Creep Curved and Fitting Parameters
for Southeastern Near Mexico Bedded Salt, Report SAND800087, Sandia National
Lab., Albuquerque, NM.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980). Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses, J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 106, No. G79, pp. 10131035.
Kachanov, L.M. (1986). Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoft
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Katti, D.R. and Desai, C.S. (1995). Modeling and Testing of Cohesive Soil Using Disturbed
State Concept, J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 5, pp. 648658.
Kondner, R.L. (1963). Hyperbolic StressStrain Response: Cohesive Soils, J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM1, pp. 115143.
113
Kulhawy, F.H., Duncan, J.M. and Seed, H.B. (1969). Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and
Movements in Embankments During Construction, Report No. TE694, University of
California, Berkeley.
Lade, P.V. (1982). ThreeParameter Failure Criterion for Concrete, J. of Eng. Mech., ASCE,
Vol. 108, EM5, pp. 850863.
Lightner, J.G. and Desai, C.S. (1979). Improved Numerical Procedure for SoilStructure
Interaction Including Simulation of Construction Sequences, Report No. VPIE79.32,
Dept. of Civil Eng., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1969). Finite Element Model for Infinite Media, J. of Eng.
Mech., ASCE, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 859877.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V.A. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1978). An Anisotropic Hardening Model for
Soils and Its Application to Cyclic Loading, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., Vol.
2, pp. 203221.
Navayogarajah, N., Desai, C.S. and Kiousis, P.D. (1991). Hierarchical Single Surface Model for
Static and Cyclic Behavior of Interfaces, J. of Eng,. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 5, pp.
9901011.
Ortiz, M. and Simo, J.C. (1986). An Analysis of a New Class of Integration Algorithms for
Elastoplastic Constitutive Relations, Int. J. Num. Methods in Eng., Vol. 23, pp. 253366.
Owen, D.R. and Hinton, E. (1980). Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice, Pineridge
Press, Swansea, U.K.
Pande, G.N., Owen, D.R.J. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1977). Overlay Models in TimeDependent
Nonlinear Material Analysis, Computers and Structures, 7, 435443.
114
Park, I.J. and Desai, C.S. (1997). Dynamic and Liquefaction Analysis Using Disturbed State
Concept, Report, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Eng. Mechs., The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ, USA.
Pender, M.J. (1980). Elastic Solutions for a Deep Circular Tunnel, Geotechnique, pp. 216222.
Perzyna, P. (1966). Fundamentals Problems in Viscoplasticity, Adv. in Appl. Mech., Vol. 9,
pp. 243377.
Potts, D.M. and Gens, A. (1985). A Critical Assessment of Methods of Correcting for Drift
from the Yield Surface in ElastoPlastic Finite Element Analysis, Int. J. Num. Analyt.
Meth. in Geomech., Vol. 9, pp. 149159.
Prager, W. (1958). Nonisothermal Plastic Deformations, Bol. Koninke Nederl., Acad. Wet.,
Vol. 8, (61/3), pp. 176182.
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A. and Wroth, C.P. (1958). On Yielding of Soils, Geotechnique, Vol.
8, pp. 2253.
Salami, M.R. and Desai, C.S. (1990). Constitutive Modelling Influencing Multiaxial Testing for
Plain Concrete Under LowConfining Pressure, J. of Materials, ACI, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp.
228236.
Samtani, N.C. and Desai, C.S. (1991). Constitutive Modeling and Finite Element Analysis of
Slowly Moving Landslides Using Hierarchical Viscoplastic Material Model, Report
(NSF), Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng. Mechanics, The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
Samtani, N.C., Desai, C.S. and Vulliet, L. (1995). An Interface Model to Describe Viscoplastic
Behavior, Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. in Geomechanics, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 231252.
115
Schapery, R.A. (1969). On the Characterization of Nonlinear Viscoelastic Materials, Polymer
Eng. Sc., 9, 295310.
Schapery, R.A. (1984). Correspondence Principles and a Generalized J Integral for Large
Deformation and Fracture Analysis of Viscoelastic Media, Int. J. Fracture, Vol. 25, pp.
195223.
Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.P. (1968). Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGrawHill Book Co.,
London.
Shao, C. and Desai, C.S. (1998a). Application of Disturbed State Model for Cyclic Behavior of
ClaySteel Interfaces, Proc., 9
th
Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomech., Wuhan, China.
Shao, C. and Desai, C.S. (1998b). Implementation of DSC Model for Dynamic Analysis of
SoilStructure Interaction Problems, Report to NSF, Dept. of Civil Engng. and Engng.
Mechs., The Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Sharma, K.G. and Desai, C.S. (1992). Further on Analysis and Implementation of ThinLayer
Element on Interface and Joints, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp. 2442
2462.
Smith, I.M. and Griffiths, D.V. (1988). Programming for Finite Element Method, John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Somasundaram, S. and Desai, C.S. (1988). Modelling and Testing for Anisotropic Behavior of
Soils, J. of Eng. Mech., ASME, Vol. 114, No. 9.
Wathugala, G.W. and Desai, C.S. (1993). Constitutive Model for Cyclic Behavior of Clays I:
Theory, J. of Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 4, pp. 714729.
116
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Nayak, G.C. and Owen, D.R.J. (1972). Composite and Overlay Models in
Numerical Analysis of Elastoplastic Continua, Int. Symp. Foundations of Plasticity,
Warsaw, Poland.
***122512