Constitutive models and soil behaviour

Computational Geomechanics 5
 Constitutive models
!

Linear isotropic elasticity

Linear elasticity–perfect plasticity model
yield criteria: von Mises, Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb, Druker-Prager
associated/non-associated flow rule
Linear elasticity–hardening plasticity model
Cam clay model
associated/non-associated flow rule

2
 Elasticity
!

Stress is a function of current state of deformation

(strain) only. Elastic materials retain no permanent strain.
Linear Hooke’s law in 1D: σ = Eε
Linear elastic model: σij = KVij + 2GDij
εij = Pij/3K + Sij/2G
Hydrostatic compression p Simple shear deformation Sij
   
ε 0 0 0 ε12 0
1 v K 2G
εij = 0 εv 0 εij = ε12 0 0
3 0 0 0
0 0 εv
εv Dij
p = K εv Pij = K Vij K: bulk modulus σ12 = Gγ12= 2Gε12 Sij = 2GDij G: shear modulus

Simple shear deformation does not

Normal stresses are uniform
cause normal stresses 3
   

  −ν/E 1/E 00 0  


  −ν/E σ22  
 !
  

Linear elastic model (in K and G)

   
  −ν/E −ν/E 1/E 00 0
σ33  
= 
  0 0 0 1/2G
0 0
τ12  
   

  
 


  0 0 0 00 τ13 
1/2G
 


 
 

0 0 0 0
1/2G 0
τ23
    
σ11 K + 4G 3 K − 2G (2.3)
3 K − 2G
3 0 0 0 ε11
σ22  K − 2G K + 4G K − 2G
0 0 0 ε22 
 G,can be
quation, the shear modulus, 3 terms of E and
expressed2G
in 3
2G ν as
3  
σ33   4G
0 ε33 
(1 + ν).   = K − 3 K − 3 K + 3 0 0  
σ12   0 0 0 2G 0 0 ε12 
    
σ23 
Uniaxial Stress Condition  0 0 0 0 2G 0  ε23 
σ13 0(tension) applied0 to a steel 0 0 0 2G ε13
s condition resulting from an axial stress σ11
  
be thought of as a uniaxial stress condition1(Figure 2.2).
1 In a1uniaxial1stress 1 1
 
ε 11
we have σ22 = σ33 = τ12 = τ13 = τ23 =3G 0,
+
and σ9K
− − 0 0 0 σ11
111"= 0. Substituting
9K 6Ginto 9K 6G
get ε22   1
− 1
+ 1 1
− 1
0 0 0 σ22 
   9K 6G 3G 9K 9K 6G  
ε33   1
− 1 1
− 1 1
+ 1
0 0 0  
  =  9K 6G 9K 6G 3G 9K  σ33 
ε12   0 0 0 1
0 0 σ12 
   2G  
z ε23   0 0 0 0 1
0  σ23 
2G
1
ε13 0 0 0 0 0 2G
σ13
 
y σ11 0 0 3K + G 2G − 3K
σ σij =  0 0 0 ε11 = σ11 ε22 = ε33 = σ11
22 =σ 9KG 18KG
x 33 =τ 0 0 0
12 =τ
13 =τ 9KG
23 =0 σ11 = Eε11 E: Young’s Modulus E=
3K + G

3K − 2G
ε22 = -νε11 ν: Poisson’s ratio ν=

Uniaxial stress
6K + 2G
σ11
4
 !

Linear elastic model (in E and ν)

    
σ11 1−ν ν ν 0 0 0 ε11
σ22   ν 1−ν ν 0 0 0  ε22 
    
σ33  E  ν ν 1−ν 0 0 0   
 =   ε33 
σ12  (1 + v)(1 − 2v)  0 0 0 1 − 2ν 0 0   
    ε12 
σ23   0 0 0 0 1 − 2ν 0  ε23 
σ13 0 0 0 0 0 1 − 2ν ε13

    
ε11 1 −ν −ν 0 0 0 σ11
ε22  −ν 1 −ν 0 0 0  σ22 
    
ε33  1 −ν −ν 1 0 0 0  σ33 
 =   
ε12  E  0 0 0 1+ν 0 0  σ12 
    
ε23   0 0 0 0 1+ν 0  σ23 
ε13 0 0 0 0 0 1+ν σ13

E E
K= G=
2(1 − 2ν) 2(1 + ν)

Model parameters are expressed in terms of Young’s

modulus and Poisson’s ratio 5
 Other special conditions
!

Uniaxial strain, e.g., Oedometer

  4G E(1 − ν)
ε11 0 0 σ11 = (K + )ε11 = ε11
εij =  0 0 0
3 (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) σ22 equals σ33 to
0 0 0 3K − 2G ν prevent lateral strains
σ22 = σ33 =( )σ11 = σ11
3K + 4G (1 − ν)
Plain strain: strains occur only in a plane, e.g. dam, retaining wall
ELASTICITY AND PLASTICITY

z
y
 
ε3
ε11 2G
3 =ε
13 =ε ε22  σ33 = (K − )(ε11 + ε22 )
23 =0  
x  0 
 
3
ε12 
y  
 0  cause out-of-plane normal stress
0
ε33 = ε13 = ε23 = 0
x


Plain stress: in-plane loading with thin plate
FIGURE 2.3 Plane strain condition.

ELASTICITY 27
 

 1−ν ν ν 0 0 0

 y
  ν 0 







1−ν ν 0 0 

  1 1
=
E  ν

ν 1−ν 0 0 0 
 σ11 ε33 =( − )(σ11 + σ22 )
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)  0  σ22 








 0
0 0
0
0
0
1 − 2ν
0
0
1 − 2ν 0 

   K 6G



  0 
0 0 0 0 0 1 − 2ν  
  x σ12 



ε11 

 





  0 
cause out-of-plane normal strain
 ε 22  σ =τ =τ =0

  33 13 23

 0   z
0
×




ε12 


6

 0  
 !

Summary of linear elastic model

Pure shear stress causes shear strain only, no

1
volumetric change ε12 = 2G σ12
Volumetric change caused by only hydrostatic loading
Simple shear strain causes only shear stress
These do not reflect the real behaviour of
geomaterials; higher order elastic models may be need.
Use with caution! approximately for very small strain

7
 compression tension
!
"! ! ""

Yield criterion
!
Impossible Permissible region for stress Impossible
region region

"! # ! # "" *($0.&- +*4&5#

! 9 "! 5+ ! 9 "" )($0.&- )5&#.0
! # "! 5+ ! $ "" &8)500&3(* +*4&5# ,5+ 0.+*00

Limit of elastic deformations expressed by stress states

For a hardening material the yield points will move away from the origin

f (σij ) = f (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 , n1 , n2 , n3 )
Isotropic materials in terms of invariants:f (σ , σ , σ ) = f (J , J , J ) 1 2 3 1 2 3

“Yielding” in a mult
Principal stress space: three-dimensional stress space
“Yielding” in a multiaxial case
Extending the concept to 3D principal stress spa

with principal stress directions as coordinate axes

For an isotropic material yield has to depend on principal stresses or (represented by three yield planes)
stress invariants – why?
This simple yield condition is called the Rankine
1.2. Motivation. :5#0&1*+
One-Dimensional
$ ;< Frictional
0.+*00Models
&#1376&-6 7* 0.$.* .6$. /&*(1&#4 5--%+0 76*# .6*
0.$.*
)+&#-&)$( 0.+*00 +*$-6*0 $ -*+.$&# =$(%* " &# .*#0&5# $#1 .6*+* &0 #5 /&*(1 &#
! !"
Elastic domain
-58)+*00&5# !"
•C
in stress space Yield line or Impossible stress region
>6&0 /&*(1 -+&.*+&5# &#6*+*#.(/ ma
&8)(&*0 yield surface
!! ! " •T
suc
!" ! "
• In
>6* /&*(1 0%+,$-* &0 +*)+*0*#.*1 !! rem
3/ .6* *?%$.&5#
" !! •T
!
K !" %K
9 !! " " 9 ! • It
Elastic region
!! # !" # !# "
O –" Y "Y !#

f = |σ| - σY in 1D
Figure 1.6. Elastic range and elastic domain in stress space. Note that α ≥ 0.

f = |σ| - σY in 2D f = |σ| - σY in 3D
σ: major principal stress
Observe once more that relationship ḟ > 0 cannot hold. From (1.2.26) and (1.2.27)
it follows that γ can be nonzero only if
8
sign(σ )E ε̇
 yield surface (refer to expression (6.48), page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be

von Mises yield criterion

represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a three-dimensional surface! in the
space of principal stresses.

− √3 p
σ3

Yielding initiates when J2D reaches a certain value Tresca

von Mises

(derived from distortional energy arguments) f = J 2D − k 2

σ2

Define σY the yield

√
stress at uniaxial compression/
tension k = σY / 3 σ1

Yield surface shape does not depend on pressure Figure 6.8. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.

Yield criteria for metals – Yield

von criteria
Mises
!
(a) for metals – von Mises
(b)
!
! " ! !"#$%&'(')* (+)& ! V3 " !"#$%&'(')* (+)& !
!t!ic , !" , !# V3
!! , !" , !#
sta
dro
hy axis

pla
ne von Mises
SŦ

0
!! !
V2 !

3D principal stress space !"

3D principal stress space
!# !"
representation
!# DeviatoricTresca
plane
representation Deviatoric plane
representation
representation
V1 V2
!#
!# V1
! -'$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
�√ √
! -'$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
Figure
! 6.9. &'('.
-'$.&& (a) The%1
π-plane in principal
'0. &5$6(*. Rand,=(b) the2J
stress space
)& 74(&')* = 2σYof/the Tresca
2D representation
π-plane 3
! -'$.&& &'('. %1 '0. &5$6(*. )& 74(&')* and von Mises yield surfaces.
! -'$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94.
!
!
-'$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94. ! :0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.
:0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.)1#.7.1#.1'
9
*$)'.$)%1 )& 7$.&&5$.
 !

Application of von Mises model

!!

3D principal stress space !"

!# Deviatoric plane
representation
representation

!#
! -'$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
! -'$.&& &'('. %1 '0. &5$6(*. )& 74(&')*
! -'$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94.
! :0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.
*$)'.$)%1 )& 7$.&&5$. )1#.7.1#.1'
! =' 0(& ( *)$*54($ #.2)('%$)* &.*')%1
! :0. '$(*. %6 '0. *"4)1#.$ )1 ( >? &'$.&& 74(1. )& (1 .44)7&.

Pure shear state of stress: yield

√ stress is 1/√3 times that
! :0. *$)'.$)%1 )& (4&% $.6.$$.# '% (& "" '0.%$" %6 74(&')*)'"

in uniaxial state s = σ12 = σY / 3

Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
Plain stress: yield surface is ellipse in σ1–σ2 space !" !"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!! , !" , !#
!"

σ12 − σ2 σ2 + σ22 = σY
2
!!
!!

Used for total stress analysis of fully saturated clay

3D principal stress space
representation

!#

under undrained condition

! !!"
# @!A , B"" " $ , C
!
%$ D
E@!! " !" A" F @!" " !# A" F @!# " !! A" G " $ , C
>

If changes in total pressure are compensated by the changes in

pore pressure, the effective pressure remains unchanged. The
deviatoric stress change thus occurs without effective
pressure change. The clay behaviour does not depend on total
pressure change as a von Mises material
10
 as a surface in the space of principal values of the argument. This allows, in particular, the

Tresca yield criterion

yield surface (refer to expression (6.48), page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be !
represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a three-dimensional surface in the
space of principal stresses.

− √3 p
σ3

Yielding begins when the extreme shear stress reaches Tresca

a certain value; define σY the yield stress at uniaxial von Mises

stress state f = σ1 − σ3 − σY if σ1 > σ2 > σ3 σ2

� � √ �
Invariant form: f = 2 J 2D cos θ − σ Y Lode angle θ =
1
3
sin −
3 3J
2 J
3D
3/2
2D
σ1 π π
− ≤θ≤
6 6
Figure 6.8. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.

164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY A

(a) (b)
V3 V3
V3
i c
tat

r
ea
d ros

sh
hy axis

re
ne von Mises

pu
pla
SŦ
Tresca

0 T 30o
V2

Tresca von Mises

V1 V2 V2
V1 V1
Figure
Figure 6.9. (a) The π-plane in principal stress space and, (b) the π-plane representation 6.11.
of the Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coincidin
Tresca
and von Mises yield surfaces. Same uniaxial yield stress Same pure shear yield stress
pure shear stress ratio 2/√3 uniaxial stress ratio 2/√311
a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure, app
 resting on a uniform deposit of undrained clay. The dimen- 0
same small rotation. In all but very simple cases, it is 0 50 100 150
sions ofdifficult,
the tower are similar
probably to those
impossible, of the without
to analyse Pisa Tower.using To nu- failure for the analysisWeight withof tower:
the MN softer soil, ! G/su ¼ 10, is

Application of Tresca model

trigger merical
a rotational
analysis. failure some initial defect (imperfection) about half of that for the analysis with the stiffest soil,
must be Thesepresent. twoIn this example
alternative the tower was
failure mechanisms given
are best an
demon- G/s ¼ 1000.
Fig.u 21. Tower rotation with increase in weight
initial tilt of 0·58 (that is, the initial geometry
strated by a simple example. Fig. 20 shows a simple tower of the tower It is of interest to examine the analyses with the two
had a tilt).
resting Theon self-weight
a uniform deposit of theoftower was then
undrained increased
clay. The dimen- extreme values of G/su in more detail. In particular it is
graduallysionsin of the tower are similar
a plane-strain, to those of thefinite
large displacement Pisa Tower.
elementTo failure for the
instructive analysis with
to consider whattheissofter soil, G/sin
happening u ¼the
10, soil
is at
analysis,trigger
until afailure
rotational failure some initial defect (imperfection)
occurred. about half of that for the analysis with the stiffest soil,
must be present. In thisa example the tower wasmaterial.
given an failure. Fig. 22 shows vectors of incremental displacement
The clay was modelled as linear-elastic Tresca G/suthe
for ¼ 1000.
soft soil (G/s ¼ 10) from the last increment of the
initial tilt of 0·58 (that is, the initial geometry of the tower It is of interest to uexamine the analyses with the two
Three analyses were performed, each with a different value analysis. They show that movements are located in a zone
had a tilt). The self-weight of the tower was then increased extreme values of G/su in more detail. In particular it is
of sheargradually
stiffness, of the soil.large
in aG,plane-strain, Alldisplacement
other parameters were below the tofoundation, and isindicate a rotational
finite element instructive consider what happening in the soil type at of

Pure shear state of stress: s = σ12 = σY /2

the same. In particular,
analysis, until failure occurred.the undrained strength, su was
, failure. At first sight this looks like a plastic-type collapse
80 kPa inThe all clay
analyses. Therefore, failure. Fig. 22 shows vectors of incremental displacement
was modelled as a according
linear-elasticto Tresca
conventional
material. mechanism.
for the soft soil However,
(G/su ¼examination
10) from the of lasttheincrement
zone in ofwhich the the
methods, Threethe analyses
bearing were capacity of the each
performed, towerwithwasa different
the samevalue in soil has gone
analysis. They plastic
show that (alsomovements
shown inare Fig.located
22) indicates
in a zonethat it
all threeof analyses.
shear stiffness,Consequently,
G, of the soil. if instability
All other was governed
parameters were isbelow
verythesmall and not
foundation, andconsistent
indicate a with a plastic
rotational type of failure
the same.
by bearing capacity In failure,
particular, all the
threeundrained
analysesstrength,
should failsu , was
at failure. At first sight this looks like a plastic-type collapse
mechanism. Consequently, this figure indicates a mechanism

Plain stress: yield surface are lines in σ1–σ2 space

80 kPa in all analyses. Therefore,
the same weight of the tower. However, as can be seen from according to conventional mechanism. However,with examination of instability.
the zone in which the
of failure consistent a leaning
Fig. 21,methods,
this wasthe notbearing
the case.capacity
This offigure
the tower
showswas thetheincrease
same in soil has gone plastic (also shown
Considering the results from the analysis in Fig. 22) indicates that it with
performed
all three analyses. Consequently, if instability was governed
in rotation of the tower, above the initial 0·58 imperfection, is very small and not consistent with a plastic failure
the stiffer soil (G/su ¼ 1000), vectors of incremental displa-
by bearing capacity failure, all three analyses should fail at mechanism. Consequently, this figure indicates a mechanism
plotted theagainst the weightof the of the However,
tower, for analyses
be seenwith cement
same weight tower. as can from of failurejust beforewith collapse
a leaningare shown in Fig. 23. The

Used for total stress analysis of fully saturated clay

G/su values ofthis10,was 100 consistent instability.
Fig. 21, notand 1000.This
the case. Real soils
figure are the
shows likely to
increase mechanism of failure indicated
Considering the results from the analysis by these vectors with
performed is very
have properties that are between the two extreme
in rotation of the tower, above the initial 0·58 imperfection, values. different
the stifferfrom the uone
soil (G/s shown
¼ 1000), in Fig.
vectors 22 for the displa-
of incremental softer soil.
The results
plotted show that the
against failure
weightoccursof the very abruptly,
tower, with little
for analyses with Instead of the soil rotating as a block
cement just before collapse are shown in Fig. 23. The with the foundation,
warning, and
G/s that the weight of the tower at failure isto
values of 10, 100 and 1000. Real soils are likely

under undrained condition

u the vectors indicate
mechanism of failurea indicated
more traditional
by thesebearingvectorscapacity
is very type
dependenthaveonproperties
the shear thatstiffness
are between of thethesoil.
two The
extreme
weight values.
at different fromwith the one
The results show that failure occurs very abruptly, with little
mechanism, the shown in Fig.pushed
soil being 22 for the softer soil.
outwards on both
Instead of the soil rotating as a block
sides. The plastic zone, also indicated in Fig. 23, is verywith the foundation,
warning, and that the weight of the tower at failure is the vectors
dependent on the shear stiffness of the soil. The weight at large, and indicate
therefore a more
the traditional
results clearlybearingindicate
capacity atype plastic
mechanism, with the soil being pushed outwards on both
bearing capacity type mechanism of failure. The mechanism
sides. The plastic zone, also indicated in Fig. 23, is very
islarge,
not symmetrical
and thereforebecause the tower
the results clearlyis indicate
leaning ato plastic
one side.
bearing capacity type mechanism of failure. The mechanismwhich
In view of the temporary stabilisation scheme,
involved adding lead
is not symmetrical becauseweights to the
the tower north to
is leaning sideoneofside.
the Pisa
TowerIn viewand of whichthe will be discussed
temporary stabilisationin morescheme,detailwhichsubse-
quently,
involved itadding is oflead interest
weightstotoexamine
the north the sideresponse
of the Pisa of the
Tower and which will be discussed in more detail subse-
Initial tilt

60 m
quently, it is of interest to examine the response of the
of tower ! 0.5°
Initial tilt

60 m
of tower ! 0.5°

20 m
20 m
Undrained clay
Undrained clay Plastic
(Elasto-plastic) Plastic
(Elasto-plastic) zone
TrescaTresca " su !
modelmodel 80 kPa
" s ! 80 kPa
zone
u

G/sG/s ! 10
u !u 10

Fig. 20. Fig.

tower tower
20. Geometry
Geometry for investigation
for investigation of leaning
of leaning instabilityofofa a
instability Fig. 22.
Fig.
at
22. Vectors
Vectors ofof incremental
failure (low soil
incrementaldisplacements
stiffness)
at failure (low soil stiffness)
and and
displacements plastic zone zone
plastic
12