Jefferies, M. G. (1993).
Gdotechnique43, No 1, 91-103
Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model for sand
M. G. JEFFERIES*
A generalized Cambridge-type constitutive model
for sand is developed from the fundamental axioms
of critical state theory. An infinity of normal con-
solidation loci for sand prevents the direct coupling
of yield surface size (hardness) to void ratio. There-
fore, the second axiom of critical state theory is
used as the basis of an incremental hardening rule
by defining an image of the critical state on the
yield surface and requiring that the image state
become critical with shear strain. The proposed
representation of sand behaviour has the attribute
of normality and yet realistic dilation rates are
obtained; this duality is achieved by defining limit-
ing bardening loci proportional to the state param-
eter JI at the image stress. A range of models can
be developed within the general scheme. A simple
rigid-plastic variant is presented and shown to
capture the constitutive behaviour of sand in
drained triaxial tests; a single set of material
parameters models sand behaviour regardless of
initial density or confining stress, initial density
being introduced through JI. The approach is not
limited to dilatant (dry) soils and smoothly rep-
resents soil behaviour from very loose to very dense
states. The simple rigid-plastic model is called
Nor-Sand and requires two additional parameters
to the normal suite for a critical state model. Nor-
Sand appears to meet the need for a simple and
enlightening representation of sand.
KEYWORDS: constitutive relations; friction; plasticity;
sands.
INTRODUCTION
Void ratio (or a related variable such as relative
density) is rarely included as a variable in consti-
tutive models of sand, as may be ascertained from
the proceedings of a workshop (Saada, 1987) in
which some 30 different models for sand were
represented. This absence of void ratio is curious
because sand does not change its intrinsic proper-
Discussion on this Paper closes 1 July 1993; for further
details see p. ii.
* Golder Associates, Nottingham.
Cet article dkveloppe un modi?le constitutif gknkrali-
i de type Cambridge P partir des axiomes fonda-
mentaux de la thkorie de Petat critique. Une
infinite! de iieux de consolidation normale ne
permet pas, pour le sable, un couplage direct entre
la dimension de la surface de rupture (rigiditk) et
l’indice des vides. Le second axiome de la thkorie
de 1’Ctat critique sert done de base P une loi de
rigidification par incrimentation en dkfinissant, sur
la surface de rupture, une image de l’ktat critique
et en disant que cette image devient critique par
cisaillement. Cette reprbentation du com-
portement d’un sable est dite normalisb et permet
maintenant d’obtenir des taux de dilatation &a-
listes: la dualiti! est rksolue en d&Gssant des lieux
de rigiditi! limite proportionnels au parametre
d’ktat PSI de la contrainte image. Une sCrie de
mod&s peutdtre dkveloppke i l’aide de ce schkma
g&n&al. Une variante rigide-plastique simple est
prksentke. Elle permet la saisie informatique du
comportement constitutif d’un sable au tours
d’essais triaxiaux drain&: un seul jeu de para-
metres, fonction du matkriau, modklise le com-
portement du sable sans que I’on ait P prendre en
compte la densiti! initiale ni la contrainte de con-
finement, la den&C initiale Ctant dkjjP prise en
compte dans le paramktre PSI. Cette approche
n’est pas limitke aux sols dilatants (sets) et peut
etre appliquke $ des comportements de sol de trks
meubles P trb denses. Ce modltle simple rigide-
plastique est appek Nor-Sand. II nkcessite
I’introduction de deux paramktres suppkmentaires
pour devenir un modkle d’ktat critique. Nor-Sand
semble satisfaire le besoin d’une reprbentation
simple et Claire d’un sable.
ties with packing density; a proper theory must
explain why sand behaviour changes with density,
since density (or, more generally, plastic volu-
metric strain) almost invariably changes in inter-
esting real situations. A proper theory cannot
treat each sand density as, in effect, a different
material with properties to be established by
experiment.
The exception to the trend of neglecting void
ratio when formulating constitutive models for
soil is the Cambridge school. Roscoe, Schofield &
Wroth (1958) defined what was understood at
92 JEFFERIES

Cambridge by the term ‘critical states’, and this, taken as effective. Critical state theory is gener-
together with insights from authors including alized using two axioms implicit in the work of
Drucker, Gibson & Henkel (1957) and Calladine the Cambridge School.
(1963), led to the framework of soil behaviour Axiom 1. A unique locus exists in q, p, e space
called ‘critical state soil mechanics’ (Schofield & such that soil can be deformed without limit at con-
Wroth, 1968). In this framework, the coupling of stant stress and constant void ratio; this locus is
yield surface size to void ratio explains why and called the critical state locus (CSL). Axiom 1 is an
how soil behaviour changes with density. The existence axiom and defines the critical state. For-
models developed by this school became known mally
as Cam clay (Roscoe, Schofield & Thurairajah,
1963), modified Cam clay (Burland, 1965) and 3C(e, 4, P) 3 i, = 0 A z, = 0 veq (1)
Granta gravel (Schofield & Wroth, 1968), the p=o
names being related to the mathematical/physical where the function C(e, q. p) = 0 describes the
idealization rather than to any specific real soil. critical state locus and is single-valued, There are
Roscoe et al. (1958) discussed the yielding of two conditions on the right-hand side of (1); the
sand as well as clays, but critical state models are first requires the void ratio of the soil to be
rarely used for sand despite their inclusion of void unchanging and the second requires this lack of
ratio as an input parameter. Although the sole change to continue and not be merely instantane-
use of void ratio as a hardening rule demands an ous. The condition that 6 = 0 avoids complicat-
isotropic model, this is arguably (e.g. Mroz & ing the definition to accommodate the particular
Norris, 1982) not the reason for the general lack stress-state paths considered by Palmer (1967).
of acceptance of critical state models despite the Shear strain rate is arbitrary and hence there is
enormous insight they offer. Rather, existing no strain rate dependence.
Cambridge-type models cannot reproduce
Axiom 2. The CSL forms the ultimate condition
observed softening and dilatancy for sands that of all distortional processes in soil, so that all
are on the dense (dry) side of critical. This inabil- monotonic distortional stress state paths tend to
ity to dilate reasonably is an enormous deficiency
this locus. Axiom 2 takes the simplest possible
for a sand model, as virtually all practical situ- form if a divergence measure is introduced. The
ations involve denser-than-critical sand. state parameter II/ = e - e, is chosen as the diver-
The apparent limitation of critical state theory
gence measure, where e is the current void ratio
to represent sand is overcome by postulating an
and e, is the void ratio on the CSL at the current
infinity of isotropic normal consolidation loci
stress p (see Fig. 1). Then Axiom 2 may be for-
(NCL), which force a separation of intrinsic state mally stated
measure from overconsolidation. The critical
state axioms are then used to develop a general *-0 as lq --* co (2)
soil model that complies with the axioms under
Axiom 2 requires the sand to migrate to the criti-
all choices of initial conditions and with specific
cal state with shear. The usage of $ in Nor-Sand
application to sand. A principal difference of the
will be as a current variable, not as an initial
approach given in this Paper from prior Cam-
index parameter as proposed by Been & Jefferies
bridge work is the abandonment of the use of
(1985).
void ratio to size the yield surface in favour of
In addition to the two fundamental axioms, the
rate-based hardening using the state parameter $.
following idealizations of soil are assumed
Strict adherence to the concept of Drucker et al.
(1957) constrains the extent of hardening (through (a) a single yield surface exists in stress space at
limited hardening loci) and gives physically rea- any instant
sonable dilatancies despite normality. (b) intrinsic cohesion between soil particles is
The generalized critical state model appears to absent
meet the requirement for a simple representation (c) elastic strains are negligible for drained
of sand outlined by Roscoe (1970), and needs only loading
two parameters additional to conventional criti- (d) stress is coaxial with strain increment
cal state models. The generalized model is called (e) strain increment is normal to the yield surface.
Nor-Sand to indicate its East Anglian heritage
and application to dilatant soils. These assumptions are common to all critical
state models and are justified in the literature.
The assumption of normality with sands is
AXIOMS AND ASSUMPTIONS unconventional at present, but is consistent with
For clarity, concepts are developed for the the separation of a yield surface from the Mohr-
restricted circumstances of axial symmetry that Coulomb failure condition first clarified by
exist in the conventional triaxial test. Stresses are Drucker et al. (1957); this separation of yield from
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL FOR SAND 93
a supposed failure condition underlies the sub- below before specific mathematical idealizations
sequent Cam clay and Granta gravel models. As are introduced.
is shown, normality does not conflict with reason- Admissible yield surfaces for soils have a very
able dilation rates provided that the concept of restricted form in q, p space. The existence of
Drucker et al. (1957) is followed strictly. NCL requires the yield surface to intersect the
p-axis at non-zero values (this is a restatement of
a point made by Drucker et al. (1957)). Equally,
GENERALIZED CRITICAL STATE THEORY the assumption that there is no intrinsic cohesion
Concept between particles requires that the yield surface
It is postulated that an infinity of isotropic also intersect the p-axis at zero. The assumption
NCL exist for sand, although only one locus of a single yield surface requires these two points
exists for an element of sand at any instant. Ishi- to be connected; thermodynamic considerations
hara, Tatsuoka & Yasuda (1975) first noted this (Drucker, 1959) require that the curve connecting
phenomenon and experimental data in support of them be convex. Experimental evidence that yield
this postulate are given by Jefferies & Been surfaces occur in sand with such shapes can be
(1987); sand samples prepared under normally found in data presented by Tatsuoka & Ishihara
consolidated conditions to differing densities all (1974). Barden & Khayatt (1966) found similarly
display irrecoverable volumetric strain during shaped plastic potentials for sand; the similarity
initial isotropic loading, regardless of the initial of surfaces in these two independent studies is evi-
density and specifically including those states dence for both normality and the general shape of
denser than critical. Fig 1 shows the pattern of an the proposed yield surface.
infinity of NCL. The condition $ = 0 occurs at only one point
The infinity of NCL is accommodated in the on each admissible yield surface (because of con-
description of soil state by using the state param- vexity and normality), and can be regarded as an
eter ti to describe the current NCL, and the over- image of the critical state in the sense that one of
consolidation ratio R as a further parameter in the two conditions of equation (1) is satisfied: the
the conventional sense of a measure of the dis- second condition (ZP = 0) will be satisfied if and
tance inside the yield surface from the NCL. Fig. only if this image state coincides with the CSL.
1 clarifies the difference between the two param- The singular condition that i, = 0 is formally
eters. Given that state and overconsolidation are called the image condition, and may be used as a
different, invoking the second axiom of critical measure of yield surface size; the mean stress pi at
state theory gives a simple constitutive model for which the image condition occurs is obtained
dilatant sands. The general framework is outlined from the current stresses and the equation of the
yield surface. It is convenient to define a diver-
gence measure in e-p space

tii = (e - e,,J (3)

where the subscript i denotes the image state, and
eE i is the critical void ratio at pi. A soil is at the
critical state only if tii = 0 (although Jli = 0 does
not necessarily imply that the soil is critical
because of shear stress; tii = 0 is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for criticality).
Axiom 2 provides a natural hardening rule to
describe the evolution of the yield surface in gen-
eralized critical state theory. Restating axiom 2 in
a slightly more restrictive form, by requiring
monotonic change in tii to the critical state, gives

Sample in’ overconsolidated

t state, q = qlpmax and R > 1
where the dimensionless function f($i) has the
properties

f(0) = 0

f(tii < 0) > 0

Fig. 1. Separation of y and R f(tii > 0) < 0
 94 JEFFERIES

End point (critical state)

X Image state

Limited maxcmum hardn

P
Fig. 2. Generalized critical state model

Equation (4) is an acceptable statement (though is shown in Fig. 2 as a maximum offset of pi from
not the most general one) satisfying Axiom 2. It p. To be consistent with the restricted form of
also leads directly to a hardening law, because if e Axiom 2 defined by equation (4), maximum yield
and iji are given, then pi is also defined from the surface size described by (pi/p),,x must be a func-
CSL and describes the size of the yield surface. tion g($i, a) such that g(tji = 0, u) = 1 where CLis
Thus equation (4) specifies the evolution of pi. some parameter describing the anisotropic
The general evolution of the yield surface arrangement of particle contacts.
during a constant-p drained triaxial test is shown The actual form of g( ) will depend on details
in Fig. 2. Referring to Fig. 2, consider a sand ini- of the yield surface shape and, in the absence of
tially denser than critical and isotropically nor- micromechanically-based theoretical consider-
mally consolidated; this situation gives rise to the ations, the desired limiting dilatancy from experi-
yield surface denoted by a. Shear stress is then ments. Sand particle arrangement descriptions are
applied and the yield surface hardens with restricted to the isotropic component in the
increasing pi; during this stage of the test, volu- absence of a viable means of routinely measuring
metric strain is contractive because of normality. the anisotropy of particle contacts, which
Thus, during the initial loading the state path of removes c( from g( ); i.e. anisotropic effects are
the sand in e-p space will move in the direction of averaged out of the limiting dilatancy and an iso-
decreasing void ratio. Continued expansion of the tropic model is developed. In principle g(tji) then
yield surface with hardening leads to the condi- becomes a simple rate expression, where the
tion pi = p. shown as yield surface b, where there further the sand is from its final state, the greater
is a change in the sense of volumetric strain rate. is the permitted relative hardness and consequent
Because $i # 0 when the yield surface is at b, dilatancy. The function g(l(/,) describes a family of
hardening does not stop even though i, = 0. curves which systematically map from the CSL in
Rather, in accordance with equation (4), pi con- e-p space and can be thought of as limited hard-
tinues to increase: this expands the yield surface ening loci (LHL). An example of LHL is given
and moves the sand into dilatancy, because of below.
normality, as illustrated by yield surface c. Dilat-
ancy continues until the image and critical states Nor-Sand
coincide as indicated by yield surface d, at which Mathematical idealizations of soil behaviour
point the soil is critical and can deform without are now introduced to obtain a computable
further hardening/softening. model within the generalized critical state frame-
So far, the behaviour shown in Fig. 2 is consis- work. The familiar representation of the CSL is
tent with the general application of plasticity to used
soil proposed by Drucker et al. (1957). The
question of maximum dilatancy now arises. Con- 4, = MP, W
ceptually, maximum dilatancy is expected to be e, = I- - 1, log p
related to the arrangement of sand particles, and
W4
will limit the maximum hardness of the yield The derivation of the yield surface equation
surface through normality; the limited hardening follows the familiar Cambridge approach and
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL FOR SAND 95

starts with obtaining a flow-rule. In the usual dilatant to sands exhibiting substantial dilatancy,
manner (e.g. Schofield & Wroth, 1968), consider- the variations in dilatancy being caused by sub-
ing an energy balance for an element gives the stantial changes in initial density and initial con-
flow-rule fining stress. The database comprises 28 sands,
each combination of gradation and mineralogy
D = (M - t/)/(1 - N) (6) being treated as a separate material. The sands
where D = i&, is a dilatancy function and the tested and their properties M and N are sum-
parameter N is an additional density-independent marized in Table 1.
material property relating to volumetric work as Good agreement is evident in Fig 3 between
proposed by Nova (1982). the dilatancy computed using equation (6) and
The parameter N can be viewed as a volu- experimental reality in terms of an average trend.
metric coupling term; if N = 0 then equation (6) Individual tests may be more accurately modelled
becomes the familiar Cam clay/Grants gravel by modifying the flow-rule, but this would be
flow-rule. On the other hand, the internal energy inappropriate. The generalized critical state
model proposed by Palmer (1967) is equivalent to approach developed here remains an isotropic
taking N = p,/p in the present inelastic context. model. As such, the approach captures the influ-
Nova proposed N to be a constant in sand based ence of void ratio/mean stress on sand behaviour
on the test data of Stroud (1971); this proposal but neglects the influence of a known second con-
was supported by Pastor, Zienkiewicz & Leung trolling variable: particle contact arrangement
(1985) based on the entirely different laboratory (usually called fabric and denoted previously by
test data obtained by Frossard (1983). a). The change in sand behaviour caused by
Equation (6) relates instantaneous quantities, change in fabric has been demonstrated in
and the general nature of this flow-rule may be various experiments by Oda (1972) while Tat-
examined by comparing instantaneous pairs of suoka (1987) showed that bedding orientation
9 max3D It,, data from a variety of tests conducted during sample preparation strongly influenced
over a wide range of circumstances. Average stress-dilatancy. Computed simulations of the
trends inferred provide additional insight, as both effect of particle contact arrangement have been
Nova (1982) and Pastor et al. (1985) have demon- presented by Rothenberg & Bathurst (1989).
strated that constant N approximates an individ- There can be little doubt that sand fabric is an
ual test. important parameter to the constitutive behav-
Been & Jefferies (1985, 1986) have compiled iour of sand.
data on the required aspects of sand behaviour One approach to overcoming the possible mis-
from several sources. An extended version of this representation of sand behaviour because of an
database has been used to compare the dilatancy unmeasured variable (fabric) is to rely on that
computed using equation (6) with that measured variable being randomly distributed over a sufli-
in testing (Fig. 3). A total of 173 tests are plotted ciently large number of tests and laboratories.
in Fig. 3, ranging from sands that are only just Therefore, a generalized critical state approach

\
F, O-6 -
=.
=.
s
I

c 0.4 -
s

0.2

i
‘1.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2

Fig. 3. Measured stress dilatancy of sands

96 JEFFERIES

Table 1. Summary of sand properties should be calibrated to average trends over a

wide range of test conditions, densities and
Sand Gradation* M N sample preparation methods after accounting for
Amauligak I-65 31019 1.30 0.20 true material properties such as M. The average
29013 1.28 0.31 trend in Fig. 3 appears to be an appropriate dilat-
80148 1.27 0.00 ancy backbone for an isotropic sand model. An
averaged and generalized isotropic model will
Amauligak F-24 140/10 1.27 0.20
provide a simple representation of sand behav-
144121 1.32 0.30
iour, and may be sufficient for many purposes
Alaskan Shelf 140/5 1.17 0.00 until the development of satisfactory and routine
140/10 1.21 0.00 measurements for fabric characterization.
Castro B 150/o 1.21 0.26
Development of yield surface from the flow-
rule by way of normality follows the familiar
Castro C 1.39 0.28 approach summarized by Roscoe & Burland
(1968). On the basis of the normality, the dilation
D is equated to -&? (the direction normal to the
yield locus at a general point on the yield locus),
and the resulting equation is integrated. The inte-
gration constant is determined by the condition
that ‘1 = Mop = pi. This procedure gives yield
surfaces for Nor-Sands identical to those devel-
oped by relevant previous authors, depending on
the value of N, as follows

Kogyuk 35012 1.29 0.20 q=;[l+(N-I)@--N)l

35015 1.27 0.20
350110 1.19 0.20
ifN#O (Ta)
28015 1.2 0.20
,=h4[l+ln(F)] ifN=O Vb)

The change in shape of the Nor-Sand yield

surface with the coupling parameter N is shown
in Fig. 4, which also shows modified Cam clay for
comparison. The Nor-Sand yield surface for real
sands (0 < N < 0.4) lies between those of Cam
clay (N = 0) and modified Cam clay.
Yield surface hardening is constrained to
match the computed maximum dilatancy to real
sand behaviour. Experimental data on the
Toyoura 210/O 1.24 0.39
maximum dilatancy of sand are shown in Fig. 5
* Gradation is given in terms of median grain size and in terms of the image state at that dilatancy. The
fraction passing the No. 200 sieve. Thus 330/3 signifies data set shown in Fig. 5 is that previously pre-
d50 = 330 pm and 3% is silt-sized or finer. sented by Been & Jefferies (1986) in terms of $,,,
but transformed here to image state (the effect of
the transformation is quite small). On average
D mm = 3’5*i (8)
1
where the image state tii is obtained from
P
z Jli = V+ + 1, In (Pih) (9)

.g using a rearrangement of the yield condition

m
I 0.5
iz
”
~z(‘~~~M>‘“m”‘N ifN#O (loa)

z
(I)

0
%=exp(q/M-1) ifN=O (lob)
0 1 2 33
Mean stress ratiop/pi
The maximum dilatancy condition is insensitive
Fig. 4. Yield surfaces to the usual values of the coupling parameter N,
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL FOR SAND 97
O-

-0.2 -

-0.4 -

e
a

-0.6 -

-0.6 -

-,.“I I I I 1

-0.30 -0.26 -0.22 -0.16 -0.14 -0-10 -0.06 -0.02

co!
Fig. 5. Maximum dihtancy of sands

but could be anticipated to be a strong function A simple hardening rule that complies with the
of the second order description of sand particle limited maximum hardness (equation (11)) and
arrangement (fabric). However, for a simple iso- the restricted form of Axiom 2 (equation (4)) is a
tropic model, equation (8) is as accurate a limiting tirst order rate equation to bring the sand to its
condition as is reasonable unless a fabric param- limiting hardness
eter is measured to quantify the variation from
the state parameter-dominated average trend.
Thus the coefficient 35 in equation (8) is treated
as a universal constant rather than a fabric-
where h is a proportionality constant and a new
specific model parameter. material property which can be compared to the
The maximum dilatancy is transformed to a role of l/I, in Cambridge models.
limiting hardness by following strictly the con-
cepts of Drucker et al. (1957); the yield surface is
sized so that the dilatancy from normality
matches reality, giving

pi
= (1 + 35$iN/M)‘N-“‘N
0 Pm,
ifN#O (lla)

pi
= exp (- 3.5JlJM) if N = 0 (lib)
0 P max
The limiting hardness, as represented by @JP),,_
forms LHL. Equation (11) describes a family of
lines in e-ln p space parallel to the CSL, the
spacing ratio depending strongly on the current
image state and slightly on q; Fig. 6 shows a
typical pattern of LHL.
The existence of LHL is intriguing and appeal-
ing. Adoption of a single coefficient (3.5) for all
sands in equation (8), although argued on the
basis of averaged behaviour to smooth out sys- 1 10 100 1000
tematic effects caused by an unmeasured param- p: kPa
eter, is conceptually identical to the use of a single Fig. 6. Example of limited hardening loci: I, = 00185,
spacing ratio in Cam clay or modified Cam clay. N=O,q=O
98 JEFFERIES

A complete description of the constitutive Constitutive instability

behaviour of sand has now been achieved within Although the computed behaviour shown in
a critical state context, and complies fully with Fig. 7 is obviously sand-like, the computed
the fundamental axioms. Nor-Sand is given as an behaviour will not be the nominal stress-strain
incremental associated plasticity model, and in behaviour after peak stress ratio. Nor-Sand, in
summary comprises : common with other critical state models, uses
normality based on Drucker’s stability postulate,
(4 a yield surface (given in equation (7)) which is
which provides for normality only while the
a function of the variable pi and two material
material is work-hardening or perfectly plastic.
properties only, these properties being a coup-
Nor-Sand, and the generalized critical state
ling coeflicient N and a shear work coefficient
approach, is work-hardening to ‘I,,,.,. However,
M (critical friction angle)
once past this peak all variants work-soften.
(4 the state parameter at the image of the critical
Bifurcation (shear zonation) is predicted to occur
state on the yield surface $i given by equation
post-peak with all variants of Nor-Sand, at a
(3) or equations (9) and (10)
point that is shown by plotting the evolution of
normality
hardness with shear strain.
hardening which is a proportional function
Hardness (size) of the yield surface in any
(equation (12)) of the maximum hardness con-
variant of Nor-Sand is described by the value of
trolled by tii (equation (11)). A new material
the image stress pi. The evolution of pi, normal-
constant h is introduced with the hardening
ized by p, is plotted in Fig. 8 against shear strain
law as the coefficient of proportionality.
and compared to the stress ratio n. A dense initial
The Nor-Sand equations are solved numerically state has been used to emphasize softening, but
in a forward difference manner, using the stan- the trend is entirely general for dilatant sands and
dard method of applying the consistency condi- does not depend on these specific choices.
tion at each step. An example of the computed Initially, the image stress ratio pi/p equals 0.41
stress strain behaviour is shown in Fig. 7 for (which is a statement of an initially normally con-
several choices of initial state $,,; the plotted solidated sand with N = 0.2), and is simply the
results are for a conventional triaxial compression inverse of the spacing ratio. The image stress
test and a particular choice of material constants ratio increases rapidly with shear strain until
representing a typical quartz sand. peak shear stress as the sand hardens and reaches
maximum dilatancy. Then, the yield surface
shrinks (softens) as the sand continues to dilate
until the critical state is reached.
Post-peak softening of Nor-Sand makes the
computed post-peak stress-strain relationship
differ from the measured nominal stress-nominal

Sand properties
M = 1.25
N = 0.20
h = 100
I, = 0.0165

01 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
4r Constant &I TXL test
M = 1.26
N = 0.2
s h = 100

,a_j;
1, = 0.022
qo = -03

I I I I I
OO 2 4 6 6 10
0 4 a 12 16 20 Eq: %
E,$ %
Fig. 8. Yield surface hardening and softening with shear
Fig. 7. Sand behaviour computed with Nor-Sand strain
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL FOR SAND 99

strain during strain softening. The bifurcation of decreased confining stress), and the dilation
Nor-Sand into a zone of intense shearing and increases correspondingly. Initial shear stiffness
relatively large unloading zones is beyond the increases strongly with a progressively more
scope of this paper and may limit the use of com- negative initial state parameter.
puted behaviours; stress-strain behaviour com- The effect of the material shear stiffness param-
puted here corresponds to the intense shearing eter h on the computed stress-strain response is
zone during strain softening. shown in Fig. 9. As expected, increased values of
h increase the initial shear stiffness. However,
there is also a corresponding change in the dilat-
COMPUTED STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR ancy behaviour. A change from h = 25 to h = 200
Influence of soil properties in Nor-Sand is sufficient to virtually eliminate the initial con-
The influence of initial conditions and sand tractive strain as shear stress is applied to the
properties was evaluated by numerical experi- sample. Conversely, an initially soft plastic shear
ment simulating conventional drained triaxial modulus allows substantial contraction before the
tests. Initial state parameter, plastic modulus and onset of dilatancy.
slope of the CSL were varied in turn, with other Figure 10 shows the effect of the slope of the
variables remaining constant. The material CSL. An order of magnitude change A,, which
properties were taken throughout as M = 1.25, spans the entire practical range encountered with
N = 0.2, which are average values for sand as can sands 0.01 < 1, < 0.1, has only a small effect on
be seen from Table 1. the computed behaviour. Increasing 1, reduces
The use of II/ incorporates both initial void dilatancy because of the state change caused by
ratio and initial confining stress. A decrease in the increase in mean stress throughout a conven-
void ratio at constant mean stress corresponds to tional triaxial test.
an equal decrease in Ic/. A decrease in mean stress
at constant void ratio also corresponds to a Comparison of Nor-Sand with experiment
decrease in +, although the degree of change in Ic/ Although Nor-Sand reproduces sand-like con-
depends on 1, as well as on the stress change. The stitutive behaviour and is calibrated to key
combined trends of change in void ratio and average trends, a question remains as to how well
change in mean stress conditions are unified by individual stress-strain curves are modelled.
specifying initial conditions in terms of the initial Been, Jefferies & Hachey (1991) have discussed
state parameter +,,. The effect of systematic the CSL of sand and summarized an extensive
change in ij0 on the computed stress-strain series of tests on a predominantly quartz sand
behaviour is shown in Fig. 7. As expected, the with a trace of silt known as Erksak 33OJO.7. This
stress-strain curve becomes more peaked with series of tests was selected for comparison with
more negative tiO (increasing initial density or Nor-Sand.

1.6
,?, = 0.01

M = 1.25
N = 0.20
qJo= -0.1
1, = 0.0185
=
M 1.25
N = 0.20
h = 100
lJlo= -0.1

4r

-80 II 4II 81 I 12
II 16
J 1 I
20
ty %

Fig. 9. Influence of /I on computed behaviour Fig. 10. Influence of I, on computed behaviour

100 JEFFERIES

The densest sample tested in drained triaxial initial shear stiffness), yet the details of the entire
compression was D667 with a void ratio of stress-strain behaviour are simulated in both
e = 0.590, which corresponds to a relative density q - E, and E, - lq plots, including reversals of
of about 70% ; at the initial cell pressure of 130 curvature.
kPa, the CSL determined by Been et al. (1991) An attribute of Nor-Sand is the systematic
gives tiO = -0.161. Data were also presented on inclusion of density in the stress-strain model.
the critical state friction angle, and although The loosest sand in the Erksak sand test series,
some scatter was evident, a selection 4, = 30” o sample D684 which had a relative density of
M = 1.2 appears to be consistent with the test about 5%, provides the opportunity to check the
data. (Note that although Been et al. suggested performance of Nor-Sand in its representation of
that M displayed some dependence on density, M the influence of density. The stress-strain behav-
is assumed to be constant in present critical state iour for this sample was computed with
theory.) The coupling parameter is N = 0.2 from unchanged properties from those used for the
the trend in measured dilatancy for the test series densest sample. Computed and measured behav-
(Table 1). The only parameter that remains to be iours are compared in Fig. 11(b). Volumetric
specified is the hardening modulus. strain and dilatancy agree excellently, with Nor-
The hardening modulus for Erksak sand was Sand being slightly too stiff in shear stiffness; the
determined by trying several values until com- changed strength is predicted correctly. This
puted and measured initial shear stiffnesses sample was highly contractive: the excellent fit of
matched reasonably well. After three trials, Nor-Sand to the data gives confidence that the
h = 280 was selected and gave the fit to the test absence of the CSL as a limit for the LHL (see
data shown in Fig. 11(a). Nor-Sand slightly over- equation (11)) is correct, and that the model
predicts the initial volumetric densification, but extends smoothly from the densest to the loosest
there is reasonable similarity overall. possible states.
This fitting of Nor-Sand to test data is more A second attribute of Nor-Sand is that it
than a mere calibration. The computed behaviour models the effect of confining stress. Two tests
has been fit-based on a single free parameter h from the Erksak test series allow the performance
matched to a single feature of the test data (the of Nor-Sand to be checked in this regard. Tests

-
0.4

0.8

01
I
t
I I
D 667
I& = -0.161
I?0 = 0.590
p,, = 130 kPa

I I I

*r Dense
1 sand
t

:yJ;
I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
E,$ % Eq: %
(a) W

Fig. 11. Comparison of Nor-Sand with measured behaviour: M = 1.20, N = 0.20, /I = 280, X, = OWk5
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL FOR SAND 101

1.6-

D 662 D 663
e. = 0.677 e, = 0.675
p,, = 60 kPa p. = 300 kPa

‘0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 5
Eq: % Eq:% 4
0 3
(a) W
Fig. 12. Effect of initial conlIning stress on sand behaviour: M = l-20, N = O-20,/I = 280, kC = OM35

D662 and D663 have virtually identical reported fore, Axiom 2 of critical state theory is used as the
void ratios, but a five-fold difference in initial basis of an incremental hardening rule with t+Gas
confining stress. These tests are compared with a rate variable.
the computed response of Nor-Sand in Fig. 12(a) A range of models can be developed within the
and (b); the relationship was computed using general scheme and a simple rigid-plastic variant
unchanged material properties from Fig. 11(a). using comparable idealizations to existing Cam-
The effect of initial confining stress on initial bridge models has been presented. This simple
shear stiffness and dilatancy is modelled well, but generalized model is called Nor-Sand. Nor-Sand
Nor-Sand over-predicts the initial volumetric captures the influence of void ratio and confining
contraction. stress on the constitutive behaviour of sand, and
Overall, Nor-Sand replicates the experimental matches the measured behaviour of Erksak sand.
data on Erksak sand and captures the influence Attributes of Nor-Sand are that
of void ratio and confining stress on constitutive
behaviour. Dilatancy, initial shear stiffness and (4 normality is present throughout plastic strain-
ing, and in particular during dilation, consis-
peak strength are modelled well; two apparently
tently with the original ideas of Drucker et al.
systematic biases are the over-prediction of volu-
(1957)
metric strain and the under-prediction of shear
strain at peak strength. Improved fits could be (4 the soil moves to the critical state with shear
strain regardless of starting conditions in
obtained using the coupling parameter N in com-
compliance with the fundamental axioms
bination with changes in the maximum dilatancy,
but there are limits to how well an isotropic (4 initial void ratio and mean stress are explicitly
included through the use of $; the model
model can (or should) fit what is known to be an
computes a smooth change of behaviour from
anisotropic material. Elasticity should also be the loosest (wettest) states through to the
introduced if Nor-Sand is to be used as a detailed
densest (driest)
representation of sand behaviour.
(4 work-hardening must be constrained to
maximum values to replicate the measured
behaviour of sands, these maximum values
CONCLUSIONS forming LHL parallel to the critical state
A Cambridge-type constitutive model for dilat- locus in e-ln p space
ant soil has been developed from the fundamental (4 the soil displays work hardening to maximum
axioms of critical state theory. An infinity of NCL strength even during dilation: however, the
for sand force the separation of state from over- post-peak regime is characterized by work-
consolidation, and prevent the direct coupling of softening, and strain localization should be
yield surface size (hardness) to void ratio. There- expected
 102 JEFFERIES

(f) the number of soil parameters required is two critical state conditions, ‘i’ subscript denotes image state
more than for Granta gravel, and one of these conditions, ‘max’ subscript denotes maximum value of
(N) can be taken as an average value in the the variable. A vertical bar following a parameter
denotes the value of the parameter at the condition
first instance. The second additional material
indicated by the subscript to the bar.
constant (the hardening modulus h), is a direct
consequence of the decoupling of yield surface
size from void ratio; h must be determined on
REFERENCES
a sand-specific basis and is a material pro- Barden, L. & Khayatt, A. J. (1966). Incremental strain
perty independent of sand density. rate ratios and the strength of sand in the triaxial
These various attributes, and the comparison of test. Gtotechnique 16, 338-357.
Been, K. & Jefferies, M. G. (1985). A state parameter for
the model with drained triaxial test data
sands. Gtotechnique 35, No. 2,99-l 12.
described in this Paper, suggest that Nor-Sand Been, K. & Jefferies, M. G. (1986). Discussion on A state
may meet the need outlined by Roscoe (1970) for parameter for sands. GPotechnique 36, No. 1, 123-
a simple and enlightening representation of sand. 132.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. & Hachey, J. E. (1991). The
critical state of sands. Gtotechnique 41, 365-381.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Burland, J. B. (1965). Deformation of so& clay. PhD
The Author is indebted to Dr A. Palmer thesis, Cambridge University.
(Palmer & Associates), Dr K. Been and Dr R. E. Calladine, C. R. (1963). Correspondence, GCotechnique
Gibson (both Golder Associates) for suggesting 13,250-255.
improvements to the Paper. Thoughtful com- Drucker, D. C., Gibson, R. E. & Henkel, D. J. (1957).
ments provided by Dr R. Dean (Cambridge Soil mechanics and work-hardening theories of plas-
University) were also much appreciated. ticity. J. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng Div. Am. Sot. Civ.
Engrs 122,338-346.
Although the ideas presented here were formal-
Drucker, D. C. (1959). A definition of stable inelastic
ized recently, Nor-Sand would not exist without a
material. J. Appl. Mech. 26, 101-106.
view of underlying trends available from a large Frossard, E. (1983). Une equation d‘ecoulement simple
body of test data; the Author’s colleagues in Gulf pour les materiaux granulaires. Geotechnique 33,
Canada Resources, B. Rogers and W. Living- 21-29.
stone, and the company itself are thanked for Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F. & Yasuda, S. (1975).
much of this database. The triaxial stress-strain Undrained deformation and liquefaction of sand
data presented were obtained by D. Horsfield and under cyclic stresses. Soils Fdns 15, 29-44.
J. Hachey (also of Golder Associates). Jefferies, M. G. & Been, K. (1987). Use of critical state
representations of sand in the method of stress char-
acteristics. Can. Geotech. J. 24, No. 3, 44-446.
NOTATION Mroz, Z. & Norris, V. A. (1982). Elastoplastic and
dilatancy function expressed as ratio of incremental viscoplastic constitutive models for soil with appli-
strains $,/cq cation to cyclic loading. In Soil mechnnics-transient
void ratio and cyclic loads. (eds G. N. Pande and 0. C. Zien-
hardening coefficient, a material property kiewicz), pp. 173-217. Chichester: Wiley.
critical state coefficient, a material property Nova, R. (1982). A constitutive model for soil under
volumetric coupling coefficient, a material property monotonic and cyclic loading. Soil mechanics-
mean stress (ol + 2u,)/3 transient and cyclic loads. (eds G. N. Pande and 0.
shear stress measure (cl - 0s) C. Zienkiewicz), pp. 343-373. Chichester: Wiley.
overconsolidation ratio p_Jp Oda, M. (1972). Initial fabrics and their relations to
undefined parameter describing anisotropy of par- mechanical properties of granular materials. Jap.
ticle contacts Sot. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng 12, 17-36.
location of mapping of critical state locus in Palmer, A. C. (1967). Stress-strain relations for clays: an
e-In p space as measured by e, Ip= I energy theory. Geotechnique 17, 348-358.
axial strain Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, 0. C. & Leung, K. H. (1985).
radial strain Simple model for transient soil loading in earth-
volumetric strain (el + 2~s) quake analysis. II. Non-associative model for sands.
triaxial shear strain (2/3)(e1 - ls) Int. J. Numer. Meth. Geomech. 9,477-498.
slope of mapping of idealized critical state locus in Prager, W. & Drucker, D. C. (1952). Soil mechanics and
e-ln p space plastic analysis or limit design. Q. Appl. Math. 10,
stress ratio q/p No. 2, 157-165.
effective axial stress, the major principal stress Roscoe, K. H. (1970). The influence of strains in soil
effective cell pressure, the minor and intermediate mechanics. Giotechnique 20, 10th Rankine Lecture,
principal stress 129-170.
state parameter defined in Fig. 1 Roscoe, K. H. (1963). Yielding of clays in states wetter
than critical. Gkotechnique 13, 21 l-240.
Dot superscript denotes incremental change, ‘0’ sub- Roscoe, K. H. & Burland, J. B. (1968). On the gener-
script denotes initial conditions, ‘c’ subscript denotes alised stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. In Engin-
 CRITICAL STATE MODEL
eering plasticity (eds J. Heyman & F. A. Leckie), pp.
535-609. Cambridge University Press.
Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N. & Thurairajah, A. (1963)
Yielding of clays in states wetter than critical.
Giotechnique 13,21 l-240.
Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1958).
On the yielding of soils. G&technique 8,22-52.
Rothenburg, L. & Bathurst, R. J. (1989). Analytical
study of induced anisotropy in idealized granular
materials. Gtotechnique 39, 601-614.
Saada, A. S. (1987). Proc. Int. Workshop on Constitutioe
FOR SAND 103
Equations for Granular Non-cohesive soils. Cleve-
land, OH: Case Western Reserve University.
Schofield, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state soil
mechanics. London: McGraw-Hill.
Stroud, M. A. (1971). The behaviour of sand at low stress
levels in the simple shear apparatus. PhD thesis,
Cambridge University.
Tatsuoka, F. (1987). Discussion on ‘Strength and dilat-
ancy of sands’. Gtotechnique 31,219-225.
Tatsuoka, F. & Ishihara, K. (1974). Yielding of sand in
triaxial compression. Soils Fdns 14,63-76.