1 INTRODUCTION

Plasticity theory is established as the most important

framework for describing the behaviour of soils un-
der monotonic loading. It is capable of describing
most of the salient features of soil behaviour, and
many soil models based on plasticity have been de-
veloped since its first application to constitutive
modelling of soils in the 1950s. However, it has
been less successful in describing soil behaviour un-
der repeated (cyclic) loading. The principal problem
is that, as is now well known empirically, soils ex-
hibit elastic behaviour at only the smallest of strains,
and as the amplitude of strain cycling is increased,
the secant stiffness steadily reduces and the damping
increases. This pattern of behaviour does not match
simply with plasticity theory, in which a finite elas-
tic region is a fundamental part of the theory.
Plasticity has been modified in a variety of ways
to cope with this problem, with the two main ap-
proaches being multi-surface plasticity and bounding
surface plasticity. Of these multi-surface plasticity
has more justification, since bounding surface plas-
ticity cannot describe the well-established effects of
immediate stress history. Multi-surface plasticity
can, however, be rather cumbersome.
An alternative is the continuous hyperplasticity
approach, Puzrin and Houlsby (2001a). This may be
thought of as a variant of the multi-surface approach,
in which the process is taken to its logical conclu-
sion and an infinite number of surfaces are used.
Continuous variations of stiffness and damping can
be modelled. An advantage of the continuous hyper-
plasticity approach is that it is relatively compact
mathematically. The entire constitutive response is
specified through just two scalar functionals, thus
avoiding the plethora of ad hoc assumptions that are
often encountered in complex soil models.
The purpose here is to develop a simple model for
the behaviour of an idealised frictional material (e.g.
a sand) under cyclic loading. Puzrin and Houlsby
(2001b) present a simple model for the undrained
behaviour of a cohesive material, essentially by gen-
eralising the von Mises model. The task of develop-
ing an equivalent simple model for frictional behav-
iour is complicated by the fact that no standard
model for frictional behaviour (with the same level
of acceptance that the von Mises model for cohesive
behaviour enjoys) is currently available.
In this paper we limit our attention to triaxial
stress states, and so we do not address the shape of
the yield surface in the octahedral plane. Neverthe-
less, even with this simplification, there is no firmly
established frictional model. The principal difficulty
lies in the treatment of the dilation of the sand. Al-
though a fixed friction and dilation angle could be
A continuous hyperplasticity model for sands under cyclic loading
G.T. Houlsby
Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, UK
G. Mortara
Department of Mechanics and Materials, University of Reggio Calabria, Italy
ABSTRACT: Soils exhibit truly elastic behaviour at only very small strains, so that cycling at small to
moderate strains involves hysteretic behaviour. As the amplitude of cycling increases the secant modulus
decreases and the damping ratio increases. These facts are well established experimentally, but theories that
successfully describe this behaviour are less well developed. We present here a simple model for the
behaviour of sand under cyclic loading, that is able to capture the main features of small-strain cycling. An
essential part of the model is that volume changes (or effective stress changes in the case of undrained
loading) are modelled realistically. The model is described using the continuous hyperplasticity framework.
Essentially this involves an infinite number of yield surfaces, thus allowing smooth transitions between
elasticity and plasticity. The framework allows soil models to be developed in a relatively succinct
mathematical form, since the entire constitutive behaviour can be determined through the specification of two
scalar functionals. Dilation and compression is incorporated through the use of kinematic constraints, and
dilation is accompanied by the development of anisotropy in the sand.
used, we set ourselves here the more ambitious task
of creating a unified model for the same sand at dif-
ferent densities, so that variable dilation, variable
friction and the approach to the critical state must all
be modelled. This inevitably leads to a model of
some complexity, although we have attempted to
minimise this here as far as possible. The model de-
veloped is therefore intended as a basic model, to be
used as a starting point for more sophisticated ap-
proaches. In particular we do not include here pres-
sure-dependent stiffness or (as noted above) the gen-
eralisation of the model in the octahedral plane.
2 MODEL DESCRIPTION
The model described here is an extension of a previ-
ous single surface model (Houlsby, 1992) within the
continuous hyperplasticity framework. This ap-
proach employs an infinite number of yield surfaces,
which are expressed in terms of an internal coordi-
nate (see Puzrin and Houlsby, 2001a,b). In prac-
tice, however, the infinite number of surfaces have
to be replaced by a finite number N of surfaces. We
label each surface n ( N n 1 ), and the factor N n
plays the same role as . In the following we pre-
sent the model directly in terms of the finite number
of surfaces, as this requires less sophisticated
mathematics and leads more directly to the imple-
mentation. It should be borne in mind, however, that
the underlying model involves an infinite number of
surfaces, and this can be obtained by replacing N n
by , and by replacing summations by integrals.
The model is formulated in terms of triaxial stress
and strain variables:
( )
3 1 3 1
3 1
3 1
3
2
2
3
' 2 '
'
= + =
=
+
=
q p
q p
(1)
Volumetric and deviatoric plastic strains related to
the
th
n plastic mechanism are indicated as
) (n
p
and
) (n
q
respectively. The specification of two scalar
functions, a Gibbs energy function g or, alterna-
tively, a Helmholtz free energy function f
( )
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
, , ,
N
q q
N
p p
q p g g = K K (2)
) , , , (
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 ( N
q q
N
p p q p
f f = K K (3)
and a dissipation function d
) ,
, , , , (
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
N
q q
N
p p
N
q q
N
p p
q p d d

=
& K & & K &
K K
(4)
is sufficient to define completely the constitutive be-
haviour. The following two functions are used here:

+ +
+ =
N
n
n
q
n n
q
n
p
H q p
N
G
q
K
p
g
1
2
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 2
2
3
'
1
6 2
'
(5)
( )

= =
= =
N
n
n
q
N
n
n
p
N
n
M
N
d
N
d
1
) (
1
'
1 1
& (6)
where
) (n
H is the hardening modulus related to the
th
n mechanism and M is the value that the stress
ratio ' / p q attains at critical state conditions. The
normalisation term N / 1 in (5) and (6) makes the
formulation independent on the number of surfaces.
In the previous model (Houlsby, 1992) the energy
function used was the Helmholtz free energy func-
tion, while the dissipation function was formulated
in terms of strains. However, the two energy func-
tions are linked by the Legendre transformation
q p
q p g f + + = and either g and f can be used
for describing the behaviour of material.
The definition of appropriate constrains enables
the introduction of dilation as well as anisotropy into
the model (Houlsby, 1992):
( )
0
) ( ) ( ) (
= + + = a C
n
q d
n
q c
n
p
n
d
& & & (7)
0
1
1
) (
1
) (
=

=

= =
N
n
n
q
N
n
n
q a
a A
N
a C & & & (8)
The first constraint specifies that dilation is made up
from isotropic (compressive) and anisotropic (dila-
tive) parts given by functions
c
and
d
respec-
tively. The second constraint specifies the evolution
of the anisotropy parameter a, which varies between
1 + and 1 for positive and negative shearing. The
rate of evolution of anisotropy is determined by the
constant A. With dissipation specified, it is possible
to obtain the yield function
) (n
y associated with each
set of plastic strains through the degenerate special
case of the Legendre transformation of
) (n
d , which
is homogeneous of degree 1 in the rates:
0
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
= + =
n n
q
n
q
n
p
n
p
n n
d y & & (9)
where by definition:
) (
1
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
1
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
n
q
a
a
N
i
n
q
i
d i
d
n
q
n
q
n
p
a
a
N
i
n
p
i
d i
d
n
p
n
p
C
C
d
C
C
d

=
=
& & &
& & &
(10)
ln v
ln p'
ln p'
ref
ln B
ln
ln D
ln v

compression dilation
ln B
ln
ln D
M
n
N
(1- a sgn(q ))
. (n)
. (n)
max
n
N
a sgn(q )
where
) (n
d
and
a
are Lagrangean multipliers.
From the constraints (7) and (8) it follows that
( )
p
n
d
= and 0 =
a
. The generalised stresses are:
) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
3
n
q
n
n
q
n
q
n
p
n
p
H q
g
p
g
=

=
=

=
(11)
and Zieglers orthogonality condition
) ( ) ( n n
=
leads to the yield function in terms of stress:
( ) ' sgn 3
) ( ) ( ) (
p a
N
n
M H q
n
q d c
n
q
n

+ + = & (12)
The yield surfaces exhibit kinematic hardening,
given by the term
n
q
n
H
) (
3 , where the expression for
the variation of the hardening modulus is:
b
n
N
n
h H

= 1
) (
(13)
with h and b being parameters of the model. To in-
troduce the difference between compression and ex-
tension, the critical stress ratio M is given by:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
) (
sgn
2
1
n
q e c e c
M M M M M + + = & (14)
where
c ec e
M r M = , and
ec
r is the ratio between the
critical stress ratios in extension
e
M and compres-
sion
c
M . As in the previous model (Houlsby, 1992),
the values of
c
and
d
depend on the state of the
soil, defined by the distance between the current
specific volume and the critical state line, which is
assumed to be linear in a bi-logarithmic plot:


= +

ln ln
ln ln
ln ln
ln ln
max
D
v
N
n
D B
D v
N
n
M
d c
c
(15)
where
max
is the maximum rate of dilation while

v , B , and D are the specific volumes at a refer-

ence mean pressure
ref
p' for current, loosest, critical
and densest states respectively. Thus, according to
constraint (7), the rate of dilation is given by
( ) ( )
( )
) (
max
) (
sgn
ln ln
ln ln
sgn 1
ln ln
ln ln
n
q
n
q
n
q
n
p
a
D
v
N
n
a
D B
D v
N
n
M

&
&
&
&
(16)
where the first term refers to compression and the
second to dilation. It is worth noting that for =

v
the second term is always zero while the first one is
null only when the term ) sgn( 1
) (n
q
a vanishes.
Figure 1 shows the graphical interpretation of
contractive and dilative terms in (16).

Figure 1. Density constants and graphical interpretation of
compression and dilation rules (equation 16).
3 EXAMPLE ANALYSES
We illustrate the model by example analyses of ide-
alised tests. Although we do not compare these here
with specific data sets, the patterns of behaviour cor-
respond to those that are well-established empiri-
cally. The example calculations are carried out using
the parameter values given in Table 1.
Figure 2 shows a set of drained constant mean
pressure tests on sands with different initial densi-
ties. As the index of density

v increases (looser
samples) the strength reduces and the samples
change from being strongly dilative to contractive.
Although not apparent in Figure 2, the denser sands
show a mild peak in the stress-strain response.
Figure 3 shows the results for drained cycling
over a constant range of strain. The upper plots are
for a loose sample, which exhibits an accumulation
of compressive strain. The resulting densification
causes a slight increase in stiffness of the response to
the cycles. The lower plots show the equivalent for a
dense sand. This time the sand dilates during the
K Bulk modulus 20 MPa
G Shear modulus 10 MPa
H Hardening modulus constant 2 MPa
B Hardening modulus constant 2
A Rate of anisotropy development 100
B Specific volume at loosest state at
ref
p p = 1.9
Specific volume at critical state at
ref
p p = 1.8
D Specific volume at densest state at
ref
p p = 1.6
M
c
Critical stress ratio in compression 1.2

max
Maximum rate of dilation 0.4
r
ec
Ratio between critical stress ratios in extension
and compression
0.8

Table 1: Example parameters for model
0 2 4 6 8 10
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
0
40
80
120
160
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-2
-1
0
1
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

p

(
%
)
v

Figure 2. Response of the model in drained compression tests
on sands with different initial densities.
-2 0 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
-2 0 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
0
2
4
6
8
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

p

(
%
)
-2 0 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
-2 0 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-6
-4
-2
0
2
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

p

(
%
)
p' = 100 kPa
v

= 1.85
p' = 100 kPa
v

= 1.65
p' = 100 kPa
v

= 1.85
p' = 100 kPa
v

= 1.65


Figure 3. Effect of relative density on drained cyclic tests.
cycling, resulting in a slight reduction of stress in the
cycles as the material loosens.
Stress-strain curves and effective stress paths for
undrained monotonic tests on samples of different
densities are shown in Figure 4. The loose sands
show a reduction in effective stress, whilst dense
sands show a strong increase in effective stress.
Sands of medium density show a slight reduction of
mean effective stress before the increase. This
pattern of behaviour is well known.
Undrained cycling over a constant stress ampli-
tude is shown in Figure 5 for two densities of sand.
A loose sand (upper plots) shows an initial reduction
in effective stress, after which the q p , plot settles
into a characteristic butterfly shape, and the strain
amplitude also becomes constant. There is a large
amount of hysteresis in each cycle. The dense sand
shows a similar pattern, but the butterfly plot is
narrower, and the response both stiffer and with less
hysteresis.
Figure 6 shows undrained cycling on a dense
sand at a higher stress range. Although a stable
butterfly pattern is developed, note that this time
the dilation during each cycle means that there is a
net increase rather than a decrease of mean effective
stress.
Finally, figure 7 shows the effect of the strain
amplitude in on the stress-paths of a loose sample in
constant strain amplitude undrained cycling. For the
larger amplitude ( % 2 =
q
) stabilization of stress
is achieved while for the other ( % 1 =
q
) cyclic
liquefaction is obtained after just two cycles.
4 CONCLUSIONS
A model for the cyclic behaviour of sand under
triaxial conditions has been presented. The model
successfully describes typical trends of behaviour
for undrained and drained cycling, including typical
variation of volumetric behaviour for sands of
different densities.
REFERENCES
Houlsby, G.T. (1992) "Interpretation of Dilation as a
Kinematic Constraint", Proceedings of the Workshop on
Modern Approaches to Plasticity, Horton, Greece, J une 12-
16, ISBN 0-444-89970-7, pp 19-38
Puzrin, A.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2001a) "A Thermomechani-
cal Framework for Rate-Independent Dissipative Materials
with Internal Functions", Int. J our. of Plasticity, Vol. 17, pp
1147-1165
Puzrin, A.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2001b) "Fundamentals of
Kinematic Hardening Hyperplasticity", Int. J our. of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 38, No. 21, May, pp 3771-3794

0 2 4 6 8
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
0
100
200
300
m
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
s
s

p
'

(
k
P
a
)
0 100 200 300
mean stress p' (kPa)
0
100
200
300
400
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
0
100
200
300
400
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
v

Figure 4. Response of the model in undrained compression
tests on sands with different initial densities.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-80
-40
0
40
80
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
mean stress p' (kPa)
-80
-40
0
40
80
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
-4 -2 0 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-80
-40
0
40
80
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
mean stress p' (kPa)
-80
-40
0
40
80
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
-2 -1 0 1 2
deviatoric strain
q
(%)
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
80 100 120 140 160
mean stress p' (kPa)
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
mean stress p' (kPa)
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
mean stress p' (kPa)
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
d
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

q

(
k
P
a
)
q = 2%
q = 1%

Figure 5. Simulation of stress controlled undrained cyclic tests
for loose and dense sand.


Figure 6. Large stress controlled undrained cyclic tests for
dense sand showing increase of mean effective stress.

Figure 7. Effect of cyclic strain amplitude on the behaviour of
loose samples