Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Al Shayea2003 PDF
Al Shayea2003 PDF
Behavior of Soils
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a constitutive model for soil, which combines
elements of plasticity with damage mechanics to simulate the stress–strain behavior.
The model is primarily suitable for soil types that exhibit a postpeak strain-softening
behavior, such as dense sand and stiff clay. The postpeak stress drop is captured by
the elasto-damage formulation, while the plasticity is superimposed beyond the
elastic range. The total strain increment is composed of an elasto-damage strain
increment and a plastic strain increment. The elasto-damage strain increment is
found using the elasto-damage formulation, while the plastic strain increment is
found using either the Drucker–Prager classical plasticity model or as a function of
damage strain.
To implement this model, an experimental program was conducted on local
cohesive and cohesionless soils. Various physical and mechanical properties of these
soils were determined. Both triaxial tests and hydrostatic tests were performed under
different confining pressures, in order to obtain the model parameters. These
parameters were used to calibrate the model, which was coded in computer programs
to simulate the stress–strain behavior of soils. The model was verified and found to
be a good predictor of the geomaterial response for the selected stress path.
INTRODUCTION
E2 < E3 < Eo
Eo
Path 2
Stress
E2 E3 Eo
Path 3 Path 1
εp εd εe
Strain
Figure 1. Schematic unloading paths with ideal plastic deformation (path 1), perfectly brittle
behavior (path 2), and combined plasticity and damage (path 3) [Abu-Labdeh and Voyiadjis
(1993)].
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 307
LITERATURE REVIEW
micro cracks and cavities cannot resist the externally applied load. The
effective area (S~ ) is obtained by subtracting the area of the voids (SD) from
the total area (S).
The damage variable (!n), associated with the normal (n), represents the
area of the cracks and cavities per unit surface in a plane perpendicular to
the normal (n) and is given as:
S S~ SD
!n ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
S S
F
Rc
f ∂f ∂Ri = ni
δ
fo
Ro
δin
45°
b=∞ b=1
R2
Figure 2. Limit fracture, loading and bounding surfaces in strain energy release space after
Suaris et al. (1998).
ANALYTICAL BACKGROUND
The soil model proposed in this paper is primarily suitable for isotropic
soil types that exhibit a postpeak strain-softening behavior, under triaxial
loading condition. This model combines existing elements of damage
mechanics with plasticity to simulate the stress–strain behavior. It uses the
concepts given by Suaris et al. (1990) and the formulation developed by
Khan et al. (1998) for the damage part. The formulation utilized a damage
magnification factor results in a critical damage at !n ¼ 1/ rather than as
previously stated. The plastic part is added to the damage part by two
different methods. In Method 1, the plastic strain is taken as a constant
factor times the damage part. The constant factor does not result in a
constant plastic part, because the damage part is nonlinear. In Method 2,
the plastic strain is calculated using the Drucker–Prager model for the
plastic part. The proposed model combines the damage mechanics and the
plasticity formulations by programming them to find the contribution of
each component to stress and strain. The equations are not combined
together mathematically in a closed form.
Damage Formulation
For the case of CTC test, 2 ¼ 3 ¼ cell ¼ constant, and the deviator stress
in the axial direction ( 1) is changing. This case reduces to a uniaxial case.
The deviator part of the stress vector, causing the shearing failure in the
cylindrical soil specimen, is given as:
T
deviator ¼ 1 0 0 ð3Þ
For the CTC test the compliance and stiffness terms for i ¼ j ¼ 1, and with
!1 ¼ 0 and !2 ¼ !3 ¼ !, can be shown to be:
1
C~ 11 ¼ , or D~ 11 ¼ Eo ð1 !Þ4 ð4Þ
Eo ð1 !Þ4
The strain energy density (W ) for the deviator part of the CTC test,
which is to be predicted by the formulation, is given as:
h i
1 T ~ 1 2 ~2 1 12 ð1 !1 Þ2
W ¼ fi g Cij j ¼ 1 C11 ¼ ð5Þ
2 2 2 Eo ð1 !2 Þ2 ð1 !3 Þ2
where, (C~ ij ) is the effective compliance matrix, the inverse of the effective
stiffness matrix, (D~ ij ). The relationship between axial stress ( 1), strain
("1), and the strain energy (W ) gives:
ð1 !2 Þ2 ð1 !3 Þ2
1 ¼ "1 Eo ð6Þ
ð1 !1 Þ2
R1 ¼ 0 ð8Þ
R1 is set to zero since negative values for Ri are inadmissible in view of the
non-negativity of the thermodynamic conditions. This further implies that
damage in direction ‘‘1’’ is also zero, i.e., !1 ¼ 0. For the CTC test,
!2 ¼ !3 ¼ !, due to symmetry. The final expression for strain energy release
rate at onset of damage (Ro), for the CTC test, is given as:
pffiffiffi
2 2
Ro ¼ ð10Þ
Eo
@D~ 11 @f
d1 ¼ D~ 11 d"1 "1 d ð12Þ
@!k @Rk
pffiffiffi
2 2"1 Eo ð1 !Þ3 d"1
where, d ¼ , ð13Þ
H þ 32 "21 Eo ð1 !Þ2
D
H¼ ¼ damage modulus,
hin i
Inputs for the particular soil; ∆σ1, Eo for a fixed value of D and Rc
Enter trial value of β. Try different values of β till the desired peak strength is obtained
2 β (0.3or 0.2 × ∆σ 1 ) R
2
With input of dε1, enter the DO LOOP for specified number of times, and
determine ε1 = ε1 + dε1
1
(Ri Ri )2 = 2 βE o ε 12 (1 − βω )
3
1 1
For (Ri Ri )2 < Ro For (Ri Ri )2 ≥ Ro
Rc 1
b= 1
δ = 1 −
(Ri Ri )2 b
Dδ 2 2 βε 1 E o (1 − βω ) dε 1
3
H= dλ =
(δ in − δ ) H + 3β 2 ε 12 E o (1 − βω )2
dσ 1 = E o (1 − βω )4 dε 1 dλ
dω = ω = ω + dω
2
8 β 2 ε 12 E o2 (1 − βω )
6
dσ 1 = E o (1 − βω )4 − dε 1
H + 3β 2 E o ε 12 (1 − βω )2
∆σ 1 = ∆σ 1 + dσ 1
∆σ 1
dε1e =
Eo
dε 1d = dε 1 − dε 1e
dε 1p = F p × dε 1d
1
(Ri Ri )2 > Rc
YES
STOP
Figure 3. Flow chart for elasto-plasto-damage FORTRAN code, with plastic strains added by
method 1.
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 315
Drucker–Prager Model
The Drucker–Prager model was used for finding the plastic strain by
method 2. The Drucker–Prager failure criteria is given as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ¼ J2D z J1 k ð17Þ
where, p is the positive material parameter defining the yield criteria in J1
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
versus J2D space, and represents the slope of the straight line fit, k is the
intercept of the yield envelope, J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor,
and J2D is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor.
As long as the material is within the linear elastic range, the governing
stress–strain equation for a general case is given by Desai and Siriwardane
(1984), and it has the following form for the CTC test case:
where, Go is the initial shear modulus, and Ko is the initial bulk modulus of
elasticity.
When the stress state reaches the yield envelope, the governing stress–
strain equation for a general case is given by Desai and Siriwardane (1984),
and it has the following form for the CTC test case in the axial direction:
ð1 T1 1 R1 Þð1 2T2 cell 2R2 Þ 2ðT1 cell þ R1 ÞðT2 1 þ R2 Þ
d1 ¼ 2Go d"1
ð1 2T2 cell 2R2 Þ
ð19Þ
where, Ti ¼ A þ C i , and Ri ¼ A i þB, with i ¼ 1, 2.
A and B are the factors depending on material parameters determined
from the test results, and are given as:
h
A¼ ð20Þ
p0 k
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 J2D 92 Ko
p ¼ 1þ ð21Þ
k Go
kðp0 1Þ 3Ko J1
h¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð22Þ
6 J2D 2Go 6 J2D
2h2 3Ko
B¼ , and ð23Þ
1 þ ð92 Ko =Go Þ Eo
316 N. A. AL-SHAYEA ET AL.
1
C¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð24Þ
2kp0 J2D
The plastic strain in this method was calculated using the Drucker–Prager
model [Equation (18) or (19)], which is coded in a FORTRAN program,
whose flow chart is shown in Figure 4. Notice that d"1 in Equations (18) and
(19) is the plastic strain, which is equal to d"p. The total strain was assumed
to be composed of elasto-damage and plastic strain. The elasto-damage
strain and stress were determined using Equation (14).
NO IF J 2 D − αJ 1 − k ≤ 0.0 YES
YES
STOP
Figure 4. Flow chart for execution of Drucker–Prager model for traxial test.
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 317
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The expressions for the damage model parameters were determined from
the experimental results and then used in the computer program. These
parameters are presented as follows:
10000
8
Soil type
6
Sand
4 Marl
2
(E /Pa)
o
1000
8
2
8 9 2 3 4 5 6
1
(σ3 / Pa)
Figure 5. Normalized plots of initial modulus of elasticity for marl and sand.
with respect to atmospheric pressure (Pa ¼ 101.325 kPa) are shown in Figure 5
for both marl and sand. The expressions for Eo in kPa are:
b
3
Eo ¼ a Pa ð25Þ
Pa
0.01009
8
7
6
5
4
2
β
0.00109
8
7
6 Soil type
5
Sand
4
Marl
3
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3
1000
∆σ1, p (KPa)
Figure 6. vs. peak deviator stress for marl and sand.
error. Figure 6 shows the variation of versus peak deviator stress ( 1,p)
for marl and sand, with the following equations of the fit:
d
¼ c 1,p ð27Þ
Fp ¼ e ð3 Þ f ð28Þ
10.00
8
6
2
Fp
1.00
8
6 Soil type
4
Sand
Marl
2
0.10
8 9 2 3 4 5 6
100
σ3 (KPa)
Figure 7. Plastic strain factor vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
The expression for the initial modulus of elasticity (Eo) is the same as that
given by Equation (25). Other parameters required for this method are
briefly explained as follows:
1000
800
( KPa)
600
∆σ1
400
Experimental
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12
ε1
Figure 8. Comparison between experimental and predicted stress–strain curves for sand at
3 ¼ 200 kPa, with and without plastic strain by the two different methods.
2200
Experimental
2000
Prediction
1800
1600
500 KPa
1200
800
400
200 KPa
200
100 KPa
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ε1
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental and predicted stress–strain curves for sand by
method 1.
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 323
portion of the hydrostatic stress versus volumetric strain curves. The average
Ko values found for marl and sand were 84,580 and 260,252 kPa,
respectively.
Eo
Go ¼ ð30Þ
2ð1 þ Þ
1400
Soil type
Sand
1200 Marl
1000
(KPa)
800
(J2D )
600
400
200
Soil type
0.20
Sand
Marl
εt
0.10
0.00
0 200 400 600
σ3 (KPa)
Figure 11. Total elasto-plastic strain vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
2500
Soil type
Sand
2000
Marl
1500
σr (KPa)
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600
σ3 (KPa)
Figure 12. Residual stress vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
2200
Experimental
2000
Prediction
1800
1600
Cell pressure
1400
( KPa)
500 KPa
1200
800
400
200 KPa
200
100 KPa
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ε1
Figure 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted stress–strain curves for sand
by method 2.
326 N. A. AL-SHAYEA ET AL.
In both methods the elastic and damage strain components are found
using the elasto-damage formulation. The plastic strain is found as Fp times
the damage strain in Method 1, while it is calculated from the elasto-plastic
Drucker–Prager model in Method 2. Figure 8 also shows the comparison
between the experimental behavior and predictions by Methods 1 and 2, at
3 ¼ 200 kPa for sand. Predictions by Methods 1 and 2 are very close to each
other and to the experimental behavior for sand. The difference between the
two methods is that in the case of Method 2 there is a singularity or sudden
change in slope when plastic strains are added to the elasto-damage strains
because of the behavior of the Drucker–Prager model for CTC. It can also
be observed that the prediction by Method 1 is slightly better than that by
Method 2. Method 2 on the other hand is theoretically more sound, because
the plastic strain is evaluated from a rigorous elasto-plastic model. Both
methods validate each other.
Figure 14 shows the plots between Fp and "t for marl and sand. The
expressions between Fp and "t are given as:
F p ¼ k ð"t Þl ð33Þ
where k and l are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.
10
8
6
2
Fp
1
8
6 Soil type
Sand
4
Marl
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 7 89
0.01 0.10 1.00
εt
Figure 14. Variation of Fp with "t.
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 327
The fact that Fp can be expressed in terms of "t validates the assumption
that plastic strains can be taken as a factor of damage strains, and while
each one was calibrated separately and was obtained using different models,
a relationship still exists between them.
CONCLUSIONS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
S~ ¼ effective area
~
Cij ¼ effective compliance matrix
D~ ij ¼ effective stiffness matrix
~ ¼ effective stress
c ¼ cohesion
CDM ¼ continuum damage mechanics
D ¼ peak shape factor
d ¼ proportionality factor defining relationship between damage
increment and loading surface
Eo ¼ initial value of modulus of elasticity
F ¼ bounding surface (damage model)
f ¼ loading surface function (damage model)
f ¼ yield function for Drucker–Prager model
fo ¼ limit fracture surface (damage model)
328 N. A. AL-SHAYEA ET AL.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Abu-Lebdeh, T.M. and Voyiadjis, G.Z. (1993). Plasticity Damage Model for Concrete under
Cyclic Multi-axial Loading, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119(7): 1465–1484.
Chow, C.L. and Wang, J. (1987). An Anisotropic Theory of Elasticity for Continuum Damage
Mechanics, International Journal of Fracture, 33: 3–16.
Chow, C.L. and Wang, J. (1988). A Finite Element Analysis of Continuum Damage Mechanics
for Ductile Fracture, International Journal of Fracture, 38: 83–102.
Stress–Strain Behavior of Soils 329
Crouch, R.S. and Wolf J.P. (1995). On a Three-Dimensional Anisotropic Plasticity Model for
Soil, Geotechnique, 45(2): 301–305.
Dafalias, Y.F. and Popov, E.P. (1977). Cyclic Loading for Material with a Vanishing Elastic
Region, Nuclear Engineering Design, 41: 283–302.
Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials with
Emphasis on Geologic Materials, p. 468, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Gupta, V. and Bergstrom, J.S. (1997). Compressive Failure of Rocks, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 34(3–4): 376–378.
Kachanov, L.M. (1958). Time of the Rupture Process under Creep condition, Izv Akad Nauk,
U.S.S.R, Otd. Tekh. Nauk, 8: 26–31.
Karr, D.G., Wimmer, S.A. and Sun, X. (1996). Shear Band Initiation of Brittle Damage
Materials, International Journal of Damage Mechanics, 5: 403–421.
Khan, A.R., Al-Gadhib, A.H. and Baluch, M.H. (March 1998). An Elasto Damage
Constitutive Model for High Strength Concrete, In: Proceedings of the Euro-C 1998
Conference on Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures, pp. 133–142, Austria.
Kondner, R.L. (January 1963). Hyperbolic Stress–Strain Response: Cohesive Soils, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 89(SM1): 115–143.
Sauris, W., Ouyang, C. and Ferdenando, V.M. (May 1990). Damage Model for Cyclic Loading
of Concrete, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 116(5): 1020–1035.