AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

1. General
Elastic descriptions of soil behavior are useful for the wide range of quick analytical
solutions to which they give access. If we need some idea about the stress
distribution around a footing or wall or pile then at least a first estimate can be
obtained using an elastic analysis. Elastic analyses are also useful to give a first
estimate of the deformations that may be expected for a geotechnical structure
under working loads-structures which are therefore not loaded to anything
approaching the failure conditions.

Geotechnical materials exhibit irreversible behavior, yield phenomena and shear

induced dilatency. A quick comparison of the stress:strain response implied by a
linear elastic description of soil behavior with the actual stress:strain response of a
typical soil shows that there are many features of soil response that the simple
model is unable to capture. In particular, it is clear that most soils show nonlinear
stress:strain relationships with the stiffness falling from a high initial value. If a soil
is unloaded from some intermediate, pre-failure condition then it will not recover
its initial state but will be left with permanent, irrecoverable deformation-which
we will call plastic deformation to distinguish it from the recoverable, elastic
elements of deformation.

These and other features strongly suggest that plasticity theory should be an
appropriate framework for the description of the behavior of soil. While the simple
models are an improvement over linear and nonlinear elastic models, they cannot
reproduce all the important facets of real soil behavior. To improve matters, more
complex elasto-plastic constitutive models are needed.

There are lots of simple elasto-plastic constitutive models of soil behavior, but
these models are restricted in their ability to reproduce real soil behavior, they
form the basis of classical soil mechanics theory. For example, most foundation and
earth pressure calculations rely on either the Tresca or Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria.

The choice of model to be used for analysis is in the hands of the modeler. The
second, rational proposal is that the modeler should develop some awareness of
Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 1|Page
AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

the particular features of soil history and soil response that are likely to be
important in a particular application and ensure that the constitutive model that is
adopted is indeed able to reproduce these features. As in all modelling, adequate
complexity should be sought. It is too easy to discover that key elements of
response are obscured by unnecessary and detachable elements of the constitutive
model.

Here one of the more advanced soil models that are currently available is
considered. This model is so complex that it must be combined with numerical
analysis if it is to be used to investigate boundary value problems. Modelling the
limited tensile capacity of soils is considered first and a constitutive model based
on the framework of elasto-plasticity is presented.

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 2|Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

2. Bubble Models
2.1 Introduction
Conventional elasto-plastic models, which assume elastic behavior within the yield
surface, have difficulties in simulating the behavior of some soils when subjected
to cycles of unloading and reloading. To improve modeling the concept of bounding
surface plasticity was introduced. While such models are an improvement over
conventional elasto-plastic models, they still have some deficiencies. For example
during unloading soil behavior is assumed to be elastic and this restricts the degree
of coupling between volumetric and deviatoric component of behavior.

A way of improving the framework further is to introduce a small kinematic yield

surface (bubble), which moves within the outer bounding surface. Within the
bubble behavior is elastic, whereas outside the bubble it is elasto-plastic. As the
stresses change with in the outer bounding surface, the bubble moves and hence
the term ‘kinematic yield surface’. Al-Tabbaa (1987) and Al-Tabbaa and Wood
(1989) developed a model with a single kinematic yield surface, with the
conventional modified Cam Clay yield surface acting as a bounding surface.
Stallenbrass and Taylor (1997) extended this model, incorporating two nested
kinematic yield surfaces. The additional surface in their model is called a ‘history’
surface and was added so that the model could simulate both yield at small strains
and the effect of recent stress history.

2.2 Behavior of a Kinematic Yield Surface

In this section the conceptual framework of bubble models is presented by
considering the behavior of a model with a single kinematic yield surface. These
concepts are, however, easily extended to deal with models which have multiple
yield surfaces.

The main components of the model are an outer bounding surface and a kinematic
yield surface (bubble), which moves within the outer surface, see Figure 2.1.a. The
bubble acts in the same way as a conventional yield surface in the sense that purely
elastic behavior occurs for stress states which remain within the bubble. However,
Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 3|Page
AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

if the stress state attempts to cross the perimeter of the bubble, elasto-plastic
behavior is initiated and the bubble is dragged along the stress path. This elasto-
plastic behavior is controlled by the bubble acting as yield surface, in combination
with a plastic potential and plastic hardening/softening law associated with the
bubble. Although the bubble moves within the outer bounding surface, it never
crosses it. When the stress state reaches the bounding surface the bubble is
oriented such that it lies completely within the surface. In such a condition the
bounding surface essentially acts as the yield surface and behavior is controlled by
this surface and its associated plastic potential and plastic hardening/softening law.
In essence, if the stress state is on the bounding surface, the elasto-plastic behavior
is exactly the same as would be oriented with a conventional elaso--plastic model,
in which the bounding surface acts as the yield surface.

The behavior of the model is best understood by considering the example shown
in figure below. In this example a soil element is assumed to be initially k0 normally
consolidated to a stress state represented by a point ‘a’ in figure below. Since the
soil element has been subjected to normal consolidation, its behavior has been
controlled by the bounding surface, and the relative positions of the bonding
surface and bubble at the end of consolidation are shown in the figure shown
below. If the soil element is now unloaded such that it follows the stress path
‘abcd’, the sequence of events as follows. On first unloading from point ‘a’ the
stress path moves inside the bubble and behavior is elastic, with both the bubble
and the bounding surface remaining stationary in stress space.

As the unloading continues, the stress path traverses the inside of the bubble,
promoting further elastic behavior, until it reaches the other side of the bubble at
point ‘b’. With further unloading the behavior of the soil element become elasto-
plastic. The bubble is now dragged along the stress path and, because plastic strains
are developed, both the bubble and the bounding surface change size if their
hardening/softening laws are related to plastic strain and/or plastic work. After
unloading to point‘d’ the relative position of the bubble and the bounding surface
to the stress state are as indicated in the figure below. If the soil element is now
reloaded such that its stress state travels along the stress path ‘def’, it initially
behaves elastically because the stress path moves inside the bubble. Again, during
Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 4|Page
AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

this period of elastic behavior the bubble and bounding surface remain stationary.
With sufficient loading the stress state reaches the other side of the bubble, i.e.
point e on figure, and elasto plastic behavior is initiated. Further loading takes the
stress state to point ‘f’, where the bubble meets the bounding surface. Any
subsequent loading causes the bubble and the bounding surface to move together.

a)

b)

Figure 2.1. Conceptual behavior of bubble model

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 5|Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

To fully define the model, information must be provided for the shape of the
bounding surface and its associated plastic potential and hardening/softening law.
Similar information must also be provided for the bubble. A translation rule,
controlling the movement and relative orientation of the bubble, is also required.
This rule must be carefully defined to ensure that the bubble becomes tangential
and completely within the bounding surface when the stress state approaches the
bounding surface. It is also necessary to provide mapping functions which control
how the plastic modulus changes as the bubble moves. In this respect, it is
important to ensure that as the bubble approaches that associated with the
bounding surface. To clarify the above qualitative description, the single bubble
model proposed by Al-Tabbaa and Wood (1989) is briefly described below.

2.3 Al-Tabbaa and Wood Model

This model is fully described by Al-Tabbaa (1987) and Al-Tabbaa and Wood (1989)
and is a simple example of a single bubble model.

2.3.1 Bounding Surface and Bubble

In bubble model the elliptical yield surface of the modified Cam clay model is used
to represent the bounding surface. The equation of this surface is written as
follows:-
2
′ }, {𝑘}) ′ 𝑝′0 2 𝐽2 𝑝′ 0
𝐹({𝜎 = (𝑝 − ) + − = 0 (eq 2.1)
2 𝑀𝐽 2 4

The inner Kinematic yield surface (i.e bubble) is assumed to have the same shape
as the bounding surface, but to be of a smaller size. The equation for this surface
is:-

𝑝 ′ 2
𝐽−𝐽𝛼 2
𝐹1 ({𝜎 ′ }, {𝑘}) = (𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )2 + ( ) − 𝑅2 0 = 0 (eq 2.2)
𝑀𝐽 4

Where pα’ and Jα represent the stress state associated with the center of the bubble
and R represents the ratio of the size of the bubble to that of the bounding surface,
see the Figure below.

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 6|Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

Figure 2.2 Single Bubble Model

When the soil is yielding, the consistency condition (i.e. dF1=0) requires that:
𝐽−𝐽𝛼 𝑅2
(𝑃′ − 𝑃′ 𝛼 )(𝑑𝑝′ − 𝑑𝑝′ 𝛼 ) + (𝑑𝐽 − 𝑑𝐽𝛼 ) − 𝑝′ 0 𝑑𝑝′ 0 = 0 (eq 2.3)
𝑀𝐽 2 4

If the stress state is within the bubble, behavior is governed by the isotropic elastic
constitutive equations, with a constant Poisson’s ratio, µ, and a variable bulk
stiffness given by:
𝑝′
𝐾 = 𝑘 ∗ (eq 2.4)

Otherwise, behavior is elasto-plastic, with the plastic potential assumed to be the

same as the yield function, given by eq (2.2) (i.e. associated plasticity), and the
following hardening/softening law:
𝑑 𝑝′0 𝑑𝜀 𝑝
𝑣
∗ (eq 2.5)
= 𝜆∗−𝑘
𝑝′0

Al-Tabbaa and Wood assumed that the virgin consolidation and swelling lines are
straight in lnv-lnp’, Where as in the conventional formulation of modified Cam clay
these lines are assumed to be straight in v-lnp’ space. Hence, λ* and k* are different
to λ and k.

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 7|Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

2.3.2 Movement of bubble

The bubble moves such that it translate within the outer modified cam clay
bounding surface, following a rule that guarantees that the bubble and bounding
surface can touch at a common tangent, but never intersect. This rule is illustrated
graphically in Figure 2.3 and it states that the center of the bubble should always
move along a vector r, which joins the current stress state, C, to its conjugate point
on the bounding surface, D.

Figure 2.3 Translation of bubble

The change in position of the bubble, when plastic straining occurs, has two
components: one is associated with the translation of the bubble along the vector
r, while the other is associated with the change in size of the bubble due to isotropic
hardening/softening. This implies that when the bubble and the bounding surface
are in contact at the current stress state, the vector r=0 and the change in the
position of the bubble is entirely due to expansion/contraction. Thus the general
expression for the change of position of the bubble is:
𝑝′ −𝑝′ 𝛼 𝑝′ 0
𝑑𝑝′ 𝑑𝑝′ 𝑝
′ − (𝑝′ − )
𝑅 2
{ 𝛼 } = 𝑝′ 0 { 𝛼 } + 𝑇 { } (eq 2.6)
𝑑𝐽𝛼 0 𝐽𝛼 𝐽−𝐽𝛼
−𝐽
𝑅

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 8|Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

The first part of (eq 2.6) is the change in (𝑝𝛼′ , 𝐽𝛼 ) due to a change in 𝑝𝛼′ , and the
second part is associated with the translation along the vector 𝒓 ⃗ . The scalar
quantity T can be obtained by substituting Equation (eq 2.6) into (eq 2.3) and
using (8.66):
𝑑𝑝′ 𝑜 𝐽− 𝐽𝛼 𝑑𝑝′
(𝑝′ −𝑝𝛼
′ )(𝑑𝑝′ − 𝑝′ )+ (𝑑𝐽− ′ 𝑜 𝐽)
𝑝′ 𝑜 𝑀𝐽2 𝑝 𝑜
𝑇= 𝑝′ − 𝑝′ 𝛼 𝑝′ 𝐽− 𝐽 𝐽− 𝐽𝛼
(eq 2.7)
(𝑝′ − 𝑝′ 𝛼 )[ −(𝑝′ − 𝑜)]+ 2𝛼 ( −𝐽)
𝑅 2 𝑀𝐽 𝑅

2.3.3 Elasto-Plastic Behavior

When the bubble and bounding surface are in contact, the expression for the
plastic strain increments can be obtained as :
𝑝
𝑑𝜀 𝜆∗ − 𝜅 ∗
{ 𝜈𝑝 } = .
𝑑𝐸𝑑 (𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )[𝑝′ (𝑝′ − 𝑝′ 𝛼 )+
𝐽(𝐽− 𝐽𝛼 )
]
𝑀2
𝐽
𝐽− 𝐽𝛼
(𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )2 (𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )
𝑀𝐽2 𝑑𝑝′
[ 𝐽− 𝐽𝛼 𝐽− 𝐽 ]{ } (eq 2.8)
(𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 ) ( 2𝛼 )2 𝑑𝐽
𝑀𝐽2 𝑀𝐽

This expression is then generalized for the calculation of plastic strains whenever
they occur, i.e. whether or not the bubble and bounding surface are in contact:
𝐽− 𝐽𝛼
𝑝 (𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )2 (𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 )
𝑑𝜀𝜈 𝑀𝐽2
1 𝑑𝑝′
{ 𝑝} = [ 2 ]{ } (eq 2.9)
𝑑𝐸𝑑 ℎ 𝐽− 𝐽 𝐽− 𝐽𝛼 𝑑𝐽
(𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 ) 2𝛼 ( )
𝑀𝐽 𝑀𝐽2

Where ℎ is a scalar hardening parameter and, from (eq 2.8), when the bubble and
bounding surface are in contact:
𝑝′ − 𝑝′𝛼 𝐽(𝐽− 𝐽𝛼 )
ℎ = ℎ𝑜 =
𝜆∗ − 𝜅 ∗
[𝑝′ (𝑝′ − 𝑝′ 𝛼 ) + 𝑀𝐽2
] (eq 2.10)

However, the functionℎ𝑜 , as written in (eq 2.10), is not completely appropriate

because it falls to zero at several singularity points, implying unlimited plastic
Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 9|Page
AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

strains. For example, two singularity points exist for 𝑝′ = 𝑝′𝛼 (e.g. at the top and
bottom of the bubble), where unlimited plastic shear strains would be predicted.

To overcome this deficiency, the hardening function is rewritten as:

ℎ = ℎ𝑜 + 𝐻 (eq 2.11)

where H should be greater than zero.

Based on results of laboratory tests on speswhite kaolin, Al-Tabbaa and Wood

(1989) suggested a function for 𝐻 in the form:

1 𝐵 𝛹
𝐻= (𝐵 ) 𝑝′3𝑜 (eq 2.12)
𝜆∗ −𝜅∗ 𝑚𝑎𝑥

Where B is the component of the vector 𝒓 ⃗ in the direction of the normal to the
bubble at the current stress state, and 𝛹 is an experimentally determined positive
exponent. It should be emphasized that the choice of the function H is not unique
and depends on the type of soil that is being modelled.

2.3.4 Comments
This bubble model requires only 7 material parameters: 𝜈1 , 𝜆∗ , 𝜅 ∗ , 𝑀𝑗 , 𝑅, 𝛹 and
Poisson’s ratio 𝜇. It was originally developed for triaxial stress space, but has been
extended by Stallebrass and Taylor (1997) to general stress space and enhanced
to include a second bubble. This model has been used in finite element analyses
of boundary value problems with limited success.

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 10 | P a g e

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

2.4 Summary
Several constitutive models are available for dealing with the limited tensile
capacity of soils. A model based on the theory of elasto-plasticity has been
described here. This model is extremely flexible, allowing cracks to form and
then rotate. A particular strength of this model is that it can be combined with
other elasto-plastic models which concentrate on simulating behavior in
compression. The concept of kinematic yield surfaces has been presented as a
way of simulating hysteretic soil behavior within the main bounding surface.
Bubble models, which are based on this concept, have been described and a
particular example presented.

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 11 | P a g e

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Bubble Models

References
1. David M Potts and Lidija Zdravkovic, “Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: theory”
2. David Muir Wood, “Geotechnical Modelling”, April 2004
3. O.C. Zienkiewicz, A.H.C. Chan, M. Pastor, B.A Schrefler, T. Shiomi,
“Computational geomechanics with special reference to earth quake
engineering”

Computational Methods In Geotechnical Engineering 12 | P a g e