Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–6
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Soil Parameters for Design with the 3D Transportation Research Board 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
PLAXIS Hardening Soil Model sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119851723
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Jeremy T. Bowers1, Mark C. Webb1, and Jesse L. Beaver1

Abstract
The design and analysis of buried structures presents difficulties that cannot often be solved by closed-form solutions. Finite
element methods (FEM) have increasingly become the tool of choice for advanced soil-structure interaction analysis, with
three-dimensional FEM being required for irregular non-plane-strain cases. To accurately capture the stress and deformation
of soils, complex material constitutive models are required. Several input parameters to these models must be deter-
mined from expensive soil testing, which is impractical for most applications. For two-dimensional FEM, good approxima-
tions of these parameters for a wide range of placed backfill soils have been developed and used in practice for many
years in the computer program CANDE. It is the purpose of this paper to take these parameters, developed by Selig for
use in CANDE, and convert them to equivalent parameters for the three-dimensional PLAXIS computer program’s
Hardening Soil model.

The analysis of complex three-dimensional buried struc- Methodology

tures has increasingly become a task accomplished
through soil-structure interaction finite element analysis.
In the interaction between soils and structures, the soils
respond in a highly nonlinear manner. The hyperbolic
stress-strain model (1, 2) is widely accepted as a good
approximation of the behavior of coarse-grained,
drained, low moisture sensitivity soils. However, these
models require complex input from rigorous soil testing,
which is impractical for design purposes. Selig has pro-
posed typical parameters for a wide range of placed
backfill soil types and compaction levels, which are com-
monly used in the Duncan–Chang (DC) model with the
Selig hyperbolic bulk modulus formulation (called
the DS model here) (3), particularly as implemented in
the finite element computer program CANDE (4) and
described in the formulations manual (5). The DS model
is limited to two-dimensional (2D) analyses, whereas the
progression of processing power has allowed for the
more frequent use of three-dimensional (3D) analyses for
irregular and non-plane-strain cases. Therefore, modern
3D models have become more widely available for use in
both design and analysis. One such model is the 3D
PLAXIS Hardening Soil (HS) model (6), which shares
many similarities with the DS model. Here, the para-
meters put forth by Selig to be used with the DS model
are used to calibrate analogous parameters for the HS
model.
The 2D Duncan–Chang (DC) model, the 2D CANDE
Duncan–Selig model, and the 3D PLAXIS HS model
share several common input parameters, as described in
Table 1. Below, we develop the relationships between
these parameters, with preference given to matching
triaxial behavior over bulk or oedometric behavior.
Stiffness Modulus for Primary Triaxial Loading
The triaxial stiffness parameters for the HS model (7) as
implemented in PLAXIS 3D (6) can be analytically
determined from the values provided by Selig (3). The
Duncan–Selig model is substantially similar to the DC
model (2), from which the HS model is derived, using the
same formulation for the Young’s modulus but differing
in the bulk modulus formulation, as described in the fol-
lowing section.
From the HS model, the deviatoric stress, q, as a func-
tion of the axial strain, e1, is of the same form as the DS
model and is defined as:
1
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, Waltham, MA
Corresponding Author:
Address correspondence to Jeremy T. Bowers: jtbowers@sgh.com
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 1. Primary Input Parameters to Constitutive Models

Parameter description Duncan–Chang model Duncan–Selig model Hardening soil model

Reference tangent Young’s modulus K K na

Reference secant Young’s modulus na na Eref
50
Exponent for calculation of Young’s modulus N n M
Reference tangent bulk modulus Kb Bi na
Reference tangent oedometer modulus na na Eref
oed
Ultimate volumetric strain na eu na
Exponent for calculation of bulk modulus P na na
Exponent for calculation of oedometer modulus na* na M
Reference unloading/reloading modulus na* na Eref
ur
Reference confining pressure Pa Pa pref
Cohesion C C C
Reference friction angle u0 u0 F
Change in friction angle per atmosphere of confining pressure Du Du na
Dilatancy angle na na c
Failure ratio of deviator stress Rf Rf Rf

Note: na = not applicable.

1 q e1 2  Rf
e1 ¼ ! q ¼ 1 e1 ð1Þ E50 = Ei ð6Þ
Ei 1  q=qa Ei þ qa
2

where Thus, for low levels of cohesion (such as for granular

ref
Ei = tangent Young’s modulus when q = 0, materials), the reference secant modulus, E50 , with a ref-
ref
q = s1  s3 , and erence pressure, p , equal to atmospheric, can be
the deviatoric stress asymptote, qa, is related to the devia- approximated by substituting Equation 4 into Equation
toric stress at failure, qf, by the failure ratio, Rf, according 6 and assuming c = 0, yielding Equation 7.
to Equation 2, with qf as defined in Equation 3 in relation
ref 2  Rf
to cohesion, c, friction angle, u, and confining pressure, E50 = KPa ð7Þ
s3, per the DS and HS models, respectively. 2

qf When not considering dilatancy, Equation 7 provides a

qa = ð2Þ good approximation of the triaxial behavior as com-
Rf
pared to the DS model. For soils with a friction angle
2c cosu  2s3 sinu 2 sinu greater than 30°, dilatancy is generally approximated as
qf = = ðc cotu  s3 Þ c = u–30° ø 0°. This results in a stiffer response to
1  sinu 1  sinu
ð3Þ triaxial loading, but has negligible effect on the strength.
For unloading and reloading, the HS introduces a linear
Equations 1–3 show general agreement between the modulus, Eur, with a calculation of the same form as E50.
two models, however the calculation of the initial This implementation is similar to that suggested by Duncan
tangent Young’s modulus, Ei, differs between the models. et al. (8). They suggest that the unloading-reloading stiff-
The DS model calculates the modulus in relation to the ness should be proportional to the initial tangent Young’s
confining pressure normalized by atmospheric pressure, Pa: modulus, Ei, with dense sands being 1.2 times as large and
loose soils being up to 3 times as large as the primary load-
Ei = KPa (s3 =Pa )n ð4Þ ing stiffness. Katona modified the DS model to consider a
similar calculation of the unloading/reloading modulus,
Whereas the HS model modifies this normalized suggesting that Eur should be equal to Ei (9). The PLAXIS
confining pressure by c and u and operates in relation to
Material Models Manual (6) suggests an acceptable default
the secant modulus measured at 50% of the failure ref
reference unloading-reloading stiffness of 3E50 .
strength, E50:
 m
ref c cosu  s3 sinu Oedometric Stiffness Modulus
E50 = E50 ð5Þ
c cosu + pref sinu
The oedometer stiffness, Eoed, or constrained modulus
where for the HS model replaces the bulk modulus, B, input in
Bowers et al 3

Table 2. Soil Parameters for 3D PLAXIS Hardening Soil Model

C j Dj c
Soil type Relative density Eref
50 (psi) Eref
oed (psi) m Rf (psi) (deg) (deg) (deg) K0* Knc
0 ** Kb

SW 95 9,077 3,585 0.6 0.7 0 48 8 18 1.3 0.21 250

90 5,880 2,165 0.43 0.75 0 42 4 12 1.1 0.25 151
85 3,969 1,366 0.35 0.8 0 38 2 8 0.9 0.25 90
80 2,752 1,129 0.35 0.83 0 36 1 6 0.8 0.32 72
60 437 428 0.85 0.9 0 29 0 0 0.5 0.52 35
ML 95 3,396 1,535 0.4 0.95 4 34 0 4 1.2 0.40 110
90 1,632 850 0.26 0.89 3.5 32 0 2 0.9 0.43 55
85 930 561 0.25 0.85 3 30 0 0 0.8 0.50 35
80 662 463 0.25 0.8 2.5 28 0 0 0.7 0.53 28
50 171 171 0.95 0.55 0 23 0 0 0.5 0.61 15
CL 95 882 767 0.45 1 9 15 4 0 0.8 0.71 50
90 584 516 0.54 0.94 7 17 7 0 0.6 0.65 34
85 404 364 0.6 0.9 6 18 8 0 0.5 0.63 25
80 291 276 0.66 0.87 5 19 8.5 0 0.4 0.61 21
45 147 132 0.95 0.75 0 23 11 0 0.3 0.53 15

Note: SW = coarse-grained gravelly sand; ML = sandy silt; CL = silty clay; psi = pounds per square inch.
*
Used to generate Eref
oed , from Selig (3)
**
Input to PLAXIS, selected to allow for use of desired Eref
oed

the DS model. Both are intended to describe the stress
response of the soil to changes in volumetric stain.
Updating the constitutive relationship describing the
bulk modulus was the primary change that Selig (3)
implemented to the DC model (2). Thus, this portion of
the calibration is less precise than that for the triaxial
stiffness. Additionally, the DC model allowed for inde-
pendent definition of the exponents input to the power
law models for Young’s modulus (n) and bulk modulus
(p). The HS restricts the inputs to a single exponent that
is shared between the two models (m).
The bulk modulus relates the mean stress, sm, to the
volumetric strain, ev, through the approximate relation:
Dsm Ds1 + Ds2 + Ds3
B= = ð8Þ
Dev 3Dev
For an oedometer test, in which the movement of the
sides of the test specimen is restricted and a vertical load
is applied, the components of stress are related to each
other by the lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0, such
that s3 = s2 = K0s1, for which suggested values for K0
have been provided by Selig and are given in Table 2.
The volumetric strain is also found to be equal to the ver-
tical (first principal) strain, e1. Therefore, the bulk modu-
lus can be rewritten in relation to the first principal stress
and strain as:
Ds1 ð1 + 2K0 Þ ð1 + 2K0 Þ
B= = Eoed ð9Þ
De1 3 3
Rather than using the DC power law model based on
the third principal stress, s3, and the stiffness parameter,
Kb, Selig’s formulation incorporates a hyperbolic equa-
tion based on the mean stress, sm, the initial tangent bulk
modulus, Bi, and the ultimate volumetric strain, eu, to
determine the bulk modulus.
B = Bi (1 + sm =ðBi eu Þ)2 ð10Þ
Although Selig’s formulation for bulk modulus was
deemed to be more accurate, the DC power law model
(Equation 11) is more similar in form to the HS oed-
ometer stiffness formulation. To provide a better com-
parison to the HS model, the power law model is used
here along with Selig’s ‘‘Curve A’’ calibrated values for
the stiffness parameter, Kb, provided in Table 2. When
determining the oedometer stiffness values for HS, the
Curve A results were found to provide a better fit to the
DS model.
B = Kb Pa (s3 =Pa )p ð11Þ
The HS model, using Eoed instead of B to define the volu-
metric response of the soil, determines the oedometer
stiffness according to:
 s3 m
ref
c cosu  K 0
sinu
Eoed = Eoed ð12Þ
c cosu + pref sinu
It is noted that the oedometer stiffness for the HS
model is essentially calculated using s1 rather than s3.
For low levels of cohesion, the reference tangent modu-
ref
lus, Eoed , with a reference pressure equal to atmospheric,
can be approximated by substituting Equations 11 and
12 into Equation 9 and assuming c = 0. Additionally,
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 1. Comparison of SW soil response in HS and DS soils.
accounting for the conversion from s1 to s3, K0 to the
power m is included to produce the conversion Equation
13. Owing to the constraints of the HS model, the expo-
nent m is used rather than p.
3Kb Pa
ref
Eoed = ðK0 Þm ð13Þ
ð1 + 2K0 Þ
Equation 13 provides a decent approximation of the
volumetric response of the soil as compared to the DS
model, particularly for well-compacted soils. For soils
with relatively low ratios of bulk modulus to Young’s
modulus, the calibrated parameters suggested by Selig
would lead to low oedometer stiffness values for the HS
model. The combination of these stiffness values with the
input lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0nc , are typically
outside the range of what is allowed by the HS model, as
described in the PLAXIS Materials Models Manual (6).
ref
To maintain Eoed as calculated in Equation 13, K0nc is
decreased to fit within the allowable range of the HS
model. Note that K0nc , which generally follows Jaky’s
equation, Equation 14, for normally consolidated soils, is
not necessarily the same as K0, which was taken from
Selig to provide the best fit.
K0nc = 1  sinðuÞ ð14Þ
Strength Parameters
The HS model describes the soil strength in relation to
friction angle, u, cohesion, c, and dilatancy angle, c. It
does not include a parameter to account for the change
of friction angle with confining pressure Du, described
by Duncan et al. (8). To best match the DS model, a
representative confinement level should be selected and
the effective friction angle calculated as:
u = u0  Dulog(s3 =Pa ) ð15Þ
The dilatancy angle is not included in the DS model and
affects the relationship of the axial and volumetric
strains. Though various correlations exist for the calcula-
tion of c based on minerology and confinement (e.g.,
10), the lack of specific information and a desire for more
general applicability disallow the use of these correla-
tions. The PLAXIS Material Models Manual (6) suggests
for quartz sands, c = u–30° gives a rough approxima-
tion. Comparing this approximation against the correla-
tion Bolton suggests for quartz and feldspar shows that
u–30° is conservative, yielding lower values for c (10).
Findings
The constitutive relationships of the Duncan–Selig and
the 3D PLAXIS HS models are compared below for the
various soil types presented by Selig (3). The values for
ref ref
E50 , Eoed , and u given in Equations 7, 13, and 15 are
used along with the other parameters provided by Selig
as input to the HS model. These values are provided in
Table 2. Built into the HS model are certain constraints
on acceptable combinations of the above parameters. To
maintain the accuracy of triaxial behavior and strength
and the correlation to values published for the DS model,
the input lateral earth pressure coefficients have been
decreased from the suggested values based on Jaky’s
equation in certain cases to conform to the allowable
range.
Figures 1 to 3 provide a comparison of the DS model
using Selig’s original parameters (3) to the HS model
Bowers et al 5

Figure 2. Comparison of ML soil response in HS and DS soils.

Figure 3. Comparison of CL soil response in HS and DS soils.

using the parameters listed here. The data for the HS Bi evol
sm = ð16Þ
model were generated using the PLAXIS SoilTest 1  ðevol =eu Þ
Module for triaxial and oedometer tests. The data for
the DS model were calculated using Equations 1 and 16. The plots of the hydrostatic compression tests show a
Plots are given for tests of coarse-grained gravelly sand decent comparison between the models for well-
(SW), sandy silt (ML), and silty clay (CL) and use a fric- compacted soils, but the HS model overpredicts the bulk
tion angle based on 5 pounds per square inch (psi) con- stiffness in some cases, such as in poorly compacted soils.
fining pressure. The plots of the drained triaxial test For these poorly compacted soils, the constraints that
show a good comparison between the two models, par- PLAXIS enforces on the material parameters prevent
ticularly for the SW and ML soils. Note that for some of significant improvement on the values calculated here.
ref
the SW and ML soils, the dilatancy angle results in a stif- For example, for SW80, if E50 is 2,752 psi, the minimum
nc ref
fer response in triaxial loading. value for K0 is 0.254 and for Eoed is 888 psi. This
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 4. Comparison of SW80 bulk behavior in DS model
against HS model using various values of Eref
oed .
combination of parameters represents the closest fit that
the HS model can achieve in relation to the DS model
for bulk behavior, if triaxial behavior is to be prioritized.
Figure 4 provides a comparison of the DS model and the
HS model using the oedometer stiffness from Table 2
and the oedometer stiffness noted above. The figure
demonstrates that using the most extreme allowed mate-
rial parameters in the HS model results in negligible ben-
efit to capturing the behavior of the DS model. If bulk
stiffness behavior is the primary mode of concern, care
should be taken to recalibrate the HS parameters by
ref
reducing E50 . The heightened bulk stiffnesses presented
here may lead to an overprediction of lateral soil support
to structures embedded in poorly compacted soils.
Further analyses should be conducted to ensure that this
does not have a significant impact on global behavior.
Conclusion
We have shown that the 3D PLAXIS HS model main-
tains a close relation to the Duncan–Selig model, for
which acceptable parameters exist for a range of soil
types and compaction levels (3). We selected analogous
parameters for the HS model and compared responses in
drained triaxial and hydrostatic compression tests.
Further research should be conducted to compare the
performance of 2D and 3D FEM against well-
documented field test data to validate the use thereof
and to verify that the differences between the HS and DS
models at the constitutive level do not result in signifi-
cant differences at the global or system level. The devel-
opment of the HS parameters extends the usefulness of
Selig’s original calibration into 3D finite element analy-
ses and allows for the design of more complex buried
structures such as buried bridges and culverts with irre-
gular geometry.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: JLB, MCW, JTB; data collection, anal-
ysis and interpretation of results, draft manuscript preparation:
JTB. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final
version of the manuscript.
References
1. Kondner, R. L. A Hyperbolic Stress Strain Formulation
for Sands. Proc., 2nd Pan American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, Vol. 1,
1963, pp. 289–324.
2. Duncan, J. M., and C. Y. Chang. Nonlinear Analysis of
Stress and Strain in Soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, No. SM5, 1970,
pp. 1629–1653.
3. Selig, E. T. Soil Parameters for Design of Buried Pipelines.
Proc., Pipeline Infrastructure Conference, ASCE, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1988, pp. 99–116.
4. Katona, M. G., J. M. Smith, R. S. Odello, and
J. R. Allgood. CANDE – A Modern Approach for Struc-
tural Design and Analysis of Buried Culverts. Publication
FHWA-RD-77-5. FHWA, Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Washington, D.C., 1976.
5. Katona, M. G., M. Mlynarski, and T. J. McGrath.
CANDE-2007 Culvert Analysis and Design Solution Meth-
ods and Formulations. Publication NCHRP 15-28. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008.
6. PLAXIS 3D [Computer Software]. https://www.plaxis.
com. Accessed 29 July 2018.
7. Schanz, T., P. A. Vermeer, and P. G. Bonnier. The Hard-
ening Soil Model: Formulation and Verification. Presented
at Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics – 10 Years
of PLAXIS, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999.
8. Duncan, J. M., P. Byrne, K. S. Wong, and P. Mabry.
Strength, Stress-Strain, and Bulk Modulus Parameters for
Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil
Masses. Report No. UCB/GT/80-01. University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, 1980.
9. Katona, M. G. Modifying Duncan-Selig Soil Model for
Plastic-Like Behavior. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2511:
53–62.
10. Bolton, M. D. The Strength Dilatancy of Sands. Géotechni-
que, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1986, pp. 65–78.
The Standing Committee on Subsurface Soil-Structure
Interaction (AFS40) peer-reviewed this paper (19-04758).