Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

J2-deformation type model coupled with state dependent dilatancy T

a,⁎ a b
Z.X. Yang , T.T. Xu , X.S. Li
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A J2-deformation type model coupled with dilatancy is proposed, aiming to eliminate two major deficiencies of
Deformation theory Duncan–Chang model in modeling shear responses, i.e. no softening response and no volumetric response. Only
Dilatancy four model constants are traditional parameters and can easily be determined in the basic model. The basic
Volumetric response model can be extended by incorporating a more appropriate dilatancy expression and modifying the shear
Softening
response curve to simulate a more realistic behavior of soils. The simulative capacity of the model is demon-
Clay
strated by the comparisons between the model responses and the test data of both sand and clay.
Sand

1. Introduction its simplicity in conceptual understanding and robustness in numerical

Soils are well known to exhibit strong nonlinearity in terms of stress
and strain relations. The Duncan–Chang model (D–C model hereafter) is
probably one of the most famous models used to describe the nonlinear
stress and strain response of soils using a hyperbolic equation [1]. Based
on the conventional triaxial tests, the following hyperbolic stress-strain
relation was proposed:
1
( 1 3) = the reduction in the deviatoric stress. Although its simplicity in ap-
a+b1
where σ1 and σ3 are the axial and radial stresses, respectively; ε1 is axial
strain; a and b are two model constants and can be calibrated from the
triaxial test data. In particular, they can be related to the initial tan-
gential stiffness and the ultimate failure strength of the soils, respec-
tively, as follows:
1 or flow plasticity theory, regarded as the main theory in developing the
a= Ei
1
b=
( 1 3)ult
where Ei is the initial tangential stiffness, and (σ1 − σ3)ult is the drained
failure strength.
Multiple improvements in this model have also been made in the
last few decades. The D–C model was mainly developed based on
triaxial tests under drained conditions. The D–C model or its invariant
has been popularly used by practitioners to solve boundary value pro-
blems, say, through the build-in module or user defined material
property (UMAT) in a variety of the numerical software and codes, for
computation.
Although the D–C type models were successful in analyzing many
engineering problems and the model parameters were easily de-
termined; see recent examples [2–7], among others, they still have in-
herent limitations. Two major deficiencies of the D–C type models lie in
the following: (1) no volume response was considered because of the
changes in shear stress (shear dilatancy); (2) no strain-softening was
allowed for as the shear response follows the hyperbolic curve without
(1)
proximating shear response is recognized, the limitations of D–C type
models outlined above hinder their practical applications in which
more accurate and comprehensive predictions of soils’ responses are
required.
Seeking the constitutive models of soils was considered to be the
major task in the history of the soil mechanics [8–10]. The incremental
constitutive models, requires consideration of three ingredients, i.e.
yield criterion, hardening law and flow rule [11,12]. In the meanwhile,
(2)
the critical state theory established by [13,14] is widely accepted and
has been used to construct models for both clay and sand in the last
several decades. The two versions of Cam-clay model are probably the
most well-known examples [14,15]. Since then, numerous capable
models based on the well-established flow theory and critical state
concept have been developed; a detailed review on these is beyond the
main scope of this paper while can be found elsewhere, e.g.
[8–11,16–19]. However, these advanced and capable models usually
have abstruse concepts for geotechnical engineers and thus are not easy

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, B712 Anzhong Building, Zijingang Campus, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou
310058, China.
E-mail addresses: zxyang@zju.edu.cn (Z.X. Yang), xutingting@zju.edu.cn (T.T. Xu), xsli@ust.hk (X.S. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.09.018
Received 1 February 2018; Received in revised form 19 August 2018; Accepted 26 September 2018
0266-352X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z.X. Yang et al.
Nomenclature
a, b two model constants in Duncan-Chang hyperbolic equa-
tion
d0, m two material constants in dilatancy expression
dεv, dεq incremental volumetric and deviatoric strains, respec-
tively
d ve, d e
q incremental elastic volumetric and deviatoric strains, re-
spectively
d vp, d q
p
incremental plastic volumetric and deviatoric strains, re-
spectively
D Dilatancy
Dr relative density
e, e0 void ratio and initial void ratio, respectively
ec critical state void ratio
eΓ, λc, ξ parameters of critical state line
Ei initial tangential stiffness
G , G0 shear modulus and material constant in shear modulus
expression, respectively
H internal variable in the yield function
M critical state stress ratio
OCR over-consolidation ratio
p, p0 total mean normal stress and total initial mean normal
stress, respectively
implemented for practical applications, leading to the status quo that
their usages in the routine geotechnical designs are rather limited.
Therefore, the models that are conceptually simple and mathematically
easy to follow are more favorable and thus could be potentially applied
in the practical engineering.
In fact, D–C-type models can be categorized as deformation theory-
based models. The deformation theory of plasticity proposed by Hencky
[20] is from different perspective. Unlike the incremental or flow
theory of plasticity [12,21–22], the deformation theory relates the total
strain components to the current stresses, and the plastic strains are
functions of the current state of stress independent of the loading his-
tory. The deformation theory has advantages, such as much simpler
mathematical expressions and numerical implementations, and under
certain circumstances, provides better results than the incremental or
flow theory in the study of a range of practical problems [23]. Never-
theless, compared with the well-established flow theory, the dis-
advantage of the deformation theory is apparent, such as it cannot re-
flect the loading history dependency behavior of the materials.
In particular, D–C model conforms to the J2-deformation theory, in
which the second invariant of deviatroic stress tensor J2 (=q2/3, with q
as the deviatoric stress) is engaged in the constitutive equations
[24–26]. For example, von Mises yielding criterion of metals is gov-
erned by J2 and thereby is referred to “J2 plasticity” in literature [19].
In conventional models developed based on J2-deformation theory,
only deviatoric stress and strain are concerned as metals are assumed to
be pressure-insensitive.
Noting the two major deficiencies associated with D–C type models,
this study will present a constitutive model in the framework of J2-
deformation theory, in which the incremental relations can be obtained
from the function of the shear response with supplementary elastic
relations. A basic model is first developed with the shear response
following the D–C curve and a simple dilatancy expression is employed.
This model has only four popular material constants but it can only
model the responses of normally consolidated or loose soils. However,
the basic model can be extended to simulate a more realistic soil be-
havior by modifying the shear response curve allowing for reduction in
the deviatoric stress coupled with the state dependent dilatancy. It
130
Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141
p′, p′0 effective mean normal stress and effective initial mean
normal stress, respectively
pa atmospheric pressure
q deviatoric stress
q', q″ hyperbolic and softening parts of deviatroic stress, re-
spectively
W variable in Lambert-W function
α model constant with default value 0.5
ε1 axial strain
εv, εq volumetric and deviatoric strains, respectively
e
v, q
e
elastic volumetric and deviatoric strains, respectively
p
v, q
p
plastic volumetric and deviatoric strains, respectively
εr reference strain
Π, Πij (i, j = 1, 2) stiffness matrix and its components of basic
model, respectively
σ1, σ3 axial and radial stresses, respectively
(σ1 − σ3)ult drained failure strength
η stress ratio
κ slope of unloading-reloading curve
Λ, Λij (i, j = 1, 2) stiffness matrix and its components of extended
model, respectively
λ loading index
ψ state parameter
should be noted that the number of the parameters is increased to eight
for sand, slightly fewer than other models that have similar functions
(e.g. [27]). The genetic feature of this model leads to both the mono-
tonic shearing behavior of sand and clay being simulated over a wide
range of initial densities and confining pressures or over-consolidation
ratios. A unified calibration procedure of the model constants is pro-
vided. Moreover, the performance of the model is demonstrated by
comparisons between the model response and the experimental data for
both sand and clay reported in literature. It should be emphasized that
like the original D–C model, the model proposed in this study can only
account for the triaxial shearing responses of soils under monotonic
loading conditions, while it can also be extended to multiaxial space by
introducing an interpolation function of the critical stress ratio in the
formulations. Although the nice feature of the model lies in that it
provides only a set of algebraic stress-strain equations without under-
standing more advanced plasticity concepts, it fails to deal with the
consolidation problems and the complex responses of soils undergoing
more general loading paths, e.g. cyclic loading, neutral loading, etc.,
which may resort to other established procedures or more capable
models based on the flow theory, for instance.
2. Basic model with simple dilatancy
This part is aimed at eliminating the first deficiency of D–C model,
i.e. it can’t model shear induced volumetric response. The original
hyperbolic relation expressed in Eq. (1) can be generalized and cast into
the J2 deformation theory framework into the following form:
q
q=
a+b q (3)
where q is the deviatoric stress, and εq is the deviatoric strain. It is noted
that all the formulations presented in the paper are only in the triaxial
space, while the multiaxial space counterparts are not addressed al-
though they can be extended naturally. The prime (′) notation on p or p0
signifies the effective stress throughout the paper. It is noted that in the
metal plasticity, only q q relation is engaged as the metals are re-
garded as pressure insensitive materials. However, for pressure-
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

sensitive materials like soils the mean normal stress p′ must be included 400 p'0=50 kPa
(a)
in the expression. The following propositions can be obtained con- p'0=100kPa
sidering the material is sensitive to the pressure p′:
p'0=150kPa

Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

1 1 1 300
a= = and b =
3G 3Gp a Mp (4)
where M is the critical state stress ratio, and G can take the following
form: 200

G = G0 (e0) pa1 (5)

with e0 as the initial void ratio, pa as the atmospheric pressure and α is a 100
model constant. The differentiation of Eq. (3) gives
q q
dq = dp + d q 0
p q (6) 0 5 10 15 20 25
To derive the incremental relations between stress and strain, the Deviatoric strain, q: %
following dilatancy relation as the supplementary condition should be
employed, 4
(b)
p e
d v d v d v d v dp K
D= p = e =
d q d q d q d q dq 3G (7)
3

Volumetric strain, v: %
where following conventional elastic relations have been invoked,
e 1
d v = K
dp = (1 + e0 ) p
dp
e 1 1
2
d = dq = ¯ a dq
q 3G 3Gp (8)
Combining Eqs. (6)–(8) yields the incremental stress–strain relation
as follows: 1

dq 11 12 d q
=
dp 21 22 d v (9) 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Appendix A provides more details of the analytical deviation of the
elastoplastic stiffness matrix. The following simple dilatancy expression Deviatoric strain, q: %
can be employed (Roscoe and Schofield [15]):
Fig. 1. Typical drained responses for soils with different confining pressures
D=M (10) (G0 = 50, α = 0.5, κ = 0.05, M = 1.25, e0 = 0.6).

Note that the above dilatancy function is only applicable for nor-
mally consolidated clay or contractive sand, while more sophisticated
expression is required to model correctly dilatancy of dense and loose
samples, as given in the later part of this study.
A popular definition of G for sands is presented as follows:
(2.973 e0)2 1
G = G0 pa
1 + e0 (11)
Therefore, the whole model only has four common model constants:
M, G0, α, and κ, with α as a default value of 0.5; see [28], for example.
3. Basic model responses
Only the typical responses of the basic model described above will
be presented herein. The following typical model parameters are used
in the analysis: M = 1.25; G0 = 50; α = 0.5; and κ = 0.05. Fig. 1 shows
the standard triaxial drained (dq/dp = 3) results of the samples with
the initial void ratio e0 = 0.6 under different initial confining pressures
of p′0 = 50 kPa, 100 kPa, and 150 kPa. Fig. 1a shows the deviatoric
stress and strain curves, which are typical strain-hardening responses.
The volumetric responses are presented against the deviatoric strain in
Fig. 1b, indicating that the contractive behavior dominates, which is
consistent with the simple dilatancy expression assumed in Eq. (10).
The samples with greater confining pressures exhibit more contractive
responses, which is also in agreement with the experimental data (e.g.,
Verdugo and Ishihara [29]).
Fig. 2 presents the undrained counterpart of Fig. 1. As shown in
Fig. 2a, the deviatoric stresses climb up the peak state first, then slightly
fall to stable values at large deformations. The undrained contractive
behavior in the q–p′ stress space (Fig. 2b) is primarily seen from the
increase in q during strain hardening accompanied by a decrease in p′
for all specimens. Although all the stress paths collapse on the critical
state line (CSL) with the slope M in the q–p′ plane, the critical state
failure of the samples is not ensured as no reference to the critical state
void ratio has been made in the basic model.
It is seen that the basic model inherits the important feature of D–C
model in which the nonlinear hyperbolic relations in shear response
prevail. However, unlike the D–C model, the basic model can simulate
the volumetric responses, although only contractive behavior is pre-
dicted due to the simple dilatancy expression involved. Prediction of a
more realistic behavior of soils requires other modifications made onto
the basic model, as elaborated in the following parts.
4. Extended model with coupled state dependent dilatancy
It has been shown that the basic model can yield some important
features of normally consolidated or loose materials, such like con-
tractive deformation, nonlinear deviatoric stress–strain behavior,
pressure sensitive response, etc. However, the dilative responses are
commonly observed in dense or over-consolidated soils. The accurate

131
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

200 p'0=50 kPa qpeak

(a)
p'0=100kPa critical state

Deviatoric stress, q
p'0=150kPa
150 qpt
Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

100

50

v
0 D=0

Volumetric strain,
0 5 10 15 20 25 critical state
Deviatoric strain, q
:%

200 |D |max
(b)

D=0 phase transformation

Deviatoric stress, q : kPa

150
Deviatoric strain, q

Fig. 3. Illustration of typical softening response of soils.

100
50
0
0 50 100
Effective mean normal stress, p': kPa
Fig. 2. Typical undrained responses for soils with different confining pressures
(G0 = 50, α = 0.5, κ = 0.05, M = 1.25, e0 = 0.6).
volumetric behaviors for a full-fledged model are very important. Thus,
more appropriate dilatancy functions should be used to replace Eq.
(10). We adopt herein the state-dependent dilatancy function originally
proposed by Li and Dafalias [27]. This function can simulate a correct
volumetric behavior for both dense and loose soils covering a wider
range of their state. Note that the original state dependence of dilatancy
introduced by Manzari and Dafalias [30] was expressed in a linear
function, while Li and Dafalias [27] modified this into an exponential
function to give better performance. Note also that users can always
have their own choice between the simplicity and the accuracy ex-
pected in practical application. A specific form of the state-dependent
dilatancy function can be expressed as follows:
where the linearized critical state line proposed by Li and Wang [32] for
sand is invoked. The expression of the critical state line requires three
parameters, eГ, λc, and ξ.
Strain softening is another prominent feature of soils. In general,
dense sands are known to exhibit significant softening under drained
conditions, whereas loose sands behave like a flow type under un-
150 drained conditions [29,33]. Although both the flow type and the strain
softening are characterized by a reduction of the deviatoric stress after
reaching the peak stress, they are different phenomena. The stress ratio
continuously increases for the flow–type behavior resulted from con-
tractive response, while the strain-softening behavior is associated with
a stress ratio reduction and dilative response.
Recall that the inverse function of the Lambert-W function [34] can
be expressed as:
f (W ) = W exp(W ) (15)
Note that f(W) has the minima of −1/e at W = −1 when W is a
negative real number and gradually falls to zero when W approaches a
negative infinity. This property can be utilized to construct a function
describing the softening behavior of soils, which can be analytically
expressed as:
q q
q = Dp exp
(16)
r r

d0 where D is the dilatancy; εr is a reference strain and can be treated as

D = d 0 exp(m ) = [M exp(m ) ]
(12) approximately the strain attaining the peak stress. Fig. 3 presents the
M M
typical results for the drained softening behavior. The peak stress is
where d0 and m are two positive parameters, and ψ is the state para- found to be in synchrony with the occurrence of the maximum gradient
meter (Been and Jefferies [31]) defined as: of d v d q , which corresponds to the most negative (dilative) D as
D < 0 on the softening segment. Note that this scenario may not be
= e ec (13)
general but observed at least for the test data; see for example [35,36].
where e and ec are the current and critical void ratios, respectively, on Therefore, q″ reaches the peak value when εq = εr, and it decreases as εq
the critical state line in the e–p′ plane corresponding to the current p′. increases, vanishing at the critical state where D = 0. As an example,
To this end, a unique critical state line should be defined in the e–p′ Fig. 4 presents the results of the added function q″/p′ against εq with a
plane, such that Eq. (13) can be represented by: given function of D and the additional parameters given in Table 1. The
synchronized responses of q″ with D are observed at the characteristic
= e ec = e [e c (p pa ) ] (14) states (i.e., phase transformation, peak, and critical states). Combined

132
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

Dilatancy, D

phase transformation
critical state
Normalized added function, q''/p'

Deviatoric strain, q

Fig. 4. Illustration of the added function describing softening response of soils.

Table 1
Model parameters for Toyoura sand.
Elastic parameters Critical state Dilatancy Softening
parameters parameters parameter

G0 = 125 M = 1.25 d0 = 0.88 εr = 0.06

κ = 0.006 eГ = 0.934 m = 3.5
λc = 0.019
ξ = 0.7
Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Toyoura sand under undrained triaxial compression with various mean normal
stresses (e0 = 0.735). (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves.

with Eq. (3), the following expression can be used to describe the
softening behavior of soils, to eliminate the second deficiency in D–C line in an e versus (p′/pa)ξ plane for sand [32]. Therefore, the following
model: elastic bulk modulus K is used:

q q q (1 + e0 ) p pa
q= + Dp exp K=
a+b q r r p (20)
q q (17)
Last but not least, as shown in Appendix B, the condition of con-
in which the first term specifies the hyperbolic stress–strain relation sistency and hardening law that are employed in the flow theory of
q q discussed in the preceding part. It should be emphasized that the plasticity can be derived from the deformation theory based model
inclusion of D in Eq. (17) does not imply that the dilatancy or volu- outlined above.
metric strain comes from two parts, because the expression of dilatancy
has been already prescribed by Eq. (12).
5. Calibration of the model constants
Differentiating Eq. (17) yields,
q q q Eight (seven for clay as only three parameters were used for the
dq = dp + de + d
p e q
q
(18) CSL) material constants are used in the model. These constants can be
divided into four groups based on their functions. A detailed calibration
As shown in Appendix A, the following relationship between the procedure is summarized in the sections that follow based on triaxial
stress and strain increments can be expressed in the matrix form as: data.
dq 11 12 d q
= 5.1. Elastic constants
dp 21 22 d v (19)

Note that the relationship between void ratio and confining pressure The elastic constant κ can be determined from the experimental
during elastic rebound can be approximately presented by a straight rebound line in the e–p′ plane for both sand (Eq. (20)) and clay (Eq.

133
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

2500 1200 p'0=100 kPa experiment p'0=100 kPa simulation

(a) p'0=100 kPa experiment
p'0=1000 kPa experiment
p'0=2000 kPa experiment
2000
p'0=3000 kPa experiment
p'0=100 kPa simulation (a)
p'0=1000 kPa simulation p'0=1000 kPa experiment p'0=1000 kPa simulation
p'0=2000 kPa simulation 1000 p'0=2000 kPa experiment p'0=2000 kPa simulation
p'0=3000 kPa simulation

Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

800
1500
600
1000
400

500
200

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Effective mean normal stress, p': kPa Effective mean normal stress, p': kPa

2500 1200
(b) (b)

1000
2000

Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

Deviatoric stress, q: kPa

800
1500
600
1000
400

500
200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Axial strain, a
:% Axial strain, a
:%

Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Toyoura sand under undrained triaxial compression with various mean normal Toyoura sand under undrained triaxial compression with various mean normal
stresses (e0 = 0.833). (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves. stresses (e0 = 0.907). (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves.

(8)). The parameter G0 can be determined by independent small strain we have:

tests, such as resonant column tests, through fitting different expres- p
sions for sand (Eq. (24)) and clay (Eq. (11)). d v d v d0
p =D= [M exp(m ) ]
d q d q M (22)
5.2. Critical state parameters The parameter d0 can then be determined based on the experimental
εv − εq curve. A mean value of d0 can be obtained if multiple tests are
The critical state constants include the critical state stress ratio M considered.
and the parameters eГ, λc, and ξ (for sand) or eГ and λc (for clay) de-
termining the critical state line in the e–p′ plane. These constants can be
obtained by fitting the experimental data at the critical state. Note that 5.4. Softening parameter
ξ is not a sensitive parameter that influences the fitting of the critical
state line and can be assumed as a default value of 0.7 [32]. After rearrangement of Eq. (19) for the conventional drained test
(dq = 3dp) or constant p drained test at the peak stress state, one has:
5.3. Dilatancy parameters
dq 11 22 12 21
= =0
dq 22 12 (23)
The dilatancy parameter m can be determined based on the first part
of Eq. (14) at the phase transformation state, at which D = 0. Hence, where the parameter ζ is either equal to 3 for the conventional test or
1 d zero for the constant p test. By substituting Eq. (A6) into Eq. (23), the
m= ln parameter εr can be obtained with all the known state variables at the
d M (21)
peak state. It should be noted that some small adjustments of εr should
where ψd and ηd are the values of ψ and η at the phase transformation be made for various tests that simulated in this study to fine tune the
state, respectively. For a drained test, if the elastic strains are ignored, results.

134
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Toyoura sand under drained triaxial compression with various void ratios Toyoura sand under drained triaxial compression with various void ratios
(p′0 = 100 kPa). (a) void ratio-q curves; (b) stress-strain curves. (p′0 = 500 kPa). (a) void ratio-q curves; (b) stress-strain curves.

6. Simulation against experimental data Table 2

Model parameters for Hostun sand.

6.1. Triaxial compression tests on sand Elastic parameters Critical state Dilatancy Softening
parameters parameters parameter

A series of triaxial tests on Toyoura sand was reported by Verdugo
and Ishihara [29]. This set of data was widely used in recent years to
calibrate or demonstrate the simulative capacities of the constitutive
models for sands [27,37–40]. The Toyoura sand is a uniform fine sand
composed of subrounded to subangular particles. These tests cover a
wide range of initial densities from e = 0.735 (Dr = 63.7%) to
e = 0.996 (Dr is approximately 0%) and initial confining pressures from
p′0 = 100 kPa to 3000 kPa. Both the drained and undrained triaxial
compression tests were performed until the occurrence of the critical
state failure. Therefore, the critical state line can be determined.
A total of 17 tests were simulated using the model presented above
with the set of model parameters summarized in Table 1. It is noted that
for consistency, the same model constants, such as elastic shear mod-
ulus G0, critical state (M, eГ, λc, ξ) and dilatancy parameters (d0, m),
were used as those by Li and Dafalias [27]. Figs. 5–7 show a comparison
of the simulation results with the experimental data under the un-
drained conditions, while Figs. 8 and 9 present a comparison of the
drained responses. The model responses are broadly in good agreement
with the experimental data, indicating the effectiveness of the J2-
G0 = 250 M = 1.36 d0 = 0.92 εr = 0.06
κ = 0.008 eГ = 0.969 m = 3.5
λc = 0.030
deformation framework in conjunction with the critical state concept
and the state-dependent dilatancy. More importantly, the model can
reasonably simulate the softening responses in dense sand under
drained conditions, as in the case of e0 = 0.831 in Fig. 8, which shows
slight softening. Tests on denser samples showing more significant
softening under drained conditions are required, as will be discussed
later on. However, the deviatoric stresses for the loose sand under un-
drained conditions reach a peak value prior to the critical state, as
shown in Fig. 6 (e0 = 0.833) and Fig. 7 (e0 = 0.907). The model also
has the ability to simulate this scenario successfully. Moreover, as
shown in Fig. 8 (e0 = 0.996, Dr ∼ 0%) and Fig. 9 (e0 = 0.960,
Dr = 4.5%), the discrepancies for very loose sands under the drained
conditions are notable between the predictions and the experimental

135
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
dense Hostun sand under drained triaxial compression. (a) stress-strain curves; Boston blue clay under undrained triaxial compression with various OCR va-
(b) volumetric-axial strain curves. lues. (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves.

data. This can be overcome by treating G0 not as a constant, but as a
function of the void ratio, e, similar to what has been performed by Li
and Dafalias [27].
Triaxial tests on very dense Hostun sand are available to demon-
strate the capability of the model in simulating its softening responses.
Gajo and Wood [41] synthesized a number of triaxial tests that were
conducted in different laboratories under inconsistent testing condi-
tions. This has led to the significant data scatters and poor consistency
between experiments and model responses was observed [41]. Limited
by the specific purpose of this study, only three drained tests that were
first reported by Lefebvre [42] are simulated. The samples undergo the
confining pressures p′0 = 200–500 kPa and have the initial void ratios
e0 = 0.574–0.588 before shearing. The model constants for Hostun
sand are given in Table 2. Note that critical state line for Hostun sand is
fitted by a straight line in e-lnp′ space [41], such that only two para-
meters are needed. Shown in Fig. 10 is the comparison between the
experimental data and model response. It is seen that the model can
well capture the softening behavior of dense sand illustrated in

Table 3
Model parameters for clays.
Parameters Boston blue clay Lower Cromer till White Kaolin clay Black clay

Elastic parameters G0 75 25 30 45
κ 0.023 0.008 0.034 0.079
Critical state parameters M 1.418 1.200 0.899 0.831
eГ 1.830 0.739 1.063 2.454
λc 0.171 0.066 0.089 0.244
Dilatancy parameters d0 0.4 0.15 0.15 0.5
m 8 45 50 8
Softening parameter εr 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.06

136
Z.X. Yang et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Lower Cromer till under undrained triaxial compression with various OCR va-
lues. (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves.
Fig. 10(a), although less satisfactory performance of the model pre-
diction is seen in Fig. 10(b) for the volumetric responses.
6.2. Triaxial compression tests on clay
The popular test data on clays will be simulated using this model to
demonstrate the ability of the developed model, including the Boston
blue clay (BBC, Ladd and Varallyay [43]), Lower Cromer Till (LCT,
Gens [44]), White Kaolin clay (WKC, Biarez and Hicher [45]) and Black
Kaolin clay (BKC, Zervoyannis [46]). These tests are favorable refer-
ences used in the literature for calibrating clay models (see [47–52]).
The BBC is a low-plasticity marine clay of moderate sensitivity. Its
physical and engineering properties were extensively investigated and
reported in the literature. The LCT is a glacial till composed of illite,
calcite, and quartz. The White Kaolin clay and Black Kaolin clay are
remolded clays prepared in the laboratory from a slurry mixture of dry
clay powder and water.
These test data are most suited for demonstrating the simulative
capacity of the model presented in this study because the samples cover
a wide range of over-consolidation ratios (OCR) prior to shearing under
both the undrained and drained conditions. The critical state failures
are approximately obtained in all these tests. However, adaptations
should be made when the model is applied to simulate clay behaviors.
137
Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141
Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
White kaolin clay under undrained triaxial compression with various OCR va-
lues. (a) effective stress paths; (b) stress-strain curves.
First, Eq. (13) can be modified into the following equation to ad-
dress the OCR effect [53]:
(2.973 e0)2 1
G = G0 (OCR)0.3 pa
1 + e0 (24)
where α can take the same default value of 0.5 as that in Eq. (11).
Second, unlike sand, the critical state line of clay can be plotted as a
straight line in the e–lnp′ plane, such that Eq. (16) should be written as:
= e ec = e [e c lnp ] (25)
Therefore, the following expression should be used to replace Eq.
(A4):
c
=
p p (26)
The other equations remain unchanged. The sets of model constants
for each clay listed in Table 3 are used in the simulations. Figs. 11–13
show a comparison of the model predictions with the experimental data
for the undrained triaxial tests of the BBC, LCT, and WKC, respectively.
These samples are isotropically consolidated first, then unloaded to
different initial states with various OCRs of up to 12 before being
subjected to an undrained compression. Overall, the simulated results
agree well with the experimental data. The model captures the general
trends of the effective stress paths with various OCR values, and both
Z.X. Yang et al.
Fig. 14. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Lower Cromer till under drained triaxial compression with various OCR values.
(a) stress-strain curves; (b) volumetric strain vs axial strain.
the contractive and dilative responses can be correctly simulated. Re-
markably, the model can reasonably predict the influence of the OCR on
the dilative behavior evidenced from the beginning of the shearing for
heavily over-consolidated clays. In addition, the simulated deviatoric
stress–strain curves match with the experimental data better than the
effective stress paths.
Figs. 14 and 15 present the comparison between the model re-
sponses and the experimental data for the drained conditions of the LCT
and BLC with various OCRs, respectively. For the normally and lightly
over-consolidated clay, the stress-strain curves are typical hardening
type and the contractive behavior dominates; whereas the heavily over-
consolidated clays show the strain hardening followed by the softening
response and clear dilative response can be observed. The predictions
again excellently match the experimental data, and the influence of the
OCR on the contractive and dilative responses can be well captured.
Fig. 16 shows the comparison between the model response and the test
data of the drained triaxial tests on normally consolidated WKC. Two
specimens were isotropically consolidated up to p′0 = 400 and 800 kPa,
then sheared to failure along conventional drained triaxial loading
paths. The contractive responses dominate because these two samples
are normally consolidated. Both the deviatoric stress–strain and the
change of the void ratio results are presented in the comparison, which
provided perfect agreement and indicated the simulative capability of
the developed model.
138
Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141
Fig. 15. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
Black kaolin clay under drained triaxial compression with various OCR values.
(a) stress-strain curves; (b) void ratio vs axial strain.
The model presented in this study has the capability to simulate
many important unique features for soils, such as nonlinearity, dila-
tancy, strain-softening, critical state failure, etc. However, the model
still has some drawbacks because of its non-fledged nature with relative
simple formulations. For example, in the present model only the de-
viatoric response is considered and no plastic strain is introduced due to
compression for brevity. However, the users could obtain the com-
pression (or constant stress ratio) induced plastic deformation by
adding a mean effective stress controlling cap with ease, similar to what
has been done by Wang et al. [54] and Li [55]. Note also that J2-de-
formation models are good only for proportional loading or nearly
proportional loading conditions. These restrictions are well known but
do not prevent from using the model in a wide range of practical ap-
plications involving only monotonic loading. In particular, the J2-de-
formation theory based model developed in this study has the cap-
ability of modeling volumetric response and strain softening behavior,
two vital missing parts of D–C type models. Therefore, it can be viewed
as a substitute of D–C model and thus can be potentially applied to solve
practical engineering problems.
7. Conclusions
This study presents a J2-deformation type model that originates
from the well-known Duncan–Chang’s nonlinear relations. An explicit
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

extended model are developed that can address two limitations asso-
ciated with the well-known D–C model, i.e. volumetric and softening
responses. The primary features of the J2-deformation type model de-
veloped can be summarized as follows:

Fig. 16. Comparison between experimental data and model simulations for
White kaolin clay under drained triaxial compression with different confining
pressures. (a) stress-strain curves; (b) void ratio vs axial strain.
(1) The basic model only contained four conventional parameters that
were easily determined. Unlike the Duncan–Chang’s nonlinear re-
lations, the basic model can simultaneously yield both the stress–-
strain and the volumetric responses. By assuming a simple
Cam–clay dilatancy, the model can simulate contractive responses
of the soils, which are typical behaviors of loose sand or normally
consolidated clays.
(2) The hyperbolic curve in the D–C model can be modified by adding a
softening term in the deviatoric stress expression coupled with di-
latancy. Thus the basic model can be casted into the critical state
framework by introducing the state-dependent dilatancy theory.
Although more additional parameters were entered into the model,
it can simulate both contractive and dilative behaviors prior to
reaching critical state failures.
(3) The extended model only had eight model constants for sand (four
were parameters determining CSL), which to the best of our
knowledge, were fewest constants for models that can simulate the
monotonic shearing behavior of sand covering a wide range of in-
itial densities and confining pressures by a single set of material
constants. The extended model for clay had seven model constants
(three were parameters determining CSL) and can simulate the di-
lative responses for heavily over-consolidated clays from the in-
cipient stage of shearing without resorting to the bounding surface
framework or other mechanisms.
(4) The effectiveness of the model described above was demonstrated
by simulating the triaxial responses for both sand and clay under
various conditions. The comparison between the test data and the
model responses indicated that the model had the capacity to suc-
cessfully simulate the test data with a single set of model para-
meters.
Acknowledgments

form of the shear response can be formulated as functions of both the This research was funded by the National Key R&D program of
stresses and total strains, whereas the incremental relations can be China under no. 2016YFC0800200, and the Natural Science Foundation
obtained with supplementary relations. Both the basic model and of China under grant nos. 51578499 and 51761130078.

Appendix A

This section briefly illustrates the analytical derivation of the elastoplastic stiffness matrix for the basic model and extended model, respectively.

A.1 Basic model

Combining Eqs. (3) and (4), the derivatives in Eq. (6) is given by,

q 1
= q2 + =A
p 3G q p Mp 2
q q2
= =B
q 3G q2 (A1)
where the terms A and B are used for brevity. From Eqs. (7) and (A1), the elastoplastic stiffness matrix in Eq. (9) can be written as,
3G (B AKD)
11 = 3G AKD
3GAK
12 = 3G AKD
(B 3G ) KD
21 = 3G AKD
3GK
22 = 3G AKD (A2)

139
Z.X. Yang et al. Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141

A.2 Extended model

By substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (17), one has the derivatives in Eq. (18) as follows,

q 2 1 q q d 0 m exp(m ) q d0 q DMp
= q + + + + =C
p 3G q p Mp 2 p D p DMp 2 DMp + q d 0

q Mp q
e
= d m exp(m
DMp + q d 0 0
)=E
q
q
=
q 2
3G q2
+q ( )
r
r q
q DMp
DMp + q d0
=F
(A3)
in which the following derivative that obtained from Eq. (14) can be used for sand:

c p
=
p p pa (A4)
The increment of the volumetric strain can be related to the change in void ratio by the following equation:
de = (1 + e0 )d v (A5)
Therefore, combing Eqs. (7), (18), (A3)–(A5) yields the analytical expressions of the components of the stiffness matrix in Eq. (19):
3G (F CKD)
11 =3G CKD
3G [CK E (1 + e0 )]
12 = 3G CKD
KD (F 3G )
21 = 3G CKD
K [3G DE (1 + e0 )]
22 = 3G CKD (A6)

Appendix B

The yield function of the model developed can be written as,

f = f (p , q , H ) = 0 (B1)
where H is an internal variable. The condition of consistency gives,

f f
df = dp + dq + f (p , q , H + dH ) f (p , q , H ) = 0
p q
Kp (B2)
where λ is the loading index and Kp is the plastic modulus in plastic flow theory.
Take the hyperbolic relation in Eq. (3) as an example, which can be rewritten into,
q
g = g (p , q , q) =q
a+b q (B3)
The differentiation of above equation can be written as,
g g g
dp + dq + d q =0
p q q (B4)
or
g g g e g p
dp + dq + d q + d q =0
p q q q (B5)
where the relation d = d + d has been invoked. e
q q
p

Substituting the elastic relations given in Eq. (8) into above equation yields

g g g 1 g p
dp + + dq + d q =0
p q q 3 G (p ) q
Kp (B6)
By defining d q
p
= , a loading index, and comparing the above with Eq. (B2), one has

f g f g g 1 g 1
= , = + and Kp = = [f (p , q , H ) f (p , q, H + dH )]
p p q q q 3G ( p ) q (B7)
This is the condition of consistency as well as the hardening law cast into the framework of flow plasticity. This condition is embedded in the
formulation without need of explicit definition of the yield function Eq. (B1). For the deformation function expressed in Eq. (17), similar procedure
can be undertaken to obtain the correspondence between the flow and deformation theories.

140
Z.X. Yang et al.
References
[1] Duncan JM, Chang CY. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. J Soil Mech
Found Div, ASCE 1970;96(SM5):1629–53.
[2] Lee J, Salgado R, Carraro JAH. Stiffness degradation and shear strength of silty
sands. Can Geotech J 2004;41:831–43.
[3] Hatami K, Bathurst RJ. Development and verification of a numerical model for the
analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental walls under working stress con-
ditions. Can Geotech J 2005;42:1066–85.
[4] Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M. Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure
interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2007;133(6):707–20.
[5] Huang B, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K. Numerical study of reinforced soil segmental walls
using three different constitutive soil models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
2009;135(10):1486–98.
[6] Jung JK, O’Rourke TD, Olson NAJ. Lateral soil-pipe interaction in dry and partially
saturated sand. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(12):2028–36.
[7] Chhenga C, Likitlersuangb S. Underground excavation behaviour in Bangkok using
three-dimensional finite element method. Comput Geotech 2018;95:68–81.
[8] Scott RF. Plasticity and constitutive relations in soil mechanics. J Geotech Eng
1985;111(5):559–605.
[9] Pietruszczak S. Fundamentals of plasticity in geomechanics. CRC Press; 2010.
[10] Nakai T. Constitutive modeling of geomaterials: principles and applications. CRC
Press; 2017.
[11] Housford WF. Fundamentals of engineering plasticity. UK: Cambridge press; 2013.
[12] Davis RO, Selvadurai APS. Plasticity and geomechanics. Cambridge University
Press; 2002.
[13] Roscoe KH, Schofield AN, Wroth CP. On the yielding of soils. Géotechnique
1958;8(1):22–53.
[14] Roscoe KH, Burland JB. On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. Eng
Plast 1968:535–609.
[15] Roscoe KH, Schofield AN. Mechanical behaviour of an idealized ‘wet’ clay. In: Proc.
3rd Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engng., Wiesbaden, vol. 1; 1963. p. 47–54.
[16] Hicher PY, Shao JF. Constitutive modeling of soils and rocks. USA: John Wiley &
Sons; 2008.
[17] Lade PV. Overview of constitutive models for soils. Soil constitutive models: eva-
luation, selection and calibration. In: Yamamuro JA, Kaliakin VN, editors. Reston,
VA: ASCE; 2005. p. 1–34.
[18] Yu HS. Plasticity and geotechnics. Springer; 2006.
[19] Borja RI. Plasticity modeling & computation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2013.
[20] Hencky H. Zur theorie plastischer deformationen. Z Angew Math Mech
1924;4:323–42.
[21] Lubliner J. Plasticity theory. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1990.
[22] Lubarda VA. Mechanics of materials: plasticity. In: Hashmi Saleem, editor.
Reference module in materials science and materials engineering. Oxford: Elsevier;
2016. p. 1–24.
[23] Budiansky B. A reassessment of deformation theories of plasticity. J Appl Mech
1959;26:259–64.
[24] Hutchinson JW, Neale KW. Finite strain J2 deformation theory. Proceedings of the
IUTAM symposium on finite elasticity. Netherlands: Springer; 1981. p. 237–47.
[25] Manabu Gotoh. Improvements of J2-deformation theory and their applications to
FEM analyses of large elastic-plastic deformation. JSME Int J. Ser. 1, Solid Mech,
Strength Mater 1990;33(2):209–19.
[26] Lubarda VA. Elastoplasticity theory. CSC Press; 2001.
[27] Li XS, Dafalias YF. Dilatancy for cohesionless soils. Géotechnique
2000;50(4):449–60.
[28] Hardin BO. The nature of stress-strain behavior for soils. In: State-of-the-art report
for the ASCE specialty conference on earthquake engineering and soil dynamics,
vol. 1. Pasadena (CA); 1978. p. 3–90.
141
Computers and Geotechnics 105 (2019) 129–141
[29] Verdugo R, Ishihara K. Steady state of sandy soils. Soils Found 1996;36(2):81–91.
[30] Manzari MT, Dafalias YF. A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands.
Géotechnique 1997;47(2):255–72.
[31] Been K, Jefferies MG. A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique
1985;35(2):99–112.
[32] Li XS, Wang Y. Linear representation of steady-state line for sand. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 1998;124(12):1215–7.
[33] Cai ZY. A comprehensive study of state-dependent dilatancy and its application in
shear band formation analysis [PhD thesis] Hong Kong, SAR, China: The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology; 2001.
[34] Weisstein EW. Lambert W-Function. From MathWorld–A Wolfram Web Resource.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html; 2002.
[35] Wood DM. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University
Press; 1990.
[36] Budhu M. Soil mechanics and foundations. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
[37] Dafalias YF, Manzari MT. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change
effects. J Eng Mech 2004;130(6):622–34.
[38] Lashkari A. On the modeling of the state dependency of granular soils. Comput
Geotech 2009;36(7):1237–45.
[39] Loukidis D, Salgado R. Modeling sand response using two-surface plasticity.
Comput Geotech 2009;36(1):166–86.
[40] Manzanal D, Fernández Merodo JA, Pastor M. Generalized plasticity state para-
meter-based model for saturated and unsaturated soils. Part 1: Saturated state. Int J
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2011;35(12):1347–62.
[41] Gajo A, Wood M. Severn-Trent sand: a kinematic-hardening constitutive model: the
q–p formulation. Géotechnique 1999;49(5):595–614.
[42] Lefebvre P. Approche statistique de l'incertitude de l'essai triaxial en mécanique de
sols. Grenoble: DEA de Mécanique, Université de Grenoble, France; 1987.
[43] Ladd CC, Varallyay J. The influence of the stress system on the behaviour of sa-
turated clays during undrained shear. Research Rep. No. R65–11. Cambridge, MA:
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT; 1965.
[44] Gens A. Stress–strain and strength of a low plasticity clay [Ph.D. Thesis]. Imperial
College, London University; 1982.
[45] Biarez J, Hicher PY. Elementary mechanics of soil behaviour. Balkema; 1994.
[46] Zervoyannis C. Synthétique des propriétés mécaniques des argiles saturées et des
sables sur chemin œdométrique et triaxial de revolution [PhD thesis] Ecole Centrale
de Paris; 1982.
[47] Whittle AJ. Evaluation of a constitutive model for overconsolidated clays.
Géotechnique 1993;43(2):289–313.
[48] Pestana JM, Whittle AJ, Gens A. Evaluation of a constitutive model for clays and
sands: Part II–clay behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2002;26(11):1123–46.
[49] Yin ZY, Xu Q, Hicher PY. A simple critical-state-based double-yield-surface model
for clay behavior under complex loading. Acta Geotech 2013;8(5):509–23.
[50] Yang C, Sheng D, Carter JP, Sloan SW. Modelling the plastic anisotropy of Lower
Cromer Till. Comput Geotech 2015;69:22–37.
[51] Chen YN, Yang ZX. A family of improved yield surfaces and their application in
modeling of isotropically over-consolidated clays. Comput Geotech
2017;90:133–43.
[52] Yang ZX, Xu TT, Chen YN. Unified modeling of the influence of consolidation
conditions on monotonic soil response considering fabric evolution. J Eng Mech
2018;144(8):04018073.
[53] Hardin BO, Blandford GE. Elasticity of particulate materials. J Geotech Eng
1989;115(6):788–805.
[54] Wang ZL, Dafalias YF, Shen CK. Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for sand. J
Eng Mech 1990;116(5):983–1001.
[55] Li XS. A sand model with state-dependent dilatancy. Géotechnique
2002;52(3):173–86.