Geo-E2020

Numerical Methods in Geotechnics L

Wojciech Sołowski

25 April 2017
Mohr-Coulomb based models

25 April 2017
Content
1. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
2. Perfect plasticity
3. Mohr-Coulomb model
4. Hardening soil model (HS, Plaxis)
5. Hardening Mohr-Coulomb (HMC, Optum)

Department of Civil Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
3
To learn
1. Mohr-Coulomb model (review & revision from Advanced Soil
Mechanics Course)
2. Hardening Soil Model (Plaxis)
3. Hardening Mohr-Coulomb (Optum)

In red – new information!

Department of Civil Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
4
Application of those models

Main use:
- finding out limit state / strenght of soil
- computing failure load
- assessing forces on construction due to soil failure
Secondary use:
- may be used for assessment of deformation of granular
materials, especially when deformations are due to soil
failure (shearing etc)

Should not be used:

- calculation of settlements in cohesive materials
- use in soft soil with care...
- special care needed in undrained conditions / short term
stability of soft soils
Department of Civil Engineering
Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
5
Application of those models

Doherty & Muir Wood (2013)

Department of Civil Engineering
Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
6
Mohr Coulomb Model
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb

F = (σ 1′ − σ 3′ ) − (σ 1′ + σ 3′ ) sin φ ′ − 2c′ cos φ ′ = 0

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Advanced Course in Soil Mechanics. W. Sołowski
8
 τ
τ f= c′ + σ n′ tan φ ′
φ′

τf C

c’ σ 3′ 90 − φ ′ 2θ σ 1′
A σ nf′ B σ n′
σ 1′

45 − φ ′ 2 45 − φ ′ 2

σ 1′ > σ 3′ σ 3′ σ 3′

FAILURE
PLANES

F = (σ 1′ − σ 3′ ) − (σ 1′ + σ 3′ ) sin φ ′ − 2c′ cos φ ′ = 0 σ 1′

Mohr-Coulomb in Principal Stress
Space

σ’3 σ’1=σ’2= σ’3

• Mohr – Coulomb failure
surface is a irregular
hexagon in the principal
stress space
σ’2

σ’1
 Mohr-Coulomb in Principal Stress
σ’ 1 Space
Mohr-Coulomb
p
dε • It has corners that may
sometimes create
problems in
computations

σ’ 3 σ’ 2
 Flow Rule for Mohr Coulomb

For Mohr-Coulomb flow rule τ

Yield function
is defined through the
Plastic potential
‘dilatancy angle’ of the soil. function φ’
ψ’
G(σ’)= τ- σ’n tanψ’ – const.= 0
σ 3′ σ 1′
where ψ’ is the dilatancy σ n′
angle and ψ’≤ φ’. σ 1′ > σ 2′ > σ 3′
Limitations of MC model (1)
Limitations of MC model (2)
Warning for dense sands
Tips for fine-grained soils
 Drawbacks of MC

• Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is well proven through

experiments for most geomaterials, but data for clays is
still contradictory!

• An associated flow rule implies continuous dilation at a

constant rate upon shearing; this is unrealistic and leads
to negative pore pressures in undrained conditions. In an
non-associated flow rule with ψ’ < φ’, the rate of dilation
is less, but it is still constant. If ψ’ = 0 then the rate of
dilation is zero.

• Care must be taken in applying the model for undrained

loading.
 Drawbacks of MC

• Soils on shearing exhibit variable volume change

characteristics depending on pre-consolidation pressure
which cannot be accounted for with MC

• In soft soils volumetric plastic strains on shearing are

compressive (negative dilation) whilst Mohr-Coulomb
model will predict continuous dilation
To summarize the limitations of MC are:
• bi-linearity (const. E’)

• unlimited dilation

• isotropy

• elastic response far from the limit state

•…

 more advanced approximation of soil behavior:

Hardening Soil Model (sand), Soft Soil Model
(clay), critical state soil models...
Mohr Coulomb in Plaxis & Optum
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Plaxis

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
21
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Plaxis

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
22
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Plaxis

Note: y decreases with depth!

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
23
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Plaxis
Similarly – cohesion:

Note: y decreases with depth!

Tension cut-off: means tension is not allowed... Default

tensile strength is zero

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
24
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Optum
Non-associated flow with dilation cap:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
25
Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Optum
Tension cut-off:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
26
 Elasto-plasticity: Mohr-Coulomb in Optum
Hardening:

Fissures can also be modelled

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
27
Hardening Soil Model
 HS input parameters

Parameter Description
E50ref Stiffness modulus for primary loading in drained triaxial test

Eoedref Stiffness modulus for primary loading in oedometer test

Eurref Stiffness modulus for unloading/reloading in drained triaxial test

m Modulus exponent for stress dependency

νur Poisson’s ratio for loading/unloading
c’ Effective cohesion at failure
φ’ Effective friction angle at failure
ψ Dilatancy angle at failure
POP: (σp – σvo’) Initial preconsolidation stress, σp
OCR: σp/σvo’
K nc = 1 – sinφ’ Earth pressure coefficients at rest
o
 Model
characteristics:
• Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship in axial compression
• Plastic strain in mobilizing friction (shear hardening)
• Plastic strain in primary compression (volumetric hardening)
• Stress-dependent stiffness according to a power law
• Elastic unloading/ reloading compared to virgin loading
• Memory of pre-consolidation stress
• Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criterion
• Dilatancy below MC line
• Small strain stiffness (HS-small only)
Hardening soil model (Plaxis)

p’
q

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
31
Hardening soil model (Plaxis)

p’
q

Deviatoric
hardening

p’

q Volumetric
hardening

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
p’ 32
 Hardening soil model (Plaxis)
Created and validated for sand only!
Is it suitable for clay?

- plastic volumetric strain zero /

small when compared to the q
axial strain
Deviatoric
hardening

p’

q Volumetric
hardening

p’

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
33
Hardening soil
model (Plaxis)
See the Schanz et al. (2000)
Brinkgreave 1994

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
34
 Hardening Soil Model

• Volumetric hardening is complemented by

deviatoric hardening
• Deviatoric hardening surface evolves with
deviatoric strains until failure is reached
τ

γ
gim
gim

M
 Volumetric (density) hardening

αp

Mαpp

K0NC is controlled by α. By inputting

a realistic value of K0 NC as a result α-
value in large and the yield cap is
relatively steep.

Only for m=1 we recover Modified-Cam-Clay-like volumetric hardening on cap.

Only option when you specify oedometric moduli
Shear hardening
Shear hardening
Cap is closing the MC cone in principal stress space
 Stress dependent moduli

q asymptote: qa
E50
qf=0,9 qa
1

εy

σc’ σy’

Eoed
εy 1

• All stiffness moduli are updated according to current stress level.

• Input stiffness are values at reference stress, e.g. pa’ = 100 kPa.
 Effect of modulus exponent m

Only for m=1 we recover Modified-Cam-Clay like volumetric

hardening. Only option when you specify oedometric moduli
 Elastic unloading/ reloading
q
E50 Unloading, reloading
1 by:
Eur >E50
1
εy
Eur = Eurref ( σ 3 '+a )m
pa '+a
σc’ σy’

ν ur = low value
Eoed
εy 1

Inside cone and cap:

Bulk modulus Shear modulus Oedometer
Eur Eur Eur(1−νur)
Kur = Gur = Eoed =
3(1−2νur) 2(1+νur) ur (1−2νur)(1+νur)
Initial conditions for the HS model

d
Preconsolidation is entered by
d
e e OCR or POP relative to initial
p p vertical stress and is then
t σc’ t
converted to pp.
h σy0’ h
σy0’ σc’

σ 'c = OCR ⋅ σ y0 ' σ 'c = σ y0 '+POP

 Initial conditions for the HS model

Initial stresses:

q
MC failure line

K0nc line

α pc Cap
p’0, q0

pc,0 p
peq0
Four stiffness zones
 Dilatancy

~ e max
2sin ψ ψ
1-sin ψ
εy
εv
sin ϕ '−sin ψ
sin ϕ cv =
1− sin ϕ 'sin ψ
Dilatancy formulation:
σ '1 −σ '3
Rowe (1962) modified sin ϕ m =
σ '1 +σ ' 3 −2c'cot ϕ '

sin ϕ m − sin ϕcv

sin ψ m =
1 − sin ϕ m sin ϕ cv
 Dilatancy from cone (most important part):

q Stress ψinput Nonassociated cone flow:

state Increasing dilatancy ψm from zero at
ϕcv to input value ψinput on MC line
ψm (Rowe).
ϕcv Dilatancy set to zero for sinϕm <
p’ ¾·sinϕ, see Material Model Manual.

Contractancy from cap during shearing (less dominating):

q
Associated cap flow:
Increasing contractancy from
zero to a maximum value at
MC line, but only when cap
moves!
-a pp’ p’
 HS input parameters

Parameter Description
E50ref Stiffness modulus for primary loading in drained triaxial test

Eoedref Stiffness modulus for primary loading in oedometer test

Eurref Stiffness modulus for unloading/reloading in drained triaxial test

m Modulus exponent for stress dependency

νur Poisson’s ratio for loading/unloading
c’ Effective cohesion at
φ’ failure Effective friction
ψ angle at failure Dilatancy
angle at failure
POP: (σp – Initial preconsolidation stress, σp
σvo’) OCR:
σp/σvo’
K nc = 1 – sinφ’ Earth pressure coefficients at rest
o
Example: Settlement of strip footing

Monotonic
loading
 Example: Vertical displacement of a
retaining wall
Wall pulled up
Limitation: No small strain stiffness
1 Retaining walls
Shear modulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations

Tunnels
Very
small
strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
10
-6
10-5
10
-4
10
-3
10-2
10
-1

Dynamic methods
Local gauges
 Limitation: Unloading/reloading
stiffness is the same
q=σ1-σ3 [kPa]

ε1 [%]
• Truly elastic behaviour on for very small loops
• At small strains stiffness increases
• Hysteresis increases with increasing strains
 Limitation: Non-monotonic loading in heavily
OC clays
Need to use artificially low POP/OCR value to trigger plasticity within ‘yield
surface’ in order to represent different stiffness for loading/unloading for non-
monotonic loading.

However the stress path may still be wrong when approaching to failure.

OC clay

HSmodel
p’
 Recommended procedure for application
MC model: for simple estimates and for safety factors (stability)
Advanced soil models: for more accurate deformation
predictions

Hardening Soil model:

• Use previous experience from lab, field and case records
for strength and stiffness (E50 etc)
• Simulate an oedometer or/and a triaxial test to calibrate
your soil parameter set
• Run your design problem
• Check the results and compare to hand calculations or
other estimates / experience
Comparison HS models and MC model

Isotropic compression test:

p' [kN/m2] H-S M-C

1000

800

600

400

200

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
eps-v
Comparison HS models and MC model

Drained triaxial test:

q' [kN/m2]
300
M-C

250

H-S
200

150

100

50

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
eps-1
Comparison HS models and MC model

Drained triaxial test:

eps-v
9.00E-03
6.00E-03
M-C
3.00E-03
0.000
H-S
-3.00E-03
-6.00E-03
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
eps-1 Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.
Comparison HS models and MC model

One-dimensional compression test (oedometer):

sig'-yy [kN/m2]
1000

800

600
M-C

400

H-S
200

Illustration by Brinkgreve, R.B.J.

0
0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
eps-1
Plaxis: which model in which situation?

NGI –ADP model !

NGI –ADP model / only available as VIP package...

Hardening Mohr-Coulomb Model
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Based on the Doherty Muir-Wood (2013)

- pressure dependence of stiffness moduli

- models compaction, dilation & critical state
- well suited for granular materials

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
66
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Based on the Doherty Muir-Wood (2013)

- pressure dependence of stiffness moduli

- models compaction, dilation & critical state
- well suited for granular materials

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
67
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

Lode’s angle dependent (see

Mohr-Coulomb formulated in p-q
space)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
68
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Taylor dilatancy:

Max.
Deviatoric Mobilised
plastic friction
strain angle
Hardening rule...

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
69
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

+ preconsolidation stress p0
+ maximum previously mobilised friction angle

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
70
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Taylor dilatancy:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
71
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Triaxial compression:

If constant dilation,
we recover Mohr-
Coulomb:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
72
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
73
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)
Influence of elastic parameters...

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
74
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

Note that in Optum:

- elastic moduli are pressure dependent, not
defined as in the Doherty & Muir Wood (2013)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
75
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

Note that in Optum:

- hardening parameter beta changes, so it
reproduces specified secant elastic moduli (E50 or G50)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
76
Hardening Mohr Coulomb (Optum)

- if m=1, no pressure dependency, beta is constant

and Doherty & Muir Wood (2013) model is recovered
exactly.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
77
Hardening soil model with small strain
stiffness HS Small
Hardening soil model – small (Plaxis)

p’
q

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Numerical methods in geoengineering. W. Sołowski
79
 Introduction
The aim is to discuss the extension of the
HS model to account for small strain
stiffness.

The topics to be covered include:

• Small strain stiffness
• HSsmall model formulation
• Limitations of HSsmall model
 HS-Small model
1.0

0.8

0.6
G/G0 [-]

0.4

0.2

0.0
1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3
Normalisierte Scherdehnu ng γ/γ0.7 [-]
 Parameters of the HS(small)
model
Parameters:
E50ref Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure
Eoedref Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref Reference
Eurref stiffness in unloading / reloading
G0ref Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall only)
γ0.7 Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% (HSsmall only)
m Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour
pref Reference pressure (100 kPa)
νur Poisson’s ratio in unloading / reloading
c’ Cohesion
ϕ’ Friction angle
ψ Dilatancy angle
Rf Failure ratio qf /qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
K0nc Stress ratio σ’xx/σ’yy in 1D primary compression
Soil Stiffness at Small Strains
 Soil Stiffness at Small
Strains
q=σ1-σ3 [kPa]

ε1 [%]
 Why is small-strain stiffness important?
Not accounting for small strain stiffness in geotechnical analyses may potentially result in
overestimating foundation settlements and retaining wall deflections consequently under-
estimating stresses. The gradient of settlement troughs behind retaining walls or above
tunnels may be underestimated. Piles or anchors within the working load range may show
a too soft response.

Analysis results are also less sensitive to the choice of proper boundary conditions. Large
meshes no longer cause extensive accumulation of displacements, because marginally
strained mesh parts are very stiff.
Experimental evidence and data for small-strain stiffness
True elastic stiffness was first observed in soil dynamics. Back then, the apparent higher
soil stiffness in dynamic loading applications was attributed to the nature of loading, e.g.
inertia forces and strain rate effects. Nowadays, static small-strain measurements are
available as well. These show only little differences to dynamic measurements. Still, the
term dynamic soil stiffness is sometimes used when true elastic or small-strain stiffness is
meant.
 Soil Stiffness at Small
Strains
1 Retaining walls
Shear modulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations

Tunnels
Very
small
strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
10
-6
10-5
10
-4
10
-3
10-2
10
-1

Dynamic methods
Local gauges
Experimental data & empirical relationships (E0)
The relationship between E0 and Eur can be estimated from the chart by Alpan* assuming
Edynamic/Estatic ≅ E0/Eur (10 kg/m²=1 MPa):

E dynamic E0
≈
E static Eur

E static [kg/cm²] ≈ Eur

* I. Alpan, The geotechnical properties of soils, Earth-Science Reviews 6 (1970), 5-49.

 Experimental data & empirical relationships
Stiffness reduction curves according to Seed & Idris* (left) and Vucetic & Dobry** (right)

* H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report 70-10,
EERC (Berkeley, Cali-fornia), 1970.
** M. Vucetic, R. Dobry, Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE 117 (1991), no. 1, 89-107.
 Empirical relationship for γ0.7
Based on statistical evaluation of test data, Darandeli* proposed correlations for a
hyperbolic stiffness reduction model, similar to the one used inside the HSS model.
Correlations are given for different plasticity indices.
Based on Darendeli‘s work, γ0.7 can be estimated to:

p'
IP = 0: γ 0.7 = 0.00015 p
ref

p'
IP = 30: γ 0.7 = 0.00026 p
ref

p'
IP = 100: γ 0.7 = 0.00055 p
ref

Note: The indicated stress dependency of γ0.7 is not implemented in the commercial HSS
model. If needed, the stress dependency of γ0.7 can be incorporated into boundary value
problems through definition of sub-layers.

*Darendeli,
Mehmet Baris, Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material
Damping Curves. PhD Dissertation (supervisor: Prof. Kenneth H. Stokoe, II), Department of Civil
Engineering. The University of Texas at Austin. August, 2001.
 HS-Small model
1.0

0.8

0.6
G/G0 [-]

0.4

0.2

0.0
1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3
Normalisierte Scherdehnu ng γ/γ [-]
0.7
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)
Strain(path)-dependent elastic overlay model:
G0
Gs =
1 + 0.385 γ / γ 0.7

G starts again at G0
Gur after full strain reversal
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)
τ

Gt Cyclic loading
G0 leads to Hysteresis
Gs

-γc 

 Energy dissipation
γ 

 Damping
+γc

G0
G0

CiTG, Geo-engineering,
http://geo.citg.tudelft.nl
 Small-strain stiffness in the HS
model (HSsmall)

G0 γ0.7

Gt Gs

Gur
 HS-small extension 1-dimensional
The 1-dimensional model by Hardin & Drnevich*:
τ
G0 Hardin & Drnevich:

τf 1 G
=
1
G0 1+ γ / γ r

Modified HS-Small:

G 1
γ =
G0 1+ (3γ ) /(7γ 0.7 )

Note: γr in the original approach by Hardin

& Drnevich relates to the failure shear
stress τf.

*
B.O. Hardin, V.P. Drnevich, Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,
ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 98 (1972), no. SM7, 667-692.
 HS-small model – stiffness reduction

Left: Secant modulus reduction → Parameter input

Right: Tangent modulus reduction → Stiffness reduction cut-off

If the small-strain stiffness relationship that is implemented in the HS-Small model

predicts a tangent stiffness lower than Gurref, the model‘s elastic stiffness is set
constant as then hardening plasticity accounts for further stiffness reduction.

40000 40000

γ0.7

Tangent modulus G [kN/m²]

Secant modulus G [kN/m²]

30000 30000

20000 20000

10000 10000
HS-Small

Hardin & Drnevich

0 1E-5 0.0001 0.001 0 1E- 0.0001 0.001 0.0
0.01 5 1
Shear strain γ [-] Shear strain γ [-]
 Difference HS and HS-small
Model response in a standard triaxial test.
Here: Dense Hostun sand

σ1/σ3 σ3 = 300 kPa CD εVol[-] GSecant [kN/m2]

-0.20 160000 Experiment

4 -0.16 HS (original)
120000
-0.12 HS-Small
80000
2 -0.08

-0.04 40000

0 0.00 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 ε1[-] 0.0001 0.001 0.01 ε1-ε3[-]

Parameter: Eurref = 90 MPa, E ref = 270 MPa, m = 0.55, γ =2x10-4

0 0.7

The stress-strain curves of the Hardening Soil model and the HS-Small model are
almost identical (Figure left-hand side). However, in zooming into the first part of the
curve, the difference in the two models can be observed (Figure right-hand side).
 Excavation example
Distance to wall [m]
Limburg excavation: Settlement trough 0 20 40 60 80
0

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012 MC (E50)

-0.016 MC (Eur)

Settlement [m]

A comparison: Distance to wall [m]

0 20 40 60 80
MC (E50): MC calculation with E = E50 0
MC (Eur): MC calculation with E = Eur
-0.004
HS: HS calculation with Eoed = E50
HSS: Same as HS but with small -0.008
strain stiffness
-0.012
HS

-0.016
HSS

Settlement [m]
 Excavation example
Limburg excavation: Horizontal wall displacement

MC-Model (E50) MC Model (Eur) Hardening Soil Model Hardening Soil Small
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0
0 0 0 0

-5 -5 -5 -5

-10 -10 -10 -10

-15 -15 -15 -15

-20 -20 -20 -20

-25 -25 -25 -25

Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m]
 Excavation example
Limburg excavation: Bending moments in [kNm/m]

MC-Model (E50) MC Model (Eur) Hardening Soil Model Hardening Soil Small
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
0 0 0 0

-5 -5 -5 -5

-10 -10 -10 -10

-15 -15 -15 -15

-20 -20 -20 -20

-25 -25 -25 -25

Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m] Depth below surface [m]
 Tunnel example
Steinhaldenfeld - NATM

Distance to tunnel axis [m]

0 10 20 30 40
0

-0.01

Measurement
HS (original)
-0.02
HS-Small

Settlement [m]
 HS-Small model
1.0

0.8

0.6
G/G0 [-]

0.4

0.2

0.0
1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3
Normalisierte Scherdehnu ng γ/γ0.7 [-]
 Parameters of the HS(small)
model
Parameters:
E50ref Secant stiffness from triaxial test at reference pressure
Eoedref Tangent stiffness from oedometer test at pref Reference
Eurref stiffness in unloading / reloading
G0ref Reference shear stiffness at small strains (HSsmall only)
γ0.7 Shear strain at which G has reduced to 70% (HSsmall only)
m Rate of stress dependency in stiffness behaviour
pref Reference pressure (100 kPa)
νur Poisson’s ratio in unloading / reloading
c’ Cohesion
ϕ’ Friction angle
ψ Dilatancy angle
Rf Failure ratio qf /qa like in Duncan-Chang model (0.9)
K0nc Stress ratio σ’xx/σ’yy in 1D primary compression
Selected references
• Brinkgreve, R.B.J. et al (20xx): Users manual for
PLAXIS 2D.
• Schanz,T. Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier P.G. (1999):
”The Hardening Soil Model: Formulation and
verification”, Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics – 10 years of PLAXIS, Balkema.
• Benz, T: Small-Strain Stiffness of Soils and its
Numerical Consequences, PhD Thesis. IGS,
Universität Stuttgart, Mitteilung 55.
 HS-small model application
Elastic stiffness properties of the HS-Small model can be visualized in state variable 10.

0
3.0
20

40

G m [-]
2.0
Gm=Gref /Gurref
60

80
1.0
100

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

The dark (blue) area is the strain area where G = Gur. The light gray
(yellow) area is the very-small-strain area with G ≈ G0. In between Gur
and G0 is the area where shear strains are small but not very small
according to the definition by Atkinson.
 Limitation: Heavily OC clays

Need to use artificially low POP/OCR value to trigger plasticity within ‘yield
surface’ in order to represent different stiffness for loading/unloading for non-
monotonic loading.

However the stress path may still be wrong when approaching to failure.

200

180

160

140

120
q (kPa)

100

80 100 kPa Stress Path

60
HSsmall Model Prediction
40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
P` (kPa)
 Limitation: Heavily OC clays
By default, the initial stiffness is set to G0.

Care needs to be taken when the geologic loading history of a soil is modeled.
If, for example, a vertical surcharge was applied and removed in order to model
OCR, the model remembers the vertical heave upon unloading including its
decreased small-strain stiffness. The initial stiffness at the onset of loading the
footing might then look as the one shown at the left-hand side of the above
figure. Here, the material should be exchanged or a reverse load step applied.
Thank you