Hardening Soil Model (HS)

Constitutive Model in FE
Analysis
1
Constitutive Model - Plasticity
Yield Surface
Flow Rule
Hardening Rule
Expansion or shrinkage of the loading or yield surface.
Predicts change in the yield surface due to plastic strains.
Link changes in stresses and strains to the size of the Loading Surface
2
Constitutive Model - Plasticity
M-C model has a fixed yield surface, a yield
surface fully defined by model parameters and
not affected by strain
Variation of yield surface
3
o
c
2
k
1
k
c
o
Hardening Soil Model (HS)
c (st r ain or displacement )
o (st r ess) Real soil response
Idealised soil model MC model
Hardening Soil Model
4
Hardening Soil Model (HS)
5
Yield Surface of HS Model
6
p
q
MC Model Failure Line
With increasing
hardening parameter
Shear Hardening
Yield Surface
7
q
p
3
o
2
o
1
o
q
p
3
o
2
o
1
o
q
p
3
o
2
o
1
o
Shear
hardening
Compression
hardening
2 yield surface
Yield Surface Cap in HS Model
8
p
q
c
c cot|
Elastic Zone
Yield Surface Cap in HS Model
9
Dilatancy Cut-off in HS Model
10
Dilatancy cut-off on e
max
c
1
c
v
HS Model
MC Model
2 sin
1 - sin
Strain-Hardening Types
11
Strain-hardening has two
types:
Shear hardening: plastic
strain is primarily due to
deviatoric loading
Compression hardening:
plastic strain is primarily
due to compression
(oedometer) and isotropic
loading
o
y
o
x
= o
z
o
z
Triaxial Test
o
y
Oedometer Test
Features of HS Model
Allows for non-linearity of the stress-strain curve
(Hyperbolic)
Differentiate between first loading and unloading
Stiffness depends on stresses
Yield surface expands (harden) in the space due
to plastic strain
The yield surface has a cap to allow for hardening
due to volumetric strain
12
Input Parameters of HS Model
Stress-dependent stiffness according to a power law
[input parameter: m]
Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading
[input parameter: ( )]
Plastic straining due to primary compression loading
[input parameter ( )]
Elastic unloading/reloading
[input parameter: ( ,v)]
Failure according to the Mohr-Coulomb model [input
parameter: (c, | and )]
ref
E
50
ref
oed
E
ref
ur
E
13
From triaxial test
From oedometer test
Unloading/reloading test
Stress Dependent E
50
q
a
q
f
q
f
/2
1
50
E
Asymptote
Failure line
1
ur
E
Axial strain
Deviator stress
m
ref
ref
p c
c
E E
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

=
| |
| o |
sin cos '
sin ' cos '
3
50 50
14
o
y
o
x
= o
z
o
z
Triaxial Test
o
3
= o
x
= o
z
f
f
a
f
R
q
q
c q
=

=
and

sin 1
sin 2
) ' cot ' (
3

o
ref
E
50
When o
3
= p
ref
= 100 kPa
R
f
= 0.9 q
f
= 0.9q
a
Stress Dependent E
ur
15
q
a
q
f
q
f
/2
1
50
E
Asymptote
Failure line
1
ur
E
Axial strain
Deviator stress
m
ref
ref
ur ur
p c
c
E E
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

=

o
sin cos '
sin ' cos '
3
o
y
o
x
= o
z
o
z
Triaxial Test
Stress Dependent E
oed
16
o
v

Axial strain
p
ref
1
ref
oed
E
m
ref
ref
oed oed
p
E E
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
1
o
Oedometer Test
o
v
o
1
= o
v
Application of HS Model
17
When shearing is dominant (more than
compression)
When the problem involves substantial unloading
When the stiffness varies with stress
Selection of Parameters in HS
Model
18
: Secant modulus in standard drained triaxial test
: Tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading
: unloading/reloading modulus ( 3 )
v
ur
: Poissons ratio for unloading/reloading (default v
ur
= 0.2 )
p
ref
: Reference stress for stiffness (default p
ref
= 100 kPa)
: K
0
-value for normally consolidation (default = 1-sin)
m 1 for clays and m 0.5 for sands
ref
E
50
ref
oed
E
ref
ur
E
ref
ur
E
ref
E
50
NC
K
0
NC
K
0
Hardening Soil Model
Advantages
Better nonlinear formulation of soil behaviour in
general (both soft soil and harder soil types)
Distinction between primary loading and
unloading
Memory of preconsolidation stresses
Different stiffness for different stress paths based
on standard tests
Well suited for unloading situations with
simultaneous deviatoric loading
19
Hardening Soil Model
Limitation
No peak strength and softening
No secondary compression
No anisotropy
E
50
/E
oed
> 2 difficult to input
Stiffness at small strain is underestimated
20
Hardening Soil Model
The hardening soil model is completely defined in
effective stresses and therefore need both
effective strength parameters and effective
stiffness parameters in order to take advantages
of the model
A total stress analysis maybe performed with both
undrained strength (Cu and friction angle=0).
However, no stress dependent stiffness and no
compression hardening.
21
Remarks* on Finite Element
Analysis
22
The ability of the Finite Element Method to accurately
reflect field conditions essentially depends on the ability of
the constitutive models to represent real soil behaviour and
the ability of the geotechnical engineer to assign
appropriate boundary conditions to the various stages of
construction.
Advantages over the conventional methods are the effects
of time on the development of pore water pressures can be
simulated by including coupled consolidation/swelling,
dynamic behaviour can be accounted for, and perhaps
most importantly no postulated failure mechanism or mode
of behaviour of the problem is required, as these are
predicted by the analysis itself.
*Potts, D. M. (2003). Geotechnique 53, No.6, 535-573