2012/13 ICE G&S Papers Competition Entry

Raisa Ehsan
A Study of Geotechnical Constitutive
Models using PLAXIS 2D


This paper is document is published as a guide to show prospective ICE G&S Papers Competition
entrants what judges are looking for in a winning entry. Please respect the intellectual rights of the
author over this work. If you wish to use this paper for any other reason, please contact ICE
Regional Communications Executive Annette Honeyball (Annette.honeyball@ice.org.uk or 0118 986
9442)
Synopsis: A Study of Geotechnical Constitutive Models Used in PLAXIS 2D

Inthisreport,theauthorhasattemptedtocarryoutaninvestigationontheconstitutivemodelsutilised
ingeotechnicalfiniteelementmodellingprograms,primarilyPlaxis2D.Thepurposeofthisstudyisto
evaluatetheperformanceofgeotechnicalstructuresindeepexcavationsusingfiniteelementanalysis
comprisingoftheelasticperfectlyplasticMohrCoulombmodelandthemorecomplexnonlinear
HardeningSoilandHardeningSoilwithSmallStrainmodel.
DetailedresearchwascarriedoutoneachoftheconstitutivemodelspresentinPLAXIS2DV9,including
adetailedsummaryofeachinputparameter.Basedonthecomparison,aconclusionisderivedatinthe
formofthelimitationsandadvantagesofboththesimpleMohrCoulombmodelandthecomplexnon
linearmodels.
Thereportalsoconsistsoftheresearchdoneonthecorrelationofparameterswithtesting,which
includesafullbreakdownofmodelinputparametersandpossiblederivationsfromstandardlaboratory
andinsitutesting.Aclearguideisprovidedonwhateachparametermeansintheconstitutivemodels
andwhereitisderivedfrom.
Aseriesofcasestudiesarechosenwithavailablemonitoringdatafordeepexcavations.Thena
comparisonbetweenresultsfromPLAXISrunsforeachconstitutivemodelandfieldinstrumentation
datafoundincasestudiesismade.Theresultsdemonstratethatmorerealisticpredictionsofwall
deflectionscanbeobtainedbytheHardeningSoilwithSmallStrainmodel.

A Study of Geotechnical Constitutive
Models Used in Plaxis 2D




By
Raisa Ehsan




Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
2

1 Introduction
The major challenge involved for the geotechnical engineers is the task of accurately
predicting the performance of deep excavations. Numerical analysis such as the finite
element method is almost always used to make predictions of ground behaviour. However, in
an attempt to model a geotechnical problem so that it reflects real soil behaviour, the engineer
faces complex constitutive models.

1.1 Constitutive Models
Constitutive modelling of soils is a mathematical form of describing the stress-strain
behaviour of soils in response to applied loads. It introduces or describes the physical
properties of a given material and also distinguishes between elastic and plastic deformations.

2 Mohr Coulomb Model (MC Model)
The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is a first order approximation of soil behaviour, and due to
the simplicity of the model, is employed extensively in geotechnical analysis.

Figure 1: Mohrs circles at yield, one touching Coulombs envelope (Brinkgreve R.B.J et al
2004)

The combination of Mohr failure envelope and the Coulomb strength parameters is referred to
as the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The failure criterion states that a material fails and not
from their maximum normal or shear stress alone, but because of a critical combination of
normal stress and shear stress. This is the only failure criterion that predicts the stresses on
the failure plane at failure.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
3

In PLAXIS, the Mohr Coulomb model uses an elastic perfectly-plastic constitutive model for
three-dimensional state of stress. According to Smith et al (1982), when formulated in terms
of yield stresses, the full Mohr-Coulomb yield condition consists of six separate yield
functions. The yield functions together gives rise to a fixed hexagonal cone in principal stress
space as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Mohr Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space for c=0 (Brinkgreve
R.B.J 2004)

Figure 2 illustrates that changes of stress remaining inside the yield surfaces are associated
with stiff (elastic) response, and hence are recoverable deformations. On the other hand the
changes of stress which are on the yield surfaces are associated with plastic response, and
hence are irrecoverable deformations.

Comments on Strength and Stiffness
Stiffness behaviour before reaching the local shear strength is poorly modelled in the Mohr
Coulomb model in PLAXIS, where it assumes the stiffness behaviour to be linear elastic
below the failure surface. This limits its abilities to model deformation behaviour before
yielding.

Strength behaviour, however, is modelled better in the Mohr Coulomb model. Goldscheiders
(1982) work shows that the hexagonal shape of the Mohr Coulomb yield surface illustrated
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
4

by Figure 2 has a good agreement with the stress combination causing failure in real soil
samples in true triaxial tests.

The use of effective strength parameters in undrained analysis of Mohr-Coulomb model may
result in an over estimation of the shear strength of the material in undrained conditions. The
differing effective stress paths followed for real soil behaviour and Mohr- Coulomb model
predictions in the p-q plane are elaborated in Figure 3.


Figure 3 : Effective stress paths followed in real soil and in MC model. (Pickles A.R 2005)

To avoid such a problem a total stress analysis is preferred, where the cohesion parameter is
used to model the actual undrained shear parameter (c=C
u
) and the friction angle is set to be
equal to zero ( =0). Doing so will run an analysis where consolidation and dissipation of
excess pore water pressure is not automatically taken into account, and hence no increase in
shear strength will result.

2.1 Mohr Coulomb Model (MC model) input parameters
This model requires a total of five parameters:
TWO stiffness parameters
E : Effective Youngs Modulus
' : Effective Poissons ratio

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
5

Instead of using Youngs modulus, alternative stiffness parameters G and E
oed
can be entered.
These alternative parameters are influenced by the input values of E and . Entering a
particular value for one of the alternatives, G or E
oed,
results in a change of the Youngs
modulus E.

Advanced Parameters are used when stiffness is defined as varying with depth in MC model.
By including the depth effect, an attempt can be made to provide a more realistic model of
natural soils and it is generally acknowledged that soil stiffness does increase with depth.

E
inc
: increment of stiffness per unit of depth
y
ref
: for y-coordinate above y
ref
stiffness is equal to E
ref
and below y
ref
stiffness is given by

(2.1)

THREE strength parameters
c
ref
: Effective cohesion
: Effective friction angle
: Dilatancy angle

Advanced Parameters may be used when cohesion is defined as varying with depth in MC
model.

c
inc
: increment of effective cohesion per unit of depth
y
ref
: for y-coordinate above y
ref
stiffness is equal to c
ref
and below y
ref
cohesion is given by

(2.2)

Friction angle
The friction angle determines the shear strength by means of Mohrs stress circles as shown
by Figure 4. Part a corresponds to the friction angle used to model the effective friction of the
soil, where as part b shows how the friction angle is set to zero when cohesion parameter is
equal to the undrained shear strength of the soil.
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
6


Figure 4: Stress circles at yield: one touches the Coulombs envelope (Brinkgreve R.B.J
2004)

Dilation
The angle of dilation is the measure of the change in volumetric strain with respect to the
change in shear strain. Clayey soils tend to show little dilatancy ( 0) and for frictional
angle values of less than 30 the angle of dilatancy is taken as zero in PLAXIS by default.

Poor prediction of dilation occurs in the Mohr Coulomb model, where the magnitude of
plastic volumetric strains is much larger than that encountered in real soils. This model
allows the soil to dilate forever once the soil yields and shear deformation occurs without any
volume change. The strength of the soil maybe overestimated in an undrained effective stress
analysis, where a positive value of the dilatancy angle, combined with restrictions to volume
changes, result in a generation of tensile pore stresses.



Determination of Parameters
The determination of Youngs modulus can be done from the conventional triaxial
compression test. The experimental results of the test are represented as stress-strain curves
from which the basic elastic constants (Youngs Modulus, E, and Poissons ratio, ) can be
determined. Clayton,C.R.I et al (2005) summarises some of the common in situ and
laboratory tests to determine basic parameters.

The dilatancy angle can be examined in plane strain situations. Data can be extracted from a
typical drained, plain strain, compression test described by Barden, Ismail and Tong (1969)
and then the angle of dilatancy as defined by Bolton (1986) is
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
7

(2.3)

where the ps subscript means plain strain.

The definition of dilatancy angle can also be derived from the stress strain curves from
triaxial compression test as expressed by Schanz,T. et al (1996a) :

(2.4)


Correlation of parameters to get E

If the data from the stress-strain curves is not available, the undrained shear strength, Cu is
often used in correlations on stiffness parameters for clays. Gaba A.R et al (2003)
recommends the following relationship:

(2.5)


Hence the undrained Youngs moduli can be easily converted to effective Youngs moduli by
the following equation which is based on Hookes law:

(2.6)

3 Hardening Soil Model (HS model)
The hardening soil model is an advanced elasto-plastic soil model and differs from the Mohr-
Coulomb model by its approach to stiffness. Here, it is possible to model the soil more
accurately with the use of three different input stiffness. As a result this model attempts a
better approximation to real soil behaviour as illustrated by Figure 5.
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
8


Figure 5: Comparison of HS and MC model with real soil response (internet source)

Unlike the elastic perfectly-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model, there is no fixed yield surface. Due
to plastic straining the yield surface can expand homothetically, i.e. it changes dimensions but
not in shape. In such a case the hardening is isotropic, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Isotropic Hardening (Robert Nova 2002)

The idea behind the formulation of this model is the hyperbolic relationship between the
vertical strains,
1
and the deviatoric stress, q in primary triaxial loading. Hardening Soil
model uses theory of plasticity and includes soil dilatancy and a yield cap.

This Hardening Soil model is a double hardening model based on the Mohr coulomb failure
criterion and consists of two main types of hardening, namely shear hardening and volumetric
hardening as illustrated in Figure 7. The shear hardening part models the plastic shear strain
in deviatoric loading and volumetric hardening considers the volumetric strain in primary
compression.
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
9


The volumetric hardening part is accounted by the yield cap surface in the model. In
isotropic compression, the measured plastic volumetric strain is not included in the shear
yield surface in Figure 7a. To close this elastic region in the effective stress, p-axis, a second
type of yield surface is introduced. As illustrated by Figure 7b, the shape of the cap yield is
an ellipse in p-q plane.

(a) Shear Strain Hardening

(b) Volumetric Strain Hardening
Figure 7: (Brinkgreve R.B.J 2004)

The presence of this yield cap enables the user to independently enter the two input
parameters of triaxial and oedometer modulus. The shear yield surface and the magnitude of
plastic shear strains associated with this yield surface are controlled by the triaxial modulus.
On the other hand the yield cap surface and the magnitude of plastic shear strains originating
from this yield surface are controlled by the oedometer modulus.

Yield cap
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
10

In the analysis of over consolidated clays, shear strain hardening is a dominant characteristic,
whereas volumetric strain hardening is dominant in the analysis of normally consolidated
clays. As a result, the soil behaviour of both soft and stiff soils can be analysed using the
Hardening Soil model in PLAXIS.

Figure 8 illustrates the total yield contour of Hardening Soil model, i.e. the yield surface
combined with the shear and cap yield surface in principal stress space. The expansion of the
shear yield surface occurs until it reaches the Mohr-Coulomb failure surface, whereas the
expansion of the yield cap is a function of the pre-consolidation pressure.

Figure 8: Representation of total yield contour of the Hardening Soil model in principal stress
space (Brinkgreve R.B.J 2004)
Drawbacks of the model would include its lack of ability in modelling anisotropic strength
and stiffness, time-dependant behaviour such as creep effects and post peak softening
observed in dense sands and stiff clays. The model does not account for large amplitudes of
soil stiffness related to transition from very small strain to engineering strain levels (10
-3
to
10
-2
). The model also the lacks the capability to reproduce hysteretic soil behaviour observed
during cycling loading.

3.1 Soil Hardening Model (HS model) input parameters

The Stiffness parameters to be entered in PLAXIS are:

: Secant stiffness in standard drained trixial test [kN/m
2
]
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
11

: Unloading/ reloading stiffness (default

) [kN/m
2
]

: Tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading [kN/m

2
]
m : Power for stress-level dependency of stiffness [-]

The three strength parameters are the same as Mohr Coulomb model

Stiffness moduli

and

The Hardening Soil model uses a power law formulation for stress dependant stiffness. The
hyperbolic relationship in the Hardening Soil model is illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Hyperbolic stress-strain relation in primary loading for a standard drained triaxial
test (Schanz, T 1999)
The parameter E
50,
for plastic shear hardening
,
is the confining stress dependent stiffness
modulus for primary loading which can be given by:

(3.1)


For unloading and reloading another stress dependent stiffness modulus E
ur
is defined as:

(3.2)


Both E
50
and E
ur
can be extracted from standard drained triaxial test by plotting the deviator
stress,q versus the axial strain
1
, as shown by Figure 9. Bishop A.W. et al (1957) has given
details on how to carry out the standard drained triaxial test.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
12

In the above stiffness parameters, p
ref
is the reference confining pressure for the minor
principle stress
3
in a triaxial test. PLAXIS by default uses a value of p
ref
= 100kN/m
2
.

Stiffness moduli

For oedometer conditions of stress and strain, i.e. for one dimensional compression, the
oedometer stiffness modulus E
oed
for primary loading is given by:

(3.3)

can be obtained

from oedometer test results, where

is the tangent stiffness modulus

as indicated in Figure 10 at reference pressure p
ref
= 100kN/m
2
. The standard testing
procedure for incremental loading in oedometer tests have been specified by ASTM
International: ASTM D2435-04.

Figure 10: Definition of

in oedometer test results (Brinkgreve R.B.J 2004)

Correlation of stiffness moduli
When the deviator stress,q versus the axial strain
1
, as shown by Figure 9,is not available
Vermeer P.A. et al (1985) in his paper proposed the correlation between oedometer stiffness
E
oed
, plasticity index I
p
and effective vertical stress
1
.

(3.4)


Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
13

In PLAXIS, the Hardening Soil model uses a reference stress of p
ref
= 100kN/m
2
, which can
be substituted in for the vertical effective stress. Thus the equation to derive

now arises
to:

(3.5)


The primary loading stiffness of clays can be measured quite well from oedometer tets.
Hence for normally consolidated clays, an approximate relation can be derived where the
reference oedometer stiffness is about half the reference triaxial stiffness at 50% of strength.

(3.6)


The unloading/ reloading stiffness

was kept to PLAXIS default setting as:

(3.7)


Power Law m
The amount of stress dependency is given by the power m. The value for this was derived
from the plots in Figure 11. The plots demonstrate how m can be determined if the exponents
m for different clays is plotted as a function of plasticity index at very small strains. This
relationship was proposed by Viggiani et al (1997), and Hicher (1996) had proposed a similar
relationship but with the liquid limit instead.


Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
14

Figure 11: Power law exponent m as a function of plasticity index and liquid limit (Benz
T.2007a)
All the other parameters were kept to PLAXIS default settings.

4 Hardening Soil with Small Strain (HSsmall model)
The hardening soil model assumes elastic material during unloading and reloading. But in
real soil behaviour, the strain range where soils can recover from the applied straining
completely, i.e soil being truly elastic, is very small.

The Hardening Soil with Small Strain (HSsmall) model is an enhanced version of the
Hardening Soil model, where it takes into account small strain stiffness of the soil and models
soil stiffness to decay non-linearly with increasing strain amplitude. The advanced features of
the HS-Small Strain model are able to produce more accurate and reliable approximation of
displacements. The improved results are particularly found useful for dynamic applications or
in modelling unloading-conditioned problems, e.g. excavations with retaining walls or tunnel
excavations.

Formulation of the small strain stiffness is derived from the S shaped curves shown in
Figure 12. The curves arise from the shear modulus G being plotted as a logarithmic function
of the shear strain . The plot ranges from very small to very large strain levels. The main
characteristic of the S curve is the small strain shear modulus G0 and the shear strain at
which the shear modulus 70% of G0, stated as 0.7.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
15

Figure 12: S-curve for reduction of shear modulus with shear strain (Brinkgreve R.B.J et al
2006)


4.1 Soil Hardening with Small Strain (HSsmall model) input parameters
Since the HSsmall model is based on the Hardening Soil model, the input parameters are
almost entirely the same parameters, with the addition of two parameters:

reference shear modulus at very small strains ( <10

-6
)

0.7
: shear strain at which G
s
= 0.722G
0
(i.e. the shear strain level
0.7
at which the
secant shear modulus G
s
is reduced to 70 % of

)
The two additional parameters are needed to describe the stiffness behaviour of soil at small
strains.

The parameters of the HSsmall model can be obtained by conducting the classical triaxial
tests laboratory tests where the stiffness parameters E50, Eur and E0 can be derived as shown
by Figure 13.

Figure 13: Stiffness parameters extracted from triaxial test. (Brinkgreve R.B.J 2004)
Then using the following equations shear modulus can be easily derived.

(4.1)

(4.2)

Equation (4.2) was used to derive the shear modulus to be input in the finite element model.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
16

Benz, T. (2007) b, in his paper has discussed a list of laboratory and field tests to measure the
small strain soil stiffness. Vojkan Jovicic (1997) has given a detailed description of the
bender element technique to derive the elastic shear modulus of a soil at very small strains.

Atkinson J. (2007) suggests that the simplest way to calculate the shear modulus at small
strains is from the velocity of dynamic waves. G
0
is then given by:

(4.3)


where V
s
is the velocity of the shear waves through the soil sample, is the unit weight of the
soil and g = 9.81m/s
2
.

Correlation of shear strain
0.7

The correlation between the threshold shear strain and Plasticity Index can be used to
determine
0.7
. The value for the threshold shear strain is read off at G/G
0
=0.7 and the
corresponding Plasticity Index.

Figure 14: Influnce of plasticity index on stiffness reduction (Vucetic et al 1991)
5 Case Studies Considered
To come to a conclusion on which constitutive model gave the best analysis results, i.e.
which analysis best represent real soil behaviour, benchmark results had to be identified.
A series of case studies were reviewed and three simple problems are chosen:
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
17


Case related to cantilevered retaining wall by A H Brookes et al (1996)
Case related to singly propped retaining wall by D R Carder et al (1989)
Case related to Doubly propped retaining wall by A H Brookes et al (1996)
6 Soil Constitutive Models
Three different types of retaining walls were modelled using the finite element package
PLAXIS. Each type of wall was modelled using three different types of soil constitutive
model, so that the analysis results could be compared.

Details of the soil profile had been taken for their respective case studies. As an example of
the PLAXIS model set up, Figure 15 shows the soil profile for the single propped wall.





Figure 15: Model set up for single propped wall in PLAXIS

Made Ground
Boulder Clay
London Clay

Cantilever Wall
Temporary Strut
Made Ground
Slab acting as single
prop
London Clay
Singly Propped Wall
Surcharge of 10kPa
Made Ground
Slab acting as single
prop
London Clay
Singly Propped Wall
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
18

The walls and the slabs acting as props were modelled as plate elements, whereas the
temporary prop used in the modelling of singly propped wall was modelled as a fixed anchor.
All three models of the wall were done in plain strain. For the single and double propped
wall only one half of the excavation is considered in the analysis, since the model is
symmetric.

After setting up the model, a finite element mesh was composed of 15-node cubic strain
elements with global coarseness set to fine. A finer mesh was assigned in areas of higher
concentration in an attempt to get better analysis results. An example of the meshing done is
illustrated in Figure 16.


Figure 16: Deformed mesh for Cantilever Wall for model HS A

The analysis results for lateral movements, bending moments, shear forces and lateral stresses
results from the models analysed using the finite element software PLAXIS v.9 were compared
with the actual monitoring data from case studies. Evaluation of the model comparisons had
shown that the results from MC-model analytical runs had deviate the most from the actual field
monitoring data. This is because the small strain stiffness of soil is not taken into account in
the MC-Model. The HS model results also deviate from the measured values, but less than
the MC-model. The Hardening Soil model with Small Strain best portrayed real soil behaviour
by taking into account the very small strains in soil.
7 Conclusion
The primary aim of this report was to investigate the application of elasto-plastic non-linear
models in PLAXIS 2D to predict efficiently ground deformations caused by deep
Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
19

excavations. Detailed research was carried out on each of the constitutive models present in
PLAXIS 2D V9, including a detailed summary of each input parameter and correlations with
testing.

A series of case studies are chosen with available monitoring data for deep excavations.
These monitoring data were compared with the analysis results from the three different
constitutive models. It was come to the conclusion that the Hardening Soil model with Small
Strain showed best agreement between its results and the field monitoring data as it takes into
account the very small strains in soil.
8 Recommendations for further study

In order to extend the findings of this report it is proposed that the behaviour of other
structures, for example a footing is analysed and the results compared with different types of
constitutive models.

The retaining walls considered here are all embedded in clay, meaning the evaluation of soil
behaviour and the parameter correlations made is based on clay only. It is proposed that same
evaluations and study is carried out for sand material.

The soil constitutive models used in this report are limited to Mohr Coulomb, Hardening Soil
and Hardening Soil with Small Strain model in finite element program PLAXIS 2D, version
9. Other constitutive models, such as the BRICK model, can also be used to evaluate and
compare results and hence check if this gives better prediction of real soil behaviour.

Only plain strain analysis is carried out during all analysis stages in 2D. It is worth
performing 3D calculations to check if results are different and verify the 2-D numerical
analyses.

The effects of wall installation are not considered in this report and assumed no disturbance
was caused to the ground. Further studies need to be carried out to take the effects of stress
relief during deep excavations into account and how they affect the final analyses results.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
20

9 References

A H Brookes and D R Carder (1996), Behaviour of a cantilever contiguous bored pile
wall in boulder clay at Finchley, TRL Report 244, Highways Agency

A H Brookes and D R Carder (1996), Behaviour of the diaphragm wall of a cut and cover
tunnel constructed in boulder clay at Finchley, TRL Report 187, Highways Agency

ASTM International. ASTM D2435 - 04 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional
Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading.

Atkinson J.,(2007), The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations, Second Edition, Spon Text,
Ch13, pg 193

Barden L., Ismail H., and Tong P., (1969), Plane strain deformation of granular material
at low and high pressures, Geotechnique 19, No.4, pg 441-452

Benz, T. (2007)a. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Ph.D.
Thesis. Institut fr Geotechnik, Universitt Stuttgart.

Benz, T. (2007)b. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Ph.D.
Thesis. Institut fr Geotechnik, Universitt Stuttgart.

Bishop A.W. and Henkel D.J. (1957), The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial
Test, Edward Arnold (Publishers) LTD, London, pg122-131

Brinkgreve R.B.J. & Broere W, PLAXIS 2D Manual, 2004

Brinkgreve R.B.J., Bakker K.J., Bonnier P.G., (2006), The relevance of small-strain soil
stiffness in numerical simulation of excavation and tunnelling projects, Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering Schweiger (ed.), Taylor & Francis Group,
London

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
21

Carder D. R. and Brookes A. H. (1989), Long term performance of a propped retaining
wall embedded in stiff clay, TRL Report 187, Highways Agency

C.R.I. Clayton, M.C. Matthews and N.E. Simons,(2005), Site Investigation, Departmenet
of Civil Engineering, University of Surrey, 2nd Ed

Gaba A.R., Simpson B., Powrie W. and Beadman D.R., (2003), CIRIA C580, Embedded
retaining walls- guidance for economic design, London

Goldscheider, M., (1982), True triaxial tests on dense sand, G. Gudehus, F. Darve, I.
Vardoulakis (Eds.), Results of the Int. Workshop on Constitutive Relations for Soils,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (1982), pp. 1154

Hicher P. Y.,(1996), Elastic Properties of soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
122(8), pg 641-648

Internet source, Constitutive Model in FE Analysis HS,
http://units.civil.uwa.edu.au/teaching/CIVL3140?f=260156

Pickles A.R. and Henderson TO (2005), Some thoughts on the use of numerical
modelling in geotechnical design poractice, Underground Singapore 2005-Specialty
Session on Numerical Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore

Roberto Nova (2002) , Development of Elastoplastic Strain Hardening Models of Soil
Behaviour, Department of Structural Engineering, Milan University of Technology
(Politecnico), Milan, Italy, pg6

Schanz, T. and Vermeer, P.A., (1996a), Angles of Friction and Dilatancy of
Sand,Geotechnique. 46(1), 145-151.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. and Bonnier, P.G. (1999),The Hardening Soil Model:
Formulation and Verification. Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics-10 years of
Plaxis, Balkema, Rotterdam.

Raisa Ehsan G&S Papers Competition 2013
22

Smith, I.M, Griffith, D.V. (1982), Programming the Finite Element Method, John Wiley
and Sons, Chisester, U.K. Second edition

Vermeer P.A., Termaat R.J and Vergeer G.J.H. (1985), Failure by Large Plastic
Deformations, Proceedings of 11
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam.

Viggiani G.M.B., Rampello S. and Amorosi A.,(1997), Small strain stiffness of re-
constituted clay compressed along constant triaxial effective stress ratio paths,
Geotechnique, 47 (3), pg475-489

Vucetic M. and Dobry R., (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(1), pg 89-107