0 views

Original Title: Implicit and explicit integration schemes in the anisotropic bounding surface plasticity model for cyclic behaviours of saturated clay.pdf

Uploaded by Ionut Patras

- FENET Budapest Feb2005 DLE DesignByAnalysis Mackenzie
- Document
- Lecture 3
- 2
- 19980002525 (1)
- 223314spring 2001
- Finite Element Method
- PHY11 Lesson 5 Elasticity.pptx
- thick_yield.pdf
- ASCE 41
- Nonlinear FE Analysis 2009 1
- AbaqusExplicit Honeycomb Material Model
- 52
- IJSS Sharma
- HW7 Solution
- elasticity.pdf
- module4-plastictheory-rajeshsir-140806043958-phpapp01.pdf
- 65_ftp
- 02-05ChapGere.pdf
- 11.Mechanical Properties of Materials

You are on page 1of 15

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

surface plasticity model for cyclic behaviours of saturated clay

Cun Hu a,b, Haixiao Liu a,⇑

a

School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

b

Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two integration algorithms, namely the implicit return mapping and explicit sub-stepping schemes, are

Received 30 March 2013 adopted in the anisotropic bounding surface plasticity model for cyclic behaviours of saturated clay and

Received in revised form 26 July 2013 are implemented into ﬁnite element code. The model is a representative of a series of bounding surface

Accepted 26 July 2013

models that have typical characteristics, including isotropic and kinematic hardening rules and a rota-

Available online 23 August 2013

tional bounding surface to capture complex but important cyclic behaviours of soils, such as cyclic shake-

down and degradation. However, there is no explicit current yield surface in the model to which the

Keywords:

conventional implicit algorithm returns the stress state back or the sub-stepping integration corrects

Bounding surface plasticity model

Implicit integration

the drift of the stress state. Hence, necessary modiﬁcations have been made for both of the integration

Explicit integration schemes. First, the image stress point is mapped or corrected to the bounding surface instead of mapping

Cyclic behaviour back or correcting the stress state to the yield surface. Second, the unloading–loading criterion is checked

Saturated clay to determine the image stress point rather than checking the yield criterion after giving the trial stress

state in a conventional way. Comparative studies on the accuracy, stability and efﬁciency of the two inte-

gration schemes are conducted not only at the element level but also in solving boundary value problems

of monotonic and cyclic bearing behaviours of rigid footings on saturated clay. For smaller strain incre-

ments, there is no signiﬁcant difference in the accuracy between the two integration schemes, but the

explicit integration shows a higher efﬁciency and accuracy. For relatively larger increments, the implicit

return mapping algorithm presents good accuracy and more robustness, while the sub-stepping algo-

rithm shows deteriorating accuracy and suffers the convergence problem. With the tolerance used in

the present model, the bearing capacity of the rigid footing predicted by the return mapping algorithm

is closer to the available analytical and numerical solutions, while the bearing capacity predicted by

the sub-stepping algorithm shows a marginal increase.

Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the cornerstone that controls the accuracy, stability and efﬁciency

of the calculations.

The response simulation of offshore structures embedded in Existing approaches for stress integration of elasto-plastic con-

seabed soils under cyclic loading still faces signiﬁcant obstacles. stitutive models are generally classiﬁed as implicit and explicit

First, it requires efﬁcient and accurate constitutive models that schemes. Implicit algorithms that are based on the closest point

reﬂect important cyclic behaviours of seabed soils, such as the hys- projection or the return mapping [4–10] require a consistent

teretic property, initial anisotropy, cyclic shakedown and stiffness tangent operator that corresponds to the ﬁnal stress state of the

degradation as well as the accompanying accumulation of plastic integration increment. This arrangement means that an iterative

strain and pore pressure [1–3]. However, to capture all of these calculation of the ﬁnal stress state is needed. Explicit algorithms

important but complex behaviours makes the constitutive model such as the algorithm with automatic error control and sub-

more lengthy and complicated. Moreover, in order to be applicable stepping [11–14] require a continuum tangent operator that corre-

to offshore geotechnical calculations, the constitutive model sponds only to the initial stress state of the integration increment

requires efﬁcient and robust numerical implementations, whereas while using the adaptive sub-stepping to control the error. Both of

the integration scheme of the incremental constitutive relations is the algorithms have been developed in classic elasto-plastic

models but are still less reported for cyclic plasticity models.

Manzari and Nour [7] ﬁrst attempted to use an implicit algorithm

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 2227401510.

in the bounding surface model for cyclic behaviours of soil. The

E-mail address: liuhx@tju.edu.cn (H. Liu).

results demonstrated the robustness of the implicit integration in

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.07.012

28 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

the bounding surface model. However, one drawback of the model et al. [23] is generalised to the multiaxial stress space. Within the

is the unrealistic description of cyclic loading because it is based on framework of critical state soil mechanics, this model has been

the fully isotropic hardening rule. Rouainia and Wood [8] pre- shown to accurately simulate important characteristics of satu-

sented an implicit return mapping integration in a modiﬁed bubble rated clay under cyclic loading such as initial anisotropy, reversal

model based on a kinematic hardening rule, but it was only tested ﬂow, cyclic shakedown and stiffness degradation by combining

by a soil element. Borja et al. [9] used an implicit scheme to solve a isotropic with kinematic hardening rules and adopting a rotational

two-surface model. However, the algorithm was run on the strain bounding surface. A brief description of the model is presented

space in order to consider the nonlinear hyper-elasticity. Zhao et al. below.

[15] argued that there were difﬁculties in the application of the im- In terms of notation, tensors are written in bold face characters

plicit integration scheme to cyclic plasticity models and described to allow them to be easily distinguished from scalars. All of the

the explicit integration of two complex constitutive models. How- presented stress quantities are effective. The symbol ‘:’ denotes

ever, they did not provide the performance of the algorithm in ana- an inner product of two second-order tensors (e.g., c:d = cijdij) or

lysing the cyclic behaviour of the soil. Andrianopoulos et al. [16] a double contraction of the adjacent indices of tensors of rank

proposed an explicit integration in the bounding surface model two and higher (e.g., C : ee ¼ C ijkl eekl ). The symbol ‘’ denotes the

to analyse the earthquake liquefaction of noncohesive soils. Kronecker product of two second-order tensors (e.g., c d = cijdkl).

The accuracy, stability and efﬁciency of integration schemes are

important issues in large-scale numerical simulation. However, 2.1. Bounding surface formulation

comparative studies on the performance of the two integration

algorithms in a complex cyclic plasticity model are rather limited. For the initial consolidation process, the form of the bounding

The conclusions from different researchers in solving boundary va- surface in the model proposed by Hu et al. [23] is the same as

lue problems are not uniform. Potts and Ganendra [17] compared the form adopted by Dafalias [24], which can be written in the con-

the accuracy of return mapping implicit and sub-stepping explicit ventional triaxial p–q stress space as

schemes in the Cam-clay model and stated that the sub-stepping

algorithm was more accurate for a speciﬁc incremental size and ðq Þ2

ap

2 p

F¼p pc þ ¼0 ð1Þ

for the analysis of a cavity expansion problem. Manzari and Pra- M 2 a2

chathananukit [18] compared the closest point projection implicit where p and q are mean effective and deviatoric stresses, respec-

integration with the sub-stepping explicit integration in a two-sur- tively, and the superimposed bar indicates that the variables are re-

face model and implemented them into ﬁnite element code. It was lated to the bounding surface; M is the slope of the critical state line

observed that for a relatively large strain increment, the implicit and equals Me for extension and Mc for compression; pc and a deﬁne

algorithm remained stable and accurate, while the explicit algo- the size and inclination of the bounding surface, respectively, and

rithm faced convergence difﬁculties. Sołowski et al. [19] ran both their initial values are denoted by p0 and a0. The concept of the

implicit and sub-stepping explicit integrations in the Barcelona ba- model is shown graphically in Fig. 1 in the p–q stress space.

sic model of unsaturated soil at a single stress point. However, it The generalisation of Eq. (1) in the multiaxial stress space is ob-

was concluded that for a larger strain increment, the implicit tained by standard methods [25,26], as follows:

scheme offered faster convergence but might cause inaccurate

computations. These ﬁndings highlight the importance of compar- 3

2 p

F¼p pc þ aÞ : ðs p

½ðs p aÞ ¼ 0 ð2Þ

ative studies on the accuracy, stability and efﬁciency of the two 2ðM 2 a2 Þ

integration schemes.

where s and a are deviatoric and anisotropic tensors, respectively,

The bounding surface plasticity model with a vanishing elastic qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

region is more attractive for large-scale mathematical modelling and a ¼ 32 a : a is a measure of the degree of soil anisotropy.

related to cyclic loading because it is not necessary to address It can be seen from Eq. (2) that the bounding surface passes

the evolvement of more than two yield surfaces (such as in the through the origin of the stress space. However, for the sequence

two-surface and multi-surface plasticity models [20–22]) and the shearing after the initial consolidation process, the model [23]

smooth translation from nonlinear elastic to elasto-plastic behav- has assumed that the bounding surface translates according to

iours. A recently developed anisotropic bounding surface model the kinematic hardening rule, which will be brieﬂy explained in

[23] has been shown to realistically present the stress–strain the following section (the details can be found in Ref. [23]). As a re-

behaviours of the soils, including the cyclic shakedown and degra- sult, the endpoint of the bounding surface, which coincides with

dation. The present work is to implement the developed model the origin of the stress space in the initial consolidation process,

with a vanishing elastic region [23] into a commercial ﬁnite ele- will translate to a new position in the stress space. We denote

ment code with two integration schemes, i.e., the return mapping the endpoint as n (Fig. 1). Hence, the translating bounding surface

and sub-stepping integration schemes. However, there is no expli- in the multiaxial stress space is expressed as

cit current yield surface in the model to which the conventional

implicit algorithm returns the stress state back or the sub-stepping

integration corrects the drift of the stress state. Several necessary q CSL

modiﬁcations should be made for both of the integration schemes.

The performance, including the accuracy, robustness and efﬁciency Subsequent bounding

of the two integration schemes, is investigated in detail both at the surface Fm

element level and in solving boundary value problems that involve

Initial bounding K0 line

monotonic and cyclic bearing behaviours of rigid footings on nor- surface F0 ξFm A

mally consolidated saturated clay. ξF0

α0

o p0 p

2. Outline of the anisotropic bounding surface model

CSL

In this section, the anisotropic bounding surface plasticity mod-

el with a vanishing elastic region for saturated clay proposed by Hu Fig. 1. Schematic of the rotational bounding surface in the p–q space.

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 29

^2 p

Fm ¼ p ^pc þ ^s : ^s ¼ 0 ð3aÞ

2ðM2 a2 Þ path does not change direction, Fm+1 expands or contracts isotrop-

ically from the nth to the (n + 1)th loading substep. The endpoint n

with of the current bounding surface Fm+1 is then expressed as follows:

8 8

<p npðmÞ

^¼p >

> ðnþ1Þ ðmþ1Þ ðnÞ

ðnþ1Þ

ðmþ1Þ pcðmþ1Þ

ð3bÞ >

< npðmþ1Þ ¼ op þ ðnpðmþ1Þ op Þ ðnÞ

pcðmþ1Þ

: ^s ¼ s nðmÞ p nðmÞ a ð5aÞ

s p

> ðnþ1Þ

>

> ðnþ1Þ ðmþ1Þ ðnÞ ðmþ1Þ pcðmþ1Þ

: nsðmþ1Þ ¼ os þ nsðmþ1Þ os

p

ðnÞ

where m is the ordinal number of speciﬁc loading events in which cðmþ1Þ

the stress path does not change direction. For example, m = 0 means

Case 2: When the stress path changes direction, Fm translates along

the initial consolidation process, and m = 1 means the ﬁrst loading

the line that connects the stress reversal point and the image point

or unloading event; stress tensors r and n are expressed in terms

to form Fm+1. The endpoint n of the current bounding surface Fm+1 is

of the volumetric and deviatoric components, which are deﬁned as

then expressed as

1 1 (

¼

p trðrÞ; s ¼ r p

I; np ¼ trðnÞ; ns ¼ n np I ð3cÞ npðmþ1Þ ¼ nðmÞ

p

Þ

þ ðp p

3 3 ð5bÞ

ns

ðmþ1Þ

¼ n þ ðs sÞ

ðmÞ

s

where I is a second-rank identity tensor, and the subscripts p and s

denote the volumetric and deviatoric components of a tensor, where (p,s) and ðp ; sÞ are the newly formed stress reversal point and

respectively. its image stress state, respectively; ðnðmþ1Þ

ðnÞ ðnÞ

; nsðmþ1Þ Þ; npðmþ1Þ ; nsðmþ1Þ

p

ðnþ1Þ ðnþ1Þ

and npðmþ1Þ ; nsðmþ1Þ denote the endpoints of the bounding surfaces

2.2. Hardening rules

of the 0th, nth and (n + 1)th loading substeps in the (m + 1)th load-

ðnÞ ðnþ1Þ

The characteristics of isotropic, kinematic hardening and even ing event, respectively; pcðmþ1Þ and pcðmþ1Þ are the sizes of the bound-

rotational hardening rules are included in the model proposed by ing surfaces of the nth and (n + 1)th loading substeps in the

Hu et al. [23]. In this section, the evolution for each of them is de- ðmþ1Þ ðmþ1Þ

(m + 1)th loading event, respectively; and ðop ; os Þ is the

scribed brieﬂy and generalised into multiaxial stress space.

homological centre o of Fm+1, i.e., the coordinates of the last stress

reversal point and the mapping centre. Details of the mapping cen-

2.2.1. Isotropic hardening tre and the image stress state are introduced in Section 2.3.

As in the original two-dimensional model [23], the scalar hard-

ening variable pc controls isotropic hardening and determines the 2.2.3. Rotational hardening

size of the bounding surface, which depends not only on the irre- The model proposed by Hu et al. [23] has assumed that the

versible volumetric strain rate e_ pv but also on the damage parame- initial anisotropy due to anisotropic consolidation is accounted

ter H, which is related to the deviatoric plastic strain rate e_ p in the for by adopting a rotational bounding surface at the start of

multiaxial stress space. The evolution equation for the size pc is gi- shearing but without further rotation in the subsequent shearing,

ven as and the stress-induced anisotropy is considered by the above-men-

( ðnþ1Þ ðnÞ tioned kinematic hardening rule.

pc v0 e_ pv Hðnþ1Þ

¼ pc exp

ð4Þ Similar to the deﬁnition adopted by Liang and Ma [26], Ling et al.

ðnþ1Þ ðnÞ

H ¼ H exp ðbe_ A Þ [27] and Huang et al. [28], the initial anisotropic tensor a0 induced in

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

the initial anisotropic consolidation is obtained through the devia-

with e_ A ¼ 2 _p

e : e_ p and v0 ¼ 1þe0

.

3 kj

toric tensor s0 and the preconsolidated stress condition p0 as

ðnþ1Þ

In Eq. (4), pc and H(n+1) denote the size and damage for the

ðnÞ s0

current load increment of the bounding surface, respectively; pc a0 ¼ ð6aÞ

(n) p0

and H denote the size and damage for the previous load incre-

ment of the bounding surface, respectively; e0 denotes the void ra- For the K0 consolidated samples, K 0 ¼ r03 =r01 , and the initial

tio after consolidation; and k and j are the slopes of the primary anisotropic tensors are given as follows:

compression and swelling lines in the e-lnp relations, respectively.

2ð1 K 0 Þ K0 1 1 K0

It can be observed that H decreases with the accumulated deviator- a011 ¼ ; a022 ¼ a033 ¼ ; a0 ¼ 3 ð6bÞ

ic plastic strain eA, which monotonically increases during the defor- 1 þ 2K 0 1 þ 2K 0 1 þ 2K 0

mation process and is always positive. The decrease in H induces a Hence, the inclination of the bounding surface a, which is used

shrinkage of the bounding surface to reﬂect the degradation in to account for the initial anisotropy, can be obtained.

stiffness and the reduction in strength. Further details of H and eA

can be found in Ref. [23]. 2.3. Flow rule and mapping rule

2.2.2. Kinematic hardening The plastic strain increments are governed by the associated

The model assumes that the bounding surface isotropically ﬂow rule

hardens around the discrete homological centre (e.g., the stress : r_

n :r

n _

reversal point). Once the stress reversal point occurs, the bounding e_ p ¼ hKin ; K ¼ ¼ ð7Þ

Kp Kp

surface should translate along the line that connects the stress

reversal point and the image stress point. It can be seen that the where K is the loading index; hi is the symbol of Macauly brackets;

kinematic hardening role arises from two parts. The ﬁrst part is Kp and K p are the plastic moduli at the current and image stress

the movement of the bounding surface due to its isotropic harden- points, respectively; and n ¼ f@F=@ pI; @F=@sg ¼ fn s g denotes

p I; n

ing around the discrete homological centre. The second part is the the tensor of the stress gradient on the bounding surface at the

translation of the bounding surface when the stress path changes current stress state.

direction. As a result, two cases should be noted in determining To deﬁne the image point at the bounding surface in a simple

the location of the bounding surface. way, the radial mapping rule proposed by Dafalias [24] is adopted.

30 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

is deﬁned by projecting the radial line It is known that in the conventional elasto-plastic model, the re-

that connects the mapping centre o and the current stress state turn mapping algorithm consists of two basic sequences, namely

r onto the bounding surface. The radial mapping rule is expressed the elastic trial and the plastic corrector depending on whether

by the elastic trial stress falls inside or outside the yield surface. How-

ever, as mentioned earlier, the elastic region is reduced to a point,

r ¼ o þ bðr oÞ ð8Þ

and there is no explicit current yield surface in the present bound-

where b is the ratio of the distance between the mapping origin and ing surface model. Hence, several modiﬁcations of the return map-

the image stress point to the distance between the mapping origin ping algorithm are necessary to make it useful to this type of single

and the current stress state, which can be determined by substitut- bounding surface model.

ing Eq. (8) into the analytical expression of F = 0 (see the expression

in Section 3.2). The mapping centre o is translated to capture the 3.1. Elastic trial

plastic ﬂow in the reverse loading [23] and can be determined by

the following equation: In the process of an elastic trial, the plastic response remains

constant and equals the respective value at the previous increment

n : rnþ1 P 0

ðop;n ; os;n Þ if n

ðop;nþ1 ; os;nþ1 Þ ¼ ð9Þ (say, n). For the initial iteration number k = 0,

ðpn ; sn Þ if n n : rnþ1 < 0

(

in which the subscripts n and n + 1 refer to the previous and current Depð0Þ pð0Þ ð0Þ

v ;nþ1 ¼ Denþ1 ¼ DHnþ1 ¼ 0

ð12aÞ

load steps, respectively. ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ

pc;nþ1 ¼ pc;n ; nnþ1 ¼ nn ; onþ1 ¼ on

2.4. Elastic and plastic moduli where the subscript n + 1 indicates the variables that are related to

the current increment. The trial stress is obtained from the follow-

The elastic components of deviatoric and volumetric strain rates ing equations:

are obtained following the standard relationships

ð0Þ 1 þ e0

s_ p_ pnþ1 ¼ pn exp Dev ;nþ1 ; sð0Þ ð0Þ

nþ1 ¼ sn þ 2Gnþ1 Denþ1 ð12bÞ

e_ e ¼ ; e_ ev ¼ ð10aÞ j

2G K

Integrating Eq. (10a) with p and Deev ; the secant bulk modulus can

Similar to the critical state models [12,15,18], the tangential

be derived as

bulk and shear moduli in the present model are assumed to depend

1þe0

linearly on the mean effective stress and to satisfy the following ð0Þ pn exp j Dev ;nþ1 pn

equation

K nþ1 ¼ ð12cÞ

Dev ;nþ1

3ð1 2mÞ and the secant shear modulus can be expressed as

G¼ K ð10bÞ

2ð1 þ mÞ

ð0Þ 3ð1 2v Þ ð0Þ

where m is the constant Poisson’s ratio. Gnþ1 ¼ K ð12dÞ

2ð1 þ v Þ nþ1

The plastic component of the strain rate is based on the form gi-

ven to the plastic modulus (see Eq. (7)). The plastic modulus can be It should be noted that, in the case Dev ;nþ1 ¼ 0, we have

given by the consistency condition on the bounding surface as ð0Þ ð0Þ 3ð1 2v Þ 1 þ e0

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ! pnþ1 ¼ pn ; snþ1 ¼ sn þ 2 p Denþ1 ð13Þ

2b 3 2ð1 þ v Þ n j

^ pc

Kp ¼ p p v0 2

n ^s : ^s ð11aÞ

M a2 2

3.2. Plastic correction

The plastic modulus of the current stress state can be obtained

by employing the interpolation rule as [23] In the process of the plastic correction, two characteristics of

c the bounding surface model should be noted. First, due to the elas-

; s; epv ; ep Þðb 1Þ

K p ¼ K p þ qðp ð11bÞ

tic region vanishing in the bounding surface model, the plastic ﬂow

8 occurs immediately for any stress increment within the bounding

< jK m K p j

> for first loading

surface. Second, in contrast to the conventional plastic models that

; s; epv ; ep Þ ¼ j1u K m K p j for unloading

with qðp ð11cÞ

> consider the unloading elastic, the present model can capture the

:

j1r K m K p j for reloading reverse plastic ﬂow by adopting the discrete stress reversal point

as the mapping origin in the radial mapping rule. Hence, two mod-

where Km is the bounding plastic modulus on the last stress rever-

iﬁcations of the conventional return mapping algorithm are corre-

sal, and

spondingly made. For the ﬁrst characteristic, the trial image stress

2 state is mapped onto the bounding surface instead of mapping

fu Mc

¼ p =gÞ

ð1 þ n ð11dÞ back or correcting the stress state to the yield surface. In fact, sim-

fr Me

ilar to the work by Borja et al. [9], the condition of consistency on

in which c, fr and g are positive model parameters, whose physical the bounding surface implies the condition of consistency on the

meaning and calibration are given in the literature [23]. yield surface (referring to the current stress point). The details

can be found in Appendix A. For the second characteristic, the load-

3. A return mapping integration for the anisotropic bounding ing–unloading criterion is checked to distinguish the mapping ori-

surface model gin and the homological centre and then to determine the location

of the bounding surface to obtain the trial image stress point,

In this section, a conventional implicit integration scheme rather than judging whether the stress point is inside the yield

based on the return mapping algorithm [6] is modiﬁed and surface.

developed into the anisotropic bounding surface model described To map the image stress state back onto the bounding surface, it

above. Then, the model is implemented into a commercially avail- is necessary to meet all of the incremental constitutive relations, as

able ﬁnite element code. follows:

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 31

1 þ e0 The general form of the consistent tangent operator Cknþ1 is de-

pnþ1 ¼ pn exp ðDev ;nþ1 Depv ;nþ1 Þ ð14aÞ

j rived as

Depv ;nþ1 ¼ Knþ1 n

p;nþ1 ð14bÞ @ Dpknþ1 @ Dsknþ1

Cknþ1 ¼ k

Iþ ð15Þ

snþ1 ¼ sn þ 2Gnþ1 ðDenþ1 Depnþ1 Þ ð14cÞ @ Denþ1 @ Deknþ1

Depnþ1 ¼ Knþ1 n

s;nþ1 ð14dÞ To evaluate the consistent tangent operator, Eqs. 14a, 14c, and 14e,

p

pc;nþ1 ¼ pc;n expðv0 Dev ;nþ1 ÞHnþ1 ð14eÞ which directly relate to p, s, ev and e, are written in the differential

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ! form, as follows:

2 p 8

Hnþ1 ¼ Hn exp b De : Depnþ1 ð14fÞ

< Dp ¼ KðDev np DK Dnp KÞ

>

3 nþ1

Ds ¼ 2GðDe ns DK Dn s KÞ

2 3 >

: Dp ¼ pc v0 Dp þ bpc Dep : Ds þ p

^nþ1 Þ p

ðp ^nþ1 pc;nþ1 þ ^snþ1 : ^snþ1 ¼ 0 ð14gÞ v0 Dev 32bpc

Dep : De

2ðM 2 a2 Þ c K 3G DeA c DeA

bnþ1 ¼ bn þ Knþ1 ð14hÞ (

Anþ1 ^ pc 32a:^s 2

p ¼ 2p

n

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ! in which M a

ð16bÞ

2b 3 s ¼ 23^s 2

n

^nþ1 pc;nþ1

K p;nþ1 ¼ p v0 np;nþ1 2 2 ^snþ1 : ^snþ1 ð14iÞ M a

M a 2

It can be seen that the unknowns ðDn s Þ and DK are related to

p ; Dn

In Eq. (14h), Eqs. (14g) and (14h), which reﬂect the mapping rule and the consis-

tency condition, respectively. As a result, Eqs. (14g) and (14h)

3 should be differentiated with respect to e. The additional derivative

A ¼ pc ðp op Þ þ 2ðp op Þðnp op Þ þ ½ðs os Þ

ðM 2 a2 Þ of the plastic modulus, Eq. (14i), furnishes the system of linear

ðp op Þa : ½ðns os Þ ðnp op Þa equations. Thus, there are a total of six independent unknowns

ðDp; Ds; Dpc ; Db; DK; DK p Þ and six linear equations. The consistent

Eqs. (14a) and (14c) represent the elastic strains and their rela- tangent operator can then be determined, and the details are pre-

tions to the stress states; Eqs. (14b) and (14d) present the ﬂow sented in Appendix B.

rule; Eqs. (14e) and (14f) represent the isotropic hardening laws;

and Eq. (14g) represents the condition of consistency on the

4. A sub-stepping integration for the anisotropic bounding

bounding surface. It is observed that the condition of consistency

surface model

needs the updated image stress point. As a result, the above equa-

tions include not only the updated stress, the ﬂow rule, the hard-

In addition to the return mapping integration approach, the ex-

ening laws and the condition of consistency such as in the

plicit integration scheme based on the forward modiﬁed Euler

conventional methods but also the mapping rule (e.g., Eq. (14h)),

method with automatic sub-stepping and error control [12] is also

to obtain the image point and Eq. (14i) to furnish the additional

adopted to integrate the rate form of stress–strain relations in the

equation that is necessary for solving the set of equations. Thus,

present model.

Eq. (14) constitutes a system of nonlinear implicit equations that

In general, the explicit algorithm involves three parts [12]: (1)

must be solved simultaneously and iteratively using the New-

locating the yield surface intersection with the elastic trial stress

ton–Raphson procedure. Note that Eqs. (5) and (9) must be used

path to compute the portion of the given strain increment that

to obtain the locations of the bounding surface and the mapping

corresponds to the plastic deformation; (2) integrating the rate

origin (e.g., n and o). However, it can be seen from Eqs. (5) and

equations of the stress and internal variables via a second-order

(9) that n is not involved in the iterative procedure because the

forward modiﬁed Euler scheme with sub-stepping and error con-

kinematic hardening rule is discrete and related only to the previ-

trol; and (3) correcting the drift of the yield surface at the end of

ous location, the newest stress reversal and the current size of the

the successful sub-increment. Similar to the situation in the im-

bounding surface.

plicit integration, modiﬁcations are still required when applying

the scheme to the bounding surface model without a yield sur-

3.3. Stress updating procedure face. First, it is not necessary to perform the ﬁrst part to deﬁne

the portion of the plastic strain because the elastic region is re-

A full stress updating procedure is given in Table 1, where the duced to a point, which means that the total given strain incre-

superscript k refers to the local iteration number, and the ment causes the plastic ﬂow. Second, in the third part, instead of

subscripts n and n + 1 denote the previous and current load steps, correcting the stress state to the yield surface, the image stress

respectively. It should be noted that, in order to compare the point is enforced to lie on the bounding surface at the end of

performance of the two integrations at the same level of error, the successful sub-increment. The details are described in Section

the residual tolerance in the implicit scheme and the speciﬁed 4.2.

tolerance for the explicit sub-stepping integration (i.e., STOL in

Table 2) are all set to 105, which lies in the typical range of values 4.1. General formulations

suggested by Sloan et al. [12] and Zhao et al. [15].

For a given strain increment, we have

3.4. Consistent tangent operator

r_ ¼ De : e_ e ¼ De : ðe_ Kn Þ ð17aÞ

To maintain the main advantage of the implicit integration where De is the elastic stiffness matrix. By decomposing the right

scheme, i.e., the quadratic convergence of the Newton iteration, terms in Eq. (17a) into volumetric and deviatoric components, Eq.

it is necessary to use the consistent tangent operator in the (17a) can be written as

solution of the global ﬁnite element equation. Here, consistency

r_ ¼ 2Ge_ þ K e_ v I hKið2Gn s þ K n p IÞ ð17bÞ

means that the stress increment calculated by the tangent modu-

lus operating on the strain increment matches the stress increment Substituting Eq. (17b) into Eq. (7), the loading index is ex-

calculated by the integration procedure to ﬁrst-order [29]. pressed as

32 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

Table 1

Stress updating procedure of the return mapping scheme.

Step Description

1 Initialize k = 0

( pð0Þ pð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ

Dev ;nþ1 ¼ Denþ1 ¼ Knþ1 ¼ 0; pc;nþ1 ¼ pc;n ; Hnþ1 ¼ Hn

ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ

bnþ1 ¼ bn ; K p;nþ1 ¼ K p;n ; nnþ1 ¼ nn ; onþ1 ¼ on

2 Calculate the trial stress using the elastic predictor based on given Dev ;nþ1 and Denþ1

ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ

pnþ1 ¼ pn exp 1þej Dev ;nþ1 ; snþ1 ¼ sn þ 2Gnþ1 Denþ1

0

n :r_ ðkÞ

n ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ

IF cos h ¼ n k2 kr_

nþ1

ðkÞ < LTOL, which is set to 1012, THEN: re-determine nnþ1 and onþ1 with Eqs. (5) and (9); re-calculate bnþ1 by substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (3),

kn k

nþ1 2

ðkÞ

the related image stress tensor r ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ

nþ1 and internal variables (i.e., nnþ1 , K p;nþ1 and Knþ1 )

ENDIF

4 Evaluate the following residuals

8 h i

ðkÞ 1þe0 pðkÞ

>

> pnþ1 pn exp j Dev ;nþ1 Dev ;nþ1

>

>

>

> pðkÞ ðkÞ

>

>

> Dev ;nþ1 Knþ1 n ðkÞ

p;nþ1

>

>

> sðkÞ s 2GðkÞ De

> pðkÞ

>

> nþ1 n nþ1 nþ1 Denþ1

>

>

> pðkÞ

> ðkÞ

ðkÞ

>

> De Knþ1 n

> nþ1

>

s;nþ1

>

> ðkÞ 1þe pðkÞ ðkÞ

< pc;nþ1 pc;n exp kj0 Dev ;nþ1 Hnþ1

ðkÞ

Rnþ1 ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

> ðkÞ pðkÞ pðkÞ

> Hnþ1 Hn exp b 23 Denþ1 : Denþ1

>

>

>

>

>

> ðkÞ

> ðkÞ K

ðkÞ

b

ðkÞ

K

ðkÞ

>

> bnþ1 bn Knþ1 p;nþ1 ðkÞnþ1 p;nþ1

>

> Anþ1

>

>

>

> 2

>

> ^ðkÞ Þ p

ðp ^ðkÞ ðkÞ 3 ^ðkÞ ^ðkÞ

nþ1 pc;nþ1 þ 2ðM 2 a2 Þ snþ1 : snþ1

>

> nþ1

>

> qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

>

> ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ 3 ^ðkÞnþ1 ^ðkÞnþ1

:K p ^ p

p;nþ1 v n

nþ1 c;nþ1 2b

0 p;nþ1 M 2 a2

s 2 nþ1 :s nþ1

4 ðkÞ

IF kRnþ1 k2 6 Tolerance, which is set to 105, THEN EXIT

ELSE GOTO Step 5

5 ðkÞ

Solve the following linear equation to obtain dU nþ1 , i.e., the unknown increment plastic strain and internal variables

@R ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ p

ð@U Þnþ1 dU nþ1 ¼ Rnþ1 with dU ¼ fdp; ds; dDev ; dDep ; dpc ; db; dK; dK p ; dHg

6 Update the stress and internal variables

ðkþ1Þ ðkÞ ðkÞ

U nþ1 ¼ U nþ1 þ dU nþ1

Set k = k + 1, and GOTO Step 3

ENDIF

: r_

n 2Gn s : e_ þ K n p e_ v a consistency correction scheme similar to the scheme proposed

K¼ ¼ ð18Þ

Kp K p þ 2Gn s : n s þ Kðn p Þ2 by Sloan et al. [12] is adopted. This choice was made because the

consistency of the bounding surface ensures the condition of con-

sistency on the yield surface (details can be seen in Appendix A). In

4.2. Stress integration procedure with the sub-stepping algorithm Step 10, the coefﬁcients 0.9 and 1.1 act merely as safety factors,

which are adjustable to suit the speciﬁc models [12]. According

The second part of the explicit algorithm, i.e., the integration of to the suggestion by Sloan et al. [12] and Zhao et al. [15], the

the rate equations, works in the following way: once a strain incre- bounding surface tolerance (FTOL) is set to 109.

ment is given, the set of the stress increment and the increments

of the internal variables can be calculated based on the current stress 4.3. The continuum tangent operator

state. Then, update the stress and internal variables and use them to

obtain another set of increments of the stress and internal variables. The Jacobian stiffness matrix must be given and updated after

If the difference between two sets of solutions cannot satisfy the pre- the successful stress integration, and then, must be passed to the

scribed tolerance, the strain increment is subdivided automatically global ﬁnite element routine. Here, the Jacobian stiffness matrix

into a smaller sub-increment. For a given strain increment, the inte- is the continuum tangent operator and is derived following the

gration is accomplished in one or more sub-increments. The proce- same procedure in solving the classical elasto-plastic modulus,

dure of the sub-stepping integration for the anisotropic bounding i.e., substituting the consistency, ﬂow rule and hardening laws into

surface model is listed in Table 2. We deﬁne the pseudo time T the incremental relations between the stress and strain. The con-

(0 6 T 6 1) for each strain increment e_ over a time step [tn, tn+1]. At tinuum Jacobian stiffness matrix is represented as

the same time, the sub-increment is denoted by e_ s with a pseudo

time DTm (0 6 DTm 6 1), in which the subscript n and the superscript Þ ðn

ðDe : n : De Þ

Dep ¼ De ð19Þ

m denote the numbers of increments and sub-increments, respec- Kp þ n

: De : n

tively, and the superscript s refers to the sub-increment.

In Step 2 of Table 2, the total given strain increment is used to

determine the strain sub-increment. In Step 3, the unloading-load- 5. Performance of the integration schemes

ing criterion is checked to determine the locations of the bounding

surface and the mapping rule because they are different for the In this section, the generalised three-dimensional bounding

unloading and loading events. In Step 8, similar to correcting the surface plasticity model with a vanishing elastic region is imple-

drift of the stress to the yield surface in the conventional sub-step- mented into the commercial software ABAQUS. Then, the perfor-

ping algorithm, the image stress point is enforced to be on the mance of the implicit and explicit integration schemes described

bounding surface. To keep the total strain increment unchanged, above, i.e., the accuracy, stability and efﬁciency, is assessed

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 33

Table 2

Procedure of the sub-stepping integration scheme in the model.

Step Description

1 Set T ¼ 0; m ¼ 0 and DT ðmÞ ¼ 1 for a given total strain increment e_ ¼ e_ þ e3v I over a time step [tn, tn+1] with the initial stress and the internal variables

ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ

pc;nþ1 ¼ pc;n ; bnþ1 ¼ bn ; Hnþ1 ¼ Hn ; K p;nþ1 ¼ K p;n ; nnþ1 ¼ nn ; onþ1 ¼ on

s

2 e

IF T<1, THEN: e_ s ¼ e_ s þ 3v I ¼ DT ðmÞ e_ , ENDIF

3 Distinguish the unloading process from the loading event

n :r_ ðkÞ

n ðkÞ ðkÞ

IF cos h ¼ nþ1

ðkÞ

n k2 kr_

< LTOL, which is set to 1012, THEN: re-determine the locations of the bounding surface nnþ1 and the mapping origin onþ1 with Eqs. (5) and

kn k

nþ1 2

ðkÞ

ðkÞ

(9), respectively; re-calculate bnþ1 by substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (3), the related image stress tensor r ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ

nþ1 and internal variables (i.e., nnþ1 , K p;nþ1 and Knþ1 )

ENDIF

4 Calculate the ﬁrst order (j = 1) and second order (j = 2) trial stresses and the plastic strain increments

r_ j ¼ 2Gj e_ s þ K j e_ sv I hKj ið2Gj n s;j þ K j n p;j IÞ

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

e_ p;s p;j ; e_ p;s

v ;j ¼ Kj n

_s

j ¼ Kj ns;j ; eA;j ¼ 2=3e_ p;sj : ej

_ p;s

And then calculate the trial hardening parameters

ðpc;nþ1 Þj ¼ ðpc;nþ1 Þj1 expðv0 e_ p;s

ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

_s

v ;j ÞðHnþ1 Þj1 expðbeA;j Þ

8 h i ðmÞ

>

> ðpc;nþ1 Þ

> ðnðmÞ

< p;nþ1 Þ ¼ op

ðmÞ ðmÞ

þ ðnp;nþ1 Þ op

ðmÞ

ðmÞ

j

j j1 ðpc;nþ1 Þ

j1

> h i ðpðmÞ Þ

>

> ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ c;nþ1 j

: ns;nþ1 j ¼ os þ ðns;nþ1 Þj1 os ðp

ðmÞ

Þ c;nþ1 j1

p;j ; pc;j ; np;j and ns;j for the ﬁrst order (j =1) trial evaluated at the stress state r

s;j ; n m1

In the above equations, the values of Gj ; K j ; Kj ; n , while for the second order (j

=2) trial evaluated at the temporary updated stress-state rm1 þ r_ 1

5 Compute the new stress and the hardening parameters and temporarily store them

^ðmÞ ^ðmÞ

h i

ðm1Þ ðmÞ ðmÞ

rnþ1 ¼ rnþ1 þ 0:5ðr_ 1 þ r_ 2 Þ; p c;nþ1 ¼ 0:5 ðpc;nþ1 Þ1 þ ðpc;nþ1 Þ2

^ h i ^ h i

ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

n p;nþ1 ¼ 0:5 ðnp;nþ1 Þ þ ðnp;nþ1 Þ ; n s;nþ1 ¼ 0:5 ðns;nþ1 Þ1 þ ðns;nþ1 Þ2

1 2

6 Determine the relative error Rm ¼ maxðRr ; Rpc ; Rnp ; Rns Þ

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ2ﬃ

ðmÞ ðmÞ

½ðpc;nþ1 Þ ðpc;nþ1 Þ

Rr ¼ 0:5 ðr1 ^rðmÞ2 Þ:ð^rðmÞ

_ _ _ 1 r_ 2 Þ

; Rpc ¼ 0:5 1

^ðmÞ 2

2

rnþ1 :rnþ1 ðp c;nþ1 Þ

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ2ﬃ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

½ðnp;nþ1 Þ ðnp;nþ1 Þ ½ðns;nþ1 Þ ðns;nþ1 Þ :½ðns;nþ1 Þ ðns;nþ1 Þ

Rnp ¼ 0:5 ^

1

2

2

; Rns ¼ 0:5 1

^

ðmÞ

2

^

ðmÞ

1 2

ðmÞ n s;nþ1 : n s;nþ1

ð n p;nþ1 Þ

IF Rm > STOL, which is a user-speciﬁed value and equals 105, THEN the substep has failed and a smaller pseudo-time needs to be computed by means of an

extrapolation. First compute

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

q ¼ maxð0:9 STOL=Rm ; 0:1Þ

And then set

DT(m) = max (qDT, DTmin)

with DT min ¼ 103

GOTO Step 2

ENDIF

7 The substep is successful. So update the stresses and internal variables

^ ^ ^ ^

rðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

nþ1 ¼ r nþ1 ; pc;nþ1 ¼ p c;nþ1 ; np;nþ1 ¼ n p;nþ1 ns;nþ1 ¼ n s;nþ1

8 ðmÞ

Calculate the ratio b and use Eq. (8) to determine the image stress point r nþ1

A

b¼

ðpop Þ2 þ1:5=ðM 2 a2 Þ½ðsos Þðpop Þa:½ðsos Þðpop Þa

ðmÞ

IF jF nþ1 r ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

nþ1 ; pc;nþ1 nnþ1 j > FTOL, which is set to10-9, THEN: GOTO Step 9.

ENDIF

9 Calculate the corrections of the stress tensor and hardening parameter from the following equations to ensure the total strain unchanged

ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

drnþ1 ¼ dKDe : n

nþ1 ; dpc;nþ1 ¼ dKBnþ1

ðmÞ ðmÞ

with dK ¼ F nþ1 =ðK p;nþ1 þ n ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

ðmÞ

nþ1 : De : nnþ1 Þ; Bnþ1 ¼ K p;nþ1 =ðpnþ1

ðmÞ

np;nþ1 Þ

ðmÞ ðmÞ

r

Update nþ1 and pc;nþ1 as follows:

ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ ðmÞ

r r r

nþ1 ¼ nþ1 þ d nþ1 ; pc;nþ1 ¼ pc;nþ1 þ dpc;nþ1

ðmÞ ðmÞ

Re-determine nnþ1 from Eq. (5a) using the updated pc;nþ1

GOTO Step 8

10 Extrapolate the size of the next sub-step

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

q ¼ minð0:9 STOL=Rm ; 1:1Þ

If the previous step failed, limit the step size growth further by enforcing

q = min (q, 1)

Update pseudo-time and compute new step size

DT ðmþ1Þ ¼ qDT ðmÞ ; T ¼ T þ DT ðmþ1Þ

11 Minimize step size to hold the integration does not proceed beyond T = 1

DT ðmþ1Þ ¼ maxðDT ðmþ1Þ ; DT min Þ

DT ðmþ1Þ ¼ minðDT ðmþ1Þ ; 1 TÞ

Set m = m+1, GOTO Step 2

12 At T=1 exit with updated stress and internal variables

through simulating the conventional laboratory tests, including the analyses of rigid footings on saturated clay under both monotonic

triaxial shear tests, the stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests and and cyclic loading. The element types used in Sections 5.1–5.5

the strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests, and performing coupled include the 8-node trilinear displacement element and the

34 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

pore-pressure element C3D8P, and the element types used in Sec- 0.8

tion 5.6 include the 8-node biquadratic displacement element and 5 increments

Compression

50 increments

the pore-pressure element CPE8P [30].

0.4 500 increments

q /p0

0.0

The ﬁrst problem of interest involves an undrained conventional

triaxial test on a normally consolidated clay. The model parameters

reported by Stipho [31] for Kaolin clay are used and listed in Table 3, Extension

-0.4

which were also used for calibrating the constitutive models by

Liang and Ma [26] and Ling et al. [27]. Triaxial shear tests, including

compression and extension tests on both isotropically and aniso- -0.8

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

tropically consolidated specimens, are simulated using a cubical ele-

Axial strain ε1 /%

ment with the size 102 mm 102 mm 102 mm. The initial

conditions for the two cases (K0 = 1 and K0 = 0.67) are the initial void (a) Stress-strain relations

ratio e0 = 1.6 and the mean effective stress p0 = 210 kPa (e.g., r1 =

r2 = r3 = 210 kPa) or p0 = 163 kPa (e.g., r1 = 210 kPa, r1 = 210, 5 increments

0.8

r2 = r3 = 140 kPa). The element is ﬁxed at the bottom with constant 50 increments CSL

lateral pressure, and then, it is subjected to the axial strain at the top 500 incremens

with a magnitude of 10% and 10% for compression and extension, 0.4

respectively.

q /p0

The tests are performed with different strain increments to a

0.0

maximum axial strain of 10%. Fig. 2 shows the stress–strain re-

sponse, the effective stress path and the pore pressure–strain curve

of both the compression and extension tests when using the return -0.4

mapping algorithm for K0 = 1. As seen in Fig. 2, all of the simula- CSL

tions are close to each other, even at a relatively larger strain incre- -0.8

ment of 2%. This ﬁnding demonstrates the stability and accuracy of 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

the implicit integration. The behaviour of the combination of the p /p0

consistent tangent operator and the Newton–Raphson procedure (b) Effective stress path

for local iteration at a moderate strain increment of 0.2% is demon-

strated in Table 4, in which the residual norms are shown for typ- 0.8

ical load increments. This result clearly indicates that the quadratic 5 increments

50 increments Compression

rate of asymptotic convergence is achieved. 0.6 500 incremens

Fig. 3 shows the corresponding simulation of the triaxial exten-

sion test for K0 = 0.67 using the sub-stepping algorithm. Similar to

0.4

the return mapping rule, the sub-stepping integration provides a

u /p0

occurs when imposing the axial strain of 10% in 50 increments. 0.2

Extension

Fig. 4 presents the comparison between the triaxial compression

data and the simulation results for K0 = 0.67 by using the implicit 0.0

and explicit integrations with the same increment size. It is ob-

served that all of the simulations that use the implicit and explicit -0.2

algorithms generally match with the experimental data. The differ- -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Axial strain ε1 /%

ence induced by the two approaches is not signiﬁcant. However,

the sub-stepping algorithm predicts a higher shear strength at (c) Pore pressure-strain curve

the same increment size. In fact, Sołowski et al. [19] have reported

a similar phenomenon and noted that the difference between the Fig. 2. Model simulation by the return mapping in undrained triaxial tests with

variable magnitude of strain increment.

implicit and explicit schemes reaches 30% for a Gaussian integra-

tion point in a triaxial stress state.

5.2. Iso-error maps

Table 3

Values of the model parameters.

To further assess the accuracy of the two integrations in the

Parameters Kaolin Newﬁeld Marine plastic Saturated

present model, a more systematic error analysis is performed in

clay clay clay clay

the manner described by Simo and Hughes [6]. The relative error

Traditional

d deﬁned by Borja et al. [9] is expressed as

e0 1.1 0.62 2.422 0.929

m 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.30 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Me 0.846 0.83 1.456 1.46

ðr r Þ : ðr r Þ

d¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 100% ð20Þ

Mc 1.178 1.14 1.560 1.56 r : r

j 0.05 0.0108 0.057 0.17

k 0.14 0.0508 0.349 0.05 where r is the result obtained by applying the algorithms; and r⁄ is

Hardening the exact solution that corresponds to the speciﬁed strain incre-

c 2 1.5 2 2 ment, which decreases as it produces no signiﬁcant change in the

fr – 3.4 2 5 results.

g 120 100 100

Here, iso-error maps are established by ﬁrst constructing a

b – 0.005 –

stress state after isotropical consolidation for Kaolin clay at an

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 35

Table 4 1.0

Iteration process of the return mapping integration (Kaolin clay, K0 = 1, 50

increments): residual norms for typical load increments at integration point 3.

q /p0

2 3.113E+1 2.9041E+2 2.8171E+2 2.8151E+2

3 3.629E1 3.7213E+0 3.6824E+0 3.6815E+0 0.6

4 2.684E3 7.1423E2 7.0854E2 7.0840E2

5 4.137E6 1.3622E4 1.3574E4 1.3572E4 Experimental data

6 – 4.9551E7 4.9825E7 4.9829E7 0.4 500 increments (Explicit)

500 increments (Implicit)

0.2

-0.8 0 2 4 6 8 10

Axial strain ε1 /%

-0.6

(a) Stress-strain relations

-0.4

q /p0

-0.2 0.8

500 increments (Explicit)

100 increments 500 increments (Implicit)

0.0

250 increments 0.6

500 increments

q /p0

0.2

0.4

0.4

K0 line

0 2 4 6 8 10 0.2

Axial strain ε1 /%

(a) Stress-strain relations 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

p /p0

-0.8

(b) Effective stress path

-0.6

Fig. 4. Comparison between the predicted results and experimental data [31].

-0.4

q /p0

-0.2 the result from Potts and Ganendra [17], in which the errors from

both stress point algorithms increase ﬁrst and then decrease with

0.0 100 increments

250 increments

the strain increment size. The possible reason is that a relatively

0.2 500 increments large-scale strain increment was adopted by Potts and Ganendra.

It is also observed that the difference in accuracy for the two inte-

0.4 grations is not signiﬁcant. The sub-stepping algorithm shows

slightly better accuracy for smaller increment sizes but faster dete-

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

rioration for larger increment sizes.

p /p0

(b) Effective stress path

5.3. Stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests

Fig. 3. Model simulation by the sub-stepping in undrained triaxial tests with

variable magnitude of strain increment. In this section, the performance of the two integrations for

stress-controlled cyclic behaviours is investigated. Values of the

model constants are those that are appropriate for prediction of

element level, which is described in Section 5.1, then applying the the Newﬁeld clay, as listed in Table 3. The specimen is hydrostat-

axial strain at a magnitude of 104 in the direction of the r1 axis ically consolidated with the conﬁning pressure p0 = 400 kPa.

(i.e., the z-axis) to bring the soil element into the triaxial compres- The stress–strain response and the stress path of the Newﬁeld

sion state and then to impose a sequence of speciﬁed strain incre- clay, which is subjected to one-way cyclic axial loading with a

ments by simultaneously applying displacements in the directions magnitude of 150 kPa by using the implicit integration scheme,

of r1 and r2 (i.e., the x-axis). For each strain probe, the exact solu- are presented in Fig. 7. It is found that the stress path almost be-

tion is obtained by dividing the desired displacement increment comes stable and the accumulation rate of the plastic strains de-

into 1000 sub-increments. The model constants are listed in Table creases. This ﬁnding means that the cyclic shakedown is

3. In the sub-stepping integration, the local stress tolerance (STOL) obtained at the cyclic stress level. The simulation results using

and the bounding surface tolerance (FTOL) are set to 105 and 109, the increment sizes of Dq = 1.5 kPa and Dq = 0.75 kPa are close

respectively. each other. Again, the accuracy and stability of the return mapping

Figs. 5 and 6 present the iso-error maps for the loading from the algorithm are veriﬁed in predicting the cyclic behaviour of the sat-

initial isotropic stress state using the return mapping and sub- urated clay. Similar analysis is also conducted by using the sub-

stepping algorithms, respectively. It is observed that, in the strain stepping algorithm.

increment range of 0–1%, the relative error becomes larger with To investigate the efﬁciency of the two integration algorithms,

an increasing strain increment both for the return mapping and more simulation of the stress-controlled cyclic loading at different

the sub-stepping algorithms. This result does not coincide with cyclic levels with various stress increments is performed. The CPU

36 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

1.0 180

Δq = 1.5 kPa

0 Δq = 0.75 kPa

150

0.8 1.50

2.25

3.00

120

4.50

0.6

6.00 90

Δεz /%

7.50

0.4 9.00 60

10.5

12.0

30

0.2

0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Axial strain ε1 /%

180

Δq = 1.5 kPa

150 Δq = 0.75 kPa

1.0

120

0

0.8 1.25

90

1.88

2.50

0.6 60

3.75

Δεz /%

5.00

6.25

30

0.4

7.50

8.75 0

0.2 300 325 350 375 400

10.0

Volumetric stress p /kPa

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Δεx /% Fig. 7. Simulations of stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests using the return

mapping integration scheme.

Fig. 6. Iso-error map from the sub-stepping integration scheme.

Table 5

Comparison of the efﬁciency of the two integration schemes in stress-controlled

time required for each analysis is summarised in Table 5, in which cyclic triaxial tests.

NC means ‘‘not convergent’’. It is observed that predicting the Case qd (kPa) Increments Return mapping Sub-stepping

cyclic behaviour of saturated clay by using the sub-stepping CPU time (s) CPU time (s)

integration requires less CPU time than by using the return 1 70 17,000 1167.4 1077.6

mapping integration. At a relatively large stress increment size, the 2 70 1700 65.9 59.1

sub-stepping integration cannot make itself convergent. These 3 100 17,000 1116.1 1058.3

conclusions are consistent with the study by Manzari and 4 100 1700 63.4 60.4

5 150 3400 131.2 122.5

Prachathananukit [18], in which a two-surface model for 6 150 1700 62.4 NC

predicting the monotonic behaviour of sands was adopted. 7 200 3400 131.2 121.6

8 200 1700 61.7 NC

Similar to the simulation of the stress-controlled cyclic loading,

The ﬁnite element model described in Section 5.3 is also used to another set of strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests using the two

perform a strain-controlled cyclic loading at a level of e1d = ±1.0%. integration schemes is conducted to further investigate the efﬁ-

To demonstrate the application of the model to the boundary value ciency. To make the sub-stepping scheme convergent, the strain

problems, the ﬁnite element model is meshed into 8 elements. Val- increments adopted here are relatively small. The CPU time re-

ues of the model constants are those that are appropriate for pre- quired for each analysis is listed in Table 6. Similarly, it is observed

diction of the marine plastic clay, as listed in Table 3. The specimen that predicting the cyclic behaviour of soils that use the sub-step-

is hydrostatically consolidated with the conﬁning pressure ping integration requires less CPU time than using the return map-

p0 = 210 kPa. ping scheme.

The simulation of the marine plastic clay using the sub-stepping

scheme at different increment sizes is presented in Figs. 8 and 9. It 5.5. FEM analysis of a square footing under monotonic loading

is observed from Fig. 8 that the stress–strain relations move to-

ward the strain axis, and the stiffness degradation occurs from The collapse of a rigid footing is a well-known problem for test-

the second load cycle. Comparing the results at different increment ing stress integration. To demonstrate the application of the model

sizes, the accuracy of the sub-stepping integration scheme can be with the two integration schemes to the bounding value problems,

further conﬁrmed. a ﬁnite element coupled analysis of a rigid square footing on the

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 37

Deviatoric stress q /kPa

100 100

50 50

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 90 120 150 180 210

Axial strain ε1 /% Volumetric stress p /kPa

(a) (a)

Deviatoric stress q /kPa

100 100

50 50

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 90 120 150 180 210

Axial strain ε1 /% Volumetric stress p/ kPa

(b) (b)

Fig. 9. The predicted stress path for strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests using the

Fig. 8. The predicted stress–strain relations for strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests

sub-stepping algorithm.

using the sub-stepping algorithm.

Kaolin clay is performed. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the ﬁnite element Table 6

model is composed of 7220 elements and 8400 nodes. Dimensions Comparison of the efﬁciency of the two integration schemes in strain-controlled

of the soil and the footing are 10 m 10 m 10 m and 0.68 m cyclic triaxial tests.

0.68 m, respectively. The lateral boundaries of the soil are ﬁxed Case e1d (%) Increments Return mapping Sub-stepping

in both the X and Y directions but are allowed to move in the Z CPU time (s) CPU time (s)

direction, and the bottom boundary is locked in all directions. 1 0.3 6400 323.5 305.5

The model constants of the soil are listed in Table 3. One additional 2 0.3 3200 156.3 130.4

parameter in the coupled analysis is the permeability kp. In the 3 0.5 6400 357.4 319.2

4 0.5 3200 150.5 131.9

present work, its value is set to 109 m/s, which is a typical value

5 1.0 16,500 1038 968.7

suggested by Potts and Zdravkovic [32] in the coupled consolida- 6 1.0 8250 409.1 342.7

tion ﬁnite element analysis. Considering that the footing is re- 7 1.5 6400 362 332.1

garded as a rigid body, the displacement increments are actually 8 1.5 3200 164.6 131.4

applied at the soil boundaries that are in contact with the footing.

To avoid any interface elements in the 3D ﬁnite element analysis,

the soil-footing interface is treated as completely smooth with free

horizontal displacements at the contact nodes. where Dw is the equivalent footing pressure applied over the time

Note that most of the available analyses on the bearing capacity period t; and cw is the unit weight of water. Sheng et al. [37] consid-

of the square footing are for the clay with a uniform strength and ered that the soil behaves essentially in an undrained manner when

under undrained conditions [33–36]. To compare them, two spe- the loading rate x equals 104. Thus, in the present work, the loading

cial steps in the present analysis are necessary. First, in the geostat- rate x is set to 105. In ABAQUS, the option of automatic time incre-

ic step, the soil is hydrostatically consolidated under a pressure of menting is open because the ﬁxed increments could prevent the

110 kPa to obtain clay with a uniform strength. In the bounding solution from converging. As a result, the numbers of increments

surface plasticity model, which is based on critical state theory, in the explicit and implicit integration schemes are usually differ-

for a given group of critical state parameters (j; k; M), the initial ent. In a coupled analysis, the pore pressure tolerance (i.e., UTOL

undrained strength of saturated clay after consolidation is deter- in ABAQUS), which speciﬁes the allowable pore pressure change

mined by the initial size of the bounding surface (i.e., the pre-con- per increment, has a greater inﬂuence on the global convergence

solidation pressure pc). Second, in the coupled analysis step, fast than the displacement tolerance. In the present work, by trial and

loading is necessary to retain an undrained condition. Here, the error, tolerances in the pore pressure and in the displacement are

loading rate deﬁned by Sheng et al. [37] is adopted set to 5 kPa and 105, respectively.

Dw=t The normalised load–displacement curves by using the two

x¼ ð21Þ integration schemes are presented in Fig. 11. It can be observed

kp cw

that each of the two algorithms produces a reasonable analysis

38 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

Table 8

Comparison of the efﬁciency of the two integration schemes for the square footing

under monotonic loading.

Return mapping 1489 16581

Sub-stepping 1673 14335

Fig. 10. Finite element model used in simulating the square footing under

monotonic loading.

7.50

6.25

5.00

Fig. 12. Finite element model used in simulating the strip footing under cyclic

P/(Asu )

3.75 loading.

2.50

Εxplicit the other results except for Skempton’s expression. The CPU usage

1.25 Ιmplicit

of the analysis by using the two integrations is listed in Table 8.

0.00 Again, it is found that the sub-stepping integration is more efﬁcient

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 than the implicit integration at the speciﬁed increment size.

Centriod displacement /m

Fig. 11. Normalized load–displacement response of the rigid square footing on 5.6. FEM analysis of a strip footing under long-term cyclic loading

normally consolidated Kaolin clay.

onstrate the capability of the model in solving the boundary value

of the footing problem. At the same time, the departure between problems that involve long-term cyclic loading. In the test, a strip

them is higher than that at the element level (see Fig. 4). This ﬁnd- foundation with the size of 7.61 cm 22.9 cm 3.81 cm was sup-

ing could be attributed to the difference in the number of incre- ported by saturated clay and subjected to a static load of 17.4 kPa,

ments in the two integrations. Note that the bearing capacity which superimposed a cyclic load of 2.54 kPa. The model parame-

factor N = P/(Asu) can be determined from the curve at the point ters are listed in Table 3. Details of the cyclic test can be found in

where it becomes almost linear [38]. Then, the values of N from the literature [39].

the Skempton’s expression, other available analytical and numeri- Plane strain conditions are assumed, and a symmetrical 2D ﬁ-

cal solutions for rigid square footings and the present integration nite element model is established, as illustrated in Fig. 12. Note

schemes are compared in Table 7. The bearing capacity of the foot- that the soil is under its own weight and an additional surcharge

ing predicted by the sub-stepping algorithm is slightly larger than of 19 kPa, through which the strength of the clay varies with depth.

Table 7

Comparison of the bearing capacity factor of the square footing.

Skempton [32] Empirical 6.17

Shield and Drucker [33] Upper bound 5.71

Michalowski and Dawson [34] Finite difference 5.43

Gourvenec et al. [35] Finite element (Tresca soil model) 5.56

Present study Finite element (BSPa model) Return mapping 5.61

Sub-stepping 6.02

a

Bounding surface plasticity.

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 39

model with a vanishing elastic region, and the performance is eval-

0.05

Experimental data[39] uated both at the soil element level and in solving boundary value

Implicit problems. For this reason, there is no explicit current yield surface

0.10

Explicit

in the bounding surface model to which the conventional implicit

Settlement /cm

0.15 algorithm returns the stress state back or to which the sub-step-

0.20 ping integration corrects the drift of the stress state; several mod-

iﬁcations have been made for both of these integration schemes.

0.25 First, the image stress point is mapped or corrected to the bound-

0.30

ing surface instead of mapping back or correcting the stress state to

the yield surface. Second, the unloading–loading criterion is

0.35 checked to determine the image stress point rather than checking

0 50 100 150 200

the yield criterion after giving the trial stress state in a conven-

Number of cycles tional way.

To assess the performance of the integration algorithms in the

Fig. 13. The settlement accumulation of the strip footing under cyclic loading.

present model, a series of numerical simulations of conventional

triaxial tests, stress-controlled and strain-controlled cyclic triaxial

tests as well as boundary value problems that involve monotonic

20

and cyclic bearing behaviours of rigid footings on normally consol-

idated saturated clay were conducted. The results indicate that

there is no signiﬁcant difference in the accuracy between the im-

Load per unit area /kPa

the explicit integration shows a higher efﬁciency. For relatively lar-

ger increment sizes, the implicit return mapping algorithm shows

16 better accuracy and convergence, while the sub-stepping suffers

the convergence problem that is attributed to the continuum tan-

gent matrix being adopted. Furthermore, with the tolerance used

14

in the present model, the soil strength and the bearing behaviour

of the footing predicted by the sub-stepping algorithm are slightly

0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

larger than those by the return mapping algorithm. The model is a

Settlement /cm representative of a series of bounding surface models that have

typical characteristics, including the isotropic and kinematic hard-

Fig. 14. The cyclic load–settlement curve calculated by the implicit integration. ening, pressure dependency of the elastic bulk and shear moduli,

and a rotational bounding surface to capture complex but impor-

tant cyclic behaviours of soils, such as the cyclic shakedown and

Table 9 degradation. The present work could provide a guide for similar at-

Comparison of the efﬁciency of the two integration

tempts in this class of bounding surface plasticity models.

schemes for the strip footing under cyclic loading.

Acknowledgments

Return mapping 1219.5

Sub-stepping 1163.2

Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation

of China (Grant nos. 50979070 and 51179124) is gratefully

The footing is regarded as a rigid body and is tied to the soil acknowledged.

elements.

Fig. 13 shows the settlement accumulation with the number of

Appendix A. Consistency condition on the current stress point

loading cycles. It is observed that the simulation results from both

the implicit and explicit integrations are generally coincident with

As shown in Fig. A1, passing the current stress point r and the

the experimental data. At the initial loading stage, the displace-

homological centre (i.e., the mapping origin o), there is a

ment accumulates rapidly. Then, the rate of accumulation

dependent surface fm implied in the model, which is homologous

decreases with the number of cycles until it is almost zero, which

to the bounding surface Fm.

indicates that the cyclic shakedown has been approached. The cyc-

lic load–settlement curve from the implicit scheme is demon-

strated in Fig. 14, which shows that the hysteresis loop is q

approximately closed at the state of cyclic shakedown. The CPU

CSL σ Fm

usage by the two integrations is listed in Table 9. In the simulation,

a ﬁxed load increment is adopted and a repeated attempt is made σ fm

Table 9 that for the cyclic bearing behaviour of the strip footing,

ξ

the implicit return mapping integration is more time-consuming

π o

than the sub-stepping integration. o

p

6. Conclusions

CSL

In the present work, two stress point integration algorithms, i.e.,

the implicit return mapping and the explicit sub-stepping Fig. A1. The condition of consistency on the surface fm implied in the model.

40 C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41

From the mapping rule and geometric similarity between the with

two surfaces, we have:

e1 ¼ 2C 4 pc 3CC 6 ; e2 ¼ 3Cbs;

¼ op þ bðp op Þ

p np ¼ op þ bðpp op Þ e3 ¼ C 4 ; e4 ¼ ð2C 4 pc 3CC 6 ÞC 5 þ 3CC 10 ðB10Þ

and ðA1Þ

s ¼ os þ bðs os Þ ns ¼ os þ bðps os Þ

From Eq. (14i), we obtain

where (pp, ps) denotes the corresponding endpoint of fm. f1 Dp þ f 2 : Ds þ f3 Dpc þ f4 Db þ f6 DK p ¼ 0 ðB11Þ

Substituting Eq. (A1) into the formation of the bounding surface

(i.e., Eq. (3)), obtain with

8

< f1 ¼ Z 0 pc n

p b þ 2M 2 CC 4 bpc v0 þ 3CC 4 C 6 bpc bq^ ; f 2 ¼ 3CC 4 bpc v0 a þ 3CC 4 bpc bq^ ^s

ðB12Þ

: f ¼ ðZ C n p C 5 þ CC 4 pc v0 ð2M2 C 5 3C 1 Þ þ 3CC 4 C 9 pc bq^ ; f6 ¼ 1

3 0 4 p C 4 pc v0 Þ; f4 ¼ Z 0 pc n

( 2

F m ¼ b fm ¼ 0 In the above equations, we deﬁne

fm ¼ ðp pp Þ2 ðp pp Þ pbc þ 2ðM23a2 Þ ½s ps ðp pp Þa : ½s ps ðp pp Þa ¼ 0 8

> 1 K p bK p K r

ðA2Þ > C ¼ M2 a2 ;C 1 ¼ ðs os Þa;C 2 ¼ A ;C 3 ¼ A ½1 b þ bðb 1Þ

>

>

>

>

< C4 ¼ p np ;C 5 ¼ p op ;C 6 ¼ ^s : a;C 7 ¼ np op ;C 8 ¼ ~n : a;C 9 ¼ ^s : ~s

By taking the time-derivative of Fm, the following expression is

derived: > C 10 ¼ ^s : ðs os Þ; n~ ¼ ðns os Þ ðnp op Þa; ~s ¼ ðs os Þ ðp op Þa

>

>

>

> qﬃﬃ

>

: Z ¼ v 2bC q ; q

F_ m ¼ b f_ m þ 2bfm b_ ¼ 0

2

ðA3Þ 0 0 p

n

¼ 32^s : ^s

condition of consistency on Fm ensures the condition of consistency

From Eqs. B1, B3, B5, B7, and B9, we have

on fm, which the current stress state lies on. It should be clariﬁed

that fm is actually implied in the model, and its evolution is totally 2 32 3 2 3

a1 aT2 a3 a4 a5 0 Dp Dev

determined by the bounding surface and the current stress state. 6 76

6 b1 b2 I T 0 b4 b5 0 76 Ds 7 6

7 6 De 7

7

6 76 7 6 7

6 c1 cT2 c3 0 0 7 2bpc

0 76 Dpc 7 6 pc v0 Dev 3De De : De 7

p

Appendix B. Consistent tangent operator 6

6 T 76

6

7¼6

7 6

A 7

7

6 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 7 Db 7 6 0

6 76 7

From Eq. (14a), we obtain 6 76 7 6 7

4 e1 eT2 e3 e4 0 0 54 DK 5 4 0 5

a1 Dp þ a2 : Ds þ a3 Dpc þ a4 Db þ a5 DK ¼ Dev ðB1Þ f1 f2

T

f3 f4 0 f6 D K p 0

with ðB14Þ

a1 ¼ 2CM 2 Kb þ ; a2 ¼ 3C aKb; a3 ¼ K; a4

K solving

@ Dpknþ1

and

@ Dsknþ1

.

2 @ Deknþ1 @ Deknþ1

p

¼ KCð2M C 5 3C 1 Þ; a5 ¼ n ðB2Þ

From Eq. (14c), we obtain References

b1 Dp þ b2 Ds þ b4 Db þ b5 DK ¼ De ðB3Þ [1] Singh SP, Ramaswamy SV. Response of plate anchors to sustained-cyclic

loading. Indian Geotech J 2002;32(2):161–72.

with [2] Chen W, Randolph MF. Uplift capacity of suction caissons under sustained and

cyclic loading in soft clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(11):1352–63.

1

b1 ¼ 3C aKb; b2 ¼ 3C Kb þ ; b4 ¼ 3C Kes ; b5 ¼ n

s ðB4Þ [3] Anderson KH. Bearing capacity under cyclic loading-offshore, along the coast,

2G and on land. Can Geotech J 2009;46:513–35.

[4] Simo JC, Taylor RL. Consistent tangent operators for rate-independent elasto-

From Eq. (14e), we obtain plasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1985;48:101–18.

[5] Simo JC, Taylor RL. Return mapping algorithm for plane stress elasto-plasticity.

2 Dep

c1 Dp þ c2 : Ds þ c3 Dpc ¼ pc v0 Dev bpc De ðB5Þ Int J Numer Methods Eng 1986;22:649–70.

3 DeA [6] Simo JC, Hughes T. Computational inelasticity: interdisciplinary applied

mathematics series. Springer; 2000.

with [7] Manzari TM, Noor MA. On implicit integration of bounding surface plasticity

models. Comput Struct 1997;63:385–95.

pc v0 bp Dep [8] Rouainia M, Wood DM. Implicit numerical integration for a kinematic

c1 ¼ ; c2 ¼ c ; c3 ¼ 1 ðB6Þ

K 3G DeA hardening soil plasticity model. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2001;25:

1305–25.

From Eq. (14g), we obtain [9] Borja RI, Lin CH, Montans FJ. Cam-clay plasticity. Part IV: implicit integration of

anisotropic bounding surface model with nonlinear hyper-elasticity and

d1 Dp þ d2 : Ds þ d3 Dpc þ d4 Db þ d5 DK þ d6 DK p ¼ 0 ðB7Þ ellipsoidal loading function. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2001;190:

3293–323.

with [10] Tamagnini C, Castellanza R, Nova R. A generalized backward Euler algorithm

( for the numerical integration of an isotropic hardening elastoplastic model for

d1 ¼ KAC 2 ð2C 7 þ pc 3CC 8 Þ; d2 ¼ 3C KAC2 ~n; d3 ¼ KAC 2 C 5 mechanical and chemical degradation of bonded geo-materials. Int J Numer

ðc1Þ

ðB8Þ Anal Meth Geomech 2002;26:963–1004.

d4 ¼ KA K p þ 1 þ KA cbqðb 1Þ ; d5 ¼ C 2 ; d6 ¼ C 3 [11] Sloan SW. Substepping scheme for numerical integration of elastoplastic

stress-strain relations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1987;24:893–911.

From Eq. (14h), we obtain [12] Sloan SW, Abbo AJ, Sheng DC. Reﬁned explicit integration of elastoplastic

models with automatic error control. Eng Comput 2001;18(1/2):121–54.

e1 Dp þ e2 : Ds þ e3 Dpc þ e4 Db ¼ 0 ðB9Þ [13] Abbo AJ, Sloan SW. An automatic load stepping algorithm with error control.

Int J Numer Methods Eng 1996;39:1737–59.

C. Hu, H. Liu / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 27–41 41

[14] Sheng DC, Sloan SW. Loading stepping schemes for critical state models. Int J [27] Ling HI, Yue D, Kaliakin VN, Themelis NJ. Anisotropic elasto-plastic

Numer Methods Eng 2001;50:67–93. bounding surface model for cohesive soils. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2002;129(7):

[15] Zhao J, Sheng D, Rouainia M, Sloan SW. Explicit stress integration of complex 748–58.

soil models. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2005;29:1209–29. [28] Huang MS, Liu YH, Sheng DC. Simulation of yielding and stress-strain behavior

[16] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Explicit integration of of shanghai soft clay. Comput Geotech 2011;38:341–53.

bounding surface model for the analysis of earthquake soil liquefaction. Int J [29] Oh S, Lee SR. Formulation of implicit stress integration and consistent tangent

Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2009;34(15):1586–614. modulus for an anisotropic hardenging constitutive model. Comput Methods

[17] Potts D, Ganendra D. An evaluation of substepping and implicit stress point Appl Mech Eng 2001;191:255–72.

algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1994;119:341–54. [30] Hibbit, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc (HKS). ABAQUS users’ manual, version 6.7.1;

[18] Manzari MT, Prachathananukit R. On integration of cyclic soil plasticity model. 2009.

Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2001;25(6):525–49. [31] Stipho ASA. Experimental and theoretical investigation of the behavior of

[19] Sołowski WT, Hofmann M, Hofstetter G, Sheng DC, Sloan SW. A comparative ansiotropically consolidated kaolin. PhD Thesis, Univ College Cardiff, UK; 1978.

study of stress integration methods for the Barcelona Basic Model. Comput [32] Potts DM, Zdravkovic L. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering:

Geotech 2012;44:22–33. theory & application. Thomas Telford Publisher; 2001.

[20] Li T, Meissner H. Two-surface plasticity model for cyclic undrained behavior of [33] Skempton AW. The bearing capacity of clays. In: Proc. building and research

clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2002;128(7):613–26. congress, vol. 1, London; 1951. p. 180–9.

[21] Mroz Z, Norris VA, Zienkiewicz OC. An anisotropic hardening model for soils [34] Shield RT, Drucker DC. The application of limit analysis to punch indentation

and its application to cyclic loading. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech problems. J Appl Mech 1953;20:453–60.

1978;2(3):203–21. [35] Michalowski RL, Dawson EM. Three-dimensional analysis of limit loads on

[22] Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E. Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and Mohr-Coulomb soil, vol. 1. Poland: Foundations of Civil and Environmental

post-liquefaction site response. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2002;22(4):259–71. Engineering, Poznan University of Technology Press; 2002. p. 137–47.

[23] Hu C, Liu HX, Huang W. Anisotropic bounding-surface plasticity model for the [36] Gourvenec S, Randolph MF, Kingsnorth O. Undrained bearing capacity

cyclic shakedown and degradation of saturated clay. Comput Geotech of square and rectangular footings. Int J Geomech, ASCE 2006;6(3):

2012;44:34–47. 147–57.

[24] Dafalias YF. An anisotropic critical state clay plasticity model. Mech Res [37] Sheng DC, Sloan SW, Yu HS. Aspects of ﬁnite elment implementation of critical

Commun 1986;13:341–7. state models. Cmput Mech 2000;26:185–96.

[25] Anandarajah A, Dafalias YF. Bounding surface plasticity. III: Application to [38] Vesic AS. Analysis of ultimate loads on shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Found

anisotropic cohensive soils. J Eng Mech, ASCE 1986;112(12):1292–318. Division, ASCE 1973;99:45–73.

[26] Liang RY, Ma F. Anisotropic plasticity model for undrained cyclic behavior of [39] Das BM, Shin EC. Laboratory model tests for cyclic load-induced settlement of

clays. II: Veriﬁcation. J Geotech Eng 1992;118(2):246–65. a strip foundation on a clayey soil. Geotech Geol Eng 1996;4:213–25.

- FENET Budapest Feb2005 DLE DesignByAnalysis MackenzieUploaded byPedro Dominguez Dominguez
- DocumentUploaded bysunilsharma853380
- Lecture 3Uploaded byerpandian
- 2Uploaded byjakisgosc
- 19980002525 (1)Uploaded byPimpirola
- 223314spring 2001Uploaded bycombatps1
- Finite Element MethodUploaded bynarutomovie
- PHY11 Lesson 5 Elasticity.pptxUploaded byCharmane Lizette Tarcena
- thick_yield.pdfUploaded byMahmoud Samir Mahmoud
- ASCE 41Uploaded byAhmed Aly
- Nonlinear FE Analysis 2009 1Uploaded byVenkata Narayana
- AbaqusExplicit Honeycomb Material ModelUploaded byadiraju07
- 52Uploaded byVivek_subzero
- IJSS SharmaUploaded byKajal Khan
- HW7 SolutionUploaded bybumbanirban
- elasticity.pdfUploaded byArun Sharma
- module4-plastictheory-rajeshsir-140806043958-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byEmily Shum
- 65_ftpUploaded bysanh137
- 02-05ChapGere.pdfUploaded byxolar2002
- 11.Mechanical Properties of MaterialsUploaded byaderanc
- IBP1574_12Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- orca_share_media1476437593914.pdfUploaded bychetan
- 11.Mechanical Properties of MaterialsUploaded byHarish Lakshminarayanan
- Strenght HoleUploaded byAugusto Tinoco Padaui
- Mechanical Properties of SolidsUploaded bySteveMathewKuruvilla
- Strain EnergyUploaded byAGEGTAM
- Limit condition for anisotropic materials with asymmetric elastic range, J. Ostrowska-Maciejewska, R.B.Pecherski, P. SzeptynskiUploaded byRyszard B. Pecherski
- Correlation SlumpUploaded byt_bouziani
- Tutorial 03 SupportUploaded byrgpokplrgplhrtlthrnn
- [50]Uploaded byMonika Topel

- Verificat or iUploaded byPetre Dragomir
- 3. Profile TransversaleUploaded byIonut Patras
- Plan Situatie 2Uploaded byIonut Patras
- 180120 - Memoriu PT RezistentaUploaded byIonut Patras
- R60 PLAN ARMARE INFERIOARA PLACA PESTE ETAJ 7 (+28.69).pdfUploaded byIonut Patras
- ExpertiUploaded byMonica Stan
- R.I. 246 - BAD22.4 - 23.08.2018.xlsUploaded byIonut Patras
- Rf12 Plan Armare Inferioara Placa Peste SubsolUploaded byIonut Patras
- 2.Profil Long DrumUploaded byIonut Patras
- CS CladireUploaded byIonut Patras
- Plan Situatie 3Uploaded byIonut Patras
- Program Cursuri de Instruire Rolab 2018Uploaded byIonut Patras
- (2) Proiect Mixturi Asfaltice PART 2Uploaded byAnna Maria
- Orientare Diploma Trofeu 10 Buc.Uploaded byIonut Patras
- Plan Situatie 2.pdfUploaded byIonut Patras
- oferte apartamente.docUploaded byIonut Patras
- oferte chirie Dristor.docUploaded byIonut Patras
- oferte chirie Dristor.docUploaded byIonut Patras
- DESCRIEREA ACTIVITATILORUploaded byIonut Patras
- SR EN 10045-1-93-B.pdfUploaded byIonut Patras
- HG 28-2008 Continut Cadru SFUploaded byMarian
- Calcule ApartamentUploaded byIonut Patras
- ASME V NDTUploaded byzagl660802
- R60 PLAN ARMARE INFERIOARA PLACA PESTE ETAJ 7 (+28.69).pdfUploaded byIonut Patras
- standarde 2017Uploaded byAndreea Felicia Maftei
- c83_75_trasarea constructiilorUploaded bycorinamateas
- Proiect HGUploaded byMarian
- Norme ice Din 1996Uploaded byMladin Maria
- RAPORT EVALUARE-ap Dristor-proiect G-listat.docUploaded byIonut Patras
- hg_525 RGUUploaded bylazargeorgeus

- 183 (1)Uploaded byMridul Pant
- Circular Water Tank With Domcal Top and BaseUploaded bySourav Chandra
- Bistable BeamsUploaded byM.J.W.
- Review of FatigueUploaded bypankaj
- Stress Strain CurveUploaded byAnonymous D2GXdE
- Zn kompoziti.pdfUploaded bysea66
- crystal17.pdfUploaded byYhomn Acer
- Design of Monorail BeamUploaded byMahata Priyabrata
- Ross, Whit Taker, Little - Design of Submarine Pressure Hulls to Withstand Buckling Under External Hydro Static PressureUploaded byLucas Yiew
- Shear Direct WaniUploaded bynurizawani89
- MMB 312 - 2016_Lecture 1 - IntroductionUploaded byDavid Olorato Ngwako
- Zytel Prod Prop 02 2009Uploaded byAdam Gordon
- lifetime-oriented_structural_design_concepts.pdfUploaded bysdagnihotri
- HDD Calculation (Template)Uploaded bybebas_amarah
- ASTM D1037-12 - Evaluating Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel MaterialsUploaded byDiego De Castro Sales
- MIT4_440s09_exam01_2007Uploaded byAmanda Smith
- 46440919 Calculations of Machine DesignUploaded bybalakalees
- A0412_03-0109.pdfUploaded byIJMER
- Sag TensionCalcs OHL Tutorial 14Jan2013Uploaded byEduardo777_777
- HW Chapter 5 Section 1Uploaded byDwi
- Strain Plastics CompositesUploaded byRLE2014
- Inconsistent wear behaviour of cryotreated tool steels-role of mode and mechanism.pdfUploaded byBinh Thanh Le
- Mme 0247Uploaded bysierthin
- DIN 17100Uploaded byyhsza
- FAT-108Uploaded byRubén Pizarro
- Lec 1 Stresses in Solid BodyUploaded byumair
- IFS Civil Engineering 2014 Part 1Uploaded byrfvz6s
- Chapter5.4 Unsymmetrical BeamsUploaded byMaryanne Rempillo Maraña
- Bond strength of reinforcement in splices in beams.pdfUploaded byVandhiyan Radhakrishnan
- Polymer practice problemsUploaded byHashim Raza Siyal