Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488 www.elsevier.

com/locate/cma

Implicit integration of plasticity models for granular materials

Aylin Ahadi
b

a,*

, Steen Krenk

a Division of Mechanics, Lund University, Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

Received 9 July 2002; received in revised form 14 April 2003; accepted 23 April 2003

Abstract A stress integration algorithm for granular materials based on fully implicit integration with explicit updating is presented. In the implicit method the solution makes use of the gradient to the potential surface at the nal stress state which is unknown. The nal stress and hardening parameters are determined solving the non-linear equations iteratively so that the stress increment fullls the consistency condition. The integration algorithm is applicable for models depending on all the three stress invariants and it is applied to a characteristic state model for granular material. Since tensile stresses are not supported the functions and their derivatives are not representative outside the compressive octant of the principal stress space. The elastic predictor is therefore preconditioned in order to ensure that the rst predictor is within the valid region. Capability and robustness of the integration algorithm are illustrated by simulating both drained and undrained triaxial tests on sand. The algorithm is developed in a standard format which can be implemented in several general purpose nite element codes. It has been implemented as an ABAQUS subroutine, and a traditional geotechnical problem of a exible strip footing resting on a surface of sand is investigated in order to demonstrate the global accuracy and stability of the numerical solution. 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Integration algorithm; Granular materials; FE implementation; Footing analysis; Large strains

1. Introduction Modeling the behaviour of granular materials under various loading conditions is technically important and theoretically challenging. Recent advances in computational techniques have made it possible to solve advanced geotechnical engineering problems numerically using the nite element method. The availability of powerful computers enables engineers to perform a three-dimensional nite element analysis of large scale boundary value problems using realistic constitutive models. The overall accuracy of the analysis is directly aected by the precision of the numerical algorithm used to integrate the constitutive equations. This creates a need of developing accurate and robust constitutive drivers that can easily be implemented in nite element codes.

Corresponding author. E-mail address: aylin.ahadi@mek.lth.se (A. Ahadi).

0045-7825/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0045-7825(03)00354-2

3472

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

In this paper a stress integration algorithm based on fully implicit integration with explicit updating is presented. The algorithm is applied to a non-associated plasticity model for granular materials developed in [1]. The model is a three-dimensional generalization of the CamClay model, introducing dilation before failure, dependence on the third stress invariant and a consistent limitation to compressive stresses. The CamClay model based on the critical state concept developed in [2] is perhaps the most widely used model today for geotechnical analyses. It is formulated in the two-dimensional stress space with mean stress p and maximum shear stress 1q and includes isotropic hardening only. 2 The CamClay model has been implemented using a return mapping algorithm in [3] and later using implicit integration algorithms in [46]. An extension of the CamClay model including kinematic hardening has also been integrated using an implicit formulation [7]. The yield surface and plastic potential function in the model used here are represented by functions including the third stress invariant I3 , to accurately describe the behaviour in triaxial as well as plane strain conditions. The elasticity in the present model has the same simple form as in the original CamClay with constant shear modulus and bulk modulus increasing linearly with the mean stress. In this model a characteristic state separating contractive and dilative behaviour is distinguished from the ultimate state, corresponding to perfectly plastic behaviour. As a result, one of the major shortcoming in the CamClay model is overcome, and the dilative behaviour of granular material is modelled with very good accuracy as demonstrated in [8]. This is achieved by introducing a hardening law depending on both the shear and the volumetric strain increments. Fully implicit algorithms have been widely used in nite element formulations, since they have shown good robustness and eciency for simple elasto-plastic material models. Implicit integration of the constitutive equations has also been used for more complex elasto-plastic and viscoplastic constitutive relations [9]. Plasticity formulations for granular materials including the third stress invariant I3 are typically highly non-linear. In recent years implicit solution strategies for models depending on the third stress invariant have been developed, for associative isotropic elasto-plastic and viscoplastic models [10], for associative elasto-plastic models with kinematic hardening [11] and for models of general isotropic elasto-plastic geomaterials [12]. To reduce the number of equations in the implicit scheme fully implicit integration algorithms with explicit updating have been developed, e.g. for J2 plasticity in [13]. The third stress invariant I3 typically results in a high degree of non-linearity and complex numerical algorithms. The aim here is to develop an implicit integration procedure for granular materials as simple as the implicit integration algorithms developed for the CamClay model, and at the same time more general and suitable for more versatile constitutive models with a high degree of non-linearity both in the elastic as well as plastic components. The solution of the non-linear constitutive equations is carried out with the backward Euler dierence scheme slightly modied since the hardening parameter can be determined explicitly at each intermediate state. The elastic predictor is preconditioned in order to ensure that it is inside the valid stress region, which for cohesionless granular materials is the compressive octant. The proposed numerical integration algorithm does not depend on the particular set of constitutive expressions. It is suitable for granular material and can be extended to other both associated and non-associated plasticity based material models without any conceptual changes. The algorithm can therefore be expressed in a standard format which can be implemented in several general purpose nite element codes. The capability, accuracy and robustness of the numerical algorithm is tested at the local Gauss point level, as well as at the global level using an implementation as a plastic material model in the nite element code ABAQUS. The performance of the integration procedure is illustrated by simulating a triaxial test on single element of sand. In addition a boundary value problem of traditional exible strip footing resting on a surface of sand is investigated in order to demonstrate the global accuracy and stability of the numerical solution. General purpose nite element codes often contain a nite strain implementation of plasticity models, and this feature is also illustrated.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3473

2. Constitutive equations for innitesimal plasticity Assuming a small deformation during a generic increment of loading, the innitesimal strain tensor is decomposed into elastic and plastic parts, de dee dep : 1 The elastic response of the material is characterized by the generalized Hookes law which relates stress and elastic strain increments linearly through the elastic constitutive tensor Ce . This relation expressed in a form relating the component of the elastic strain increment to the component of stress increment, takes the following form: dee C1 dr; e 2 where C1 is the elastic tangent exibility matrix. e In non-associated plasticity theory, the plastic strain increment is proportional to the gradient of the plastic potential. This is known as a ow rule where the direction of dep is the gradient of the plastic potential function and its magnitude is given by the plastic multiplier dv, dep dv og : orT 3

The plastic multiplier dv is determined by a plastic hardening via the consistency relation, according to which a stress point remains on the yield surface f during plastic loading, df of dr H dv 0: or 4

H is the hardening parameter describing the evolution of the plastic variables, and it typically consists of two parts, H of oa H 1H 2: oa ov 5

The rst factor H 1 of =oa describes the changes in shape, size and position of the yield surface, i.e. its dependence on the hardening parameters a, while the second factor H 2 oa=ov describes the evolution of T the hardening parameters. In the case of multiple hardening parameters a a1 ; a2 ; . . . the factor H 1 is a row vector, while the factor H 2 is a column vector. For a plastic work hardening material there is only one hardening parameter and the second part H 2 can conveniently be written as H 2 og=or Mar, where the matrix M denes a weighting between hydrostatic and deviatoric plastic work. In the following the hardening is assumed to depend only on the current stress state, and M is a constant matrix. The elasto-plastic stiness matrix Cep is needed for use in the global, non-linear equation system for predicting the size and direction of the next strain increment. It is determined from (1) by inserting the relations between the stress increment dr and the elastic and plastic strain increments respectively from (2) and (3), Cep Ce Ce og=orT of =or Ce ; H of =or Ce og=orT 6

where the plastic multiplier dv has been eliminated by use of the consistency relation (4). In the following we will present an algorithm for computation of stresses and hardening parameters consistent with the predicted strain increment done by a backward dierence scheme.

3474

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3. Fully implicit integration with explicit updating The solution of the global, non-linear FE-equations gives an estimate of the total strain for each stress point. The computation of corresponding stresses and hardening parameters that fulll the yield condition is then performed by integration of the constitutive equations. The precision of the numerical algorithm used to integrate these equations has a direct impact on the overall accuracy of the global solution. For elasto-plastic materials the constitutive equation are non-linear and must thus be solved using iterative techniques. While the equilibrium must be checked on the global level, the integration of the stress increment Drin for a given strain increment Dein can be performed at each Gauss point independently. The integration procedure described in the following concerns determination of the stress increment at a single point for a given total strain increment and the iteration index i is generally omitted. The subscript (n 1) denotes the last established equilibrium state, and subscript n denote the nal, still unknown state. The purpose of the integration scheme is to determine the stress changes Dr and hardening parameters corresponding to a total change of displacement De within the load increment. The total strain increment is decomposed into elastic and plastic parts, De Dee Dep : The plastic part of the strain increment is estimated from the ow rule Dep Dv og : or 8 7

Depending on how the gradient og=or of the plastic potential function is computed the two families of numerical algorithms are obtained. In the generalized trapezoidal rule the gradient og=or is represented as an average over the increment, while in the generalized mid-point rule the gradient is evaluated at a representative stress state. Use of the previous equilibrium stress rn1 result in the forward Euler scheme, while used of the nal stress rn gives the backward Euler scheme. These integration rules have been evaluated in [14] and the generalized mid-point rule was found to be superior. However, the backward Euler scheme was found to be numerically stable for larger strain increments, which is desirable to use in FE-computations. The backward Euler dierence scheme is also considerably simpler to implement, and therefore used in this paper. Fig. 1 illustrates the iteration strategy based on the backward dierence, where Dr and r refers to the current iteration, which converges to Drn , determining the stress state rn .

Fig. 1. Geometric interpretation of stress point integration algorithm.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3475

3.1. Integration scheme The integration scheme determines the stress changes Dr and hardening parameters corresponding to a total change of displacement De within the load increment. In the implicit backward Euler method the solution makes use of the nal stress state rn ; an . The nal stress rn and hardening parameters an are determined by solving the non-linear equations iteratively so that the stress increment fullls the consistency condition. The current estimate state r; a is determined in each iteration step relative to the last equilibrium state rn1 ; an1 . The total strain increment De en en1 is the sum of the elastic and plastic parts, see (7). The elastic part is written as Dee ee rn ee rn1 , while for the plastic part use of a non-associated ow rule implies Dep Dvogrn =orT . Insertion into (7) yields en en1 ee rn ee rn1 Dv ogrn : orT 9

The stresses rn and the plastic multiplier Dv are unknown, while the prescribed total strain en and terms related to the previous equilibrium state (n 1) are known. The computed stress and hardening parameters at nal state (rn ; an ) must fulll the consistency relation f rn ; an 0: 10

The process of plastic loading is generally associated with hardening, and the hardening parameters a must be determined to satisfy an an1 H 2 rn Dv; where H 2 oa=ov describes the hardening parameters introduced in (5). 3.2. Newton iteration The non-linear equation system comprising (9)(11) can be solved using NewtonRaphson iteration scheme. In the following a slightly modied version will be employed, as it is possible to eliminate the hardening equation (11) by calculating it exactly for each intermediate state. The incremental form of the constitutive relation (9) is obtained by making a rst order Taylor expansion around the current state (r; a). The elastic strain in the last equilibrium state ee rn1 is constant during iterations and does not contribute. e is the current strain estimate obtained in the previous iteration.   8 > i1 > e en1 ei en1 o ee Dv og dri og dvi ; > n n > > or orT orT > < of i of i i1 i1 i i 12 > f rn ; an f rn ; an or dr oa da ; > > > > i1 > : a an1 ai an1 Dv oH 2 dri H 2 dvi : n n or The subincrement of the hardening parameters dai ai1 ain can be calculated explicitly for each intern mediate state from the last equation in (12) dai Dvi oH 2 i dr H 2 dvi : or 13 11

Insertion of (13) into the second equation in (12) allows us to reduce the number of equations in the iteration scheme. Introducing strain residual dei ei1 ein and the residual of the yield function f rin ; ain n gives the following non-linear equation system to be solved:

3476

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

o2 g 1 6 Ce Dv orT or 6 4 of oH 2 DvH 1 or or

og orT H 1 H 2

3 7 dr 7 5 dv
i

!
i

de f

! ;
i

14

where the elastic tangent exibility matrix C1 oee =or has been used. e For a nite plastic step the iteration matrix in (14), subsequently called A, is generally non-symmetric, even for associated plasticity models. It has a similar form as the algorithmic elasto-plastic stiness matrix, see e.g. [15], where the use of nite increments leads to non-symmetric global stiness matrix. The equation system (14) is solved iteratively for dr; dvi , and the increments (Dr; Dv) are updated by subincrements until the residuals are smaller than the prescribed tolerances, Dri1 Dri dri ; Dvi1 Dvi dvi : 15

Note, that while the nal solution is independent of the individual subincrement, the iterative scheme requires yield function and gradients of the plastic potential function to be dened also at the intermediate states used for updates. After solving (14) the total increment of the hardening parameter Da is updated explicitly, Dan H 2 Dv: 16 It is important to realize that the subsequent update of Da by use of (16) is necessary in order to ensure that linearization of (11) does not produce any residual. The iterations dened by (14) are carried out when the stress point turns out to be in plastic loading. Thus an iteration procedure must start with an elastic predictor step r in order to determine, whether there is plastic loading or elastic unloading. In case of plastic loading the predictor leads to a stress state outside the current yield surface, as indicated in Fig. 2 and the iteration matrix A in (14) is computed for (r ; an1 ). The NewtonRaphson procedure for calculation of the plastic corrector corresponding to the elastic predictor implicitly assumes the existence of the yield function and the gradients of the yield function and the plastic potential at the current state. It is therefore essential that the rst estimated stress state r corresponds to meaningful directions and magnitudes of the iterative corrections. Yield functions and plastic potentials depending on the third deviatoric stress invariant J3 usually have equipotential surfaces consisting of several sheets, and therefore the gradients may point towards a secondary potential surface. This creates a need for bringing the elastic predictor into the valid domain. A robust way of doing that is considered in the following section.

Fig. 2. Geometric interpretation of the rst iterative step.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3477

3.3. First preconditioning step In most friction material models stiness and gradients cannot be evaluated in the tensile stress region. Therefore, there is a need for an ecient way to ensure that the rst elastic predictor lies within the valid domain. In case of the elastic predictor falling into the tensile region, the algorithm should be able to pull it inside the compression octant of the principal stress space bounded by coordinate planes r1 0, r2 0 and r3 0. For any stress state (r1 ; r2 ; r3 ) a pressure pc can be dened via the equation r1 pc r2 pc r3 pc 0 17 such that the translated stress state (r1 pc ; r2 pc ; r3 pc ) is located on one of the coordinate planes of the stress space coordinate system. In terms of the mean stress p, the second and the third deviatoric invariants J2 and J3 , this equation takes the following form: J3 p pc J2 p pc 0: This is a cubic equation in pc and the relevant roots are found by introducing the Lode angle h as p 3 3 J3 cos 3h : 3=2 2 J2 Substitution of J3 from (19) into (18) yields a new cubic equation p 3 p pc 3 p : 4 cos w 3 cos w cos 3h; cos w 2 J2
3

18

19

20

The relevant root of (20) is obtained by setting cos 3h cos 3/ and using the trigonometric identity 4 cos3 w 3 cos w cos 3w, p 2 pc p J2 cos h p; 0 6 h 6 p=3; 21 3 where h is determined from (19). Now, the condition for determining whether a stress point lies within the compressive octant is the following: & 6 0 ) inside the compressive octant; pc 22 > 0 ) outside the compressive octant: In case of the predictor stress point being outside the compressive octant, it can be moved inside the compressive octant by a correction consisting of a hydrostatic translation and a reduction of the magnitude of the deviatoric component. For a stress state r with mean stress p this operation can be written as r r pc 1 /r p 1 1 /r pc /p 1; 23

where 1 is the second order unit tensor, and / < 1 is a scalar multiplier. The hydrostatic translation pc 1 brings the stress on to one of the coordinate planes, while application of the factor / to the deviatoric component (r p1) denes a contraction towards the hydrostatic axis. In the examples the value / 0:01 has been used.

4. Specic model formulation The integration procedure described in the previous section is applied to a non-associated plasticity model for granular materials based on the concept of a characteristic state where the incremental dilation vanishes, [1]. The model is a three-dimensional generalization of the classical CamClay model, which is

3478

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

based on the classical critical state theory developed in [2] and formulated in the two-dimensional stress space with mean stress p and maximum shear stress 1q. The elasticity in the present model has the same 2 simple form as in the original CamClay model with constant shear modulus and bulk modulus increasing linearly with the mean stress. In the present model the characteristic state which separates the contractive from dilative behaviour is distinguished from the ultimate state which corresponds to perfectly plastic behaviour. In the classical critical theory these two states coincide into a single critical state and as a result of this the transition to dilative behaviour before failure of granular materials cannot be modelled. The present more general but yet simple model has only six material parameters which can be determined from data of a single standard triaxial test according to the calibration procedure developed in [8]. A brief description of the model is given below. 4.1. Description of non-associated plasticity model The same generic format is used for both yield and plastic potential surface families, having dierent shapes controlled by shape functions. The yield criterion for a plastic model denes whether plasticity is activated or not. In terms of the mean pressure p and the third stress invariant I3 the isotropic yield function in the model is expressed as f r I3 p3 gf p: 24

The yield function grows in self-similar way. The shape parameter gf changes the deviatoric contour continuously from triangular to circular when taking values between 0 and 1. The shape parameter is expressed in terms of the mean pressure as gf p p=pf m : 25

The size of the yield function is controlled by parameter pf , which is the only hardening parameter in the model, and the exponent m, assumed to be a material constant. The plastic potential is assumed to be associated in the deviatoric plane, while the volumetric part is non-associated, leading to the similar format as for the yield surface, gr I3 p3 gg p: 26

The shape function, which is derived from an approximate friction hypothesis in [16], has the following form: gg 1 c2 p; g cg p 1 p=pg n ; 27

where the exponent n is assumed to be a material constant. Use of associated deviatoric ow leads to identical deviator contours for the yield and ow potential functions, i.e. the shape function gf and gg are equal. For a point of yielding this implies that gf gg I3 =p3 from which pg may be explicitly calculated. Since pg is not an independent model parameter the size parameter of the yield function pf is the only hardening parameter in the model, i.e. a pf . The yield surface and plastic potential function are illustrated in Fig. 3. In elastic and elasto-plastic states it is assumed that the specic volume depends linearly on the logarithm of the mean pressure p, j dee dp; v p k dev dp: p 28

The two non-dimensional exibility parameters j and k are the inclination of the ev ln p line in the elastic and the elasto-plastic state, respectively. The elastic constitutive matrix in six-component format is

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3479

Fig. 3. (a) Yield surface, (b) plastic potential surface.

a 6b 6 6b Ce G6 6 6 4

b b a b b a 1 1 1

3 7 7 7 7; 7 7 5 29

where a p=jG 4=3 and b p=jG 2=3. The shear modulus G is assumed to be constant. The direction of the plastic strain increment dep is the gradient of the plastic potential function and its magnitude is given by the plastic multiplier dv dep dv og : or 30

The change of the yield function per unit change of the plastic multiplier v is determined by the hardening parameter H of =ov. The hardening of the yield function in the present model is controlled by the size parameter pf , and thus H of opf H1 H2 : opf ov of m1=m mp2 gf : opf 31

By dierentiating the yields function (24), the factor H1 becomes H1 32

The hardening of the loading surface depends on both plastic volumetric and deviatoric strain increments in order to model dilatancy before failure of a normally consolidated material. Thus, the hardening rule in the model is a weighted sum of the volumetric and deviatoric parts of the plastic work, 1 p dep wsT dep ; dpf 33 v kj where s is the deviatoric part of the stress, and e is the deviatoric part of the strain. w is a small nondimensional weight parameter, assumed to be a material constant. The value of w follows from the introduction of the ultimate state line, which denes a stress state of ideal plasticity. The value of w is

3480

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

determined from the dierence in inclination between the characteristic state line Mc and ultimate state line Mu . In the CamClay model the two lines are lumped into a common critical state, i.e. w 0 and the hardening rule in CamClay model is obtained from (33) by setting w 0. The disadvantage of this is that the hardening stops when dep 0 and the material can never pass the characteristic line and hence v the an important characteristic of granular material as transition from compaction to dilation cannot be represented. Dierentiating relation (33) after introducing the plastic strain increments from (3), the hardening factor H2 is obtained in the form   opf 1 og og 1 og p w s Mr; 34 H2 kj op os k j or ov where the stress r has been decomposed into hydrostatic pressure p and deviatoric stress s. The matrix M denes the general work hardening model and for the present model it is M 11 w11T wI 3 35

with I the identity matrix. M is a constant matrix and by setting w 0 the volumetric hardening model of the critical state theory, is obtained. 4.2. Gradients of the yield and plastic potential functions The gradients of the yield function (24) and plastic potential function (26) can be written in the similar form of oI3 op3 gf oI3 hf p2 1; or or or or og oI3 op3 gg oI3 hg p2 1; or or or or where the non-dimensional factors hf and hg have been introduced as   1 o 3 1 p gf 1 m gf ; hf 2 3p op 3     1 o 3 2 p gg 1 cg 1 1 n cg : hg 2 3p op 3 36 37

38

39
m

It is important to notice that in the dierentiation gf and gg are the functions dened as gf p p=pf n and gg 1 c2 p, with cg p 1 p=pg , while in the nal results they are determined directly from the g conditions f r 0 and gr 0, respectively. The second derivative of the plastic potential g needed for computations is convenient written as o2 p3 gg o2 g o2 I 3 o2 I 3 1 T T h00 p11T ; orT or or or orT or or or 3 g where h00 is dened as g h00 g     1 o2 3 1 2 p gg 21 cg 1 n 1 n 1 n cg 3p op2 3 3
n

40

41

and as in the previous the dierentiation is done for the constant cg 1 p=pg , while in the nal form it is calculated directly from gr 0 as c2 1 I3 =p3 . g

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3481

The third stress invariant is dened as I3 r11 r22 r33 2r23 r31 r12 r11 r2 r22 r2 r33 r2 : 23 31 12 Written in component form the rst derivative of I3 becomes 3 2 r22 r33 r2 23 7 6 r33 r11 r2 31 7 6 7 oI3 6 r11 r22 r2 12 7 6 6 2r31 r12 r11 r23 7 T or 7 6 4 2r12 r23 r22 r32 5 2r23 r32 r33 r12 and the second derivative is 2 0 r33 6 r33 0 6 6 r22 o2 I 3 r11 6 0 orT or 6 2r23 6 4 0 2r31 0 0 r22 r11 0 0 0 2r12 2r23 0 0 2r11 2r12 2r31 0 2r31 0 2r12 2r22 2r23 3 0 0 7 7 2r12 7 7: 2r31 7 7 2r23 5 2r33 42

43

44

Having computed the gradients of f and g the derivative of H2 with respect to r is obtained by dierentiation of (34),   oH2 1 og o2 g T M T T Mr : 45 or or or orT k j 4.3. Integration algorithm The constitutive calculations are performed using the implicit integration algorithm formulated in Section 3. For numerical computation it is convenient to express the stress and the strain increment tensors used in the stressstrain relations in six-component format as follows: r r11 ; r22 ; r33 ; r23 ; r13 ; r12 ; e e11 ; e22 ; e33 ; 2e23 ; 2e13 ; 2e12 : 46 The shear strain increments are multiplied with a factor two in order to obtain tensor consistency and as in most nite element codes tension is assumed to be positive. The model operates with the traditional split of stresses and strains into hydrostatic and deviatoric parts p 11T r; 3 ev 1T e; s r p1; e e 1ev 1; 3 47 48

where p is the hydrostatic pressure, s is the deviatoric stress tensor, ev is volumetric strain and e is deviatoric strain tensor. Integration of the stresses and the hardening parameter for a given strain increment requires evaluation of the iteration matrix A. The current values of all terms in (14) must be computed. In addition values of H2 and oH2 =or are needed for updating the hardening parameter pf . These computation implicitly assume A to be well dened for every iteration, even for the rst. In the current model the yield function and plastic potential function are third degree polynomials if the stress, which leads to regions where the gradients do not represent the assumed slope towards the yield and potential surfaces, yielding invalid directions and magnitude of the plastic strain increment. This problem is most likely to occur near the tensile region where the bounding triangle narrows in the solution space. Therefore the elastic predictor should be scaled

3482 Table 1 Integration algorithm Inputs: elastic predictor:

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

1st octant? iterations i 1; 2; . . . ; imax

n1 en1 , rn1 , pf , en , Dv 0 r rn1 dre en en1 ; rn1 p pc 2= 3J2 cos h p if pc > 0 then r 1 /r pc /p 1

current stress stop iteration when kdpf k=kdpf 0 k < p and kdek=kde0 k < e

A Ar ; pf ; Dv, f f r ; pf ! ! dr de A1 dv f Dv Dv dv r r dr n1 pf pf H2 rDv de en een1 ; rn1 ; r; Dv dpf pf pI3 =p3 1=m r r rn r

rationally, so that it lies within the circumscribing triangle. The elastic predictor is transformed as described in Section 3.3. The Newton iteration are carried out and the increments of stress and plastic multiplier are updated by subincrements. The hardening parameter pf is updated explicitly at each iteration. The subsequent update of pf is necessary in order to ensure that linearization of (11) do not produce any residual. The iterations stop when the residuals of kdpf k=kdpf 0 k and kdek=kde0 k fulll the required convergence tolerances p and e respectively. The value of p and e used in the calculation is 108 . This general, yet simple, integration algorithm is summarized in Table 1.

5. Numerical examples The accuracy, stability and convergence properties of the numerical algorithm are tested at both local and global level. A single element test was carried out under both drained and undrained conditions and the boundary value problem chosen simulates a classical geotechnical bearing capacity problem of a strip footing resting on surface of sand. The model parameters were determined using test data from a single triaxial test on sand, [17], and calibration procedures developed in [8]. The following material parameters were used in the simulations G 11:3 MPa, k 0:0142, j 0:00755, n 0:959, m 0:600 and w 0:251. 5.1. Triaxial test on single element To investigate the local stress integration algorithm a triaxial test on single element has been simulated. The test starts at initial hydrostatic pressure p0 0:2 MPa and the element was compressed 5% of its initial height in vertical direction. Both triaxial drained and undrained tests have been considered here. It is assumed that the sand remains homogeneous and that no strain localization occurs during the tests. The increase of the solution accuracy with the increased step number is ensured by the algorithmic consistency. The algorithm is therefore tested for three dierent size of steps and the number of steps is varied between 15, 30 and 60. The simulation of undrained test carried out with step number 60 is designated as the exact integration of the constitutive equations. Then the same simulation are carried out for step numbers 30 and 15. The comparison of these simulation are seen in Fig. 4. The algorithm captures the stressstrain responses with very good accuracy. The responses are very similar and solutions with number of steps greater that 30 are practically identical to the exact solution.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3483

Fig. 4. Stressstrain curves for dierent numbers of steps, undrained triaxial test.

Fig. 5. Stressstrain and volumetric curves for dierent numbers of steps, drained triaxial test.

The drained triaxial test have been simulated for the same three dierent numbers of steps 60, 30 and 15. The comparison of these results are presented in Fig. 5. The stressstrain curves are practically identical to each other, demonstrating the good performance of the algorithm. The volumetric curves are very similar i.e. the algorithm captures the volumetric responses with very good accuracy. For the solution with only 15 steps the loss of accuracy is relatively small considering the large steps, and solutions with more than 30 steps are very close to the exact solution. These results demonstrate the robustness and accuracy of the integration algorithm. Table 2 illustrates the behaviour of the integration algorithm for local iterations for drained triaxial test. The residuals for four typical load steps are presented and the number of iterations needed to meet the convergence tolerance of 108 is between 4 and 5 per load step.
Table 2 Normalized residual strain norm kdek=kde0 k for drained triaxial test Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 Step 10 1.0000e)00 1.9974e)02 3.3896e)04 4.4331e)08 Step 20 1.0000e)00 1.0568e)02 8.9362e)05 8.9827e)09 Step 40 1.0000e)00 8.7621e)02 5.5725e)03 3.0052e)05 8.4318e)10 Step 50 1.0000e)00 3.0766e)02 2.9590e)04 8.7546e)08

3484

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

Fig. 6. Stressstrain curve with load reversals.

The computational algorithm was also checked with respect to the stress paths including load reversals. Results of a typical load reversal path oabcd is seen in Fig. 6. The unloadingreloading behaviour is assumed to be elastic and the loading curve oac is the same as that obtained without load reversals, which shows the accuracy of the integration algorithm. 5.2. Footing analysis The performance of the numerical algorithm at the global level is investigated by multi-element test. A traditional geotechnical problem of a exible strip footing resting on a surface of sand has been simulated. The computations are performed using ABAQUS nite element code, which provides a facility for implementing user dened material behaviour in FORTRAN subroutines. The constitutive model described in Section 4.1 is programmed in the user subroutine UMAT. This subroutine is called by ABAQUS at each element integration point, for each increment, and during each load step. The main functions of the subroutine are to integrate stresses and solution dependent state variables, and to provide the Jacobian matrix oDr=oDe used in overall Newton iteration. For simplicity in this version of the algorithm we use the continuum tangent stiness dened in (6), instead of the asymptotic tangent stiness matrix. The number of solution dependent state variables and the required material parameters are introduced in an input le and the subroutine is linked with the ABAQUS-solver. The hardening parameter pf is the only state variable in the present UMAT and the material used in this simulation is the same as the triaxial test simulation with material parameters given in Section 5. The nite element mesh of width 2 m and depth 1 m is shown in Fig. 7. A strip footing may be considered as a plane strain problem, but the analysis is made using the three-dimensional nite element procedure described in Section 3. A plane strain condition is applied by restraining the degree of freedom normal to the vertical plane. Due to symmetry of geometry and loading only half of the footing is modelled. The mesh consist of 342 nodes and 144 eight-noded brick elements. Half of the footing with 0.475 m width spans six elements in the upper left corner of the mesh. As well as choosing values of the material parameters, the simulation requires denition of realistic initial conditions prior the application of the footing load. The initial condition in terms of stresses were generated in preliminary step in which the unit weight c 0:2 MN/m3 was applied, the stresses at the Gauss points were computed and then displacements were the reset to zero. In addition a load of q 0:1 MN/m2 was applied on the ground surface, and then the uniformly distributed footing load was applied in increments. The simulation failed to converge at footing load of 2.65 MPa. The analytically computed ultimate load according to Therzaghis theory has been calculated to 2.735 MPa. The numerically computed limit solution is in good agreement with this value.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3485

Fig. 7. FE-mesh and deformed mesh of the footing problem.

The numerical performance of the algorithm at both local and global levels is illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 shows the normalized strain norm of the strain subincrement at the local level when using the integration algorithm of Table 1. The quadratic convergence of the local integration algorithm is seen clearly. The global convergence of the equilibrium iterations is illustrated in Table 4. Only the tangent stiness is transferred from the material subroutine UMAT to the main program, and it is seen that the convergence is fast, but not quadratic. The convergence criteria for the nodal residual force is specied as a tolerance 104 times the average nodal force, given in the last row of the table, and this is combined with a convergence tolerance on the last displacement subincrement du of 103 times the displacement increment Du. Results of the FE simulation corresponding to the computed limit load are summarized in Figs. 8 and 9 in which contour plots of the stress r22 in vertical direction and mean stress p are reported.

Table 3 Normalized residual strain norm kdek=kde0 k for top center element below strip footing Iteration 1 2 3 4 Step 1 1.0000e)00 2.2024e)02 3.4069e)05 8.2574e)10 Step 30 1.0000e)00 1.0533e)02 9.2453e)05 7.1230e)09 Step 50 1.0000e)00 3.9310e)03 1.0898e)05 8.2481e)11

Table 4 Residual nodal force in strip footing analysis Iteration 1 2 3 4 Mean force Step 1 4.038e)04 3.185e)05 2.073e)06 1.822e)07 6.462e)03 Step 30 3.097e)05 3.547e)06 1.859e)07 6.998e)03 Step 50 7.214e)04 3.126e)05 1.946e)06 5.770e)07 7.558e)03

3486

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

Fig. 8. Stress r22 in vertical direction at the end of the simulation.

Fig. 9. Mean stress at the end of the simulation.

5.3. Large strain analysis The eects of using large strains can be included in the analysis in a simple way. The ABAQUS nite element code provides a parameter NLGEOM accounting for geometric non-linearities during the load step. When activating this parameter the elements are formulated in the current conguration using current nodal position. The calculated stresses are the Cauchy stresses. NLGEOM is included in the input le and no modications of the implemented integration algorithm are needed. The footing problem in the previous example was simulated using large strains. The initial conditions prior the application of the footing load were applied in a preliminary small strain step in the same way as described in the previous example. The uniformly distributed footing load was then applied including the eects of large strains. In Figs. 10 and 11 results from the large strain simulation are compared to the small strain solution. As it is seen in Fig. 10a, in the region near the footing center there is no signicant dierence in the contact stress beneath the footing between the two simulation, while in the region near the edge the large strain solution predicts somewhat lower contact stress. The distribution of the vertical stress along the symmetry axis is plotted in Fig. 10b. There is an obvious dierences between the two solutions. At the same depth the small strain solution predicts higher stress in vertical direction compared to the large strain solution. The computed loaddisplacement curve of the center of the footing is seen in Fig. 11. As expected the use of large strains results in smaller vertical displacement compared to the small strain solution.

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

3487

Fig. 10. (a) Contact stress distribution beneath the footing, (b) vertical stress distribution along the symmetry axis.

Fig. 11. Loaddisplacement curve of the footing center.

6. Conclusions A fully implicit stress integration algorithm with explicit updating has been presented in this paper. The nal stresses and hardening parameters are determined solving the non-linear equations iteratively so that the stress increment fullls the consistency condition. The number of equation to be solved was reduced since the hardening parameter can be updated explicitly. The integration algorithm was applied to a characteristic state model for granular materials developed in [1], but it can be applied to other both associated and non-associated plasticity based material models without any conceptual changes. The good accuracy and robustness of the numerical algorithm has been demonstrated at the local Gauss point level, as well as at the global level. Numerical results from triaxial tests on sand illustrate the good performance of the integration procedure. The global accuracy and stability was demonstrated by performing three-dimensional simulations of geotechnical engineering problems. The boundary value problem of traditional geotechnical exible strip footing resting on a surface of sand was investigated and the numerical results show very good performance. The algorithm is developed in a standard format which enables implementation into multipurpose nite element codes, and the present analyses were made using an implementation of the material model in the ABAQUS code. This code has a facility for using updated geometry, simulating a sequence of incremental steps. The computations were performed using both small and nite strains, and comparison of the contact stress, vertical distribution of the stress beneath the footing and loaddisplacement curves demonstrate a visible but moderate eect of nite strains.

3488

A. Ahadi, S. Krenk / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (2003) 34713488

Acknowledgement The nancial support from the Swedish Technical Research Council is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] S. Krenk, Characteristic state plasticity for granular materials, Part1: Basic theory, Int. J. Solids Struct. 37 (2000) 63436360. [2] A.N. Schoeld, C.P. Wroth, Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968. [3] M. Ortiz, J.C. Simo, An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 23 (1986) 353366. [4] R.I. Borja, S.R. Lee, CamClay plasticity, Part I: Implicit integration of elasto-plastic constitutive relations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 78 (1990) 4972. [5] R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part II: Implicit integration of constitutive equation based on a nonlinear elastic stress predictor, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 88 (1991) 225240. [6] Y.M.A. Hashash, A.J. Whittle, Integration of the modied CamClay model in non-linear nite element analysis, Comput. Geotech. 14 (1992) 5983. [7] M. Rouainia, D. Muir Wood, Implicit numerical integration for kinematic hardening soil plasticity model, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 25 (2001) 13051325. [8] A. Ahadi, S. Krenk, Characteristic state plasticity for granular materials, Part II: Model calibration and results, Int. J. Solids Struct. 37 (2000) 63616380. [9] J.L. Chaboche, G. Cailletaud, Integration methods for complex plastic constitutive equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 133 (1996) 125155. [10] V. Palazzo, L. Rosati, N. Valoroso, Solution procedures for J3 plasticity and viscoplasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2001) 903939. [11] L.X. Luccioni, J.M. Pestana, A. Rodriguez-Marek, An implicit integration algorithm for the nite element implementation of a nonlinear anisotropic material model including hysteretic nonlinearity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190 (2000) 1827 1844. [12] B. Jeremic, S. Sture, Implicit integration in elastoplastic geotechnics, Mech. Cohes-Fric. Mater. 2 (1997) 165183. [13] I. Doghri, Fully implicit integration and consistent tangent modulus in elasto-plasticity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 36 (1993) 39153932. [14] M. Ortiz, E.P. Popov, Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive equations, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engrg. 21 (1985) 15611576. [15] J.C. Simo, R.L. Taylor, Consistent tangent operators for rate-independent elasto-plasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 48 (1985) 101118. [16] S. Krenk, Friction, dilation and plastic ow potential, in: H.J. Herrmann, J.-P. Hovi, S. Ludig (Eds.), Physics of Dry Granular Media, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998, pp. 255260. [17] M. Borup, J. Hedegaard, DATA REPORT 9403 Baskarp Sand No. 15, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1995.