Some Pitfalls when using Modified Cam Clay

David Potts1 & Lidija Zdravkovic1

1

Imperial College, London, UK, d.potts @ic.ac.uk

Keywords: Constitutive models, numerical analysis, Finite elements

Abstract This paper considers some of the pitfalls that can arise when performing numerical analysis of geotechnical problems using the Modified Cam clay constitutive model. In particular the implications of the shape of the plastic potential in the deviatoric plane on failure strengths is considered. In addition some of the problems associated with using such a critical state model for undrained analyses is discussed.

1. Introduction The use of numerical analyses, such as the finite element method, when applied to geotechnical problems, can be extremely complex. While in principle the method can be used to provide a solution to most of the problems that we may wish to analyse, there are approximations which can lead to errors. These approximations can be classified into two groups. Firstly, there are approximations in the numerical method (i.e. Finite element method) itself and secondly, there are approximations arising from the idealisations made by the user when reducing the real problem to a form which can be analysed, [1]. Examples of the second group are the many potential errors which can be associated with a users lack of in depth understanding of the constitutive model employed to represent soil behaviour. This is a common source of error, due to the complexities of many of the constitutive models currently available. As an example this paper considers the effect of the shape of the yield and plastic potential surfaces on soil strength. This is demonstrated by using the modified Cam clay model to show that what seems like sensible input parameters can result in unrealistic predictions. Experience indicates that this is a very common pitfall that many users unknowingly fall into, with the results that their analyses predict erroneous

collapse loads which are usually unconservative. As the undrained strength is not one of the input parameters to the conventional critical state constitutive models, use of such models to analyse undrained problems can be problematic. This is particularly so if the site investigation has been designed to obtain undrained strength values. It is shown that realistic undrained strength profiles can be obtained by a suitable selection of the model input parameters and initial stress conditions. However, such conditions can only be achieved if the numerical computer program (i.e. finite element program) has flexible input facilities.

2. Development of modified Cam clay Since the work of Coulomb [2] and Rankine [3], there has been a long history of applications of the theory of plasticity to geomechanics. Slip line theory and the theorems of limit analysis are in frequent use. However, the development of realistic constitutive models for soils has lagged significantly behind the corresponding formulations for metals, in spite of the fact that the features of soil behaviour are clearly consistent with the elastoplastic framework. Early attempts of taking into account the frictional character of geomaterials by extending the von Mises failure criterion [4], or by generalising the MohrCoulomb failure envelope failed to model adequately many basic features of soil behaviour. The first critical state models were the series of Cam clay formulations, developed at the University of Cambridge, by Roscoe and his co-workers. The formulation of the original Cam clay model as an elasto-plastic constitutive law is presented by Roscoe and Schofield [5] and Schofield and Wroth [6]. Afterwards, Roscoe and Burland [7] proposed the modified Cam clay model.

2.1 Basic formulation in triaxial stress space Modified Cam clay, like the original Cam clay model, was originally developed for triaxial loading conditions. The model is essentially based on the following assumptions: - A piece of clay, which is subjected to slow, perfectly drained isotropic (F1N=F2N=FN3) compression, moves along a trajectory in the v-lnpN plane (v = specific volume = 1+e, p =(F1N+F2N+FN3)/3 ), which consists of a virgin consolidation line and a set of swelling lines, see Figure 1. Initially, on first loading, the soil moves down the virgin consolidation line.

If subsequently unloaded from point b, it moves up the swelling line bc. If re-loaded, it moves back down this same swelling line until point b is reached, at which point it begins to move down the virgin consolidation line again. If unloaded from point d, it moves up the swelling line de. The virgin consolidation line and the swelling lines are assumed to be straight in v-lnpN space and are given by the following equations: )LJXUH  %HKDYLRXU XQGHU LVRWURSLF
FRPSUHVVLRQ

v + (ln p ) = v1 v + (ln p ) = vs

(virgin consolidation line) (swelling line)

(1)

The values of 6, 8 and v1 are characteristics of the particular type of clay, whereas the value of vs is different for each swelling line. Volume change along the virgin consolidation line is mainly irreversible or plastic, while volume change along a swelling line is reversible or elastic. The behaviour under increasing triaxial shear stress, q = FvN!FhN= /3J, (where J=[(F1N!F2N)2+(F2N!F3N)2+(F1N!F3N)2]0.5* (1//6)) is assumed to be elastic until a yield value of q is reached, which can be obtained from the yield function F({FN},{k}) = 0. As noted above, behaviour is elastic along swelling lines and therefore the yield function plots above each swelling line as shown in Figure 2. For modified Cam clay the yield surface is assumed to take the form:
)LJXUH  <LHOG VXUIDFH

 J p o 1 = 0 F ({ },{k}) = p pM J

(2)

where pN is the mean effective stress, J is the deviatoric stress, MJ is another clay parameter, and poN is the value of pN at the intersection of the current swelling line with the virgin consolidation line, see Figure 2. The projection of this curves onto the J-pN plane is shown in Figure 3 where it can be seen that the modified Cam clay yield surface plots as an ellipse. The parameter poN essentially controls the size of the yield surface and has a )LJXUH  3URMHFWLRQ RI \LHOG VXUIDFH RQWR -SN SODQH particular value for each swelling line. As there is a yield surface for each swelling line, the yield function, given by Equation (2) defines a surface in v-JpN space, called the Stable State Boundary Surface, see Figure 4. If the v-J-pN state of the clay plots inside this surface, its behaviour is elastic, whereas if its state lies on the surface it is elastoplastic. It is not possible for the clay to have a v-J-pN state that lies outside this surface. Hardening/softening is isotropic and is controlled by the parameter poN which is related to the plastic volumetric strain, ,vp, by:
)LJXUH  6WDWH ERXQGDU\ VXUIDFH

dpo v = d vp po

(3)

Equation (3) therefore provides the hardening rule.

When the soil is plastic (i.e. on the Stable State Boundary Surface), the plastic strain increment vector is taken normal to the yield curve. Consequently, the model is associated, with the plastic potential P({FN},{m}) being given by Equation (2). As noted above, behaviour along a swelling line is elastic. This means that the elastic volumetric strain, ,ve, can be determined from Equation (1):
e d v =

dv dp = v v p

(4)

This gives the elastic bulk modulus, K, as:

K= dp
e d v

vp

(5)

In the original formulation, no elastic shear strains are considered. To avoid numerical problems and to achieve a better modelling inside the state boundary surface, elastic shear strains are usually computed from an elastic shear modulus, G, which is an additional model parameter. In the above form, both the Cam clay and modified Cam clay models require five material parameters: v1 , 6, 8, MJ and G. Sometimes an elastic Poissons ratio, , is specified instead of G.

2.2 Extension to general stress space The original critical state formulation is based, almost exclusively, on laboratory results from conventional triaxial tests. The portions of stress space in which these tests operate are severely restricted as the intermediate principal stress must be equal to either the major or the minor principal stress. Because of this, the basic formulation is developed in terms of q (=F1N!F3N) and pN. For numerical analysis, the models have to be generalised to full stress space by making some assumption on the shape of the yield surface and plastic potential in the deviatoric plane. The first generalisation [7] is achieved by effectively replacing q by J. This substitution is made in Equation (2). In general stress space this is equivalent to assuming that the yield and plastic potential surfaces (and hence the failure surface) are circles in the deviatoric plane, see Figure 5. However, it is well known that a circle does not represent well the failure conditions for soils, where a Mohr-Coulomb type failure criterion is more appropriate. Roscoe and Burland [7] suggest that circular (in the

deviatoric plane) yield surfaces should be used combined with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This implies, however, that critical state conditions can only be reached under triaxial compression conditions (F2N= F3N). In order to obtain a Mohr-Coulomb hexagon for the yield surface in the deviatoric plane, MJ in Equation (2) must be replaced by g(2):
g ( ) = sin cs sin sin cs cos + 3

(6)
)LJXUH  )DLOXUH VXUIDFHV LQ WKH GHYLDWRULF SODQH

where 2 is the Lodes angle (=tan-1[(2 (F2N!F3N)/(F1N!F3N)!1)//3]), NcsN is the critical state angle of shearing resistance which replaces MJ as an input parameter. This expression gives the hexagon shown in Figure 5. Equation (2) then becomes:

J p o 1 = 0 F ({ },{k}) = p g ( ) p

(7)

Critical state conditions then occur with a constant NcsN. The discontinuity of the MohrCoulomb expression at 2 = !30o and 2 = +30o requires, usually, some ad hoc rounding of the corners. Although sufficient as a first approximation, and certainly superior to a circle, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion does not achieve a perfect agreement with observed soil failure conditions. Other failure surfaces have been suggested which are continuous and agree better with experimental results in the deviatoric plane. Matsuoka and Nakais [8] and Lades [9] are the best known, see Figure 5. In terms of g(2) Matsuoka and Nakais surface can be expressed as:

g ( ) =

J 2f

(8)

where J20f can be obtained for a specific value of Lodes angle, 2, by solving the following cubic equation:

(CMN 3) J 2f +

2 27

CMN sin3 ( J 2f ) 3/ 2 (CMN 9) = 0

(9)

in which:

CMN =

2 9 3M J

2 3 3 2 MJ MJ +1 9

where MJ is the gradient of the critical state line in J-pN space, corresponding to triaxial compression, 2 =!30o. In terms of the critical state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial compression, (NcsN)2=-30, MJ in Equation (9) can be expressed as:

MJ =

2 3 sin cs = 30 3 sin cs = 30
o

(10)

The Lades surface can also be expressed by Equation (8), with J20f obtained for a specific value of Lodes angle, 2, and mean effective stress, pN, from the following equation:

J 2f +
in which:

2 27

sin3 ( J 2f ) 3/ 2 CL = 0

(11)

CL =

1 pa 27 3 p

p 1+ 1 a 27 3 p

where 01 and m are material properties, and pa is atmospheric pressure. As an alternative, Van Eekelen [10] proposes a family of continuous deviatoric plane yield surfaces (or plastic potentials). They are expressed as:

g ( ) = X (1 + Y sin3 ) Z

[12]

where X, Y and Z are constants. There are restrictions on Y and Z if convex surfaces are required. The substitution of g(2) into Equation (7) provides a flexible way to incorporate a desired shape for yield surfaces or plastic potentials in the deviatoric plane. Circular, Lade

and Matsuoka and Nakai surface shapes can also be well approximated by Equation (12). The importance of the model formulation in the deviatoric plane is highlighted by Potts and Gens [11]. They demonstrate that the adoption of a plastic potential shape, gpp(2), in the deviatoric plane and a dilation angle, <, determines the value of the Lodes angle at failure, 2f , in problems involving plane strain deformation. They show that some of the plastic potential expressions proposed in the literature do not guarantee realistic values of 2f . They also indicate that it is often necessary to have different shapes of the yield and plastic potential surfaces in the deviatoric plane. For example, if the yield surface uses Equation (6), which gives a Mohr-Coulomb hexagon in the deviatoric plane, then a different shape must be adopted for the plastic potential, otherwise plane strain failure occurs with either 2f =!30o (i.e. triaxial compression) or 2f = 30o (i.e. triaxial extension). The use of different shapes of the yield and plastic potential surfaces in the deviatoric plane results in a nonassociated constitutive model.

2.3 Undrained strength As noted previously, the material parameters used to define the modified Cam clay model include the consolidation parameters (v1, 6 and 8), the drained strength parameter (NcsN or MJ) and its variation in the deviatoric plane, and the elastic parameter ( or G). They do not involve the undrained shear strength, Su . As this model is often used to represent the undrained behaviour of soft clays, whose strength is conventionally expressed in terms of Su , this can be inconvenient. The undrained shear strength, Su , can be derived from the input parameters and the initial state of stress as shown by Potts and Zdravkovic [1]. The resulting equation is:
OC 2(1 + 2 Ko ) Su OCR 2 NC = g ( ) cos (1 + 2 Ko )[1 + B ] 2 NC vi 6 (1 + 2 Ko ) OCR [1 + B ]

(13)

By using this equation it is possible to select input parameters (6 , 8 , and NcsN or MJ) and initial stress conditions (overconsolidated ratio, OCR and coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko), so that the desired undrained strength distribution can be obtained. In this respect care must be exercised because the undrained strength is always zero when the initial vertical effective stress is zero.

3. Influence of the shape of the yield and plastic potential surfaces As noted above, the shape of the plastic potential in the deviatoric plane can affect the Lodes angle 2 at failure in plane strain analyses. This implies that it will affect the value of the soil strength that can be mobilised. In many commercial software packages, the user has little control over the shape of the plastic potential and it is therefore important that its implications are understood. Many software packages assume that both the yield and plastic potential surfaces plot as circles in the deviatoric plane. This is defined by specifying a constant value of the parameter MJ. Such an assumption implies that the angle of shearing resistance, NN, varies with the Lodes angle, 2. By equating MJ to the expression for g(2) given by Equation (6) and re-arranging, gives the following expression for N in terms of MJ and 2:

1 M J cos = sin M J sin 1 3

(14)

From this equation it is possible to express MJ in terms of the angle of shearing resistance, NTC, in triaxial compression (2 = !30o), see Equation 15:

2 3 sin TC )= ( TC J 3 sin
TC

(15)

In Figure 6 the variation of NN with 2, given by Equation 14, for three values of MJ are plotted. The values of MJ have been determined from Equation 14 using NNTC=20o, 25o and 30o. If the plastic potential is circular in the deviatoric plane, it can be shown, [1], that plane strain failure occurs when the Lodes angle 2=0o. Inspection of Figure 6 indicates that for all values of MJ there is a large change in NN with 2. For example if MJ is set to give NNTC=25o, then under plane strain conditions the mobilised NN value is NNPS=34.6o. This

Figure 6: Variation of N with 2 for constant MJ

difference is considerable and much larger than indicated by careful laboratory testing. The difference between NNTC and NNPS becomes greater the larger the value of MJ. The effect of 2 on undrained strength, Su, for the constant MJ formulation is shown in Figure 7. The variation has been calculated using Equation 13 with OCR=1, g(2)=MJ, Ko=1-sinNNTC and 6/8=0.1. The equivalent variation based on the formulation which assumes a constant NN, instead of a constant MJ, is given in Figure 8. This is also based on Equation 13 and the above parameters, except that g(2) is now given by Equation 6. The variation shown in this figure is in much better agreement with the available experimental data than the trends shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Effect of 2 on Su, for the constant MJ formulation

To investigate the effect of the plastic potential in a boundary value problem two analyses of a rough rigid strip footing have been performed. The finite element mesh is shown in Figure 9. The modified Cam clay model was used to represent the soil which had the Figure 8: Effect of 2 on Su, for the constant N formulation following material parameters, OCR=6, v1=2.848, 8=0.161, 6=0.0322 and =0.2. In one analysis the yield and plastic potential surfaces were assumed to be circular in the deviatoric plane. A value of MJ = 0.5187 was used for this analysis, which is equivalent to NNTC = 23o. In the second analysis a constant value of NN=23o was used giving a Mohr-Coulomb hexagon for the yield surface in the deviatoric plane. However, the plastic potential still gave a circle in the deviatoric plane and therefore plane strain failure occurred at 2=0o, as for the first analysis. In both analysis the initial stress conditions in the soil were based on a saturated bulk unit weight of 18kN/m3, a ground water table at a depth of 2.5m and a Ko = 1.227. Above the

ground water table the soil was assumed to be saturated and able to sustain pore water pressure suctions. Coupled consolidation analyses were performed but the permeability and time steps were chosen such that undrained conditions occurred. Loading of the footing was simulated by imposing increments of vertical displacement. In summary, the input to both analysis Figure 9: FE mesh for footing analysis is identical, accept that in the first, the strength parameter MJ is specified, whereas in the second, NN is input. In both analyses NNTC=23o and therefore any analyses in triaxial compression would give identical results. However, the strip footing problem is plane strain and therefore differences are expected. The resulting load displacement curves are given in Figure 10. The analysis with a constant MJ gave a collapse load some 58% larger than the analysis with a constant NN. The implications for practice are clear, if a user is not aware of the plastic potential problem and/or is not fully conversant with the Figure 10: Load-displacement curves for two different approaches constitutive model implemented in the software being used, he/she could easily base the input on NNTC=23o. If the model uses a constant MJ formulation, this would then imply a NNPS=31.2o, which in turn leads to a large error in the prediction of any collapse load.

4 Using modified Cam clay in undrained analysis As noted above, the input parameters to the modified Cam clay model are based on drained soil behaviour and do not involve the undrained shear strength, Su. Consequently, undrained analyses can be problematic. For example, if constructing an embankment or foundation

on soft clay, short term undrained conditions are likely to be critical from a stability point of view. It is therefore important for any analysis to accurately reproduce the undrained strength that is available. It is also likely that establishing the undrained strength profile would be a priority of any site investigation. Although the undrained strength is not one of the input parameters to the constitutive model, it can be calculated from the input parameters and the initial state of stress in the ground, as shown in Equation 13. Consequently, if the undrained strength profile is known, it is possible to use Equation 13 to back calculate one of either OCR, KoOC or 6/8. For example, if the undrained strength profile at a site resembles that shown in Figure 11b, which is typical of a soft clay deposit, it is possible to Figure 11: Variation of a) overconsolidation set all parameters, except the OCR, and ratio and b) undrained strength for soft clay then to use Equation 13 to calculate the distribution of OCR which is consistent with the required Su profile. Such a distribution of OCR is given in Figure 11a. Clearly it will be necessary for the finite element software to be flexible enough to allow the user to input such a variation of OCR. It should be noted that for modified Cam-clay the undrained strength, Su, is linearly related to the vertical effective stress, FNvi. Consequently, if FNvi=0, then so will the undrained strength. This explains why it is necessary for the OCR to increase rapidly near to the ground surface in Figure 11a. However, even if FNvi=0 at the ground surface (i.e. no pore water suctions present) it is still possible to perform finite element analysis which simulate a finite undrained strength at the surface. This is possible because the constitutive model is only evaluated at the integration points which lie a finite distance below the ground surface.

5. Conclusions Use of modified Cam clay model in advanced numerical analysis can be problematic. The model was originally developed for triaxial stress and strain conditions and therefore must

be extended into generalised stress and strain space for use in numerical analysis. At present there is no universally accepted way of performing this extension and consequently there are many different forms of the model implemented in the various available computer codes. In many of these cases the finer details of the model are not documented. Consequently many potential errors are associated with a users lack of in depth understanding of the constitutive model being employed. Two examples of such errors have been discussed in this paper. The first example considered the influence of the shape of the yield and plastic potential surfaces in the deviatoric plane. Many different options have been described in the literature and this is one of the most uncertain areas of the model. However, it has been shown that this shape can have a dominant effect on both the predicted drained and undrained strengths of the soil. In the strip footing example described in this paper an increase in the failure load of some 58% can be attributed to just changing the shape of the yield surface from a Mohr-Coulomb hexagon to a circle. Such results clearly show that it is imperative that the user has an in depth understanding of the constititutive model being used. The second example considered the potential problems associated with performing undrained analysis. Unfortunately the undrained strength of the soil is not an input parameter to the modified Cam clay model. It can, however, be calculated from the initial stress conditions in the soil and the model parameters. Knowing the distribution of undrained strength in the soil profile it is possible to calculate the distribution of either OCR or Ko which will give rise to this strength distribution. Care must be taken near to the ground surface because if the effective stress approaches zero then so does the undrained strength. Again it is critical that a user understands the implications of the model.

6. References [1] [2] Potts D.M. and Zdravkovic L., 1999, Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering: theory, Thomas Telford, London Coulomb C.A., 1776, Essai sur une application des regles de maxims et minims a quelques problemes de statique, relatifs a larchitecture, Mem. Acad. Royal Soc., 7, 343-382 Rankine W.J.M., 1857, On the stability of loose earth, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 147, 9-27 Drucker D.C. and Prager W., 1952, Soil mechanics and plastic analysis of limit design, Q. Appl. Math., 10, 157-167 Roscoe K.H. and Schofield A.N., 1963, Mechanical behaviour of an idealised wet

[3] [4] [5]

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

clay, 2nd ECSMFE, Wiesbaden, 1, 47-54 Schofield A.N. and Wroth C.P., 1968, Critical state soil mechanics, McGraw Hill, London Roscoe K.H. and Burland J.B., 1968, On the generalised stress-strain behaviour of wet clay, Eng. plasticity, Cambridge Univ. Press, 535-609 Matsuoka H. and Nakai T., 1974, Stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soil under three different principal stresses, Proc. Jap. Soc. Civ. Eng., 232, 59-70 Lade P.V. and Duncan J.M., 1975, Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil, ASCE, GT Div., 101, 1037-1053 Eekelen H.A.M. van, 1980, Isotropic yield surfaces in three dimensions for use in soil mechanics, Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 4, 89-101 Potts D.M. and Gens A., 1984, The effect of the plastic potential in boundary value problems involving plane strain deformation, Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 8, 259-286