Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

NON-LINEAR HYPERBOLIC MODEL & PARAMETER SELECTION

(Introduction to the Hardening Soil Model)

(following initial development by Tom Schanz at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany)

Computational Geotechnics

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Introduction Stiffness Modulus Triaxial Data Plasticity HS-Cap-Model

Contents

Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands

Summary

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Introduction

Hardening Soils Most soils behave in a nonlinear behavior soon after application of shear stress. Elastic-plastic hardening is a common technique, also used in PLAXIS.

Usage of the Soft Soil model with creep Creep is usually of greater significance in soft soils.

Hyperbolic stress-strain law for triaxial response curves

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Introduction Hardening Soils Most soils behave in a nonlinear behavior

Fig. 1: Hyperbolic stress strain response curve of Hardening Soil model

R

f

q

f

q

a

E

ur

3

E

50

(standard PLAXIS setting Version 7)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Stiffness Modulus

Elastic unloading and reloading (Ohde, 1939)

We use the two elastic parameters ur and E ur :

m  c cot  -  '  ref 3 E   ur ref
m
c
cot
-
'
ref
3
E
ur
ref
c
cot
+
p
1
G
E
ref
p
100
kPa
ur
ur
2(1
)
ur
Initial (primary) loading
m
m
'
'
 c
cot
sin
c
cos 
ref
3
ref
3
E
E
E
50
50
ref
50
ref
p
c
cot
p
sin
c
cos
Fig. 2: Definition of E 50 in a standard drained triaxial experiment

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Stiffness Modulus

Oedometer tests

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Stiffness Modulus Oedometer tests ref Fig. 3: Definition of the
ref Fig. 3: Definition of the normalized oedometric stiffness E oed
ref
Fig. 3: Definition of the normalized oedometric stiffness
E
oed

Fig. 4: Values for m from oedometer test versus initial porosity n 0

ref Fig. 5: Normalized oedometer modulus E versus initial porosity n 0 oed
ref
Fig. 5: Normalized oedometer modulus
E
versus initial porosity n 0
oed

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Stiffness Modulus

Triaxial tests

Fig. 6: Normalized oedometric stiffness for various soil classes (von Soos, 1991)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Stiffness Modulus Triaxial tests Fig. 6: Normalized oedometric stiffness for

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Stiffness Modulus

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Stiffness Modulus Fig. 7: Values for m obtained from triaxial

Fig. 7: Values for m obtained from triaxial test versus initial porosity n 0

ref Fig. 8: Normalized triaxial modulus E versus initial porosity n 0 50
ref
Fig. 8: Normalized triaxial modulus
E
versus initial porosity n 0
50

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Stiffness Modulus

Summary of data for sand: Vermeer & Schanz (1997)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Stiffness Modulus Summary of data for sand: Vermeer & Schanz

Fig. 9: Comparison of normalized stiffness moduli from oedometer and triaxial tests

E

oed

E

ref

oed

'  y ref p
'
y
ref
p

E

50

E

ref

50

'  x ref p
'
x
ref
p

Engineering practice: mostly data on E oed

Test data:

E

ref

oed

ref

E

50

(standard setting PLAXIS version 7)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Triaxial Data on p 21 p

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Triaxial Data on   2  Fig. 10: Equi-g

Fig. 10: Equi-g lines (Tatsuoka, 1972) for dense Toyoura Sand

2

1

q

a

q

E

50

q

a

q

E

50

ref

E

50

'

3

sin

c

cos

p

ref

sin

c

cos

m

q

a

q

f

R

f

M

(

p

c

cot

)

R

1

f

M

6sin

3

sin

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Triaxial Data on   2  Fig. 10: Equi-g

Fig. 11: Yield and failure surfaces for the Hardening Soil model

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Plasticity

Yield and hardening functions

p

p

1

p

2

p

3

2

p

1

2

1

2

e

1

q

a

q

2

q

E

50

q

a

q

E

ur

f

q

a

q

2

q

E

142 43

50

a

q

q

E

{

ur

p

2

1

2

e

1

0

3D extension

In order to extent the model to general 3D states in terms of stress, we use a

modified expression for q in terms of

friction

m

% q
%
q

and the mobilized angle of internal

'

q%(1)

1

'

2

'



3

with

3

sin

m

3

sin

m

where

M %

6sin

m

3

sin

m

f

% (
%
(

q % M

p c

cot

m

)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Plasticity

Plastic potential and flow rule

 

*

'

'

'

q

(1)

1

2



3

with

 

where

3

3

sin

m

sin

m

 

*

g q

M

*

(

p c

cot

m

)

M

*

6sin

m

 
 

3

sin

m

 

 

p

 

p

1

p

2

p

3

12

g

12

13

g

13

12

 

  • 1 1

  • 2 2

    • 1 1

2

sin

  • 2 sin

  • 0  

 

13

 

1

2

1

2

1

2

sin

0

1

2

sin  

 

Flow rule

 

 

p

v

p

sin

m

p

v

sin

m

p

with

 

sin

m

sin

m

sin

cv

 
 

1

sin

sin

cv

p

p

m

cv

Table 1: Primary soil parameters and standard PLAXIS settings

 

C [kPa]

 

[o]

[o]

 

E50 [Mpa]

 

0

30-40

0-10

 

40

Eur = 3 E50

 

Vur = 0.2

Rf = 0.9

 

m = 0.5

 

Pref = 100 kPa

 

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Plasticity

Hardening soil response in drained triaxial experiments

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Plasticity Hardening soil response in drained triaxial experiments Fig. 12:

Fig. 12: Results of drained triaxial loading: stress-strain relations (s3 = 100 kPa)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Plasticity Hardening soil response in drained triaxial experiments Fig. 12:

Fig. 13: Results of drained triaxial loading: axial-volumetric strain relations (s3 = 100 kPa)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Plasticity

Undrained hardening soil analysis

Method A: switch to drained Input:

' ' '  c ;   ;  ref  E 50  ref
'
'
'
c ;
 
;
ref
E
50
ref
0.2;
E
3
E
;
m
0.5;
p
100
kPa
ur
ur
50
Method B: switch to undrained
Input:
c
;
;
0
u
u
ref
E
50
ref
0.2;
E
3
E
;
m
0.5;
p
100
kPa
 
ur
ur
50
Interesting in case you have data on C u and not no C’ and ’
m
'
sin
 c
cos
ref
3
u
u
u
ref
E
E
E
const .
50
50
ref
50
p
sin
c
cos
u
u
u
m
'
sin
 c
cos
ref
3
u
u
u
ref
E
E
E
const .
ur
ur
ref
ur
p
sin
c
cos
u
u
u
Assume
E
0.7
E
and use graph by Duncan & Buchignani (1976) to estimate
50
u
E u
E
 1.4 E
u
50
2c
u
Fig. 14: Undrained Hardening Soil analysis

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Plasticity

Hardening soil response in undrained triaxial tests

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Plasticity Hardening soil response in undrained triaxial tests Fig. 15:

Fig. 15: Results of undrained triaxial loading: stress-strain relations (s3 = 100 kPa)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Plasticity Hardening soil response in undrained triaxial tests Fig. 15:

Fig. 16: Results of undrained triaxial loading: p-q diagram (s3 = 100 kPa)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

HS-Cap-Model

Cap yield surface

f

c

2

q %

M

2

2

p

p

2

c

Flow rule

g

c

f

c

(Associated flow)

Hardening law

For isotropic compression we assume

 

p

 

p

p

  • 1

 

p

v

With

K

c

K

s

H

H

K

c

K

s

 

K

s

K

 
 

c

For isotropic compression we have q = 0 and it follows from

p

p

c

p

c

H

p

v

H

c

g

c

p

2

H

c

p

For the determination of, we use another consistency condition:

f

c

f

c

T

f

c

p

c

p

c

0

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

HS-Cap-Model

Additional parameters The extra input parameters are

K (1sin) and

0

E

oed

/

E

50

(

1.0)

The two auxiliary material parameter M and Kc/Ks are determined iteratively from the simulation of an oedometer test. There are no direct input parameters. The user should not be too concerned about these parameters.

Graphical presentation of HS-Cap-Model

I: Purely elastic response II: Purely frictional hardening with f III: Material failure according to Mohr-Coulomb IV: Mohr-Coulomb and cap fc V: Combined frictional hardening f and cap fc VI: Purely cap hardening with fc VII: Isotropic compression

1 2 3 Fig. 17: Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in p-q-space (left) and
1
2
3
Fig. 17: Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in p-q-space (left) and in the
deviatoric plane (right)

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

HS-Cap-Model  =  =  1 2 3
HS-Cap-Model
= 
= 
1
2
3

Fig. 18: Yield surfaces of the extended HS model in principal stress space

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense

Fig. 19: Comparison of calculated (•) and measured triaxial tests on loose Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense

Fig. 20: Comparison of calculated (•) and measured oedometer tests on loose Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense Sands

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense

Fig. 21: Comparison of calculated (•) and measured triaxial tests on dense Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Simulation of Oedometer and Triaxial Tests on Loose and Dense

Fig. 22: Comparison of calculated (•) and measured oedometer tests on dense Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Summary

Main characteristics Pressure dependent stiffness Isotropic shear hardening Ultimate Mohr-Coulomb failure condition Non-associated plastic flow Additional cap hardening

HS-model versus MC-model

c,,

E

ref

50

As in Mohr-Coulomb model Normalized primary loading stiffness

ur

E

ref

ur

Unloading / reloading Poisson’s ratio

Normalized unloading / reloading stiffness

  • m Power in stiffness laws Failure ratio

R

f

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense Sand

Oedometer and triaxial shear experimental data for both loose and dense sands are given in Figs. 23 – 26.

Table 2: Parameters for loose and dense sand

 

v ur

m

E

ref

oed

/

E

ref

50

E

ref

ur

/

E

ref

50

E

ref

50

loose

0.25

0.65

34 o

0 o

1.0

 

3.0

 

16

dense

0.25

0.65

41 o

14 o

0.9

 

3.0

 

35 MPa

Proceed according to the following steps:

Use Ko = 1 – sinand E oed /E 50 according to Table 2 in the advanced material parameter input in PLAXIS.

For both simulations use an axis-symmetric mesh (1x 1 [m]) with a coarse element density. Change loading and boundary conditions according to the test conditions.

Simulation of oedmoter tests with unloading for unloading for maximum axial stress.

Loose sand:

max

1

200kPa

Dense sand:

max

1

400kPa

If necessary improve given material parameters to obtain a more realistic response.

Check triaxial tests with the parameters obtained from the oedometer simulation.

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense Sand

Results for loose sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense

Fig. 23: Triaxial tests on loose Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense

Fig. 24: Oedometer tests on loose Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection

Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense Sand

Results for dense sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense

Fig. 25: Triaxial tests on dense Hostun Sand

Non-Linear Hyperbolic Model & Parameter Selection Exercise 1: Calibration of the HS-Cap-Model for Loose and Dense

Fig. 26: Oedometer tests on dense Hostun Sand