c Springer-Verlag 2004

Granular Matter 6, 1116

DOI 10.1007/s10035-003-0152-8

A generalised Modied Cam clay model for clay and sand

incorporating kinematic hardening and bounding surface
plasticity
G. R. McDowell, K. W. Hau

Abstract This paper proposes a simple non-associated

Modied Cam clay model suitable for clay and sand. The
yield surface is taken to be that of Modied Cam clay,
which is a simple ellipse. The modied model reduces the
amount of shear strain predicted, and for clay requires no
new parameters because the ow rule uses a well established empirical result. For sand, the critical state frictional dissipation constant is required in addition to the
stress ratio at the peak of the yield surface. This permits realistic modelling of the undrained behaviour of
sand in states looser and denser than critical. The model
resembles more sophisticated models with yield surfaces of
more complex shapes, but is much simpler. More realistic
behaviour could be obtained by assuming a yield surface
with the same form as the potential if required. The model
is suitable for incorporating kinematic hardening for the
modelling of cyclic loading of clay. In addition, bounding
surface plasticity can be included to distinguish between
compacted and overconsolidated sand. The contribution
in this paper is therefore to provide a generalised simple
model based on Modied Cam clay.
Keywords Bounding surface plasticity, Clay, Kinematic
hardening, Non-associated ow, Plasticity, Sand, Yield
surface

1
Introduction
McDowell [1] derived a family of yield loci in triaxial stress
space, based on the idea that the relative amounts of
plastic work dissipated in friction and fracture should be
a simple function of stress ratio. He used the normality
criterion, together with a simple stress-dilatancy rule, to
generate the following family of yield loci for triaxial compression:
Received: 28 July 2003

= M[(a + 1) ln (p
o /p
)] a+1

(1)

where is the stress ratio q/p
, q is deviatoric stress (=1

3
where 1
and 3
are major and minor principal eective
stresses respectively), p
is mean eective stress (= (1
+
23
)/3), p
o is the isotropic preconsolidation pressure and
M is the critical state frictional dissipation constant. Thus
the equation of the yield surface is obtained by selecting
an appropriate value for the parameter a in addition to the
value of M. McDowell [1] assumed that normality applied,
so that the stress-dilatancy rule is given by the equation:
dpv
Ma+1 a+1
=
dpq
a

(2)

where dpv and dpq are the plastic volumetric and triaxial shear strain increments respectively, plotted along
the same axes as the associated stresses p
and q respectively at the current state in stress space, to give the plastic strain increment vector. McDowell [2] compared this
model, which requires one new parameter a, to that of
Lagioia et al. [3] which requires two parameters to dene
the shape of the yield surface. McDowell [2] then generalised the model to allow non-associated ow, so that the
critical state was permitted to lie to the left of the peak of
the yield surface in deviatoric:mean eective stress space;
it is well known that for granular materials the critical
state point does not occur at the top of the yield locus
[4, 5]. The models proposed by Chandler [4, 5], which make
use of the mathematical theory of envelopes and micro
structural considerations, are suitable for clays and sands,
but require the measurement of microscopic parameters,
and have not been adopted widely by geotechnical engineers due to their complexity. McDowell [2] also noted that
the model proposed by Yu [6] which gives a yield surface of
the same form as (1) uses Rowes stress-dilatancy relationship [7], which gives non-associated ow under isotropic
conditions: behaviour which is not observed in the literature. The resulting equations for the yield surface and
plastic potential, for the model proposed by McDowell [2]
for sand are respectively:

G. R. McDowell (&)
Senior Lecturer, University of Nottingham, UK
e-mail: glenn.mcdowell@nottingham.ac.uk

= N[(a + 1) ln (p
o /p
)] a+1


 1
= M (b + 1) ln p
p /p
b+1

K. W. Hau
Research Student, University of Nottingham, UK

The parameter N is the stress ratio at the peak of the

yield surface, and a controls the shape of the yield surface, whilst b controls the ow rule and p
p is the hardening parameter for the potential. The model can correctly

The authors are grateful to Mr C.D. Khong for discussions on

the bounding surface formulation of the CASM model.

(3)
(4)

12

predict the coefcient of earth pressure at rest Ko,nc (dened as the lateral eective stress divided by axial eective
stress) for one-dimensional normal (i.e. plastic) compression, for which
dv
d1
= 1.5
=
dq
2d1 /3

(5)

and the value of Ko,nc is found empirically [8] to satisfy

the equation
Ko,nc = 1 sin

(6)

where
is the angle of shearing resistance. It is found for

clays that the value of
in (6) is the critical state angle
of friction
crit . Since
M=

6 sin
crit
3 sin
crit

(7)

(6) and (7) imply that the stress ratio o,nc during onedimensional normal compression is given by
o,nc 0.6 M

(8)

For sand, the value of
in (6) is less certain. According to Muir Wood [9], for sand the value of Ko,nc will
depend on the initial structure of the sand, and is therefore likely to depend on the maximum angle of shearing
resistance. However, for a sand which has yielded and is
deforming plastically under one-dimensional normal compression (i.e. the state lies on the state boundary surface),
it would be expected that the initial structure will have
been eliminated, so that the value of
in (6) will be
crit
as for clay.
The model permits the separation of the critical
state line and isotropic normal compression line in voids
ratio:mean eective stress space to be correctly reproduced. However, a simpler approach would to be to allow
the yield surface to be of the Modied Cam clay [10] type
(i.e. an ellipse). The following section examines how Modied Cam clay can be modied further in a simple way in
order to model better the behaviour of clay, and to model
the behaviour of sand.
2
A generalised soil model
We now generalise the Modied Cam clay model so as to
be suitable for clay and sand. The equation of the Modied Cam clay [10] yield surface is:
2

2
q2
p
o
p
o


+
p

=
M2
2
4

[11] showed that the model could be adjusted to reproduce

less shear strain, by writing the ow rule as:
M2 2
dpv
p =
dq
k

(11)

This ow rule was also proposed by Ohmaki [12] to

correctly predict Ko,nc , and used by Alonso et al. [13]
to model the behaviour of partially saturated clays. The
plastic potential has the equation:
M2
q =
1k
2

p

p
p

 k2

p
2
p +

M2 p
2
1k

except for k =1, when




q = Mp
2 ln p
p /p

(12)

(13)

In (12), (13), p
p is the hardening parameter for the potential. The potentials are shown in Figure 1. McDowell
and Hau [11] showed that for clays obeying (6) and (8),
combining (5), (8) and (11) and neglecting elastic strains
predicts that
k 0.7 M

(14)

Consequently, for soils obeying J

akys relationship [8]
in (6), a non-associated Modied Cam clay model suitable
for clay has a ow rule
dpv
M2 2
p =
dq
0.7M

(15)

and a plastic potential given by:

q2 =

2

 0.7M
p
M2
M2 p
2
p
2
p +


1 0.7M pp
1 0.7M

(16)

This model requires no new parameters and produces

the correct amount of shear strain under one-dimensional
conditions. If the shape of the state boundary surface
diers significantly from Modied Cam clay, then the
potentials in Fig. 1 could be used as yield surfaces with
associated ow, with the critical state at the apex of the
yield surface, as is observed experimentally. We now generalise the soil model, so as to be able to model the behaviour of sand.

(9)

where p
o is the isotropic preconsolidation pressure, with

ow rule given by
dpv
M2 2
p =
dq
2

(10)

However, this model reproduces too much shear strain

and therefore overpredicts Ko,nc [11]. McDowell and Hau

Fig. 1. Potentials for non-associated Modied Cam clay model

13

Fig. 2. Non-associated model with M=1.2, N=0.7, k=0.8

For sand, the yield surface now has an equation:

2

2
q2
p
o
p
o


+
p

=
N2
2
4

(17)

where N is the stress ratio at the peak of the yield surface, and the ow rule and plastic potential are given by
(11), (12) respectively. i.e. for sand, the stress ratio at
the apex of the yield surface N is required in addition to
critical state stress ratio M. The use of the non-associated ow rule with N < M means that the behaviour of
sand in undrained tests can be modelled, in the same way
as described by McDowell [2]. Figure 2 shows the yield
surface and ow rule, and for an undrained test on an isotropically normally consolidated sand, the stress path will
follow the yield surface to a critical state (if elastic strains
are assumed to be very small). If the shape of the yield
surface differs significantly from Modied Cam clay, then
the following equations can be used for the yield surface
and potential respectively:
N2
q =
1 ky
2

M2
q =
1 kp
2

p

p
o
p

p
p

 k2

 k2

p
o +

N2 p
2
1 ky

(18)

p
2
p +

M2 p
2
1 kp

(19)

where ky controls the shape of the yield surface and kp the

ow rule, in the same way that two parameters were used
to do this in the alternative model described by McDowell
[2]. An example of a plot of the yield surface and ow rule
is drawn in Figure 3 for the case with ky = 0.7, kp = 0.8,
M = 1.2, N = 0.8.
The parameters ky , kp , M and N can be determined
from standard triaxial tests. If the sand behaves isotropically elastically along a linear unload-reload line in vln p

space (where v is specic volume), then for sand which is
yielding an elastic line can be plotted through the current state in v ln p
space to obtain the preconsolidation
pressure p
o . The current values of q and p
can then be

Fig. 3. Yield surface and ow rule for sand with M=1.2,

N=0.8, ky =0.7, kp =0.8

normalised by p
o and plotted in q/p
o p
/p
o space. This

can be repeated for yielding at different stress ratios to
plot out the state boundary surface. This was done by
McDowell et al. [14] for high pressure triaxial tests on silica sand, as described by McDowell [2]. The stress ratio
N corresponding to the peak value of q/p
o can then be
deduced, and a suitable value of ky can be determined.
A series of conventional drained tests to ultimate critical
states can be used to deduce the value of the stress ratio M
at a critical state. For convenience, the value of ky could
be taken to be equal to the value of kp . Alternatively,
the direction of the plastic strain increment vector could
be determined as a function of stress ratio, by deducting the elastic strains calculated from unload-reload data
from measured total strains at a range of stress ratios, as
described by Coop [15].
So far, the yield surface and plastic potential have been
given for the specic case of triaxial compression. The
model can easily be applied in general stress space, so
that the equation of the Modied Cam clay yield surface
becomes:
2

2
3
p
o
p
o


(20)
s
s
+
p

=
ij
ij
2N2
2
4
and the plastic potential
3
M2
sij sij =
2
1k

p

p
p

 k2

p
2
p +

M2 p
2
1k

(21)

where sij is the deviatoric stress tensor. If the yield surface

is assumed to be of the same form as the potential, then its
equation can be generalised in the same way. In equations
(20) and (21) it has been assumed that the parameters
M and N do not vary with Lode angle in principal stress
space; the parameters M, N and k would, in general, be
determined from triaxial compression tests. However, it
is well known that the Mohr Coulomb criterion is more
appropriate to failure conditions in soils [16], such that
the value of M is greater in triaxial compression than in

14

triaxial extension. The values of M and N could easily be

made to be a function of Lode angle , where




1
2 3

1
2

= tan
1
(22)
3 1 3

For example, the following equation proposed by Sheng
et al. [17] for the shape of the failure surface, is useful:
1/4

24
M() = Mmax
(23)
1 + 4 + (1 4 ) sin 3
where
=

Mmin
3 sin

=
Mmax
3 + sin

(24)

and Mmax is the value of M in triaxial compression with

= 30 , and Mmin is the value in triaxial extension
with = +30 . This gives a failure surface in the -plane
which has a shape similar to that proposed by Matsuoka
and Nakai [18], and is sketched in Figure 4. The eect
of dM/d will be important for the potential under plane
strain conditions, under which it is well known that the
shape of the potential is crucial [16]. For axisymmetric
problems, the eect of the rate of change of M with Lode
angle can be neglected for simplicity: this is equivalent to
assuming a circular surface in the -plane with the value
of M corresponding to the Lode angle at the current point
in stress space [11]. Potts and Zdravkovic [16] have also
noted that the shape of the yield surface in the -plane has
a much smaller eect on drained behaviour under plane
strain conditions, provided the correct angle of shearing
resistance is obtained at failure.
For the above models, a suitable hardening rule for
the model would be the volumetric hardening rule used
in conventional critical state models [10] such that plastic
volumetric strain is related to changes in the preconsolidation pressure p
o according to the equation:
pv =

( ) p
o
v
p
o

(25)

where is the slope of the normal compression line in

v- ln p
space, and is the slope of an unload-reload line
in v- ln p
space.
It should be noted that it has been assumed that
the behaviour inside the state boundary surface is elastic and isotropic, so that by normalising q and p
by p
o in

Fig. 4. Failure surface given by equation (23)

equations (9), (17) and (18), a normalised elastic section

through the state boundary surface is obtained in each
case.
3
Kinematic hardening and bounding surface plasticity
An advantage of using Modied Cam clay as the state
boundary surface is that kinematic hardening can be easily incorporated. The three-surface kinematic hardening
(3-SKH) model [19] is shown in Figure 5, but full details
can be found in Stallebrass and Taylor [20]. The notation
in this paper is the same as that used in Stallebrass and
Taylor [20], and detailed definitions of parameters can be
found in that paper if required. The equations of the yield
surface, history surface and bounding surface are given
respectively below for triaxial stress space (see Figure 5
for definitions of stress parameters):
2

(q qb )
T 2 S 2 p
o
2
+ (p
p
b ) =
2
M
4
2

(26)

T 2 p
o
(q qa )



2
+
(p

p
)
=
a
M2
4


2
2
q2
p
o
p
o


+
p

=
M2
2
4

(27)
(9)

and the ratios of the sizes of the surfaces always remain

constant. The elastic strains are given by:
 e 



v
/p 0
p
(28)
=
eq
0
1/3G
ec
q
and the ow rule for plastic strains on the yield surface is:
 p

v

=

pq
b)
p
(p
p
b ) + q(qq
(p
p
b ) + H1 + H2
2
M

2


b)
(p
p
b )
(p
p
b ) (qq
2

M2 p


(qq b )
b)
q
(p p
b ) (qq
M2
M2
(29)

Fig. 5. The 3-SKH model in triaxial stress space

15

where the terms H1 and H2 are introduced so that the

model does not predict innite shear strains at a number
of points on the kinematic surfaces [21], and to ensure that
there is a smooth change in stiness when the surfaces are
in contact. The term H2 decays to zero as the yield surface
approaches the history surface, and the H1 term becomes
zero when the stress state is on the bounding surface with
all three surfaces in contact. The forms of the moduli can
be found in Stallebrass and Taylor [20], and are based on
bounding surface plasticity theory [22] such that the modulus deteriorates as the bounding surface is approached.
McDowell and Hau [11] have modied the three-surface
kinematic hardening model developed by Stallebrass [19]
to include the ow rule in (11) for plastic strains on the
yield surface. The ow rule for plastic strains is:


pv
pq

where sij is the deviatoric stress tensor,

sx = x
p
, sy = y
p
, sz = z
p
, sxy = xy ,

b)
p
(p
p
b ) + q(qq
k2 (p
p
b ) + k2 H1 + k2 H2
M2



2

2


2

(qq b )
(p

p
)
(p

p
)
2
b
b
k
k 
M
p
2
(30)


(qq b )
q
(p p
) (qq2b )
2
b

The moduli H1 and H2 in the original model have also

been scaled by 2/k so that only the shear strains have been
reduced; Al-Tabbaa [21] found that volumetric strains
were predicted well by the two surface model based on
Modied Cam clay for kaolin subjected to drained cyclic
loading. This simple approach ensures that the singularity
points on the yield surface are the same as in the original
model, and that these singularities are removed by the
H1 and H2 terms. McDowell and Hau [11] showed that
by allowing the critical state constant M to be a function of Lode angle in stress space according to (23), it
was possible to gain improved predictions for the behaviour of clay under cyclic loading. Figure 6 shows an example of a prediction given by their new non-associated ow
model, compared with that given by the original 3-SKH
model, for a conventional cyclic triaxial test on kaolin. The
value of k was chosen to obtain the correct value of Ko,nc .
The stress history for the sample is described by Stallebrass [19]. It should be noted that the implementation of
kinematic hardening with non-elliptical yield surfaces is
numerically cumbersome. However, the use of the Modied Cam clay yield, history and bounding surfaces with
non-associated ow which is symmetrical about the centre line of the yield surface, is very easy to implement and
therefore very attractive. The authors have successfully
used this approach to model the behaviour of pavement
subgrades subjected to repeated wheel loads. This requires
the extension of the model to general stress space. This is
the subject of a later publication, but the equation of the
yield surface is given, for example, below:

f=

Fig. 6. New model prediction of response to conventional

cyclic loading

3 (sij sijb ) : (sij sijb )

2
+ (p
p
b ) T 2 S 2 p
2
o =0
M2
2
(31)

syz = yz , sxz = xz ,

(32)

the subscript b relates to the yield surface, and the relationship between q and sij is:


3 2
sx + s2y + s2z + 2s2xy + 2s2yz + 2s2xz
q=
(33)
2
The equation of the potential is:
g=

3 (sij sijb ) : (sij sijb )

2
M2


2
2
p p
b + T Sp
o k 
1
2T Sp
p
+


1k
2T Spp
2

(p
p
b + T Sp
o )

=0
(34)
1k
For granular materials, it is usually found that on
unloading from the state boundary surface followed by
reloading, the strains are small [14, 23]. Consequently
kinematic hardening is unnecessary for overconsolidated
sands. However, the behaviour of compacted sands could
easily be modelled by permitting an initial loading surface
inside the bounding surface, and incorporating a modulus
which deteriorates as the loading surface approaches the
state boundary surface. There are numerous possibilities
for the form of the modulus. One possibility is the formulation proposed by Yu and Khong [24], which is formulated
for the CASM [6] Model. It is also readily useable with
a Modied Cam clay yield surface, or with a yield surface given by equation (18). Figure 7 shows the bounding
surface plasticity model for non-associated Modied Cam
clay: the modulus on the loading surface H is given by:

H = Hi +

h (1 )
p

(35)

where Hi is the modulus at the image point, and h and m

are two material parameters (see [24]), the p
term gives
the dependence of the modulus on stress level, and
=

p

q
p
ol
=
=
p
i
qi
p
o

(36)

16

References

Fig. 7. Bounding surface plasticity model in triaxial stress

space

so that the modulus decays to the value on the bounding

surface as the bounding surface is approached. For a dense
sand, the size of the loading surface will be much smaller
than that of the bounding surface, so that will be very
small and the response will be sti. For loose sand at the
same stress level, the bounding surface will be smaller and
the value of larger so that more plastic strain will occur.
4
Conclusions
A generalised Modied Cam clay model has been developed for clay and sand. The new model reduces the
amount of shear strain produced by Modied Cam clay,
without the need for any new parameters. For sand, the
stress ratio at the peak of the yield surface is needed in
addition to the critical state frictional dissipation constant. The simple non-associated ow rule makes it possible to model the undrained behaviour of sand. If the
state boundary surface differs significantly from Modied Cam clay, then the yield surface can be assumed to
be of the same form as the potential. Kinematic hardening has been incorporated inside the state boundary
surface. For granular materials, kinematic hardening is
unnecessary for overconsolidated sands; however, a
simple bounding surface plasticity approach can be incorporated to distinguish between the behaviour of compacted and overconsolidated sand. Thus, this model is
capable of capturing many of the essential features of soil
behaviour.

1. G. R. McDowell, Soils and Foundations 40(6) (2000),

p. 133
2. G. R. McDowell, Granular Matter 4(2) (2002), p. 65
3. R. Lagoia, A. M. Puzrin & D. M. Potts, Computers and
Geotechnics 19(3) (1996), p.171
4. H. W. Chandler, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 33(3) (1985),
p. 215
5. H. W. Chandler, Int. J. Engng. Sci. 28(8) (1990), p. 719
6. H. S. Yu, J. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 22 (1998), p. 621
7. P. W. Rowe, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 269 (1962), p. 500
8. J. J
aky, J. Union of Hungarian Engineers and Architects
(1944), p. 355
9. D. M. Wood, Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil
Mechanics. Cambridge University Press (1990)
10. K. H. Roscoe & J. B. Burland, Engineering Plasticity (eds.
J. Heyman & F.A. Leckie), p. 535. Cambridge University
Press (1968)
11. G. R. McDowell and K. W. Hau, Geotechnique 53(4)
(2003), p. 433
12. S. Ohmaki, 1st Int. Symp. Num. Mod. Geomech., Zurich
(1982), p. 250
13. E. E. Alonso, A. Gens & A. Josa, Geotechnique 40(3)
(1990), p. 405
14. G. R. McDowell, Y. Nakata & M. Hyodo, Geotechnique
52(5) (2002), p. 349
15. M. R. Coop., Geotechnique 40(4) (1990), p. 607
16. D. M. Potts & L. Zdravkovic, Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: theory. London: Thomas Telford
(1999)
17. D. Sheng, S. W. Sloan & H. S. Yu, Comput. Mech. 26
(2000), p. 185
18. H. Matsuoka & T. Nakai, Proc. Jap. Soc. Civ. Engrs 32
(1974), p. 59
19. S. E. Stallebrass, Ph.D Thesis, City University, London
(1990)
20. S. E. Stallebrass & R. N. Taylor, Geotechnique 47(2)
(1997), p. 235
21. A. Al-Tabbaa, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge
(1987)
22. Y. F. Dafalias & L. R. Hermann, Soil Mechanics Transient and cyclic loads (eds. G. Pande & O. C. Zienkiewicz),
p. 235. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, London (1982)
23. C. R. Golightly, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bradford
(1990)
24. H. S. Yu & C. D. Khong, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics
of Geomaterials. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (2003, in
press)