Manzari, M. T. & Dafalias, Y. F. (1997). GeÂotechnique 47, No.
2, 255±272
A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands
M . T. M A N Z A R I  a n d Y. F. DA FA L I A S {
Within the critical state soil mechanics frame-
work, the two-surface formulation of plasticity is
coupled with the state parameter to construct a
constitutive model for sands in a general stress
space. The operation of the two-surface model
takes place in the deviatoric stress-ratio space,
and the state parameter is used to de®ne the
peak and dilatancy stress ratios of sand. The
model is capable of realistically simulating
stress±strain behaviour of sands under mono-
tonic and cyclic, drained and undrained loading
conditions. It includes features such as the
softening of sands at states denser than critical
as they dilate in drained loading and softening
of sands looser than critical in undrained
loading, and the pore-water pressure increase
under undrained cyclic loading. Most important,
all these simulations are achieved by a unique
set of model constants at all densities and
con®ning pressures of engineering relevance for
a given sand. The numerical implementation of
the model is particularly easy and ef®cient due
to the very simple formulation. Calibration of
model constants is done straightforwardly on
the basis of triaxial experiments and measure-
ments of well-known characteristics of sand
stress±strain behaviour. Possibly the most at-
tractive feature of the model is its simplicity and
its foundation on concepts and data which are
well established and understood by the geotech-
nical engineering community, with basic refer-
ence to critical state soil mechanics.
KEYWORDS: anisotropy; bounding surface; critical
state; plasticity; sands; state parameter.
INTRODUCTION
In this paper, critical state soil mechanics (CSSM)
(Roscoe et al., 1958; Scho®eld & Wroth, 1968) is
Manuscript received 7 August 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 2 February 1996.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 September 1997; for
further details see p. ii.

George Washington University.
{ National Technical University of Athens and University
of California at Davis.
255
Dans le contexte de la meÂcanique des sols aÁ
l'eÂtat critique, on combine la formulation de la
plasticite aÁ deux surfaces et le parameÁtre d'eÂtat
pour construire un modeÁle constitutif pour les
sables dans un espace de tension geÂneÂrale.
L'exploitation du modeÁle aÁ deux surfaces se
produit dans l'espace deÂviateur des rapports de
tension et le parameÁtre d'eÂtat sert aÁ de®nir les
rapports de pointe et de dilatance des tensions
du sable. Le modeÁle peut simuler reÂalistique-
ment le comportement tension=deÂformation des
sables dans des conditions de charge uniformes
et cycliques, draineÂes et non draineÂes. Il com-
prend des caracteÂristiques comme l'ameublisse-
ment de sables aÁ des eÂtats de densite supeÂrieurs
aÁ l'eÂtat critique, quand ils se dilatent dans des
conditions de charge draineÂes, et aÁ des eÂtats de
densite infeÂrieurs aÁ l'eÂtat critique dans des
conditions de charge non draineÂes, ainsi que
l'augmentation de la pression interstitielle dans
des conditions de charge cyclique non draineÂes.
Plus important encore, toutes ces simulations
sont reÂaliseÂes aÁ l'aide d'un seul ensemble de
constantes de modeÁle pour toutes les densiteÂs et
pressions de con®nement utiles pour un sable
donneÂ. La mise en oeuvre numeÂrique de modeÁle
est particulieÁrement facile et ef®cace en raison
de la grande simplicite de la formulation.
L'eÂtalonnage des constantes du modeÁle se fait
simplement aÁ partir d'essais triaxiaux et de
mesures de caracteÂristiques bien connues du
comportement tension=deÂformations des sables.
L'aspect le plus inteÂressant de ce modeÁle est
peut-eÃtre sa simplicite et le fait qu'il repose sur
des concepts et des donneÂes qui sont bien eÂtablis
et qui sont bien compris des geÂotechniciens, avec
mention sommaire de la meÂcanique des sols aÁ
l'eÂtat critique.
interpreted as a general theoretical framework for
explaining the stress±strain behaviour of soils. The
CSSM can be used to study soil behaviour without
any reference to a particular constitutive model
(Roscoe et al., 1958; Wood, 1990). Alternatively, it
can provide a theoretical basis which, in combina-
tion with concepts from general constitutive the-
ories, such as elastoplasticity, can be used to con-
struct pertinent soil constitutive models. Original
efforts by Roscoe et al. (1963) and Roscoe &
Burland (1968) are classic examples of applying the
256 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
elastoplasticity theory within the framework of
CSSM. It can be said that, in general, the CSSM
plasticity models were able to capture well the
stress±strain response characteristics of normally
consolidated clays, and with a lesser degree of
accuracy, that of sands under monotonic loading
conditions.
When the need to describe the cyclic response
characteristics of soils (such as the pore-water
pressure development under cyclic undrained load-
ing conditions) arose, it became evident that what
was available was not enough. This, however, had
more to do with the classical isotropic hardening
plasticity framework used, and less with the
premises of CSSM itself. More advanced plasticity
modelling concepts, such as kinematic hardening,
multisurface plasticity and bounding surface plas-
ticity were introduced to model cyclic loading
conditions in addition to monotonic ones. Plasticity
models proposed by Mroz et al. (1978), Prevost
(1978) and Dafalias & Herrmann (1980, 1986)
were among the ®rst attempts, which were fol-
lowed by many other works of a similar kind. The
CSSM concepts still remained in the background,
but often the price one had to pay for the
increased simulative capabilities of the models
was greater complexity, more constants to calibrate
and greater dif®culty in numerical implementation.
In addition it appears that greater accuracy in the
simulation of cyclic loading was achieved by
sacri®cing the accuracy of simulations for mono-
tonic loading, and vice versa.
Particularly for sands, one additional negative
feature was that samples at suf®ciently different
densities were treated as different rather than the
same materials (e.g. Zeng & Arulanandan (1993),
which reports the calibrated parameters used for
two different void ratios in the VELACS class A
prediction exercise). In an effort to treat sands
using the same constitutive constants at all densi-
ties, Jefferies (1993) and Crouch et al. (1994)
introduced models based on CSSM from different
perspectives. Both models, however, had no provi-
sion for suf®ciently accurate cyclic loading re-
sponse simulation. Crouch & Wolf (1994) extended
their previous work with Dafalias in a way which
looks promising but, perhaps, too complicated as
well.
The main objective of this paper is to develop a
comprehensive constitutive model for sands which
avoids the previously mentioned disadvantage and,
simultaneously, is both simple and easy to under-
stand. Two known concepts are used: (1) the
concept of a yield=bounding or two-surface plas-
ticity formulation (Dafalias & Popov, 1975; Krieg,
1975), and (2) the concept of the state parameter
(Been & Jefferies, 1985) as an essential variable
arising in a CSSM framework. In the process,
these two independent concepts are coupled to-
gether on the basis of modi®cations of the recent
proposition by Wood et al. (1994) relating peak
stress ratio and state parameter.
BASIC CONCEPTS
The basic underlying concepts of the model in
the triaxial q, p space (all stresses are effective)
and the de®nition of some key quantities are
described below before the analytical form of the
constitutive equations is presented.
CSSM is the basic theoretical framework. The
critical state, at which deformation continues for
®xed stresses and zero volumetric strain rate, is
attained when the stress ratio ç ˆ q= p equals M c ,
the critical value in triaxial compression, and
simultaneously the void ratio e equals ec , the
critical void ratio, which is assumed to be a unique
function of p. The ec , p relation is usually taken
to be linear in the e, ln p space de®ning the
critical state line (CSL) of slope ë as shown in
Fig. 1.
A typical material response is illustrated in Figs
1 and 2. If a state initially denser than critical,
represented by point a in Fig. 1, is subjected to
drained constant- p triaxial compression, it will ®rst
consolidate, moving to point a9d , and then dilate
until it reaches point a9c on the CSL where e ˆ ec
and critical failure occurs. Simultaneously, in Fig.
2, which is drawn in the ç, 1 space by normalizing
both q and p by p, the point a moves upwards,
crosses point a9d where consolidation changes to
dilation at a stress ratio ç ˆ M dc , moves up to
point a9b at a peak stress ratio ç ˆ M bc and then
falls back to point a9c , at the residual or critical
stress ratio ç ˆ M c where it fails. The description
of the softening from a9b to a9c will be one of the
important aspects of the model. Under undrained
loading point a will ®rst move to point a d0 (Fig. 1),
as positive pore water pressure development due to
the initial contractive tendency reduces the effec-
tive stress p, and then upon dilative tendency will
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of drained and un-
drained paths in e, ln p space for a state denser than
critical (point a) and looser than critical (point b)
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration in the ç, 1 space of the
bounding (peak) stress ratio M bc , critical stress ratio
M c and dilatancy stress ratio M dc , the back-stress ratio
á, the width 2m of the wedge-type yield surface and
the constant-p drained paths of Fig. 1
move to the critical point a c0 at the same e as the
initial value, where failure occurs. The correspond-
ing undrained q, p path with the characteristic
`hook' response is not shown in Fig. 2 for clarity.
For a state looser than critical, as in point b of
Fig. 1, the response is different. Under drained
constant- p loading the material consolidates and b
moves to the corresponding critical point b9c and
fails (Figs 1 and 2), in general without dilation and
softening. It may, however, be the case that if the
state at b is not much looser than critical (an
obvious example is the limit case b ˆ b9c initially
in Fig. 1) the constant- p path may cross point b9c
down to point b9d , denser than critical, and then
turn up and reach b9c again where it fails. This
response will be accompanied by a rise to point b9b
(Fig. 2) followed by a small amount of softening
back to b9c . In a corresponding undrained loading,
shown only in the e, ln p space of Fig. 1 for
clarity, the state moves from point b to point bc0
where it fails, and in fact most often it passes ®rst
b0c and reaches bd0 before it turns to point bc0 where
it fails. In this latter case the characteristic `hook'
shape of the undrained stress path in q, p space
will appear, as for point a.
A constitutive model is required to simulate all
these features and the stress±strain relation q, å1
(not discussed here for brevity) in a quantitatively
accurate way. It is also required to simulate the
response under cyclic loading if it is to be used in
problems involving such loading (e.g. earthquake-
induced loading). In addition, a unique set of
model constants for all densities and con®ning
pressures is needed as well as a formulation for a
general stress space.
257
CSSM provides a basis on which such consti-
tutive models can be built. It is a direct conse-
quence of the CSSM structure that the difference
e ÿ ec , with e and ec de®ned at the same p, plays
an important role in such model development. For
further reference the equation
ø ˆ e ÿ ec (1)
is stated, where the name `state parameter' for the
symbol ø introduced by Been & Jefferies (1985)
will be adopted (see also Fig. 1). Jefferies (1993)
developed the Nor-Sand critical state sand model
using ø explicitly in the formulation. In other
CSSM sand models (e.g. Crouch et al., 1994), ø
appears indirectly by way of the assumed shape of
the yield surface. In the present constitutive model
an explicit use of the state parameter ø will be
made.
The requirement to have a model which can
describe the response under monotonic and cyclic
loading conditions (i.e. a model which can describe
reverse as well as forward loading), is addressed
by postulating the existence of a yield surface in
q, p space shown by the boundaries (Oc and Oe)
of the shaded narrow wedge with apex at the
origin O in Fig. 2. The equation of the wedge-type
yield surface is given by
f ˆçÿá mˆ0 (2)
where á locates the bisector of the wedge angle
shown by a discontinuous line, and 2m is the wedge
`opening', á and m being stress ratio quantities.
The  sign stands for the top and bottom lines Oc
and Oe of the wedge, that is, a point is on the yield
surface when the mobilized stress ratio is equal to
ç ˆ á ‡ m (top) or ç ˆ á ÿ m (bottom). Equation
(2) is a cone type stress-ratio yield criterion which
introduces, for reverse loading, a mobilized stress
ratio in the reverse direction while ç is still greater
than 0. Corresponding concepts hold true for
triaxial extension. The effect of á is the equivalent
of a back-stress and ensuing kinematic hardening in
plasticity. The wedge-type yield surface will move
together with the stress-ratio point in a typical stress
path of the type described earlier.
It is clear from the above that no plastic
deformation will occur if q and p increase at
constant stress ratio ç, because in that case the
stress path will not tend to cross the sides Oc or Oe
of the wedge. One could introduce a `cap' closing
the open wedge at increasing p, as is done for
example in the double hardening sand model by
Vermeer (1978), and in the models by Yang et al.
(1985), Lacy & Prevost (1987) and Wang et al.
(1990). The complication of the formulation, how-
ever, resulting from the intersection of the cap with
the wedge does not warrant the little gain one
would have. This is because under normal con®ning
pressures of interest in geotechnical engineering,
258 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
not causing crushing of the sand particles, a
constant stress ratio loading induces only relatively
small strains. Even if equation (2) is not entirely
accurate as an exact yield surface (Tatsuoka & Ishi-
hara (1974) detected experimentally mildly curved
lines instead of straight), it may capture much of
that part of the sand response which is primarily
due to stress-ratio changes.
The relation between the peak and residual
stress ratios at critical failure, that is, the soften-
ing will be addressed now. A modi®cation of a
proposition recently made by Wood et al. (1994)
will be adopted, according to which a `virtual'
peak or bounding stress ratio can be related to the
critical stress ratio M c by way of ø. Denoting the
bounding stress ratio by M bc for compression and
M be for extension, and with M e the critical stress
ratio in extension (the extension values are neces-
sary for the subsequent generalization to multiaxial
stress space and will be taken positive), one can
write
M bc ˆ ábc ‡ m ˆ M c ‡ k bc hÿøi (3a)
M be ˆ ábe ‡ m ˆ Me ‡ k be hÿøi (3b)
where k bc , k be are positive quantities and the Ma-
cauley brackets k l de®ne the operation hÿøi ˆ
ÿø if ÿø . 0 and hÿøi ˆ 0 if ÿø < 0. The use
of these brackets is the difference from the
proposition by Wood et al. (1994). Their effect is
to not allow M bc to become smaller than M c when
ø . 0 (similarly for M be ). This is intended to re¯ect
the response characteristics of looser than critical
states. It can also be shown that this has a sta-
bilizing effect on the numerical implementation.
The word `virtual' is used because M bc or M be is not
actually the peak stress ratio which will be reached
by the current stress ratio ç, but it changes with ø
until it is met by ç at a different value, where it
becomes the peak. Equations (3) introduce ábc and
ábe , which are based on the consideration that if
there is a `virtual' bounding or peak stress ratio,
there is also a corresponding `virtual' bounding or
peak back-stress ratio for a given m, as a direct
consequence of equation (2). Equations (3) de®ne
the ábc and ábe in terms of ø, as much as they de®ne
the M bc and M bc .
There is a subtle point related to equations (3).
Assume that the stress point has reached the
position a9b (Fig. 2) and, therefore, the side Oc of
the wedge-type yield surface is now along the peak
or bounding slope M bc (not shown for clarity).
Assume that a loading path along the top side of
the wedge, that is, with a stress ratio ç ˆ M bc ,
begins from a9b with p increasing, causing no
plastic deformation, that is, a neutral loading path.
Alternatively, the stress point could be entirely
inside the wedge and move at constant ç with p
increasing. In either case it follows that ec ÿ e
ˆ ÿø will begin to decrease from the positive
value it had at a9b and, consequently, the peak or
bounding stress ratio M bc will also decrease
according to equation (3a). Since no plastic loading
occurs, the yield surface will stay where it was, and
the stress ratio ç will become greater than the
reduced M bc . This aspect, which at ®rst seems
contradictory, is inherent in the proposition made by
Wood et al. (1994), even for other shapes of yield
surfaces which allow for increasing p by neutral
loading, but it was not examined because the
authors considered only constant- p drained loading
paths. In a general constitutive formulation, though,
all possibilities must be examined. Such a situation
brings the soil to a very unstable state where any
attempt to induce plastic deformation again in the
same direction will result in an intense softening,
leading the stress ratio back to M bc from above.
This feature will be included in the multiaxial
model's formulation by proper use of shrinking
bounding surface concept associated with M bc ,
which will be allowed to be crossed by the current
stress, not only during neutral or elastic loading as
before, but during plastic loading as well, before
softening begins. Such allowance of crossing the
bounding surface will consistently accommodate the
highly hypothetical but possible example given
above and, more importantly, will provide the
means to incorporate softening of dilatant soils
during the operation of the model at plastic loading
as a matter of course.
With reference to volumetric response, a dila-
tancy stress ratio M dc for compression is shown in
Fig. 2, such that when ç , M dc the soil response is
contractive, and when ç . M dc it is dilative. The
exact way of representing analytically this response
will be discussed later. The line de®ned by M dc is
the phase transformation line described in Ishihara
et al. (1975), but perhaps the name `dilatancy line'
or `dilatancy stress ratio' for M dc better ®ts the
case since no phase is actually transformed in the
model. If M dc is constant, and since for dilatant
soils M dc , M c , it follows that unrealistic unlimited
dilation will be induced at critical failure when
ç ˆ M c . Hence, in order to be consistent with
CSSM it will be required that M dc is variable and
M dc ! M c as e ! ec . To this extent a proposition
similar to the one in equations (3) for M bc and M be
is adopted for both compression and extension,
whereby
M dc ˆ ádc ‡ m ˆ M c ‡ k dc ø (4a)
M de ˆ áde ‡ m ˆ Me ‡ k de ø (4b)
with k dc and k de positive quantities. Equations (4)
give a dilatancy ratio below M c or M e for ø , 0
(denser than critical) and above M c or M e for
ø . 0 (looser than critical), while M dc ˆ M c and
M de ˆ M e at ø ˆ 0. Also equations (4) introduce
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS
the corresponding back-stress dilatancy ratios ádc
and áde as a function of ø.
It is now necessary to impose a restriction on
the dilatancy response, whatever may be the
analytical description, as long as dilation occurs
when ç . M dc (or M de ). The reason for a restriction
can be understood if one refers back to the
hypothetical neutral loading path (considered after
equations (3)) at a constant ç with p increasing,
starting from ç . M c and ø , 0 (denser than
critical). Eventually this stress path will cross the
CSL in the e, p plane and a state with ç . M c and
ø . 0 (looser than critical) will be attained. The
value of ø may be such that according to equation
(4a) one can have ç . M dc . M c . Hence, a state
looser than critical has been reached but with a
stress ratio ç higher than the dilatancy stress ratio
M dc . This implies that on plastic loading in the
same direction (not reversed), causing a softening
response (see discussion after equations (3)),
additional dilation will occur for a looser than
critical state. The ensuing change of ø towards a
greater positive value will increase further the
value of M dc , and with ç decreasing owing to
softening, one will eventually have ç , M dc , thus,
consolidation will follow the initial dilation leading
to e ˆ ec and critical failure. It seems improbable,
though, that even a small amount of dilation can
precede the consolidation for a state looser than
critical. Hence, the restriction of zero dilatancy
will be imposed whenever both conditions ø . 0
and ç . M dc hold true. In this way the previous
hypothetical case will result in no dilation at the
beginning when both previous conditions are
satis®ed. It will then be followed by consolidation
towards ec once ç , M dc because of softening,
which will result in removing the zero dilatancy
restriction. This restriction may be considered a
`loose end' of the model and it is a direct
consequence of the possibility to have neutral or
elastic loading at constant ç . M c , which can
change the sign of ø, owing to the wedge-type
yield surface. However, it is found to create no
problem of discontinuity or other analytical, phys-
ical or numerical malfunction. Furthermore it will
be seen that the two relevant conditions, ø . 0 and
ç . M dc are easily generalized to a multiaxial stress
space.
Along the same lines as equations (3) and (4),
the critical back-stress ratios ácc and áce for ø ˆ 0
are de®ned according to
M c ˆ ácc ‡ m (5a)
Me ˆ áce ‡m (5b)
Equations (3)±(5) interrelate the bounding (peak),
dilatancy and critical back-stress ratios by way
of ø, by elimination of m. For example, using
equations (3a) and (5a), one has ábc ˆ ácc ‡ k bc
259
hÿøi. The option to set k bc and k be ˆ 0 is always
available, in which case the peak stress and back-
stress ratios are always identical to critical, imply-
ing no softening in drained response. Many existing
models have this restriction built in, for example,
Prevost (1985), Wang et al. (1990) and Manzari
(1994). Similarly, the option k dc and k de ˆ 0 renders
the dilatancy stress ratio identical to the critical
stress ratio. This added ¯exibility is useful for
simpler model con®gurations.
GENERAL FORMULATION
The constitutive relations will be presented in
two stages. The general equations of a classical
elastoplacity formulation with a cone-type yield
criterion exhibiting isotropic and kinematic hard-
ening will constitute the ®rst stage in this section,
followed by the specialized equations of certain
key aspects of the model in the next section.
Tensor quantities are denoted by bold-face charac-
ters in a direct notation.
With reference to kinematics, the assumption of
additive decomposition of strain rates is
å_ ˆ å_ e ‡ å_ p (6)
where å is the strain tensor, the superscripts e and p
denote elastic and plastic components respectively
and a dot over a symbol indicates its rate of change
with time.
If e and s are the deviatoric strain and stress
tensors respectively, and åv and p are the volu-
metric strain and effective hydrostatic stress respec-
tively, the isotropic hypoelasticity assumption is
adopted, giving
s_ p_
e_ e ˆ and å_ ev ˆ (7)
2G K
in terms of the elastic shear modulus G and bulk
modulus K. In a hypoelastic description one does
not account for the existence of a potential, and G
and K are expressions of convenience. In particular,
it will be assumed here that
 a  a
p p
G ˆ G0 and K ˆ K 0 (8)
pat pat
where pat is the atmospheric pressure used as a
reference pressure, for which G ˆ G0 and K ˆ K0,
and a is a properly de®ned exponent yielding the
variation of G and K with p. Usually one has a ˆ 12.
As p ! 0 it is possible to introduce a cut-off value
pl , used instead of p for p , pl in K but not in G,
since at zero effective pressure one can still have
K . 0 but G ˆ 0.
The yield surface will be a direct generalization
of the wedge-type shape in the triaxial space,
which will appear as a circular cone in stress space
with its apex at the origin, given by the equation
260 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
p
f ˆ [(s ÿ pá) : (s ÿ pá)]1=2 ÿ (2=3)mp ˆ 0 expressions for L in equation (12) is obtained by
(9) straightforward algebraic manipulations of the pre-
vious equations, starting with the ®rst expression in
where the back-stress ratio deviatoric tensor á _ which is its de®nition. In particular, the
terms of ó,
determines the position of the axis of the cone and last expressions of L in terms of e_ and å_ v was
the stress ratio scalar variable m the `size' of the obtained using in addition, equations (6) and (7) by
cone. The symbol : between two tensor quantities the procedure described by Dafalias (1986). The
denotes the trace of their product, that is, a : second expression for L shows that plastic loading
b ˆ tr (ab) and can be interpreted geometrically as depends entirely on the projection of the stress-ratio
an `inner' product. The variations of á and m rate on n, as expected.
portray kinematic and isotropic hardening respec- Equations (6), (7), (11) and (12) can be inverted
tively. Equation (9) can be expressed in terms of to yield
the deviatoric stress ratio r ˆ s= p only. In such a
stress-ratio space, for example, the ð-plane shown ó_ ˆ 2Ge_ ‡ K å_ v I ÿ hLi(2Gn ‡ KDI) (13)
in Fig. 3, equation (4) appears p as a Mises-type Equation (13) is the stress-rate expression in terms
circle
p centred at á with radius (2=3)m. The factor of the total strain rates e_ and å_ v . Recalling the last
(2=3) has been introduced for convenience of expression of L in terms of e_ and å_ v, equation (12),
interpretation in the standard triaxial q, p space, one can write equation (13) in the form ó_ ˆ E ep : å_
in which equation (9) becomes equation (2). The with E ep the elastoplastic tangent stiffness moduli,
scalar-valued á of equation (2) is related to the used in a numerical implementation.
tensor-valued á of equation (9) by á ˆ á1 ÿ á2, The last, but very important, quantity to be
where á1 and á2 ˆ á3 are the principal values of á speci®ed is the plastic modulus K p . With the two
in the triaxial space. The observation made in hardening variables á and m evolving according to
triaxial space about a possible cap closing the open
wedge also holds true for the open cone of equation _ ˆ hLim
m (14a)
(9). á_ ˆ hLiá (14b)
The normal to the yield surface, de®ning the
loading direction, is given by the consistency condition f_ ˆ 0 together with
equations (9), (12) and (14) implies
@f
Lˆ ˆ n ÿ 13 NI (10a)
@ó @f @f p
p Kp ˆ ÿ : áÿ m ˆ p(n : á ‡ (2=3)m)
rÿá @á @m
nˆp and N ˆá : n‡ (2=3)m
(2=3)m (15)
ˆn:r (10b)
Many models can ®t within the foregoing gen-
where I is the second-rank isotropic tensor and n eral framework. What will distinguish one model
is the unit deviatoric stress-ratio tensor, that is, n : from another is the speci®cation of three quan-
n ˆ 1. The plastic strain rate is given by tities: m for isotropic hardening, á for kinematic
hardening and D for the dilatancy response.
å_ p ˆ hLiR (11a)
R ˆ n ‡ 13 DI (11b)
where R is the `direction' of å_ p consisting of a SPECIALIZED FORMULATION
deviatoric part n and a volumetric part 13 DI with D From triaxial to multiaxial stress space
the dilatancy coef®cient. Equations (10) and (11) The objective of this section is to formulate the
indicate that while an associative ¯ow rule exists in specialized equations of the constitutive model in
the deviatoric stress-ratio space (observe the com- a general stress space, by combining the general
mon n in L and R), a non-associative rule exists in concepts and general formulation presented in the
stress space (observe N 6ˆ ÿD, in general). L is the previous two sections. Since certain quantities
loading index enclosed by the Macauley brackets k l related to the general concepts were presented in
to indicate loading=unloading=neutral loading, and a triaxial stress space, the ®rst objective here is to
is de®ned by specify a general rule by which the quantities can
be generalized to the multiaxial stress space. This
1 1 1 can be achieved using the modi®ed Lode angle è
Lˆ L : ó_ ˆ pn : r_ ˆ [n : s_ ÿ N p_ ]
Kp Kp Kp de®ned in terms of the effective stress ratio r as
2Gn : e_ ÿ KN å_ v p  3
ˆ (12) 3 3 S
K p ‡ 2G ÿ KDN cos 3è ˆ J and r ˆ r ÿ á (16a)
2
where K p is the plastic modulus. The sequence of J ˆ [1 tr r ]
2
2 1=2
and S ˆ [13 tr r ]
3 1=3
(16b)
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS
Notice that s ˆ s ÿ pá can be used instead of r
 J of the second
since p is eliminated in the ratio S=
and third effective stress invariants. In Fig. 3 the è
de®ned this way is illustrated on the circle repre-
senting the yield surface, and it is totally different
from the è de®ned if r instead of r were used.
Hence, in this model, the terms `triaxial com-
pression' and `extension' are interpreted in terms of
r and not r.
If Qc and Qe are the values of a quantity Q in
triaxial compression and extension respectively, an
interpolation by way of è for any other value
denoted by Qè can be given by
Qè ˆ g(è, c)Qc and c ˆ Qe =Qc (17a)
2c
g(è, c) ˆ (17b)
(1 ‡ c) ÿ (1 ÿ c) cos 3è
For è ˆ 08 and è ˆ 608, equations (16) and (17)
yield g(08, c) ˆ 1 and g(608, c) ˆ c, hence Q08 ˆ
Qc and Q608 ˆ Qe respectively.
The generalization of the yield surface from a
wedge type in the triaxial space (equation (2)) to a
circular cone type in the multiaxial stress space
(equation (9)) was achieved without the interven-
tion of the Lode angle è and associated third
invariants of stress quantities. That is the reason
why the cone is circular in the ð-plane (Fig. 3).
This was done in order to avoid the introduction
of è in equation (9) which would have greatly
complicated the expression for L ˆ @ f =@ó (equa-
tions (10)) and consequently all related expressions
in equations (12), (13) and (15) because of the
required derivatives with respect to è, and of è
with respect to ó. Nevertheless, it is shown below
that the model can still describe differences of
values of many quantities between compression and
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration in the stress-ratio ð-
plane of the yield, bounding, critical and dilatancy
surfaces, and the `image' back-stress ratios ábè , ácè and
ádè related to á, n and the Lode angle è
261
extension and other values of è in between by
introducing such è dependence in other parts of the
model.
For this purpose, the concepts introduced by
equations (3)±(5) can now be generalized from
triaxial to multiaxial stress space. In what follows,
instead of the M bc,e , M dc,e and M c,e (the subscripts
c,e mean compression or extension), the ábc,e , ádc,e
and ácc,e will equivalently be generalized to multi-
axial stress space. Geometrically, the latter triplet
generalizes into three surfaces in a general devi-
atoric stress-ratio space, which is illustrated in the
particular version of the ð-plane shown in Fig. 3.
The three surfaces are named the bounding,
dilatancy and critical surfaces respectively, the ®rst
two shown by discontinuous lines (indicating their
change with ø) and the critical surface by a solid
line. Recall that they refer to back-stress ratios
rather than stress ratios.
Their analytical description is achieved as
follows. Consider a stress ratio r on the circular
yield surface with centre á (Fig. 3), de®ning the
effective stress ratio r ˆ r ÿ á, the corresponding
deviatoric unit normal n along r ÿ á (the n is the
one introduced in equations (10) and (11)), and the
Lode angle è as shown. One can draw a straight
line segment from the origin O along n (i.e. at the
same angle è), which intersects the three surfaces
at three so-called `image' back-stress ratio points
ábè , ácè , ádè . Hence, each one of these image points
is de®ned by
p
áaè ˆ (2=3)áaè n (a ˆ b, c, d) (18)
p
where the factor (2=3) has been added so that at
triaxial compression and extension the scalar-valued
áa08 ˆ áac and áa608 ˆ áae with a ˆ b, c, d, that is,
one retrieves the back-stress ratio quantities intro-
duced in equations (3)±(5). Equations (18) are the
analytical expressions of the three surfaces in a
`polar' representation. Since n is de®ned given the
stress state, it remains to obtain the scalar-valued
áaè (notice the difference between the tensor-valued
áaè of the left-hand side and the scalar-valued áaè of
the right-hand side in equation (18)).
Referring to equations (3)±(5), one needs to
generalize the expressions for M ac,e (a ˆ b, d), M c,e
and k ac,e (a ˆ b, d) according to equations (17)
and then obtain the áaè with the help of the state
variable ø and m as was done for è ˆ 08 and
è ˆ 608 in equations (3)±(5). With the de®nitions
c ˆ M e =M c , cb ˆ k be =k bc and cd ˆ k de =k dc
(19)
one has
ábè ˆ g(è, c)M c ‡ g(è, cb )k bc hÿøi ÿ m (20)
ádè ˆ g(è, c)M c ‡ g(è, cd )k dc ø ÿ m (21)
262 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
ácè ˆ g(è, c)M c ÿ m (22)
These equations imply that, when ø ˆ 0 (critical
void ratio), one has ábè ˆ ádè ˆ ácè for all è. For
è ˆ 08 and 608, equations (20), (21) and (22) yield
equations (3), (4) and (5) respectively. Equations
(18)±(22) fully specify the bounding, dilatancy and
critical surfaces associated with the back-stress ratio
á in stress-ratio space.
Isotropic hardening
The elastic range is de®ned by m which
determines the `radius' of the circular yield surface
in the ð-plane. It is physically expected that m
increases as the void ratio decreases and vice
versa. Since it is considered that elastic volumetric
deformation does not in¯uence m, it is more
accurate to state that the rate of change of m is
related to the plastic rate of change of void ratio
de®ned by e_ p ˆ ÿ(1 ‡ e0 )_åpv, å_ pv being the plastic
volumetric strain rate and e0 the initial void ratio
(if the logarithmic volumetric strain measure is
used, e0 ˆ e). Hence, recalling equations (11), one
can write
p distance . jb : nj. The last requirement
_ ˆ ÿcm e_ ˆ hLic m (1 ‡ e0 )D ˆ hLi m
m  (23)
where c m is a positive quantity and in general it is a
function of state variables (s, á, p, etc.). The last
two members of equation (23) de®ne the term
m ˆ cx m (1 ‡ e0 )D in equation (14a), which enters
equation (15) for K p. In most applications, includ-
ing the one to be presented here, a constant and
rather small value of m will suf®ce, in which case
m  0. A rational way to obtain the variation of m,
that is, to de®ne c m , in order to re¯ect the physical
signi®cance of the loosest and densest state, is
presented in Appendix 1.
Kinematic hardening
The general equation (14b) for kinematic hard-
ening will now be specialized. It will be assumed
that á_ is directed towards the bounding image
stress ratio ábè , de®ned by equation (20), and that
it depends on the `distance' b ˆ ábè ÿ á ˆ bìb ,
where b is the (positive) norm of b and ìb the unit
deviatoric stress-ratio tensor along b (Fig. 3).
Hence, one can write
á_ ˆ hLih(ábè ÿ á) ˆ hLihb ˆ hLihbìb ˆ hLiá
(24)
where h is a positive scalar-valued function of
jb : nj ˆ bjìb : nj (the use of jb : nj instead of
simply b is related to the form of dependence of
K p on b, as will be seen later). It is worth re-
writing equation (24) in terms of the deviatoric
plastic strain rate tensor e_ p ˆ hLin (recall equation
(11)), the equivalent deviatoric plastic strain rate
e_ p ˆ [(2=3)_ep : e_ p ]1=2 and equation (18) for ábè. It
gives
p
á_ ˆ 32 h[(2=3)ábè e_ p ÿ e_ p á] (25)
which is similar to the non-linear kinematic hard-
ening rule by Armstrong & Frederick (1966) with
the added advantage of h depending on jb : nj.
The dependence of á_ on a `distance' between á
and its image ábè on a surface, which implies the
dependence of the plastic modulus K p on this
distance, is the underlying concept of bounding
surface plasticity theory (Dafalias, 1986), in par-
ticular the two-surface version of it slightly
modi®ed from its initial conception in Dafalias &
Popov (1975) and Krieg (1975). A form of h
which is used in subsequent applications is moti-
vated by earlier propositions (Dafalias, 1986), and
reads
jb : nj
h ˆ h0 (26)
bref ÿ jb : nj
where h0 is a positive constant and bref a reference
p can be
satis®ed
p if one de®nes bref ˆ 2 (2=3)ábc or bref
ˆ (2=3)(ábè ‡ ábè‡ð ), the latter de®nition shown in
Fig. 3 as the `diameter' of the bounding surface
along n.
Equation (24) shows that when b ˆ 0, that is,
the back-stress ratio has reached the bounding
surface and á ˆ ábè, one has á_ ˆ 0 and á remains
stationary momentarily, having attained its peak
value. Since the bounding surface continues to
contract for a dilatant soil according to equations
(18) and (20) as ÿø increases, the á will be
crossed by the contracting bounding surface and
be placed outside of it, contrary to the basic
premise of a bounding surface formulation which
bounds within it all stress quantities associated
with it. This departure from the classical bounding
surface formulation is a direct consequence of
equations (20) and (24). It is a Gordian knot
solution to the problem of having the stress
ratio ç crossing the peak or bounding stress ratio
M bc during neutral loading as discussed after
equations (3). It will also provide the way to
handle the subsequent softening response. Indeed,
as á is found outside the bounding surface, the
de®nition of ìb is such (from á to ábè ), that now á_
will be directed inwards, opposite to n. Hence,
since jb : nj entering h in equation (26) remains
unchanged in sign, the á will start moving again
after its peak value following a path inwards
according to equation (24) and converging with ábè
from outside, as the latter approaches the critical
surface. But this inward motion of á is tantamount
to softening, since the change of the stress ratio r
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS
follows the change of the back-stress ratio á, and
when á reaches its peak value and subsequently
`softens', so does r, as long as the isotropic hard-
ening is negligible.
Dilatancy coef®cient
The dilatancy stress ratio M dc,e delineates the
ranges of ç for which contraction or dilation oc-
curs in the triaxial space. Following Rowe's stress-
dilatancy theory (Rowe, 1962) and its invariant
form suggested by Nova & Wood (1979), it is
proposed to have the dilatancy coef®cient D
proportional to the difference M dc,e ÿ ç, that is,
p (15) and the de®nition of m
D ˆ (2=3)A(M dc,e p ÿ ç) with A a positive quan-
tity. The factor (2=3) is introduced for conve-
nience so that the dilation ratio in triaxial space
p Kp ˆ p(hbìb : n ‡ (2=3)c m (1 ‡ e0 )Adìd : n)
is given simply by (3=2)D ˆ A(M dc,e ÿ ç). The
above proposition was for monotonic loading in
triaxial compression or extension. It is not obvious
how one can generalize it to reverse loading, or in
a multiaxial stress space. It is proposed to choose
M dc or M de according to where the change of ç
points (and not according to ç itself), and then use
the difference M dc,e ÿ ç, such that the values of the
M dc,e and ç subtract if M dc,e and ç are both at
compression or both at extension, and add other-
wise. This may seem complicated, but in fact
yields a direct and easy-to-understand general-
ization in the multiaxial stress space, as shown in
Fig. 3. Recalling the de®nition of the `image'
dilatancy back-stress ratio ádè (equation (21)), one
can de®ne the `distance' tensor d ˆ ádè ÿ á ˆ dìd,
d being the norm of d and ìd a `unit' tensor along
d (Fig. 3) and write
D ˆ A(ádè ÿ á) : n ˆ Ad : n ˆ Adìd : n (27)
with A a positive quantity. In a triaxial setting, say
compression, one can usepequations (2), (4a), (18)
and its counterpart p á ˆ (2=3)án, topwrite equa-
tion (27) as D ˆ p(2=3)A(ádc ÿ á) ˆ (2=3)A(M dc
ÿ m ÿ (ç ÿ m) ˆ (2=3)A(M dc ÿ ç), QED. Observe
that the sign of D in equation (27) depends directly
on the sign of ìd : n. D will be always positive if á
is inside the dilatancy surface (contraction), because
then the de®nition of ìd guarantees that ìd : n . 0
for surfaces convex with respect to the origin. If á
is outside the dilatancy surface, one may have
ìd : n _ 0 depending on both á and n. If n points
`outwards', and if ìd : n , 0, dilation occurs. That
is the typical case in monotonic triaxial loading
when á has exceeded M dc,e . On the other hand, Fig.
3 illustrates a case where although á is outside the
dilatancy surface, n is so de®ned as to yield
ìd : n . 0, inducing contraction. D varies continu-
ously with ìd : n, and D ˆ 0 when either á ˆ ádè
(i.e. d ˆ 0) or ìd : n ˆ 0.
The restriction of zero dilatancy when the
263
conditions ø . 0 and ç . M dc are satis®ed, dis-
cussed for the triaxial space, can now be easily
generalized. The ®rst condition ø . 0 remains the
same. The second generalizes to ìd : n , 0, which
implies according to the foregoing, that á has
crossed the dilatancy surface and the direction of n
is outwards so that D , 0. Hence, when both ø . 0
and ìd : n , 0, one sets D ˆ 0 until at least one of
the above inequalities is violated.
The plastic modulus
It is now possible to have a speci®c expression
for the plastic modulus Kp obtained from equation
 , á and D from
equations (23), (24) and (27) respectively. It gives
p
(28)
The quantity b : n ˆ bìb : n appears automatically
in the K p expression. Hence, its introduction in
equation (26) for h is justi®ed for the sake of
consistency. The dependence of K p on the stress
ratio `distance' quantity hb, between conjugate
points á and ábè, is a characteristic of two-surface
plasticity models. Recalling the second de®nition of
the loading index L in terms of the stress-ratio rate
r_ , one observes that if K p . 0 then one must have
n : r_ . 0 for L . 0, that is, stress-ratio hardening,
while if K p , 0 it follows that n : r_ , 0 for L . 0,
that is, stress-ratio softening. Hardening or soften-
ing in terms of stress ratio is not the same as in
terms of the deviatoric stress; one may have ç_ , 0
but q_ . 0 and vice versa. The sign of K p fully
speci®es the hardening or softening response, which
depends on the combined effect of ìb : n and
ìd : n in equation (28). If the isotropic hardening
of the yield surface is neglected as very small (m
is assumed ®xed), which implies c m ˆ 0, then
equation (28) yields the very simple expression
Kp ˆ phbìb : n. Initially, K p . 0 as á is within the
bounding surface. When b ˆ 0, that is, á ˆ ábè
(Fig. 3), Kp ˆ 0 and this implies reaching the peak
stress ratio. Immediately afterwards ìb : n , 0, in
general, and softening begins with K p , 0, placing
á outside the contracting bounding surface until
eventually á ! ábè ! ácè at critical failure, whereby
again K p ˆ 0.
The critical state line
The critical state line (CSL) will be represented
by a straight line of slope ë in e, ln p space
(Scho®eld & Wroth, 1968). Hence
ec ˆ (ec )ref ÿ ë ln ( p= pref ) (29)
requiring two constants, ë and (ec )ref at a reference
pressure pref . Usually, but not necessarily, one
264 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
chooses pref ˆ 1 in which case (ec )ref has been
symbolized by Ã. Much has been discussed (e.g.
Been et al., 1992) about the appropriateness of
equation (29) as well as the elusiveness of any
equation for the CSL, mainly because it is experi-
mentally dif®cult to reach it. The tendency, how-
ever, of a sand to reach a CSL is clearly exhibited
(Been et al., 1991), and for stresses of engineering
interest equation (29) is satisfactory. A two-slope
CSL was proposed in Crouch et al. (1994) as an
improvement when dealing with high values of p,
and any other relation which achieves a better ®t to
experimental data can be used instead of equation
(29) without affecting the operation of the present
model.
MODEL CALIBRATION AND PERFORMANCE
The calibration of the model constants can be
done on the basis of triaxial compression and
extension tests. A list of model constants is given
in Table 1. The constants which are independent of
the particular constitutive model used are called
the `general purpose constants'. These are the
elastic constants G0 , K 0 and b and the critical
state constants M c,e , (ec )ref and ë. The special
constants which are particular to the present model
are the coef®cients k bc,e , related to the peak or
bounding stress ratio, k dc,e related to the dilatancy
stress ratio, the dilatancy constant A, the h0 related
to the kinematic hardening and the initial values of
m and the coef®cient c m related to the isotropic
hardening. If c m ˆ 0, only a constant m is
required. The k bc,e and k dc,e can be called the `state
parameter constants' owing to their association
with ø. In the following, the calibration of only
the special constants will be discussed, assuming
that the general purpose constants are known.
There is always a ®nal ®ne-tuning process for all
constants.
In order to determine the coef®cient k bc one can
use equation (3a), measure M bc (peak stress ratio)
Table 1. Model constants
Elastic G0 3´14 3 104
K0 3´14 3 104
a 0´6
Critical state Mc 1´14
ë 0´025
(ec )ref 0´80
State parameter k bc 3´975
k dc 4´20
Hardening h0 1200
m 0´05
Dilatancy A 2´64
in a constant- p drained test and, with M c and ø
known, calculate k bc . A problem is the elusiveness
of the CSL and corresponding ec . Measurement of
the constants in equation (29) can be done only
approximately, given the experimental impossibility
of reaching the critical state. The value of k bc is
obtained by examining the results of drained
constant- p tests or undrained compression tests,
preferably the latter for greater accuracy, in order
to obtain the stress ratio M dc where dilation starts.
The value of this stress ratio can be used in
equation (4) to obtain k dc , given M c and ø. A
similar procedure applies to the determination of
k be and k de .
Values of A and h0 can be obtained by a trial-
and-error procedure, although A can be directly
determined if proper stress-dilatancy data are
available, for example the results of volumetric
strain as a function of axial strain in a constant- p
drained compression test. Our experience is that a
good ®t is usually attained within the ®rst three
trials. The constant h0 may be obtained by
matching the model predictions to the ¯attening
slope of the q, å1 curve in a drained compression
test. Finally, a constant m (no isotropic hardening)
is usually set equal to about 0´05M c .
To demonstrate the performance of the model,
a series of simulations under different stress paths
is presented below. Laboratory tests conducted on
Nevada sand by the Earth Technology Corporation
in the course of the VELACS project (Arulmoli et
al., 1992) were used for comparison. Methods of
sample preparation, saturation techniques and other
details of testing have been reported by Arulmoli
et al. (1992). Before presenting the results of the
model simulation and their comparison to the
laboratory tests, simulations of three hypothetical
undrained compression tests on this sand at three
different void ratios for a con®ning pressure of
160 kPa, for which ec ˆ 0:80, are presented. Fig. 4
shows that these simulations clearly re¯ect the
inherent coherence of the model with the concept of
critical void ratio, as was explained for undrained
loading in Fig. 1. The distinction of the response
between the states looser than critical (e ˆ 0:81,
0:85) and denser than critical (e ˆ 0:79), the former
showing softening, conforms with experimental
evidence.
As to the actual triaxial tests, ®rst, a series of
drained monotonic compression tests were con-
ducted under three different constant con®ning
pressures of 40, 80 and 160 kPa. The sand samples
were prepared with two different initial void ratios
of 0´65 and 0´72. Following the procedure outlined
above, the model constants were determined using
these tests and are reported in Table 1. All con-
stants are dimensionless except G0 and K 0, which
are measured in kPa. The pref ˆ 160 kPa corre-
sponds to (ec )ref ˆ 0:80, according to equation
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS 265

Fig. 4. Model simulation of three undrained triaxial tests starting at three different
void ratios, two at a state looser and one denser than critical (critical ec ˆ 0:80 for
p ˆ 160 kPa)

(29). Figs 5 and 6 show the comparison between
the model simulations and the data. Good agree-
ment with the experimental results is achieved at
both densities and for different con®ning pressures,
including an accurate description of the softening
response in the q, å1 plots. The data show slightly
greater dilatancy for higher p at ein ˆ 0:72,
contrary to what is expected for a less dilatant
sample. The model exhibits the correct trend. The
same model constants were used to simulate an
undrained compression test conducted on a sample
of the same Nevada sand with a void ratio of 0´72.
The model simulations, along with the experi-
mental results, are shown in Fig. 7. Very good
agreement between model and data is achieved.
Two simulations of triaxial cyclic tests conducted
on samples with e ˆ 0:65 and 0´72 are shown in
q, p space, along with the experimental results, in
266 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS

Fig. 5. Model simulation of three different constant-p tests, data for Nevada sand
(Arulmoli et al., 1992) starting at an initial void ratio ein ˆ 0:65

Figs 8 and 9. Less good agreement is achieved.
The parameters related to extension, M e , k be and
k de , were given the values 1´14, 2´0 and 0´07
respectively, in order to achieve the best ®t to
these cyclic triaxial tests. If reliable extension tests
were available, similar procedures used for the
compression state parameter constants k bc and k dc
could be used to determine k be and k de more ac-
curately.
Proper calibration of parameters k dc and k de is
important in the performance of the model. Fig. 10
emphasizes this fact by including the results of
two additional simulations for the case with p ˆ
160 kPa shown in Fig. 5, for which k dc ˆ 4:20
(Table 1). In one of the new simulations, k dc was set
equal to zero, rendering the dilatancy stress ratio
M dc equal to the critical stress ratio M c ˆ 1:14. In
the other simulation, M dc was kept constant at its
initial value, which according to equation (4a) is
M dc ˆ 1:14 ‡ 4:2(0:65 ÿ 0:80) ˆ 0:51 (recall that
ec ˆ 0:80 for p ˆ 160 kPa). Model performance is
seen to deteriorate in the new simulations, particu-
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS 267

Fig. 6. Model simulation of three different constant-p tests, data for Nevada sand
(Arulmoli et al., 1992) starting at an initial void ratio ein ˆ 0:72

larly in reference to volumetric response. The CONCLUSION

simulation with M dc ˆ 0:51 is better than the one
with M dc ˆ M c ˆ 1:14, but for larger strains
(occurring within shear bands, for example),
M dc ˆ 0:51 will induce unrealistic unlimited dila-
tion as ç ! M c , defying the critical state concept.
It must be mentioned, though, that the new
simulations were performed by keeping all other
parameters unchanged. It is possible that a change
of A, for example, might improve the results
obtained in these simulations.
The two-surface plasticity formulations in devi-
atoric stress-ratio space is combined with the state
parameter ø arising within the CSSM framework
to yield a comprehensive multiaxial constitutive
model for sands, capable of simulating the material
response under monotonic and cyclic, drained and
undrained loading conditions. The link between
the two-surface (yield and bounding) formulation
and ø is based on a modi®cation of a recent
proposition by Wood et al. (1994) relating the
268 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS

Fig. 7. Model simulation of an undrained triaxial compression test, data for Nevada
sand (Arulmoli et al., 1992) at e ˆ 0:72

peak stress ratio to the critical stress ratio by way
of ø, and on the identi®cation of a proposed peak
stress-ratio surface as the bounding surface. A
similar proposition was made here, relating the
dilatancy stress ratio to the critical stress ratio by
way of ø, such that at ø ˆ 0 both peak and
dilatancy stress ratios becomes critical. These
simple suggestions allow the model to simulate
both hardening and softening characteristics, as
well as the volumetric response or pore water
pressure development of denser- and looser-than-
critical states at different densities and con®ning
pressures, using the same model constants for a
given sand.
The generalization to a multiaxial stress space is
obtained by introducing in the deviatoric stress-
ratio space three surfaces, the bounding, dilatancy
and critical surfaces in direct correspondence to
the bounding (peak), dilatancy and critical stress
ratios in triaxial space. The bounding surface con-
trols the kinematic hardening of the yield surface,
which appears as a simple Mises-type circle in
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS 269

Fig. 8. Model simulation of an undrained cyclic triaxial test, data plotted in q, p

space for Nevada sand (Arulmoli et al., 1992) at e ˆ 0:65

deviatoric stress-ratio space, and as a moving
circular cone in general space. The simplicity of
the yield surface results in simple general con-
stitutive equations of the standard type for
numerical implementation.
The numerical ef®ciency of the model is good
because only the yield surface must be updated
owing to kinematic and isotropic hardening. The
other surfaces are fully determined by the value of
the state parameter ø. Compared with multisurface
models (Prevost, 1985), the present model can
achieve the same results with much less numerical
effort, and it includes additional characteristics,
such as softening and zero dilatancy at critical
state. Another feature of the model is that its
current state entirely determines the next step,
without necessitating the memory of entities such
as past stress reversal points and accumulated
strain measures. The model is totally void-ratio
determined, given the CSL in e, ln p space. Its
270 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS

Fig. 9. Model simulation of an undrained cyclic triaxial test, data plotted in q, p

space for Nevada sand (Arulmoli et al., 1992) at e ˆ 0:72

initialization is straightforward, accounting for the
fact that the initial stress ratio can determine the
initial back-stress ratio, being almost identical to it
if the elastic range is small. The number of model
constants is eight (without the elastic moduli) for
triaxial compression, increased to ten for a general
case since two of them require their values in
extension as well. Calibration is straightforward.
Possibly the most attractive feature of the model
is its simplicity and foundation on concepts and
data which are well established and understood
by the geotechnical engineering community, with
basic reference to CSSM. For example, the deter-
mination of the CSL in e, ln p space or the peak
and residual (critical) stress ratios (important
quantities for the model) can be made by even a
prospective user who is not familiar with plasticity
constitutive modelling techniques, but who can
interpret the results of relevant experiments for the
purpose of model calibration.
 TWO-SURFACE PLASTICITY MODEL FOR SANDS 271

Fig. 10. Comparison of three model simulations using kdc ˆ 4:2 (variable M dc ), kdc ˆ 0
(M dc ˆ M c ) and a ®xed M dc ,M c with the experimental results from a constant-p,
drained compression test on Nevada sand with ein ˆ 0:65

APPENDIX 1 ç . M dc,e ˆ mmax , dilation from the densest state can

It is assumed that m varies from its minimum value occur. It will be assumed that the variation of m according
mmin (almost zero) at the loosest possible state de®ned by to the foregoing can be described by
the maximum void ratio emax to its maximum value mmax
at the densest state de®ned by the minimum void ratio  
e ÿ emin n
emin . The value of mmax cannot exceed the dilatancy m ˆ mmax ÿ (mmax ÿ mmin ) (A1)
stress ratio at emin given by equations (4), so that when emax ÿ emin
272 MANZARI AND DAFALIAS
Taking the rate of change of both members of equation
(A1) and approximating å_  å_ p , one has
 
mmax ÿ m p
m_ ˆ ÿn e_ (A2)
e ÿ emin
which in conjunction with equation (23) determines cm ˆ
n(mmax ÿ m)=(e ÿ emin ).
Normally a constant m will suf®ce. This can be ob-
tained by setting n ˆ 0. Alternatively, one could set n to
be a very small positive number, which, on the basis of
equation (A1), would keep m  mmin until e ˆ emin and
then m ˆ mmax . The proposed isotropic hardening is
totally determined by the current void ratio, and does
not depend on accumulated deviatoric plastic strain or
plastic work of past history, which are unknown to a
current user who wants to initiate calculations.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, P. J. & Frederick, C. O. (1966). A mathe-
matical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger
effect. CEGB, Report RD=B=N731.
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M. &
Fruth, L. S. (1992). VELACS: veri®cation of liquefac-
tion analysis by centrifuge studiesÐlaboratory testing
program, soil data report. Earth Technology Corpora-
tion. Also available from University of Southern
California web site, http:rccgOl.usc.edu=eqdata=home.
html
Been, K. & Jefferies, M. G. (1985). A state parameter for
sands. GeÂotechnique 35, No. 2, 99±112.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. & Hachey, J. E. (1991). The
critical state of sands. GeÂotechnique 41, 365±381.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. & Hachey, J. E. (1992).
Discussion on `The critical state of sands'. GeÂotech-
nique 42, 655±663.
Crouch, R. S., Wolf, J. P. & Dafalias, Y. F. (1994).
Uni®ed critical-state bounding surface plasticity
model for soil. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE 120, No. 11,
2251±2270.
Crouch, R. S. & Wolf, J. P. (1994). Uni®ed 3-D critical-
state bounding-surface plasticity model for soil incor-
porating continuous plastic loading under cyclic
paths. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geom. 18, No.
11, 735.
Dafalias, Y. F. (1986). Bounding surface plasticity, I:
mathematical foundation and hypoplasticity. J. Eng.
Mech., ASCE 112, No. 9, 966±987.
Dafalias, Y. F. & Herrmann, L. R. (1980). A bounding
surface soil plasticity model. Int. Symp. on Soils
under Cyclic and Transient Loading, Swansea 1,
335±345.
Dafalias, Y. F. & Herrmann, L. R. (1986). Bounding
surface plasticity, II: application to isotropic cohesive
soils. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE 112, No. 12, 1263±1291.
Dafalias, Y. F. & Popov, E. P. (1975). A model of
nonlinearly hardening materials for complex loadings.
Acta Mechanica 21, 173±192.
Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F. & Yasuda, S. (1975). Undrained
deformation and liquefaction of sand under cyclic
stresses. Soils Fdns 15, No. 1, 29±44.
Jefferies, M. B. (1993). Nor-sand: a simple critical state
model for sand. GeÂotechnique 43, No. 1, 91±103.
Krieg, R. D. (1975). A practical two-surface plasticity
theory. J. Appl. Mech., ASME 97, 641.
Lacy, S. J. & Prevost, J. H. (1987). Constitutive model
for geomaterials. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Constitutive
Laws for Engineering Materials, Tucson, pp. 1±12.
Manzari, M. T. (1994). Finite deformation analysis and
constitutive modeling of non-cohesive soils for lique-
faction problems. Dissertation submitted in partial
satisfaction of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to
the University of California, Davis.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. & Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1978). An
anisotropic hardening model for soils and its applica-
tion to cyclic loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geom. 2, 203±221.
Nova, R. & Wood, D. M. (1979). A constitutive model
for sands in triaxial compression. Int. J. Numer. and
Anal. Methods Geom. 3, 255±278.
Poorooshasb, H. B. & Pietruszczak, S. T. (1985). On the
yielding and ¯ow of sand, a generalized two surface
model. Comput. Geotech. 1, 33±58.
Prevost, J. H. (1978). Plasticity theory for soil stress
strain behavior. J. Engng Mech., ASCE 104, No. 5,
1177±1194.
Prevost, J. H. (1985). A simple plasticity model for
frictional cohesionless soils. J. Soil Dynamics Earth-
quake Engng 4, No. 1, 9±17.
Roscoe, K. H. & Burland, J. B. (1968). On the
generalized stress±strain behavior of wet clays. In
Engineering plasticity (eds J. Heyman & F. A.
Leckie), pp. 535±609. Cambridge University Press.
Roscoe, K. H., Scho®eld, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1958).
On the yielding of soils. GeÂotechnique 8, No. 1,
22±53.
Roscoe, K. H., Scho®eld, A. N. & Thurairajah, A. (1963).
Yielding of clays in states wetter than critical. GeÂo-
technique 13, No. 3, 211±240.
Rowe, P. W. (1962). The stress±dilatancy relation for
static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
contact. Proc. Roy. Soc., Series A 269, 500±527.
Scho®eld, A. N. & Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state soil
mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
Tatsuoka, F. & Ishihara, K. (1974). Yielding of sand in
triaxial compression. Soils Fdns 14, No. 2, 63±76.
Vermeer, P. A. (1978). A double hardening model for
sand. GeÂotechnique 28, No. 4, 413±433.
Wang, Z. L., Dafalias, Y. F. & Shen, C. K. (1990).
Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for sand. J.
Eng. Mech., ASCE 116, No. 5, 983±1001.
Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behavior and critical state soil
mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D. M., Belkheir, K. & Liu, D. F. (1994). Strain
softening and state parameters for sand modelling.
GeÂotechnique 44, No. 2, 335±339.
Yang, B. L., Dafalias, Y. F. & Herrmann, L. R. (1985). A
bounding surface model for concrete. J. Engng Mech.,
ASCE 111, No. 3, 359±380.
Zeng, X. & Arulanandan, K. (1993). Overview of
calibration of constitutive models and soil parameters.
In Veri®cation of numerical procedures for the
analysis of soil liquefaction problems, Vol. 2 (eds
Arulanandan and Scott). Rotterdam: Balkema.