Geo-E2010

Advanced Soil Mechanics L

Wojciech Sołowski

18 March 2018
Modified Cam Clay Model
Modified Cam Clay
To learn:
- formulation of Modified Cam Clay (MCC) model
- model parameters
- yield surface
- elastic law
- elasto-plastic formulation, hardening, softening
- plastic potential & flow rule, elasto-plastic matrix*
- how to set the value of the hardening parameter p0
- how to choose parameters for the model (also exercises)
- MCC model prediction of soil behaviour of soil behaviour in isotropic
loading, K0 loading, shearing in critical state
- MCC model predictions on triaxial paths (drained / undrained) for
normally consolidated soil and for overconsolidated soil
- pros and cons for Modified Cam Clay model

Department of Civil Engineering

Advanced Soil Mechanics. W. Sołowski
3
 MCC model
MCC is a simple model → does not reproduce ALL the
features of the soil
Same shape of the yield surface (changing its size)
Changes of the yield surface are only dependant on the
volumetric deformation:

VOLUMETRIC HARDENING MODEL

The actual size of the yield surface depends on the previous

loading-unloading history
Formulation of Modified Cam Clay model:
elasticity

ν = νA − κ ⋅ln (p’B/ p’A)-λln (p’C/ p’B)-κ ⋅ln (p’D/ p’C)

Α Β

D
C

(c) Muir Wood

NOTE: ln (p’B/ p’A)=ln (p’B)-ln (p’A)

Clay behaviour

Glacial till

Mitchell & Soga 2005 Department of Civil Engineering

Advanced Soil Mechanics . W. Sołowski
6
 Modified Cam Clay

For other than isotropic stress paths from the origin

there is another (parallel) NCL

q
failure ln p’

K0 1
λ
iso-NCL
iso K0-NCL
p’ failure-NCL
 Invariants
Variables used within the model (Cambridge formulation):

1
p′ = (σ 1′ + 2σ ′3 ), q = σ1′ − σ 3′
3
ε p = ε1 + 2ε 3 , ε q = 2 (ε1 − ε 3 )
3

Good predictions on laboratory tests on reconstituted

soils, not as good when predicting “real” (in situ)
behaviour of the soil
Invariants
Cambridge formulation:

• Work conjugate pair for • Work conjugate pair for

change in size: change in shape:

1
p′ = (σ1′ + 2σ 3′ )
q = σ1′ − σ 3′
3
ε q = 2 (ε1 − ε 3 )
ε p = ε1 + 2ε 3 3
• Volumetric work: • Distortional work:

δWp = p'δε p δWq = qδε q

Invariants
The total work done by an stress increment should be
equivalent to one calculated with Cambridge variables :

δW = σ '1 δε1 + 2σ '3 δε 3 = p 'δε p + qδε q = δWp + δWq ?

δW = δWp + δWq = p 'δε p + qδε q =
1 2
= (σ '1 + 2σ '3 )(δε1 + 2δε 3 ) + (σ '1 − σ '3 ) (δε1 − δε 3 ) =
3 3
1 2 2 4 2
= σ '1 δε1 + σ '1 δε 3 + σ ' 3 δε 1 + σ ' 3 δε 3 + σ ' 1δε 1 −
3 3 3 3 3
2
− σ '1 δε 3 − 2 σ '3 δε1 + 2 σ '3 δε 3 =
3 3 3
= σ '1 δε1 + 2σ '3 δε 3 OK!
Volumetric deformations: a) Elastic

• Assuming isotropy and elasticity inside the yield

surface.
• Volumetric and shear deformations are uncoupled.

• K' = volumetric modulus and G' = shear modulus

• Expressed in terms of effective stresses (and not
constants)
Formulation of Modified Cam Clay model:
elasticity

ν = νA − κ ⋅ln (p’B/ p’A)-λln (p’C/ p’B)-κ ⋅ln (p’D/ p’C)

Α Β

D
C

(c) Muir Wood

Volumetric deformations: a) Elastic

K' is not constant: K' = K'(p')

Then, if we assume constant Poisson ratio, we get:

Alternatively we can take G as constant:

Formulation of the model
• Elastic deformations
• Yield surface
• Plastic potential and flow rule
• Elasto-plastic matrix
 Formulation of the model

Elastic deformations

G' = constant κ = constant

- Alternative formulation with
constant Poisson ratio common;
 Formulation of the model
q M
• Yield surface
1

p0’ p’

f ( p′, q, p′ ) ≡ q 2 − M 2 p′( p′ − p′) = 0

0 0
 Formulation of the model

• Plastic potencial
Modified Cam-clay assumes associated plasticity, so:

g = f ≡ q 2 − M 2 p′( p′0 − p′) = 0

As a consequence the flow rule (that gives the plastic strain rates) is:
Formulation of Modified Cam Clay model:
elasticity

ν = νA − κ ⋅ln (p’B/ p’A)-λln (p’C/ p’B)-κ ⋅ln (p’D/ p’C)

Α Β

D
C

(c) Muir Wood

 Formulation of the model
• Hardening law (gives the change in the size of the yield surface)

λ − κ δ p0 ′
⇒ δ p′ = δε p v
As we know, δε pp = p0′
v p0′ 0 p
λ −κ
These equations define how the size
of the yield surface changes (through
∂p0′ vp0′ the variation of the hardening
And then: =
∂ε p λ − κ
p parameter po’) as a function of the
plastic volumetric strains
∂p0′
=0
∂ε q
p Notice that only dependent on
plastic volumetric deformation
 Formulation of the model

• Yield surface (p',q)

The yield surface can be expressed in η

terms of η = q/p' as follows:

p′ M 2
= 2
p0′ M + η 2

The required derivatives of the model are:

 Formulation of the model
• Elasto-plastic compliance matrix

• It is only used within elasto-plastic states

• Is symmetric f = g
• Its determinant is 0, as the volumetric deformations and the shear
strains are related:
Deformations under an applied stress path

q
B

A
p′
p0′ A p0′ B

p0′ B > p0′ A ⇒ ELASTO-PLASTIC

Deformations under an applied stress path

q
B

A
p′
p0′ B p0′ A

p0′ B < p0′ A ⇒ ELASTIC

 Hardening law
q
δε qp
η>M
r
dε p η < M ⇒ d ε pp > 0 ⇒ dp0′ > 0
η=M
rp
dε Yield surface “expands”
dε = 0
p
r
dε p
p

d ε pp < 0 η<M
d ε pp > 0
η > M ⇒ d ε p < 0 ⇒ dp′ < 0
p 0
Yield surface “contracts”
p′ δε p
p

p0′ p0′
2

η = M ⇒ d ε pp = 0 ⇒ dp0′ = 0
λ − κ dp′
dε =
p Yield surface “constant”
0
vp0′
p
Modified Cam Clay Model
Predictions of soil behaviour
Normally consolidated clays: Test CD

p’
Normally consolidated clays : test CD
Lightly overconsolidated clays: test CD

p’
Lightly overconsolidated clays: test CD
 Highly overconsolidated clays: test CD

p’
Highly overconsolidated clays: test CD
Normally consolidated clays: test CU

Effective stress path

Total stress path

p’
Normally consolidated clays: test CU
 Lightly overconsolidated clays: test CU

Total stress path

Effective stress path

p’
Lightly overconsolidated clays: test CU
 Highly overconsolidated clays: test CU

Effective stress path

Total stress path

p’
Hightly overconsolidated clays: test CU
Modified Cam Clay Model
Drawbacks
 Drawbacks of MCC

Computation problems
In undrained triaxial test on a heavily overconsolidated soil, after the
stress point reaches the yield surface (above M line), due to the
negative direction of volumetric plastic strain vector, the yield
surface contracts.
This phenomenon is referred to as strain softening.
Even though the constitutive model is perfectly able to model this
aspect of mechanical behaviour, strain softening may lead to
problems in a finite element analysis: e.g. mesh dependency and
problems with convergence.
That can be overcome with good coding & algorithms, but
many leading codes still struggle and diverge or give
erroneous results!
 Drawbacks of MCC

Strength prediction in undrained conditions

q M
1
• MCC model assumes Drucker-Prager failure
2cu
condition, which overestimates undrained
p0’
strength in triaxial extension p
’
• Better predictions if Mohr Coulomb failure 1

or Lode angle dependency is introduced M

• Real soils are anisotropic and both the α
σ’ y
p’
shape and size of the yield surface would
need to change (see e.g. Wheeler et al.
2003, Can. Geotech. J. for S- CLAY1
σ’ x
model)
σ’ z
 Drawbacks of MCC

K0 prediction
• G iven MCC assumes an associated flow Tension cut-off
M (not critical state)
rule, the model predicts unrealistically high q
1
K0 values in normally consolidated range Mohr Coulomb
failure
• This has been fixed e.g. in the Soft Soil
model by de-coupling the volumetric yield p’
surface (cap) from the failure line
• Consequently, in the Soft Soil model, M
as become a “shape” coefficient and no α
σ’ y
p’
longer corresponds to the critical state
line
• Alternatively, the anisotropic S-CLAY1
σ’ x
model also gives good K0 prediction σ’z

• Non-associated flow rule is also an option

which will help with that issue
 Positives of MCC

Few parameters
- p0 is the only initial parameter
- M, κ , λ, G are the soil constants
- generally we need to know void ratio or specific
volume of soil at given reference stress – usually denoted
by N and pc

Qualitative prediction of soil behaviour

- replicates many behaviour not possible to replicate
in e.g. Mohr-Coulomb model

BUT…

Model is too simple to predict all soil behaviour

accurately…

(real soil is anisotropic, structured, etc. etc.)

Thank you