Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 88 (1991) 225240 NorthHolland
CamClay plasticity, Part II: Implicit integration of constitutive equation based on a nonlinear elastic stress predictor
Ronaldo I. Borja
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Received 31 March 1989
An improved stress integration algorithm for the modified CamClay plasticity model capable of accounting for nonlinear elasticity is proposed. The algorithm entails the use of secant elastic moduli for integrating the nonlinear elastic constitutive equation in conjunction with a fully implicit scheme for calculating plastic strains. Numerical experiments demonstrate the algorithm's good accuracy and stability under a wide variety of imposed stress and strain paths. This algorithm should be useful in situations dominated by combined nonlinear elastic unloading and plasticity such as would occur in tunneling and excavations.
1.
Introduction
Modeling the behavior of geomaterials has attracted much research effort in recent years with the advent of modern computational schemes and numerical tools. Constitutive modeling applied to geomaterials is by no means trivial since it involves mathematical complexities associated with irreversible deformation, yield phenomena and shearinduced dilatancy, among others, of soils and rocks even under simple static loads. With these complex features, plasticity theory has been considered most appropriate for modeling such phenomena because of its capability to replicate the nonlinear, pathdependent, hysteretic and dilatant soil behavior, and even the changeable character associated with loading a soil in the dry or wet state. Elastoplastic models based on critical state formulations appear to have been most successful in describing many of the most important mechanical behaviors of geomaterials because it contains features sucb as hardening, softening and pressure sensitivity typical in soils [110]. The modified CamClay plasticity model of critical state soil mechanics is one of the most widely used plasticity models because it often gives sufficiently accurate predictions particularly in the absence of stress reversals or stress rotations. It appears that much research work, however, has focused on enhancing and improving the local predictive capability of a plasticity model using increasingly involved analytical formulations [11, 12] with the presump tion that the model can be implemented globally in a straightforward manner, although experience suggests that most stress point algorithms are in fact vulnerable to numerical breakdown when applied to even a relatively simple critical state model such as modified CamClay [7].
00457825/91/$03.50 ©
1991  Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (NorthHoUand)
226
R. !. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part 11
The need to address the fundamental issue of stress point algorithm improvement applied to critical state models has been recognized by a number of investigators [5, 7, 1315]. The paucity of alternative algorithms presented thus far in the literature and comparisons about the relative merits and efficiency of the various implementation alternatives may be partially attributed to the inherent difficulty of treating special features of CamClay models such as nonlinear elasticity and the lack of an obvious 'return path' for calculation of the return length [1618]. Consequently, it appears that most stress point algorithms are still based on explicit integration schemes whose accuracy de~ends significantly on the chosen step size [19]. Only fairly recently, detailed analyses of new incremental algorithms related to integration of constitutive equations that apply directly to critical state models have been presented in the literature [5, 13]. These new developments suggest that return mapping algorithms such as closest point projection and cutting plane iterations also enjoy good accuracy when applied to models with less obvious return paths. In particular, the closest point projection iteration for stress point integration of the modified CamClay model was chosen in [5] because it is stable and amenable to exact linearization [20]. It was further shown in [5] that the resulting algorithm can handle pressuredependent elastic moduli quite accurately via the use of the converged stresses of the previous time step during subcritical yielding. However, its accuracy performance is quite poor in situations dominated by combined nonlinear elastic unloading and plasticity such as would occur in tunneling and excavations. An improved algorithm is presented in this paper to demonstrate the relative importance of nonlinear elasticity for an accurate integration of the rate constitutive equation for the modified CamClay model. The new algorithm employs the notion of secant elastic moduli for integrating the nonlinear elastic constitutive equation, in conjunction with an implicit calcula tion of plastic strains in the elastoplastic regime. A comparative analysis of the relative merits and efficiency of the present technique and the closest point projection algorithm discussed in [5] is provided to assist one in choosing a more appropriate algorithm for solving a given problem. While the impact of this paper is tied to the generality and applicability of the modified CamClay model (and one should take note of its many shortcomings and the uncountable number of enhancements of critical state models in general), the contribution of this paper lies in how one may treat nonlinear elasticity combined with plasticity appropri ately. Results of this study should complement other aspects of computation that demand a high order of accuracy, such as error analysis and order of convergence proofs. They are also useful in numerical simulations such as tunneling and excavation where the load increment could be large locally, and where the step size cannot be reduced trivially to achieve improved accuracy [4].
2.
Integration of nonlinear elastic constitutive equation
For notations and necessary background, see [5]. The basic problem is to integrate the rate constitutive equation
d,=c"'(~~"),
c"=gl®l+2/z(l~l®l).
(2.1)
The elastic bulk and shear moduli, K and/z, are assumed to depend linearly on the pressure p
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part !!
227
according to 

1 + 
e 
3K(1 
 
2u) 

K 
K 
p 
and 
/z= 
2(l+u) 
' 
(2.2a, b) 
where e is the void ratio of the soil matrix, K is the swell/recompression index and u is the elastic Poisson's ratio. Now, rewrite (2.1) in the following form:
6,=KU:e", 
e"=~b 
e, 
_{(}_{2}_{.}_{3}_{a}_{)} 

where 

~"=l®l+2r(l~l®l) 
and 
r=3(12v)/2(l+u). 
(2.3b) 
In (2.3a) the tensor U is constant, assuming that Poisson's ratio v is constant. Integrating (2.3a) over a finite time increment results in the following incremental equation:
tr,,+~ =
~r,, +
ft tn
t!
+
I
K~."" de"
or,, + R~"" Ae",
(2.4a)
(2.4b)
where
The value of/~ consistent with (2.3a) is obtained by taking the volumetric part of (2.4b) as
k = K(Aeo)" , Ae v' = tr(Ae"),
represents
an 'average" bulk stiffness of the soil matrix.
p,,+, =p,, + ~f( tr(U" Ae")=p,, 
+/~ Ae',i 
(2.5) 

and comparing with the 
exact evolution 
of 
p 
derived directly from (2.3a). 
Evaluating the 
volumetric part of (2.3a) and substituting the instantaneous value of K from (2.2a) yields
lJ =
K~
=
[(1
+
e)/rlp~'~,
•
Integrating (2.6) yields
P,,+ i = P,, exp
1 + e
K
Ae~),
^{(}^{2}^{.}^{6}^{)}
(2.7)
where e ~ % for small deformations. This explicit treatment of e is considered reasonable in light of the conclusion in [5] that the quantity 1 + e does not change appreciably even for large load steps. Comparing (2.5) and (2.7), we see that
/~=
P'
AC
[
z_'
exp
(,+e)
Ae~
K
1
]
.
Substituting in (2.4b) results in
28,
228
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part 11
o',,, t =
o',, +
~
exp
K
Equation (2.9) is analytically exact for isotropic loading since taking its volumetric part results in (2.7). The quantity K in (2.8) is a secantapproximation of the mean bulk stiffness over a finite time increment; hence, the tensor KE e is a secant approximation of the nonlinear elasticity tensor. A geometric representation of the secant elastic moduli is shown in Fig. 1. For an elastic process, Ae"= Ae and Ae~ = AG. Thus, (2.9) may be evaluated directly from the given total strain increment Ae. However, (2.9) is only approximate and does not represent the analytically exact integral of the rate constitutive equation. The tangential stressstrain tensor consistent with (2.9) is thus the tensor obtained from the derivative of
(2.4b):
,
Cn~l

0o.,,+,
"
0E 'k+!
*
=
®
a/~
'
(2.10)
where the superscript k represents an iteration counter. The variation of/~ with respect to e,~ is obtained as
+
I
a/~
=qd,
6=
K "+' ~'
/~
'
K~
+'

1 + e
K
p~+,.
(2.11)
Thus, the tangential stressstrain
moduli for an elastic process is
c~,~, =/~'E" + 6(/'"' Ae")® I.
(2.12)
We see that in explicitly treating nonlinear elasticity, an iterative solution is required even in the elastic regime.
P
d
Pn+I
Pn
Kn+l7
I 

I I 
~ 
e 
(e~).
e
(a)
(ev).+1
e
£v
%!
I
I
I
(b)
/
e
£n+!
£e
Fig. I. Graphical representation of (a) secant and tangential bulk moduli, and (b) secant elasticity tensor.
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part !!
3.
Integration of elastoplastic constitutive equation
229
3.1. Preliminaries
Let Ae,,+~ = e,,+ ~ e,,, where e,, is the converged strain tensor of the previous time step. The volumetric part of Ae,,+~ i~ Aeo=tr(Ae,,+~), while its deviatoric part is A'y,,+~= Ae,,+~ .~Aeol. This split in strains (and later in stresses) will prove to be useful in reducing the number of unknown variables necessary in determining the consistency parameter. Let Ae',',~_~ and Ae,,+~~' represent the elastic and the plastic parts of Ae,, + ~, respectively. Thus,
Ae,'i+,
= Ae,, +, 
Ae,t~+, ,
(3.1a) 

(3.1b) 

(3.1c) 

strains 
implicitly 
(3.2) 
Ae',; = Aeo  Ae~',
!
=A~,,
+
I
associative
A~/"
n+
Applying the
A~, ~'
n+
I
"
flow rule and
calculating the olastic incremental
results in 

Ae,~+ 
=A4)[~(OF/itp),,+,I 
+ V~.(ilF/?tq),, 
i~] 

where fi = 
= 
 
~tr(o',,+,)l, A6 = A6(e,~, ,)>0 
is a consistency param
eter, and F is the yield function given by the ellipsoid
F =
q2/M"
+ p( p

p,. ) = O.
The volumetric and deviatoric plastic strain increments are then determined
Ae~' = A~b(0F/ap),,.,,
= A~bl2p,, ,, 
( p,. ),,,, 1,
At"
n
~I
= Aq~.(OF/Oq),,,,fi
3.2. Stress integration
algorithm
= (384~/M")~,,~,
_{(}_{3}_{.}_{3}_{)} 

as 
[2, 5] 

(3.4a) 

(3.4b) 
For a plastic process, the incremental elastic constitutive equation is written in the following form"
k
O'n ÷I
=o',,+
p,,
~
[
exp
(l+e
K
Ae ,.) v
1
]
g'""
(A~l_a~,+l) ~'
'
(35)
with k playing the role of an iteration counter. Evaluating the volumetric and deviatoric parts of o',~+t gives
and
p==p~+, = ~tr(o',~+,)= p,, exp
q 
q,~+, = V~ II
II,
K(Ae~. 1 + e Ae,q)
] 
(3.6) 
(3.7) 
230
^{w}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{e}
and
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part H
~:,k+
~= ~:, + 2/z(A~/,,+~  k
_ At,p+,)
t2
=/~(Ae~o) = r/~ = r ~
P"e
[
exp
(l+e K
(3.8) 

Ace)_ 1] 
(3.9) 
is the mean shear modulus over the time step in question. Note that/~ and 12 are both state variables which depend on the pressure p. Since Ay,~i+~ depends on ~k,,+~ via (3.4b), we may use this dependence in (3.8) to solve
,,+, =(1 +6/i. 
A~b/M2)'(~:,, + 212 A~,~+,), 
(3.10) 

from which 

q 
_{=} ~/~],(1+6/2 
A~b/M2)']I~,, + 212 A~/k.+,11. 
_{(}_{3}_{.}_{1}_{1}_{)} 
The incremental hardening law may be expressed from the exponential equation
p,_
(p,.),k+t = (p,.),, exp(O A~OF/Op)=(p~),, exp[O A~(2p
p~)].
(3.12)
With (3.5)(3.12),
we can determine the parameter A~ from the consistency equation (3.3).
3.3.
Determination of the consistency parameter Acb
Form a residual vector g = {g~, g.,, g.~,g4}' such that
gt = P  
P,, exp[(1 + e) ae~/K], 
(3.13a) 

g., = 
q  
V~.~(1 +6t2 
IIg,, + 212 Ay,,+,ll, 
(3.13b) 
g,
= p,.
(p,),,
exp[O a6(2p
g4 = q"/M" + p(p

p,.).

p,)],
(3.13c)
(3.13d)
Then assemble the unknown variables in a vector 8~+t according to 8,~+t = {pk, qk, p,k A~k},, where k is an iteration counter representing the current estimates of these variables. The consistency equation (3.3) is thus equivalent to satisfaction of the system of nonlinear equations
g(#,, +,)=0.
(3.14)
A local Newton iteration of the following form may be performed to solve (3.14):
Iterate over
gt
,.Sk ,,+,)AS
k
=
gk
,
k+l=/~k
8,,+,
,,+,
_ASk
(3.15)
R. 1. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part !!
231
until
solving four nonlinear equations in four unknowns. See Appendix A for details of the
necessary calculations.
ll/llg"ll < GTOL, where GTOL is a small number. Thus, the task is reduced to
IIg
REMARK 3.1. Geometrically, the present integration algorithm differs from the wellknown return mapping algorithm [13] in that the consistency condition is imposed not by a return from a fixed trial elastic stress but by the use of the secant elastic moduli. This point is
illustrated in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2(a), the return to the yield surface is made from a trial elastic
stress or,,,r
the return mapping algorithm is amended in Fig. 2(b) by 'pushing' the stresses directly from
the converged stress tensor o,, with or,,+tr used solely to detect yielding.
+
I
'
which may not be fixed when variable elastic moduli are considered. In this case,
3.4. Inverse stressstrain relation
Boundary value problems are generally loaddriven, i.e., external loads are applied and the resulting deformations are computed. This requires that we solve the inverse relation
en+
l
=
Let
e(lYn+l).
o',,+~* represent
the
applied
stresses
at
a point
at time
equivalent internal stresses. For equilibrium,
*
O'n+
I
=or(e,
+
I
)
'
t,, +~ and
or,,+~ the
statically
(3
16)
where
Newton's method, thus:
e,,+~ are the unknown strains. To solve the inverse relation e = e(or,,+~), we employ
Iterate over
Cn
4 1
until II(,,L., ,,,,+,)III
k
I
+ I
'
+ I
,
+ I
'
. o',,)JI < STOL, where STOL is a small number.
O'
O
Fig.
returns
2.
(a)
Geometric
the
interpretation
stress
of alternative
stress
point
to
fixed elastic
predictor
o"r,, i iteratively
(b)
integration
the
algorithms'.
at
(a) closest
(b)
point
projection
elastic stress
yield surface
tr,,, t'
secant
integration 
brings the stress 
point 
iteratively 
to o',, t from the converged 
stress tensor 
or,,. with 
normality 
rule 

imposed 
at 
o', +~. 
232
R. 1. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part 11
Based on [5], the tangent operator c,k,+~ is obtained from the incremental response function
*
°',, +l
=
'tr(o',~+
~
!
)1
+
~+
t
=
p l
+ W~ qfi
.
Taking the strain derivative gives
k
Cn+!

k
Ou,,+l
OE~+I
=
1 ®
~P
T
19En+ 1
+
~,,+l k
0
Or,*,+
1
(3.18)
(3.19)
Appendix B outlines the details of the steps necessary for the evaluation of c,k+t. The resulting
expression for * has the form
Cn+ I
ctkz+I =atl+a,l~l+a31~t~+a4A'y
.
k
n+l
~l+asAy
k
n+l
~+ot6~l+a7~t~fi
,
(3.20)
where a~, a2,
a3 ~
, ot7 are scalar tangent coefficients• In general, c~+1 is not symmetric since a 4, a5 # 0.
a6,
and
REMARK 3.2. Note that the form (3.20) allows a direct evaluation of the consistent tangential moduli without the costly material stiffness matrix inversions required, e.g., in [14,21]. To explicate the cost associated with the algorithm of [14,21], consider a three dimensional problem. In this case, the formulation of [14, 21] requires an inversion of a 6 x 6 matrix of instantaneous elasticities, followed by an inversion of a 7 x 7 material stiffness matrix which includes the gradient of the CamClay hardening parameter p,., all taking place at each Gauss point per iteration, which could prove both inconvenient and expensive particularly for large systems.
4.
Numerical
examples
In this section, we reanalyze the excavation example presented in [5] and assess the accuracy of the proposed stress integration technique. This problem is especially illustrative of the importance of nonlinear elasticities since excavation involves a combination of elastic unloading and plasticity. For this problem we consider three locally known clays whose CamClay data have been reported in the literature: San Francisco Bay Mud, Boston Blue Clay and Weald Clay. The range of values of the parameters for these soils are commonly adopted in many geotechnical analyses to represent real soil behavior. In comparing results, we shall refer to the present technique as the CMCLAY algorithm and the algorithm described in [5] as the CLSEST algorithm, after the names of the respective subroutines of a Fortran program called DIGDIRT [4]. The convergence criteria are [22]
_{a}_{n}_{d}
IIr*ll
IAa
.llr"ll
r*l
r"l,
(4.1)
(4.2)
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticio,, Part !!
233
where r a = (FExT),,+I  FINT(O',~+~), FEX 1 = external force vector, FIN x = internal force vec tor, and Ad ~ = search direction, and where the symbol II II denotes an L2vector norm and [ I denotes absolute values. Global error tolerances are eR = 10 ~ and eE = 10 s', local error tolerances are GTOL = STOL = 10s. All computations were performed in double precision.
4. I.
Excavation in undisturbed San Francisco Bay Mud
Figure 3 shows the initial finite element mesh for this test problem. The mesh is composed of 80, fournoded quadrilateral elements; a standard 2 x 2 Gaussian integration rule was used in each element. The soil considered is undisturbed bay mud whose CamClay parameters are [23] K =0.054, A =0.37, M = 1.4 and e,, = 2.52; an elastic Poisson's ratio of u =0.35 was assumed. Initial conditions consisting of gravity load imposition and preloading were estab lished according to the procedure described in [5]. The initial overconsolidation ratio (OCR) profile is shown in Fig. 4(a). In this test problem, a vertical cut 2 meters high was constructed in the soil by removing the sixteen elements shown in Fig. 3 to simulate the excavation process. These elements were removed in one, two, four and eight lifts corresponding to the removal of sixteen, eight, four and two elements at a time [4]. The rate at which the solution stabilizes as the number of lifts increases is then a measure of the accuracy of the stress integration algorithm. Results of the analyses using the programs CMCLAY and CLSEST are reported in Table 1, which shows the final excavationinduced movements of a reference corner node A in Fig. 3. Note that the program CMCLAY gave nearly identical movement of node A, unlike the program CLSEST whose solution exhibited dependence on the number of lifts. Table 1 also shows the number of iterations required by the two algorithms and the total CPU required to complete the excavation phase of the analysis. The program CLSEST required considerably
i

1.0 m
11111111111
I
II
Fig. 3. Finite element mesh for tile plane strain excavation problem.
234
R. 1. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part 11
Fig. 4.
Excavation in SF Bay Mud: contour of initial and final overconsolidation
ratios.
fewer average number of iterations per load step since it did not iterate during purely elastic unloading. However, comparing the onestep solutions shows that the program CLSEST required 1(I.6+ 5 = 2.12 seconds per iteration while the program CMCLAY required 16.4 + 7 = 2.34 seconds per iteration, so that the difference is minimal. The final OCR profile is
shown in Fig. 4(b).
4.2. Excavation in Boston Blue Clay and Weald Clay
The purpose of this example is to obtain an impression of the performance of the proposed algorithm when applied to other clays. Thus, we consider two other soils known locally as
Table 1 Excavation in San Francisco
tolerances:
Bay Mud: displacement of point A (error
e r
= 1() ~'~ and
e~.:= 10 ~)
a,
CMCLAY
No. of lifts 
d,, mm d,, mm No. 
iter/lift 
CPU, sec. 

I 
51 
19 
7 
16.4 

2 
 
511 
 
20 
6,5 
29.0 

4 
 
5() 
 
2(I 
6.0 
54.2 

8 
50 
2() 
5.8 
103,3 

b. 
CLESET 
No. of lifts
d,, mm
d,, mm
No. iter/lift
CPU,
sec.
i 
42 
 
15 
5 
!(].6 
2 
47 
2(1 
3.5 
15.5 

4 
51 
23 
2.8 
25.3 

8 
53 
24 
2.8 
5(].6 
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part !!
Table 2
CMCLAY program validation: displacement of point A for excavation in BBC and WC (error tolerances: eR = 10 5 and e E = 10 x)
a. Boston
Blue Clay excavation
235
No. of lifts 
dx, mm 
d,., mm 
No. iter/lift 
CPU, sec. 
1 
47 
24 
8 
18.4 
2 
47 
26 
6.5 
28.8 
4 
47 
25 
5.8 
51.2 
8 
47 
25 
5.4 
98.3 
b. Weald Clay excavation
No. of lifts 
d~, mm 
d:., mm 
No. iter/lift 
CPU, sec. 

1 
42 
16 
15" 
31.4" 

2 
42 
17 
7.0 
30.7 

3 
41 
17 
6.3 
40.6 

6 
42 
 
17 
5.5 
72.7 
`. Terminated after 15 iterations; solution satisfied error tolerance
1.0e3.
of
Boston Blue Clay (BBC) and Weald Clay (WC). The CamClay parameters for BBC are
[3,24] r =0.060,
A=0.147, M = 1.05 and e,, = 3.56. For WC, the relevant parameters are
[3, 25] K = 0.031, A = 0.088, M = 0.882 and e,, = 1.31. Considering the same finite element mesh of Fig. 3, the sixteen elements were excavated in BBC and the displacement of point A was tabulated in Table 2. The performance of the algorithm is seen to be similar to the Bay Mud example, which is accurate. The vertical cut in a weaker and more compressible WC did not stand at a vertical height of 2 meters. By trial, the maximum height of the vertical cut for this soil was determined to be 1.5 meters, which entails the removal of twelve elements from the mesh of Fig. 3. Table 2 shows the resulting excavationinduced displacements of the same node A corresponding to one, two, three and six lifts representing the removal of twelve, six, three and two elements at a time, respectively, again showing marked accuracy. The onestep excavation was terminated after 15 iterations when it did not converge, although the displacements reported in Table 2
satisfied force and energy tolerances of 10 3.
5.
Closure
An improved stress integration algorithm for the modified CamClay plasticity model capable of incorporating nonlinear elasticity has been presented. The technique requires evaluation of the gradients of the normal to the yield surface, the plastic flow direction (if different from the normal to the yield surface, as for a nonassociative flow rule), the plastic moduli and the elasticity tensor. It was shown that the rate constitutive equation can be integrated in a straightforward manner by expressing stresses and strains in terms of their invariants.
with the present algorithm is useful in numerical
simu!atioas where the step size cannot be trivially reduced, as in tunneling and excavation
The
improved
accuracy
engendered
236
R. 1. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part H
It is also useful in investigating other aspects of the computation with critical state
applications such as error analysis and order of convergence proofs where accuracy require
ments may be high.
problems.
Acknowledgment
Financial support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation under
Contract
No.
MSS8910219, Research
Initiation Award.
Appendix A. Local Newton iteration for computing At/)
A.
1.
Derivatives of elastic variables
Write the elastic bulk strain increment from (3.1b) and (3.4a) as
Then,
to
Ae~ = Ae,(~,,+ ,)= Aeo 
A~b(2p  p).
the derivatives of AE~ are
(A.1)
,9 Ae~ = 2A~b
Op
'
~0Ae~
Oq
~0Ae:
0 Ae:
=
=0'
_ 

Opc 
=Aqb, 
0A~b 
(2p 
Pc). 
(A.2) 

(A.3) 

O/.Z = 
/£ A~ 
0/.~ 
2p 
 
p,. 
_ 

Opt 
 
Ae: 
' 
OA~b 
Aeo~ 
p'" 
(A.4) 
Next, write the secant modulus/2
~ =1~(8,,~)
= p
p'',,

Aev
and take the derivatives,
thus:
A.2.
0/2 =
Op
r + 2A~b/2
Ae'~
r
as
O/.~ = 0
Oq
'
Tangent operator for local Newton iteration
'
See (3.13) for the relevant expressions for g, The derivatives of g~ are
where
gl.l = Ogi/Op = 1 + 2A6K*,
gl.3 = Ogl/OPc = AtbK* ,
K*=
~l+e
[l+e
~)
Ae o
r p,,exp~~
_{g}_{l}_{.}_{2} _{=}_{O}_{g}_{l}_{/}_{O}_{q}_{=}_{O}_{,}
gl,4 _{=} _{O}_{g}_{~}_{/}_{O}_{A}_{6} _{=} _{(}_{2}_{p} _{} _{p}_{c}_{)}_{K}_{*}_{,}
.
The derivatives of g2 are
Og ~2 

g2, I = 
Op 
~p x2~" A2' 
(A.5)
(A.6)
R.I.
Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part 11
237
where
g2.2 Og2 0q =0,
g2,3
_
0/~ (2h" Ay
Og 2
Opc = V~rl ~
Og2
_vr~_~r/[2h.AI,
=
'
^{6}^{T}^{/}^{A}^{~} I1,,
arll)
Off,
677//,A~b (1 + a~b 2pPc)
The derivatives of g3 are
where
0g3
g3,1 = Op 20
A~bp* ,
g3,3 =
Og3
Opc = 1 + O A~bp*,
g3,2
_{m}
g3,4 =
P* = (Pc),, exp[O A~b(2p  Pc)].
0g3
"
Oq
~'~'0
~
3g3
OAdp= O(2p Pc)P*,
Finally, the derivatives of g4 are
Og4 

g4,1 = 
Op =2ppc, 
g4 .2 
" 
Og4_ 2q
0q
M 2
g4.a =
Og4
Op,.
P
'
g4,4
0At~ ^{c}^{~}^{g}^{4} 0.
'
(A.7)
+ 2t.zarll],
(A.8)
(A.9)
(A.10)
(A.11)
In general, g~,j~ g~,~and the linearized equation is solved by a nonsymmetric matrix equation solver.
Appendix B. Strain derivatives
B. 1. Strain derivatives of p and ~ k
n+!
Take the derivative of p with respect to e,~,+tfrom (3.6) to obtain
(B.1)
where Ka,+l is obtained from (A.6). Then, from (3.1b) and (3.4a),
Hence,
0Ae:
k
O£n+l
=lAq~
(
2
0
0p
ek
n+l
0Pc 
) 
0A~ 
0e~+, 
(2pPc) 0e,k,.~' 
(B.2)
238
R.I.
Borja,
CamClay
plasticity,
Part H
8p
od+,
_ K,~+,[IA6(2
Op
od+,
Opc
'~
ae,~ +, /
+ (2p

OAck ]
p,.) :z
Oe,,+, J
aa,/,
= a, K~,+,I + azKk,+, 0e~+,'
where
a I =
1 +p,.O A&
a
,
a2:
2ppc
a
The strain derivative ~ff Pc is
od+ ,
p,.O [Adp(2
Op
= a~K,k,
•
l + a4K,k,
+1
_{,}
0e~+,
8A&
+1 oEk+l
(B.3) 

a 
 
1 + 2K~+, A~b + p,.O A~b. 
(B.4) 
+ (2p  
Pc) ~e,,+, 

(B.5) 
where
a3 = 2p,.O A&la,
a 4 =
,9 ~
PC
(2p  Pc)/a.
(B.6)
Finally, applying the chain rule, the strain derivative of g k,,+, from (3.10) is
where
0~
Oe,~ + I
, =2/.~V~
~a5
I
.~1®1 +
+ 2/2V~."~adi® ~
Oe,,+ I
as  V~(1 + 6~ Atb/M")',
1 A'Y~+,® ~':ST'.
/z
+
/£
Oe,, +t
Oe~+ t
a~, = 3q(l +6fLAdp/M2)t/M " .
B.2.
Strain derivative of
Employing the chain rule on (A.3) gives
where
+
,
=
S go
b,l
+
b,
"
k
O£n+ !
,
b I =1 
+(al/R +2alAcka3Adp)K,~+,, 

b2 = (2p 
 
Pc) + (a2/K + 2a2 A~ 
 
a4 A(b)K,k,+,. 
B.3.
Strain derivative of A4~
Impose the consistency condition (3.3) to obtain
3
~~
~,,+, ~k+t" ~'~'" +(2pPc)
OE,,+l
Op
k
Oen+!
0pc
P ST =0,
8en+t
(B.7)
(B.8)
(B.9)
(B.IO)
(B.11)
from which
R.I.
Borja,
CamClay
pla’sticity,
Part
II
_{2}_{3}_{9}
_{a}_{w}_{l}_{a}_{&}_{,}
= c,l+
c,ii $
_{(}_{B}_{.}_{1}_{2}_{)}
wnere
6,
s
= c ’
2q
z
c,
2jia,
j&i:
AYE+, W
((a.l2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,,
V
^{I}
_{v}
(8.13)
C=
2~a~~[l~(~~~:Ay*,,A~)]((2a2a~)pu,p,)K1,,.
B.4.
Consistent
tangent
Substitute (B.12)
in (B.3)
to obtain
aP
ad+*
= (a,
+ a,c,)Kk+,l
t (a,c,)$,it.
(B.14)
Substitute (B. 12) also in (B.7) to get
=2&$a,(I a&,
G+,
il@l+
b1~E~2c1Ayf;+,@l+
s
Aya_,@ii)
_{+}_{2}_{f}_{i}_{f}_{l}_{a}_{,}
_{K} c, + A~(bh;b?cqm

(f2 + +~+m].
(EMS)
This produces
the algorithmic tangent (3.20), with tangent coefficients
q
= 2pfia5
IY?= K~+,,(u,+ LZ,C,) $fifla,
.
,
,
%
K:+,(%c,)
^{a}^{4} ^{=} ^{2}^{f}^{i}^{a}^{,}^{j}^{l}^{J} .
=
9
(“~;p:2cI),
(E3.16)
_{a}_{s}
_{=} _{2}_{j}_{I}_{i}_{a}_{&}
_{3}_{)}
_{,}
f.x6= 2iia6fl(c,
+ A4’b~Jcb’ci’)
,
V
V
Wb,c,
a,
=
22ia5fl(c2
+
As’
’
^{)}
V
The tangent operator that results is asymmetric.
References
[I] J.H.
Atkinson,
Foundations
and Slopes:
An Introduction
to Applications
of Critical State
Soil
Mechanics
(Halsted
Press, New York,
1981).
240
R.I. Borja, CamClay plasticity, Part H
R.I. Borja and E. Kavazanjian, Jr., A constitutive model for the stressstraintime behaviour of 'wet' clays, Gdotechnique 35 (3) (1985) 283298. R.I. Borja and E. Kavazanjian, Jr., Finite element analysis of the timedependent behavior of soft clays, Geotech. Engrg. Res. Report No. GT1, Stanford University, 1984. R.I. Borja, S.R. Lee and R.B. Seed, Numerical simulation of excavation in elastoplastic soils, Internat. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 13 (3) (1989) 231249. R.I. Borja and S.R. Lee, CamClay plasticity, Part I: Implicit integration of elastoplastic constitutive relations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 78 (1) (1990) 4972.
161 F.L. Di Maggio and I.S. Sandier, Material model for granular soils, ASCE J. Engrg. Mech. Div. 97 (1971)
[51
141
[31
[21
171
935950.
A. Gens and D.M. Potts, Critical state models in computational geomechanics, Engrg. Comp. 5 (1988)
178197.
181 K.H. Roscoe and J.B. Burland, On the generalized stressstrain behavior of 'wet' clay, in: J. Heyman and
F.A. Leckie, eds., Engineering Plasticity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1968) 535609.
191
1101
i111
[121
[13]
[14]
[151
It6]
[171
[181
A. 
Schofield and C.P. Wroth, Critical state soil mechanics (McGrawHill, New York, 1968). 
M. 
Zytinsky, M.K. Randolph, R. Nova and C.P. Wroth, On modeling the unloadingreloading behaviour of 
soils, lnternat. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 2 (1978) 8793. J.F. Dafalias and L.R. Herrmann, Bounding surface formulation of soil plasticity, in: G.N. Pande and O.C. Zienkiewicz, eds., Soil MechanicsmTransient atad CycJic Loads (Wiley, Chichester, 1982) 253282.
Z. Mroz, V.A. Norris and O.C. Zienkiewicz, Application of an anisotropic hardening model in the analysis of
elastoplastic deformations of soils, G6otechnique 29 (1) (1979) 134.
M. Ortiz and J.C. Simo, An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive
relations, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 23 (1986) 353366. J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy and S. Govindjee, Nonsmooth muitisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/ unloading conditions and numerical algorithms, lnternat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 26 (1988) 21612185.
S. Sture, Book Review: Critical state soil mechanics via finite elements, by A.M. Br~tto and M.J. Gunn,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 68 (1988) 251253.
T.J.R.
Workshop on Theoretical Foundations for Large Scale Computations on Nonlinear Material Behavior,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1983. R.D. Krieg and S.W. Key, Implementation of a time dependent plasticity theory into structural computer programs, in: J.A. Stricklin and K.J. Saczalski, eds., Constitutive Equations in Viscoplasticity: Computational and Engineering Aspects, AMD20 (ASME, New York, 1976). M.L. Wilkins, Calculation of elasticplastic flow, Methods of Comput. Phys. 3 (Academic Press, New York,
Hughes, Numerical implementation of constitutive models: Rate indepencqent deviatoric plasticity,
196,1).
1191 D.R. Owen and E. Hinton, Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice (McGrawHill, New York,
12ol
[211
[221
[231
[241
[251
1980).
J.C. Simo and R.L. Taylor, Consistent tangent operators for ratendependent elastoplasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 48 (1985) 101118.
M. Ortiz and J.B. Martin, Symmetrypreserving return mapping algorithms and incrementally extremai paths:
A unification of concepts, lnternat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 28 (1989) 18391853. J.M. Ortega and W.C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables (Academic Press, New York, 1970).
R. Bonaparte and J.K. Mitchell, The properties of San Francisco Bay Mud at Hamilton Air Force Base,
California, Geotech. Engrg. Res. Report, University of California, Berkeley, 1981.
C.P. Wroth, S.A. Thompson and J.M,O. Hughes, MIT foundation prediction symposium, Proceedings of the Foundation Deformation Prediction Symposium 2, Report No. FHWARD75516, Appendix G, GIG2,
1974.
A.W. Bishop and D.J. Henkel, The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test, 2nd Edition (Arnold, London, 1962).
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.