Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 88 (1991) 225-240 North-Holland

Cam-Clay 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 Cam-Clay 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 shear-induced 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, path-dependent, hysteretic and dilatant soil behavior, and even the changeable character associated with loading a soil in the dry or wet state. Elasto-plastic 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 [1-10]. The modified Cam-Clay 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 Cam-Clay [7].

0045-7825/91/$03.50 ©

1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-HoUand)

226

R. !. Borja, Cam-Clay 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, 13-15]. 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 Cam-Clay models such as nonlinear elasticity and the lack of an obvious 'return path' for calculation of the return length [16-18]. 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 Cam-Clay 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 pressure-dependent 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 Cam-Clay 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 elasto-plastic 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 Cam-Clay 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, Cam-Clay 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,

(2.3a)

where

 

~"=l®l+2r(l-~l®l)

 

and

r=3(1-2v)/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, Cam-Clay 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 stress-strain 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 stress-strain

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, Cam-Clay 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

where

and

R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay 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.

(3.11)

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, Cam-Clay 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 well-known 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 stress-strain relation

Boundary value problems are generally load-driven, 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, Cam-Clay 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 Cam-Clay 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 re-analyze 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 Cam-Clay 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 DIG-DIRT [4]. The convergence criteria are [22]

and

IIr*ll

IAa

.llr"ll

r*l

r"l,

(4.1)

(4.2)

R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay 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 L2-vector norm and [ I denotes absolute values. Global error tolerances are eR = 10 -~ and eE = 10 -s', local error tolerances are GTOL = STOL = 10-s. 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, four-noded quadrilateral elements; a standard 2 x 2 Gaussian integration rule was used in each element. The soil considered is undisturbed bay mud whose Cam-Clay 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 excavation-induced 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, Cam-Clay plasticity, Part 11

FINAL INITIAL ~ :.~.,.; :.:.~.;.~ :.:.:.;.~ ;!! .!:i~:i:ii:iii:ii OCR = 1.0 1.0,~OCR,d.lS 1.1$~OCR~2.0 OCR~.2.0
FINAL
INITIAL
~
:.~.,.; :.:.~.;.~
:.:.:.;.~
;!!
.!:i~:i:ii:iii:ii
OCR = 1.0
1.0,~OCR,d.lS
1.1$~OCR~2.0
OCR~.2.0
~ ~:?:iiii~!::i!ili::ii!!i::i!i::iii!iiiiiii::iiiiiiiiii!iil
L
I

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 one-step 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, Cam-Clay 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

1.0e-3.

of

Boston Blue Clay (BBC) and Weald Clay (WC). The Cam-Clay 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 excavation-induced 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 one-step 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 Cam-Clay 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 non-associative 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, Cam-Clay 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.

MSS-8910219, 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~~

gl.2 =Ogl/Oq=O,

gl,4 = Og~/OA6 = (2p - pc)K*,

.

The derivatives of g2 are

 

Og ~2

g2, I =

Op

-~p x2~" A2'

(A.5)

(A.6)

R.I.

Borja, Cam-Clay 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,

=

'

6T/A~ I1,,

arll)

Off,

677//,A~b (1 + a~b 2p-Pc)

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 =2p-pc,

g4 .2

--"

Og4_ 2q

0q

M 2

g4.a =

Og4

Op,.

-P

'

g4,4-

0At~ c~g4 ----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 non-symmetric 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

=l-Aq~

(

2

0

0p

ek

n+l

0Pc

)

0A~

0e~+,

--(2p--Pc) 0e,k,.---~'

(B.2)

238

R.I.

Borja,

Cam-Clay

plasticity,

Part H

8p

od+,

_ K,~+,[I-A6(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:

2p-pc

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 +2alAck-a3Adp)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" ~'~'-" +(2p--Pc)

OE,,+l

Op

k

Oen+!

0pc

P -S-T-- =0,

8en+t

(B.7)

(B.8)

(B.9)

(B.IO)

(B.11)

from which R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay pla’sticity, Part II 2 3 9 a w l a
from which R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay pla’sticity, Part II 2 3 9 a w l a
from which R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay pla’sticity, Part II 2 3 9 a w l a

from which

R.I.

Borja,

Cam-Clay

pla’sticity,

Part

II

239

awla&,

= c,l+

c,ii $

(B.12)

wnere

6,

s

= c -’

2q

z

c,

-2jia,

j&i:

AYE+, -W

-((a.l-2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,,

2q z c, -2jia, j&i: AYE+, -W -((a.l-2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,, V I v (8.13) C=

V

I

v

z c, -2jia, j&i: AYE+, -W -((a.l-2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,, V I v (8.13) C= -2~a~~[l-~(~~~:Ay*,,-A~)]-((2a2-a~)p-u,p,)K1,,.

(8.13)

j&i: AYE+, -W -((a.l-2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,, V I v (8.13) C= -2~a~~[l-~(~~~:Ay*,,-A~)]-((2a2-a~)p-u,p,)K1,,. B.4.
j&i: AYE+, -W -((a.l-2a,)P+a,P,)K,XI,, V I v (8.13) C= -2~a~~[l-~(~~~:Ay*,,-A~)]-((2a2-a~)p-u,p,)K1,,. B.4.

C=

-2~a~~[l-~(~~~:Ay*,,-A~)]-((2a2-a~)p-u,p,)K1,,.

v (8.13) C= -2~a~~[l-~(~~~:Ay*,,-A~)]-((2a2-a~)p-u,p,)K1,,. B.4. Consistent tangent Substitute (B.12) in (B.3) to obtain

B.4.

Consistent

tangent

B.4. Consistent tangent Substitute (B.12) in (B.3) to obtain aP ad+* = (a, +

Substitute (B.12)

in (B.3)

to obtain

B.4. Consistent tangent Substitute (B.12) in (B.3) to obtain aP ad+* = (a, + a,c,)Kk+,l -t

aP

ad+*

= (a,

+ a,c,)Kk+,l

-t (a,c,)$,it.

(B.14)

to obtain aP ad+* = (a, + a,c,)Kk+,l -t (a,c,)$,it. (B.14) Substitute (B. 12) also in

Substitute (B. 12) also in (B.7) to get

(a,c,)$,it. (B.14) Substitute (B. 12) also in (B.7) to get -=2&$a,(I- a&, G+, il@l+ b1~E~2c1 Ayf;+,@l+
(a,c,)$,it. (B.14) Substitute (B. 12) also in (B.7) to get -=2&$a,(I- a&, G+, il@l+ b1~E~2c1 Ayf;+,@l+

-=2&$a,(I- a&,

G+,

il@l+

b1~E~2c1Ayf;+,@l+

s

Aya_,@ii)

a&, G+, il@l+ b1~E~2c1 Ayf;+,@l+ s Aya_,@ii) + 2 f i f l a , K

+2fifla,

K c, + A~(bh;b?cqm

-

(f2 + +~+m].

(EMS)

f i f l a , K c, + A~(bh;b?cqm - (f2 + +~+m]. (EMS) This
f i f l a , K c, + A~(bh;b?cqm - (f2 + +~+m]. (EMS) This

This produces

the algorithmic tangent (3.20), with tangent coefficients

the algorithmic tangent (3.20), with tangent coefficients q = 2pfia5 IY?= K~+,,(u,+ LZ,C,)- $fifla, . ,

q

= 2pfia5

IY?= K~+,,(u,+ LZ,C,)- $fifla,

.

,

,

q = 2pfia5 IY?= K~+,,(u,+ LZ,C,)- $fifla, . , , % K:+,(%c,) a 4 = 2

%

K:+,(%c,)

a4 = 2fia,jlJ .

=

9

(“~;p:2cI),

a 4 = 2 f i a , j l J . = 9 (“~;p:2cI), (E3.16)

(E3.16)

= 2 f i a , j l J . = 9 (“~;p:2cI), (E3.16) a s

as

= 2jIia&

3)

,

f.x6= 2iia6fl(c,

+ A4’b~-Jcb’ci’)

,

V

V

& 3 ) , f.x6= 2iia6fl(c, + A4’b~-Jcb’ci’) , V V Wb,c, a, = -22ia5fl(c2 +
& 3 ) , f.x6= 2iia6fl(c, + A4’b~-Jcb’ci’) , V V Wb,c, a, = -22ia5fl(c2 +

Wb,c,

a,

=

-22ia5fl(c2

+

As’

)

, V V Wb,c, a, = -22ia5fl(c2 + As’ ’ ) V The tangent operator that

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

Foundations and Slopes: An Introduction to Applications of Critical State Soil Mechanics (Halsted Press, New York,

(Halsted

Press, New York,

1981).

240

R.I. Borja, Cam-Clay plasticity, Part H

R.I. Borja and E. Kavazanjian, Jr., A constitutive model for the stress-strain-time behaviour of 'wet' clays, Gdotechnique 35 (3) (1985) 283-298. R.I. Borja and E. Kavazanjian, Jr., Finite element analysis of the time-dependent 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) 231-249. R.I. Borja and S.R. Lee, Cam-Clay plasticity, Part I: Implicit integration of elasto-plastic constitutive relations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 78 (1) (1990) 49-72.

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

935-950.

A. Gens and D.M. Potts, Critical state models in computational geomechanics, Engrg. Comp. 5 (1988)

178-197.

181 K.H. Roscoe and J.B. Burland, On the generalized stress-strain behavior of 'wet' clay, in: J. Heyman and

F.A. Leckie, eds., Engineering Plasticity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1968) 535-609.

191

1101

i111

[121

[13]

[14]

[151

It6]

[171

[181

A.

Schofield and C.P. Wroth, Critical state soil mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).

M.

Zytinsky, M.K. Randolph, R. Nova and C.P. Wroth, On modeling the unloading-reloading behaviour of

soils, lnternat. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 2 (1978) 87-93. 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) 253-282.

Z. Mroz, V.A. Norris and O.C. Zienkiewicz, Application of an anisotropic hardening model in the analysis of

elasto-plastic deformations of soils, G6otechnique 29 (1) (1979) 1-34.

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) 353-366. J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy and S. Govindjee, Non-smooth muitisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/ unloading conditions and numerical algorithms, lnternat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 26 (1988) 2161-2185.

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) 251-253.

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, AMD-20 (ASME, New York, 1976). M.L. Wilkins, Calculation of elastic-plastic 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 (McGraw-Hill, New York,

12ol

[211

[221

[231

[241

[251

1980).

J.C. Simo and R.L. Taylor, Consistent tangent operators for rate-|ndependent elastoplasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 48 (1985) 101-118.

M. Ortiz and J.B. Martin, Symmetry-preserving return mapping algorithms and incrementally extremai paths:

A unification of concepts, lnternat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 28 (1989) 1839-1853. 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. FHWA-RD-75-516, Appendix G, GI-G2,

1974.

A.W. Bishop and D.J. Henkel, The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test, 2nd Edition (Arnold, London, 1962).