336_344.qxd 24.09.
2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 336
Topics
Helmut F. Schweiger
The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models
in Geotechnical Engineering
Numerical calculations have a long tradition in tunnelling but in
recent years numerical methods have become a standard tool for
analysing a wide variety of geotechnical problems. This has be-
come feasible because advanced constitutive models are avail-
able in commercial software packages and sufficient computer
power for performing 3D nonlinear analysis is readily available. In
this paper a short history of the development of constitutive mod-
els for soils will be given, starting from (non)linear elasticity to
strain hardening formulations. Emphasis is put on consequences
the use of different models has on the results of boundary value
problems rather than on the mathematical description. The signif-
icant advances made within the last decade will be obvious. It is
pointed out that this overview is directed towards practical appli-
cations and does not include models which are predominantly
used in research. The merits of using advanced models in prac-
tice are discussed.
Was leisten moderne Stoffgesetze in der geotechnischen Praxis
Numerische Berechnungen haben im Tunnelbau eine lange Tra-
dition, sind aber in den letzten Jahren auch für andere Aufgaben-
stellungen zum unverzichtbaren Werkzeug für den Geotechniker
geworden. Möglich wurde diese Entwicklung durch intensive
Forschung, insbesondere auf dem Gebiet von Stoffgesetzen für
Geomaterialien, die mehr und mehr in kommerziellen Programm-
systemen umgesetzt werden konnte, und der selbstverständli-
chen Verfügbarkeit leistungsfähiger Hardware.
In diesem Beitrag wird die Entwicklung von praxistauglichen
Stoffmodellen, insbesondere für Lockergestein, aufgezeigt, be-
ginnend bei (nicht)linear elastischen Formulierungen bis hin zu
Modellen mit einfachen und komplexen Verfestigungsansätzen.
Dabei wird nicht auf die mathematische Formulierung eingegan-
gen, sondern die Auswirkung der Anwendung unterschiedlicher
Stoffgesetzklassen auf das Ergebnis typischer Aufgabenstellun-
gen dargestellt. Auf diese Weise wird der Fortschritt in der
Verbesserung von Verformungsprognosen für praktische Auf-
gabenstellungen aufgezeigt. Es wird betont, dass dieser
Überblick in erster Linie Bezug auf praktische Aufgabenstellun-
gen nimmt und keinen Überblick zum Stand der Forschung gibt.
Der Nutzen komplexer Stoffgesetze für die Praxis wird
beleuchtet.
1 Introduction
Numerical methods are established tools for analysing
problems in geotechnical engineering, not only in re-
search but also in practice. For problems in soils usually
336 © 2008 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5
DOI: 10.1002/geot.200800033
methods based on continuum mechanics are employed
(finite element method, boundary element method, finite
difference method) whereas in rock mechanics approach-
es based on discontinuum mechanics (e.g. discrete ele-
ment methods) are more appropriate under certain condi-
tions. In the latter methods the key issue is the contact al-
gorithm enabling discrete blocks or particles to undergo
large displacements and rotations where the contact be-
tween blocks may be lost and re-established during the
analysis. When methods based on continuum mechanics
are used, the constitutive model describing the mechani-
cal behaviour of the soil plays a crucial role. Unfortunate-
ly an “universal” material model for soils does not (yet)
exist. A large number of different formulations have been
suggested in the literature, and although only a fraction of
them has been actually applied to solve practical bound-
ary value problems, it is still not easy for a user to decide
which model is the most suitable one for the problem at
hand. In this paper it is attempted to give an overview of
models available for practical application (with some ex-
tension to the near future) and to provide some guidance
on the complexity needed for certain classes of problems.
Emphasis is put on modelling soils but some of the com-
ments made will be valid for weak rocks as well. Models
for unsaturated soils and for cyclic loading will not be cov-
ered.
2 Requirements for constitutive models
The constitutive model provides a mathematical descrip-
tion of the mechanical behaviour of a material and as such
it should be able to represent the most important aspects
of soil behaviour. This simple statement involves a signifi-
cant degree of complexity because – unlike for fabricated
materials – soil properties are not easy to define, in partic-
ular in situ, and the behaviour is governed by the type of
soil (e.g. sand, clay), its strain and stress history (e.g. pre-
consolidation) and the environment the soil has been de-
posited (e.g. bonding and structure). For example many
soils show anisotropic behaviour, overconsolidated clays
and dense sands in general a pronounced post peak be-
haviour. Stiffness is generally stress level dependent and
higher for unloading/reloading than for primary loading.
When all these aspects are taken into account the model
may become very complex and sometimes too difficult to
handle for practical applications because input parame-
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 337

H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering

ters are not easily determined and robust implementation

into numerical codes is not straightforward. It is therefore
essential to clearly identify the purpose of a numerical
analysis and to define the results required. This is obvi-
ously problem dependent and cannot be generalized and
thus the decision how sophisticated the model should be
has to be answered in each particular case. For example, if
only a failure mechanism is of interest, a simple failure cri-
terion (e.g. Mohr Coulomb model) will be sufficient
whereas for a deformation analysis of an excavation this
would be by no means appropriate. Similarly, if the soil
behaviour is known to be highly anisotropic, application
of an isotropic constitutive model may lead to poor results
and if, for example, the structure and bonding of a natural
clay is ignored, one cannot expect realistic deformations Figure 1. Typical results from one-dimensional compression
for problems where significant straining occurs destroying test (schematic)
Bild 1. Typische Ergebnisse aus Ödometerversuch (schema-
the structure of the clay. On the contrary, if strains remain
tisch)
small and therefore only insignificant destructuration
takes place, a model representing the behaviour of the
structured soil (without taking into account destructura-
tion) will suffice.
In order to illustrate the basic aspects of soil behav-
iour, typical results from oedometer and triaxial tests are
schematically depicted in Figures 1 and 2. It clearly fol-
lows that the behaviour is highly nonlinear and the as-
sumption of a linear stress-strain relationship up to failure
is not appropriate.

3 Brief overview of classes of constitutive models for soils

In this section a short overview of common constitutive

models for soils is presented, starting from simple elastic
models to sophisticated elasto-plastic formulations,
whereby emphasis is put on different classes of models
rather than on specific formulations. At the same time this
can be seen as a history in soil modelling highlighting the
significant advances made in recent years. Presentation of Figure 2. Typical results from triaxial compression test
the models will be mainly in graphical form because the (schematic)
mathematical details will be beyond the scope of this pa- Bild 2. Typische Ergebnisse aus Triaxialversuch (schema-
per. Restriction will be made to models based on classical tisch)
plasticity formulations because these are still prevailing in
commercial finite element or finite difference codes and
thus are employed for the majority of practical problems.
It is however acknowledged that other approaches, such pendency and coupling between volumetric and shear be-
as formulations based on hypoplasticity [1], do have their haviour. It follows from section 4 of this paper that elastic-
merits and will probably be increasingly used for solving ity cannot even be regarded as a first approximation of soil
practical boundary value problems in future. Also models behaviour for many types of problems because the result-
for representing the behaviour of jointed rock will not be ing deformation pattern may not only be quantitatively
addressed. but also qualitatively incorrect.

3.1 Short summary on classes of constitutive models
Linear or non-linear elastic models
Although easy to use with a small number of input param-
eters models based on elasticity do not play a significant
role in the analysis of geotechnical problems because soils
in general to not behave as an elastic material, probably
with the exception of very stiff clays under low stress lev-
els. For monotonic primary loading non-linear elastic
models have been applied successfully in the past [2] but
for more complex stress paths these models are not well
suited. Elastic models cannot account for stress path de-
Linear (nonlinear) elastic-perfectly plastic models
These models are an improvement on elastic models be-
cause they introduce a criterion limiting the strength of
the material but the deficiencies in representing the stress-
strain behaviour for stress levels well below failure remain.
The most widely used model in this category is the Mohr-
Coulomb model (Figure 3) for drained analyses and the
Tresca criterion for undrained analyses (in terms of total
stresses) respectively. These models are available in all
codes designed for geotechnical applications. Approxi-
mations in form of Drucker-Prager and Von Mises crite-
ria have been used in the past for computational conve-

Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5 337

336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 338

H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering

nience but due to their severe misprediction of strength

for certain stress paths they are of historic significance on-
ly [3].

Isotropic hardening single surface plasticity models

This type of models is a first step into a more realistic rep-
resentation of the stress strain behaviour of soils for stress
levels representing working load conditions. A typical
representative of this class of models is the modified
Cam Clay model (Figure 4) which introduces an elliptic
yield surface separating elastic from plastic behaviour.
Plastic strains are developed for stress states well below
failure, but predominantly for compression stress paths
(K0-paths). Figure 5 indicates stiffness and strains result-
ing from the model for different stress paths in loading
and unloading/reloading, which is valid also for other
plasticity models. The model is based on critical state soil
mechanics [4] and has been widely used in engineering
practice, with typical applications being the analysis of
embankments on soft soils. Again, the model is im-
plemented in a number of commercially available codes
Figure 3. Graphical representation of Mohr-Coulomb failure but not all of them represent the “original” modified Cam
criterion Clay model but (slight) modifications of it. In addition
Bild 3. Graphische Repräsentation des Mohr-Coulomb’-
to the modified Cam Clay model other single surface
schen Bruchkriteriums
models for clays and sands have been presented in the lit-
erature [5] and are available to some extent in various
codes.

Isotropic hardening double surface plasticity models

Single surface models such as the modified Cam Clay
model have the disadvantage that for certain types of
problems, e.g. excavations, the stress path remains pre-
dominantly inside the yield surface and thus elastic behav-
iour is predicted. In order to overcome this, various op-
tions exist, one of them being the introduction of a second
(deviatoric) yield surface in addition to the volumetric
yield surface described in the previous section [6] (Figure
6). This type of models has gained significant importance
in recent years. They are about to replace analyses with
the standard Mohr-Coulomb criterion because much
more realistic displacement patterns for working load con-
ditions are obtained when these models are used. This is
Figure 4. Graphical representation of Modified Cam Clay especially true for excavation problems where part of the
model mesh experiences primary loading (in shear) and part of
Bild 4. Graphische Repräsentation des Modified Cam Clay the mesh unloading, and changes in stress path direction
Modells are common.

Figure 5. Role of yield surface for definition of stiffness

Bild 5. Bedeutung der Fließfläche für wirksame Steifigkeit

338 Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5

336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 339
a)
b)
Figure 6. Graphical representation of a doubel hardening
model: a) p-q-space, b) principal stress space
Bild 6. Graphische Repräsentation eines Modells mit dop-
pelter Verfestigung a) p-q-Diagramm, b) Hauptspan-
nungsraum
Kinematic hardening multi-surface plasticity models
This is at the high end of models utilizing plasticity theory.
These models are naturally very complex but are able to
describe many features of soil behaviour, including
anisotropy, destructuration and small strain stiffness ef-
fects [7] (Figure 7). Implementation in commercial codes
is not (yet) standard but applications to practical bound-
ary value problems can be found in the literature. These
models generally need a good understanding of the stress
history of the soil because the initial state has a pro-
nounced influence on the results.
3.2 Additional aspects
Anisotropy
Due to the structure of particles, the sedimentation
process and subsequent loading history the mechanical
behaviour of natural soils tends to be initially anisotropic.
Depending on the stress path followed when analysing a
boundary value problem anisotropy may become more
pronounced or vanish with large strains. Most constitutive
models applied in practice ignore anisotropy in soils but it
can be anticipated that some of the models used in re-
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 7. Graphical representation of a 3 surface kinematic
hardening model after [7]
Bild 7. Graphische Repräsentation eines Modells mit kine-
matischer Verfestigung, nach [7]
Figure 8. Graphical representation of anistropic yield sur-
faces for structured soil after [10]
Bild 8. Graphische Repräsentation von anisotropen
Fließflächen für Boden mit Struktur, nach [10]
search will be soon available for more widespread use. Ex-
amples for dealing with anisotropy are rotated yield sur-
faces based on the modified Cam Clay model [8] or mod-
els formulated within the multilaminate framework [9]. A
rotated yield surface as obtained from experiments is
shown in Figure 8 [10].
Destructuration
Natural soils usually possess a structure and bonding be-
tween particles may be present. When the soil is subjected
to stresses the structure may change and bonds may brake.
This can be accounted for in the constitutive model, and
again formulations based on the modified Cam Clay mod-
el are probably the most common types, but destructura-
tion can also be combined with anisotropic behaviour
with multilaminate models [9]. From a practical point of
view the same can be said as for anisotropic models: They
are available and will soon be applied in engineering prac-
tice where appropriate.
Small strain stiffness
It is well known that the stiffness of soils is much higher for
dynamic loading than for static loading. However it has been
shown that high stiffness is also observed for static loading
Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5 339
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 340
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
when strains are very small. Figure 9 illustrates schematical-
ly the decay of the shear modulus with shear strains as ob-
served in experiments [11]. In order to take this behaviour
into account enhancements of elastic-plastic models have
been presented in the literature whereas different strategies
are possible [12] [13]. Some models are enhanced by intro-
ducing a function for a strain dependent stiffness inside the
yield surface, others add another surface inside the yield sur-
face (e.g. so called bubble models). The importance of tak-
ing into account small strain stiffness effects when solving
practical problems has long been recognized but only more
recently commercial codes provide these models. It can be
anticipated that the use of small strain stiffness models will
be common practice in near future.
4 Effect of constitutive model on results of boundary value
problems
In this section the influence of the constitutive model on
the results of two practical examples, namely a deep exca-
vation and a tunnel excavation is discussed.
4.1 Deep excavation
The deep excavation problem as discussed here has been
used already by the Working Group AK 1.6 “Numerical
Methods in Geotechnics” of the DGGT as a benchmark
problem and has been studied in great detail [14]. Howev-
er, it has been re-analysed for the purpose of this paper
Figure 10. Geometry for deep excavation example
Bild 10. Geometrie für Beispiel Baugrube
340 Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5
Figure 9. Schematic representation
of small strain stiffness after [11]
Bild 9. Schematische Darstellung des
Steifigkeitsverlaufs bei sehr geringen
Dehnungen, nach [11]
with a small strain stiffness model which was not available
at the time when the benchmark exercise was performed.
Figure 10 shows the geometry of the problem. The excava-
tion is supported by a diaphragm wall with three rows of
ground anchors. Excavation and groundwater lowering in-
side the pit has been modelled step by step. All analyses
have been performed with the FE-code Plaxis V6 [15]. Re-
sults for the final excavation stage obtained from using the
Mohr Coulomb model (MC) and the so-called Hardening
Soil model (HS), which belongs to the class of isotropic
double hardening models as described above, are com-
pared. In addition the Hardening Soil Small model (HSS)
[12], which is the extension to account for small strain
stiffness effects, and a hypoplastic model (HP) [22] have
been used. Figure 11 compares lateral displacements of
Figure 11. Influence of constitutive model on wall
deflection
Bild 11. Einfluss des Stoffgesetzes auf Biegelinie der
Baugrubenwand
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 341
Figure 12. Influence of constitutive model on vertical dis-
placements behind wall
Bild 12. Einfluss des Stoffgesetzes auf Vertikalverschiebun-
gen hinter der Baugrubenwand
the wall and it is clearly seen that the advanced models
show quite different behaviour as compared to Mohr
Coulomb. It should be mentioned that the example is
based on a real case history and actual measurements are
in the range of what is obtained with the Hardening Soil
and hypoplastic models. When vertical displacements
behind the wall are looked at (Figure 12) it follows that
the Mohr Coulomb model predicts unrealistic heave
whereas the other models predict settlements as one
would expect. It is notable that the small strain stiffness
model predicts a narrower settlement trough than the HS
model which is also more in agreement with observations
in the field. This behaviour has been verified by other ex-
amples and it is clearly evident that simple elastic-perfect-
ly plastic models are not appropriate for these types of
problems.
4.2 Tunnel excavation
In this section a Multilaminate Model for Soil is used for
analysing a tunnel excavation. This model again belongs
to the class of double hardening models, but is formulated
within the multilaminate framework and can therefore
take into account stress induced anisotropy. An extended
version of the model is able to take into account small
strain stiffness effects [16]. The geometry is depicted in
Figure 13. For simplicity the tunnel has a circular cross
Figure 13. Geometry for example tunnel excavation
Bild 13. Geometrie für Beispiel Tunnel
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
section with a diameter of 8 m which is supported by a
shotcrete lining. The width of the numerical model is 100
m while the vertical dimension changes with overburden.
At first the distance between the tunnel and the bottom
boundary is kept constant whereas the influence of vari-
ous heights of overburden, namely H/D=0.5, 1.0, 3.0 and
5.0 is investigated. In a second series of analyses the bot-
tom boundary of the mesh is placed at a deeper level in or-
der to highlight the influence of the mesh boundary on re-
sults when inappropriate constitutive models are em-
ployed. As 2D plane strain analyses are used for the simu-
lation of the tunnel excavation the so-called load
reduction method is employed to consider 3D-effects.
Results obtained with different geometries, i.e. varia-
tion of the overburden and bottom mesh boundary, are
evaluated for different versions of the multilaminate mod-
el (with and without considering small strain stiffness) and
the Mohr-Coulomb model. All results presented in the fol-
lowing are taken from [16]. Comparison of the calculated
settlement troughs is shown in Figure 14 for the Mohr
Coulomb model and it is obvious that results are not real-
istic (increasing settlements with overburden). This is a
consequence of the constant stiffness used in the Mohr
Coulomb model and is well known [17]. Figure 15 shows
Figure 14. Calculated surface settlements for Mohr Coulomb
model
Bild 14. Errechnete Oberflächensetzungen für Mohr
Coulomb Modell
Figure 15. Calculated surface settlements for Multilaminate
Model with small strain stiffness
Bild 15. Errechnete Oberflächensetzungen für Multilami-
nate Modell mit small strain stiffness
Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5 341
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 342
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 16. Calculated surface settlements for Multilaminate
Model with small strain stiffness (depth of mesh increased)
Bild 16. Errechnete Oberflächensetzungen für Multilami-
nate Modell mit small strain stiffness (Berechnungsaus-
schnitt in der Tiefe vergrößert)
Figure 17. Calculated surface settlements for Mohr Coulomb
model (depth of mesh increased)
Bild 17. Errechnete Oberflächensetzungen für Mohr
Coulomb Modell (Berechnungsausschnitt in der Tiefe ver-
größert)
the same for the Multilaminate Model for Soil incorporat-
ing small strain stiffness effects. The model with an over-
burden of 4 m results in the largest settlement above the
centre of the tunnel and the narrowest settlement trough.
With increasing distance of the tunnel to the surface, the
depth of the trough reduces while its width increases. Set-
tlements obtained with the Multilaminate Model for Soil
without consideration of small strain stiffness effects yield
similar trends but the magnitude of settlements is higher
due to the fact that plasticity occurs at early stages of the
simulation and elastic stiffness is significantly lower. Fig-
ure 16 shows results, again for the Multilaminate Model
342 Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5
Figure 18. Comparison of normalised surface settlements for
Mohr Coulomb and Multilaminate models
Bild 18. Vergleich normierter Oberflächensetzungen für
Mohr Coulomb und Multilaminate Modelle
with small strain stiffness, when the bottom boundary is
deeper. It follows that this has hardly an effect on the re-
sults whereas, when analysing Figure 17, where the same is
plotted for the Mohr Coulomb model, a significant influ-
ence of the boundary on the results is obtained making re-
sults very unreliable. Figure 18 compares normalized sur-
face settlements (reference settlement is for 1D overbur-
den) for the two multilaminate models and for two Mohr-
Coulomb analyses. It shows again that elastic-perfectly
plastic models with constant stiffness may produce in-
creasing settlements with increasing overburden (MCconst
in Figure 18). It is also evident that a Mohr-Coulomb
model with stiffness increasing with depth leads to slightly
better results but they are still significantly different to the
results from the advanced models (MCinc in Figure 18).
Although no comparison with field data is presented here
it can be qualitatively concluded that the deformation be-
haviour obtained from the advanced models is more likely
to be in agreement with the actual behaviour in the field.
The importance of small strain stiffness for the analysis of
tunnel excavation has been already pointed out in [18].
5 Role of advanced constitutive models in practice
In section 3 of this paper the development of constitutive
models has been briefly summarized and it has been ar-
gued that significant advances have been made in recent
years and models available are capable of describing the
mechanical behaviour of soils reasonably well. However, it
has also been emphasized that no “universal” soil model
exists as yet and that a number of issues are still subject of
international research. Robust implementation into com-
mercial codes is also an issue which has not been com-
pletely solved up to date, at least not for models at the
high end of sophistication. By means of two typical exam-
ples the importance of constitutive modelling for obtain-
ing useful results has been shown but it is acknowledged
that for other problems the differences between simple
and advanced models may be less pronounced (e.g. shal-
low foundations). This leads to the important question
“how complex the soil model has to be” and unfortunately
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 343
this cannot be answered in a general way because it de-
pends on the particular situation. Eventually the question
has to be seen in connection with the purpose of a numer-
ical analysis for a particular problem. In the following an
attempt is made to give a rough guidance on what is need-
ed.
Ultimate limit state analysis
Leaving aside the discussion whether or not numerical
methods based on continuum mechanics should be used
for evaluating failure mechanisms and factors of safety at
all, it can be suggested that application of failure criteria,
such as the Mohr Coulomb criterion, is sufficient for this
purpose [19]. Thus ULS-analysis is not demanding from a
constitutive modelling point of view but numerically it is,
because convergence criteria, element type and discretisa-
tion will play an important role in this type of analysis
[20]. If failure modes in the post peak range have to be in-
vestigated conventional finite element formulations can-
not be used and special techniques or other methods have
to be employed [9].
Whether numerical analyses should be used for de-
sign is currently under wide discussion, in particular with
reference to Eurocode7. Comparison of numerical and
conventional calculations for deep excavations have
shown that significant differences in bending moments
may be obtained and thus the method of analysis will have
a strong influence on the design of the support system
[21]. In these cases the constitutive model is again of im-
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
portance because it will govern internal forces in wall and
struts. Numerical analyses have certainly the advantage of
taking into account soil-structure interaction in a more ra-
tional way than in conventional analysis, e.g. the effect of
the relative stiffness differences between soil and support
system is automatically considered. However, one has to
acknowledge that experience is not (yet) as comprehen-
sive as with conventional calculation methods, an excep-
tion being possibly shallow tunnelling.
Serviceability analysis
Assessing displacements, stresses and internal forces un-
der working loads for a complex geotechnical problem is a
task which requires advanced skills in soil mechanics and
computational methods. The accuracy which can be
achieved depends to a large extend on the constitutive
model, which has been shown, but also on a good knowl-
edge of ground conditions and material parameters for the
relevant soil layers. In general this is the case for near sur-
face structures, in particular in urban areas where ground
conditions are usually well defined and reliable material
parameters are available. In these cases numerical meth-
ods with appropriate constitutive models will provide a
good estimate of the behaviour of the structure and thus
are a very useful tool for defining support and other auxil-
iary measures. The often heard argument that parameters
for advanced models are not available form geotechnical
reports and are therefore not applicable is not relevant. It
is true that advanced constitutive models require more in-
Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5 343
336_344.qxd 24.09.2008 14:23 Uhr Seite 344
H. F. Schweiger · The Role of Advanced Constitutive Models in Geotechnical Engineering
put parameters than simple failure criteria but some of
them can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for differ-
ent types of soil, provided the user has sufficient theoreti-
cal background.
On the contrary, if ground conditions are not well
known, significant inhomogeneity in soil layers is expect-
ed and the mechanical behaviour is not well investigated,
numerical methods can only provide qualitative results.
Nevertheless they are useful in assessing advantages and
disadvantages of different construction methods or exca-
vation sequences.
6 Summary
A brief summary of classes of constitutive models avail-
able for modelling soil behaviour has been presented and
their features briefly described. It has been made clear that
it is highly problem dependent whether a simple model is
sufficient or a more advanced model is required. As a gen-
eral rule elastic-perfectly plastic models suffice for evalu-
ating failure mechanisms but for calculating deformations
at stress levels well below failure these models are not suit-
able, at least not for problems with complex stress paths
such as excavation problems. If appropriate models and
parameters are used, numerical methods are an estab-
lished, reliable tool and in many cases the only way to as-
sess deformations and stresses under working load condi-
tions. With respect to determining failure mechanisms nu-
merical methods also play their role, with the significant
advantage that the shape of the failure surface is not a pri-
ori assumed as in most conventional analyses, but is a re-
sult of the calculation.
The frequently asked question whether numerical
analysis with advanced constitutive models leads to a
more economic and/or safer design is difficult to answer
because commonly adopted factors of safety are implicitly
linked to traditional calculation models and the true fac-
tor of safety is generally not known. However, it is gener-
ally accepted that numerical methods with advanced ma-
terial models (when properly used) lead to a much better
understanding of the mechanical behaviour of complex
geotechnical structures and as such facilitate the design
procedure and risk assessment significantly.
References
[1] Kolymbas, D.: Eine konstitutive Theorie für Böden und an-
dere körnige Stoffe. Publ. Series of Institut für Boden-
mechanik und Felsmechanik der Universität Fridericiana in
Karlsruhe, Vol. 109, 1988.
[2] Duncan, J.M. and Chang, C.-Y.: Nonlinear analysis of stress
and strain in soils. J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divi-
sion, 1970, pp. 1629–1653.
[3] Griffiths, D.V.: Failure criteria interpretation based on
Mohr-Coulomb friction. J. Geotech. Enging. 116 (1990), pp.
986–999.
[4] Roscoe, K.H. and Burland, J.B.: On the generalized stress-
strain behaviour of “wet” clay. IN: Engineering Plasticity, pp.
535–609. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1968.
[5] Yu, H.S.: CASM: A unified state parameter model for clay and
sand. Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geom. 22 (1998), pp. 621–653.
[6] Vermeer, P.A.: A double hardening model for sand. Geo-
technique 28 (1978), 413–433.
344 Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (2008), Heft 5
[7] Baudet B.A. and Stallebrass S.E.: A constitutive model for
structured clays. Geotechnique 54 (2004), pp. 269-278.
[8] Wheeler, S.J., Näätänen A., Karstunen M. and Lojander M.:
An anisotropic elasto-plastic model for natural soft clays.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40 (2003), pp. 403–418.
[9] Galavi, V.: A multilaminate model for structured clay incor-
porating inherent anisotropy and strain softening. Mitteilung-
shefte Gruppe Geotechnik Graz, Heft 32. TU Graz, 2007.
[10] Leroueil, S. and Vaughan, P.R.: The general and congru-
ent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks. Geo-
technique 40 (1990), pp. 467–488.
[11] Atkinson, J.H. and Sallfors, G.: Experimental determina-
tion of stress-strain-time characteristics in laboratory and in
situ tests. In Associazione Geotechnica Italiana (ed.): Proc.
10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 915–956. Florence, Italy, 1991.
[12] Benz, T.: Small-Strain Stiffness of Soil and its Numerical
Consequences, PhD Thesis, University of Stuttgart, 2007.
[13] Jardine R.J., Potts D.M., Fourie A.B. and Burland J.B.:
Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain character-
istics in soil-structure interaction. Geotechnique 36 (1986),
pp. 377–396.
[14] Schweiger, H.F.: Musterlösung und Parameterstudie für
dreifach verankerte Baugrube – Anhang zu Empfehlungen
Nr. 3 „Baugruben“ des Arbeitskreises AK 1.6 „Numerik in der
Geotechnik“. Geotechnik 25 (2002), pp. 101–109.
[15] Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Broere, W. and Waterman, D.: Plaxis,
Finite element code for soil and rock analyses, users manual.
Delft, 2006.
[16] Scharinger, F.: A multilaminate model for soil incorporat-
ing small strain stiffness. Mitteilungshefte Gruppe Geotech-
nik Graz, Heft 31. TU Graz, 2007
[17] Schweiger, H.F., Kofler, M. and Schuller, H.: Some recent
developments in the finite element analysis of shallow tun-
nels. Felsbau 17 (1999), pp. 426–431.
[18] Addenbrooke, T.I., Potts, D.M. and Puzrin, A.M.: The in-
fluence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the numerical analysis
of tunnel construction. Geotechnique 47 (1997), pp. 693–712.
[19] Schubert, P. and Schweiger, H.F.: Zur Standsicherheit der
Ortsbrust in Lockerböden. In W. Schubert (ed.): Proc. ISRM
Regional Symposium EUROCK 2004 & 53rd Geomechanics
Colloquy, pp. 99–104. Essen: Glückauf, 2004.
[20] Schweiger, H.F.: Standsicherheitsnachweise für Böschun-
gen und Baugruben mittels FE-Methode durch Abminderung
der Scherfestigkeit. In Schanz (ed.): Workshop: Nachweise
für Böschungen und Baugruben mit numerischen Methoden.
pp. 19–36. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik Heft 11. Bauhaus-Uni-
versität Weimar, 2003.
[21] Schweiger, H.F.: FE-Berechnung von Baugruben mit den
Nachweisverfahren des EC7. In Grabe (ed): Tagungsband
zum Workshop Bemessen mit Finite-Elemente-Methoden.
pp. 17–25. TU-Hamburg Harburg, 2007.
[22] von Wolffersdorff, P.-A.: Ausgewählte Probleme bei der
Berechnung von Stützkonstruktionen mit der Methode der
Finiten Elemente. In Brinkgreve, Schad, Schweiger & Wil-
land (eds.): Proc. Symp. Geotechnical Innovations. pp.
679–699. Essen: Glückauf, 2004.
Ao. Univ.-Prof. Helmut F. Schweiger
Technische Universität Graz
Institut für Bodenmechanik und Grundbau
Arbeitsgruppe Numerische Geotechnik
Rechbauerstraße 12
A-8010 Graz
Austria
helmut.schweiger@tugraz.at