Sie sind auf Seite 1von 90

Enhancement of two stress dependent small strain stiffness models

B.W. Ygzaw1, T.G. Berhe2


1
First Author, Mekelle University
2
Co-Author, Mekelle University

Abstract

Soil stiffness at very small strain range (105) show non-linear relationship with the strain
level that gives an S-shaped degradation curve. In addition to this, experimental results show that
the small strain stiffness and its corresponding small strain levels is stress dependent. However,
existing small strain stiffness models do not show this stress dependency very well.

In this article stress dependency formulations for two selected small strain stiffness models (HS-
Small and extended hypoplasticity models) are incorporated. The two updated/proposed models
are validated and verified using element tests and boundary value problems using Plaxis-2D. The
updated models agree with experimental results at small strain level and improved results for
boundary value problems were obtained.

1. Introduction
The strain at which a soil behaves like elastic is very small. Researches show that the stiffness at
this strain level has a non-linear degradation with the strain level and plotting the small strain
stiffness against the shear strain at a smaller range gives an S-shaped degradation curve.

Figure 1.1: characteristic stiffness-strain behavior of soil with typical strain range for laboratory tests and structures
(Benz, 2007)

1
For the proper determination of soil-structure interaction, stiffness at a very small strain with its
non-linear dependency on strain amplitude should be considered. Analytical and numerical
results that are done without consideration of the behavior of small strain stiffness give
exaggerated results of settlement, deformation and heaving which is not real as we go deeper and
deeper to the ground. This problem can be improved by considering higher value of stiffness at
small strain ranges. Figure 1.2 shows the surface settlement for the field observation is higher
around the pile (the loaded part in general) and lower away from the excavation or unloaded part,
due to the small strain stiffness effect away from the loaded area. The part of excavation away
from the unloaded part is relatively rigid and hence lower settlement compared to the loaded area
where the small strain stiffness is no more different from the loading and unloading stiffness of
the soil cluster. Likewise, the deflection of the wall shows the same properties, i.e. the
deflection is high in the excavated portion and is lower away from the excavation. Actually, the
deflection is highly dependent on the depth of excavationtoo.

Figure 1.2: Typical wall deflection and ground surface settlement observed in the field and those obtained
through FEM analyses using models that do not consider small-strain behavior of soils (Gordon Tung-
Chin Kung,2009)

In addition to the non-linear dependency of stiffness on the strain level, it also depends on the
stress level. Experimental results confirm that higher small strain stiffness at higher stress level.
This is the case that is found when one goes deeper and deeper to the ground. Similarly many
experimental results show that thesmall strainitself is stress dependent i.e. just like the small
strain stiffness, it is expected higher strain at higher stress level. Therefore, boundary value
problems analyzed using models which incorporate this stress dependency of small strain
stiffness and small strain gives economical and better results.

2. Evaluation Existing small strain stiffness modelsand


ExperimentalResults
3.1. Experimental findings on stress dependency of small strainstiffness

A collection of experimental results on different soils from different literatures are summarized
below. Most of the results are reproduced to conveniently see the stress dependency of small
strain stiffness and towards the end; some of the experimental data collected to show the stress
dependency are again used to show if the small strain is stress dependent.
(a) (b)
120
80

100 Clean Sand


60
e=0.64 e=0.60 e=0.62
e=0.57
Gmax/f(e)[MPa]

80
Gmax[MPa]

40
e=0.64 e=0.60
60 e=0.62 e=0.57

20
40

0
20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
20 40 60 80 100 120
P'/Pref[-]
P'[kPa]

Figure 2.1: Results of Bender Element Tests for Samples of Clean Sand at Various Initial Voids, Sagado et al. (2000)
(reproduced by B.W Ygzaw, 2010)
(a)
300 80 (b)

250
10% finess sand 60
10% fine sand
Gmax/f(e)[MPa]
Gmax[MPa]

200

40

150 e=0.49 e=0.47 e=0.53 e=0.57 e=0.54


e=0.49 e=0.47 e=0.53 e=0.53
e=0.54
20
100

50 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
P'[kPa] P'/Pref[-]
Figure 2.2: Results of Bender Element Tests for Samples of Sand with 10% Non plastic Silt at Various Initial Void
Ratios (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

G0 P' m
K 2.1
fe  P'ref 

Kis a coefficient that relates the small strain shear modulus with effective stress after
normalizing.
Table 2.1 : values ofKandmat different void ratios for clean sand (Sagado et al.,2000)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)
0.57 29.51 0.563
0.60 27.83 0.562
0.62 27.83 0.562
0.64 71.34 0.525

Table 2.2: values ofKandmat different void ratios for clean sand(Sagado et al.,2000)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)
0.47 58.95 0.706
0.49 65.89 0.631
0.53 57.76 0.627
0.54 46.37 0.691
0.57 54.97 0.636
(a) (b)
240
400 e=0.56 e=0.58 e=0.60 e=0.62 e=0.64 e=0.66
e=0.68
e=0.56 e=0.58 e=0.60 e=0.62 e=0.64 e=0.66
e=0.68

200
300

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]
160
Gmax[MPa]

200
120

100
80

0
40
0 200 400 600 800
0 2 4 6 8
s'3[kPa]
s'3/Pref[-]
Figure 2.3: Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. sigma 3 (b) normalized shear modulus vs. normalized '3,
Wichtmann et al., 2004 (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)

Table 2.3: Exponentm,and coefficients K, for different void ratios


in Figures 2.3 (a) and (b) (Wichtmann et al., 2004)

e K(normalized) m(normalized)
0,56 88.38 0,397
0,58 87.63 0,396
0,60 85.65 0,404
0,62 81.99 0,421
0,64 80.04 0,417
0,66 77.76 0,442
0,68 73.44 0,440

(a) 140 (b)


200
e0=0.69 e0=0.67 e0=0.64
e0=0.61
120
G0/F(e)[MPa]

160
G0[Mpa]

100

120
P'=s3 80

80 60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3


P'/Pref[-]
P'[kPa]

Figure 2.4: Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. mean stress (b) normalized shear modulus vs. normalized mean
stress, Wichtmann et al. (2004) (Reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)
Table 2.4: Exponent m coefficients K, for different void ratios in Figure 2.4 (Wichtmann et al., 2004)

e ID,0 K(normalized) m (normalized)


0.69 0.60 83.06 0.385
0.67 0.69 81.64 0.438
0.64 0.79 82.19 0.457
0.61 0.89 83.7 0.426

200 50

160 Data in tests without 40


cyclic loading effects

Gmax/f(e)[MPa]
120 30
Gmax[MPa]

80
F2:DI0=54%,e=0.791 20 medium Fine
F1:DI0=48.5%, e=0.818
m2:DI0=51.8%,e=0.585
40 m1:DI0=49.8%,e=0.592 10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 1 2 3 4 5
P'[kPa] P'/Pref[-]

Figure 2.5: Shows experimental results without cyclic: (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. mean stress (b) normalized
shear modulus vs. normalized mean stress (Y.G. Zhou et al., 2005)

Table 2.5: Exponentmand K for different void ratios withoutconsideringcyclicloading


(Wichtmannetal.,2004)

e DIo(%) K m
0,791 54 23.32 0,529
0,818 48,5 23.32 0,529
0,585 51,8 21.61 0,511
0,592 49,8 21.61 0,511

1 0.0006

0.8 0.0005
P=50kPa
P=100kPa g0.7=0.000252(P/Pref)0.536
0.6 P=200kPa 0.0004
G/Gmax[-]

P=400kPa
g0.7[-]

ts 63
All tes ID0=0.
0.4 full cylin -0.6 6
der 0.0003

0.2 0.0002

0
1E-0061 E - 0 0 5 0.0001 0.001 0.0001
0.01
Shear Strain amplitude, g0.7[-] 0.1 1 10
P'/Pref[-]


Figure 2.6: Degradation Curve (left), 0.7(right) vs. normalized stress of Toyoura sand (ID=0.630.66), Wichtmann
(2004) (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)
(a) (b)
1 0.0003

0.8 0.00025 g0.7=0 .000 188P'/


( Pre f)0.6 31

sa/s r=
'
0.6 0kP 0kP 0.0002

G/Gmax[-]
P'=10 a
1

g0.7[-]
P'=20 a

P' P =25kPa kPa


=50
0.4 0.00015

0.2 0.0001

0
1E-006 5E-005
1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
SingleAmplitudeshearstrain,g[-] P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.7: (a) Degradation curve( I w a s a k i , 1978) (b) 0.7 vs. normalized stress for Toyoura sand
(reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2010)
1 0.0006

0.0005
0.8
g0.7=0.00013 7(P'/Pref)0.507
0.0004
0.6
G/Gmax[-]

g0.7[-]

0.0003
0.4
0.0002
P'=25kPa P'=100kPa P'=400kPa P'=1600kPa
0.2
0.0001

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0
0.1 1 10 100
Shear Strain,g [%]
P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.8: The effect of confining pressure on, Left: normalized modulus reduction curve (after Darendeli et
al., 2001) and Right: 0.7 vs. normalized stress for silty sands (reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw,
2010)

1 0.06

0.8 0.05
g0.7=0.007(P'/Pref)0.4
0.6 P'=20kPa P'=50kPa P'=100kPa P'=200kPa P'=300kPa
0.04
G/Gmax[-]

g0.7[-]

0.4
0.03

0.2
0.02

0
0.0001 0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 1 10 100 1000
Shear strain ,g[%] P'/Pref[-]

Figure2.9: The effect of confining pressure on left: normalized modulus reduction (Kokusho, 1980), and
Right:2010 )
0.7vs. normalized mean
stress curves for Toyoura
Sand (Reproduced by B.W.
Ygzaw,
3. Stress dependency, enhancement of existingsmall
strain stiffnessmodels
3.1. Stress dependency, enhancement of the existing HS-Smallmodel
Experimental findings depicts that both the stiffness and the strain are stress dependent.
However, the numerical results of the existing HS-Small model do not show stress dependency
of shear strain. Considering this limitation analytical equation showing the stress dependency
will be seen and followed by numerical results of the updated model.

3.1.1. Numerical results of the existing HS-Smallmodel

Numerical simulation was done using the PLAXIS built in HS-Small model formulated by Benz
(2007). Triaxial test considering a 15 nodded single element and axis symmetric is performed at
various stress levels (50kPa, 100kPa, 300kPa and 600kPa).

Figure 3.1: Stiffness degradation curve for the existing HS-Small model at various stress levels, Berlin
sand[left],stiffness degradation curve for the existing HS-Small model at various stress levels, Hostun sand [right]
(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011 )

The results in Figure 3.1show us that there is no dependence of the small strain on the level of
stress applied. Curves of various stress levels overlap each other. This result does not agree to the
actual behavior of soils collected for various experiments. This limitation is to be improved first
by developing analytical equations which capture this stress dependency of small strain stiffness
and then update the existing HS-Small model.
3.1.2. Analytical equations for stressdependency

i. Stress dependency of small strainstiffness

As briefed in the very beginning of this research, soils show a non-linear stiffness even in the
very small strain range in which they are considered to be more elastic.

There are a lot of parameters that influence the small strain stiffness. But out of these parameters,
this research is limited to the main types of parameters which influence this stiffness, i.e. the
void ratio and the stress. Below are experimental results showing how the small strain stiffness
depends on meanstress.

Figure 3.2: Bender element test for (a): both void ratio and stress dependency, (b): stress dependency of maximum
shear stiffness (Sagado et al., 2000)

Figure 3.3: (a) both void ratio and stress dependency, (b): stress dependency of maximum shear stiffness
for Toyoura sand (Wichtmann, 2004)
An analytical solution to show this behavior or dependency of the small strain stiffness on
different parameters especially the void ratio and stress have been proposed by many researchers.
Some of these formulations are given inequation 3.1.

 G
 k  2.17e2
 P
m  Iwasaki et al. (1978)


,p
1e
  3.4e 2
G A c Ishihara K.(1996)
max 1e
c



GCgP
1ng  ege  2 Hardin and Richart (1963) 3.1
'ng
1e m
0
A
 1nm
nm

G0 CP A ap Roesler (1979)




GCgP1ngeag'ng Jmiolkowski(1991)
0
   
A
 2.17e
m
2 P1m 
 G C B m Iwasaki and Tatsuoka (1977)
0
 1e A m
GV2
0 s

wherek() is constant which increases asγdecreases, m() is exponent that depends on the level of
strain (), c in IshiharaK. represents an exponent for the stress dependency,Cg,ngandegare
intrinsic soil variables. In the Roesler aandprepresent normal effective stresses acting along
and perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation whereas c, n, m are fitting
parameters. The variableagin Jamiolkowski et al. (1991) is a regression constant.
FinallyC()andBin Iwasaki and Tatsuaka represent fitting parameters. The last formulation of
equation 3.1, which is result from bender element method ρ is total mass density of the soil, and
Vs represents shear- wave velocity.

ii. Stress dependency of smallstrain

Apart from the stress dependency of the small strain stiffness, the small strain itself is also stress
dependent. This is confirmed from a lot of experimental results.
Figure 3.4: stress dependency of small strain for Toyoura sand (Iwasaki, 1978)

Figure 3.5: stress dependency of small strain for Silty sand (Darendeli et al., 2001)

From the right side of Figures 3.4 to 3.5 one can see that there is an equation that shows the
correlation between the strain and the level of stress. This equation can in general be written as:

0.7 P'm
 ref
0.7 3.2
 P
ref

re
where is strain at a reference pressure andmis the fitting parameter which show the stress
 0.7
f

dependency of strain. This reference strain can be approximated to be 0.0002; the experimental
results above more or less confirm this value of strain.
a) When strength parameters φ and c areknown
As a general case we know that the shear stress and shear strain are related by the shear stiffness
as:

G
 3.3

For a soil with known values of initial void ratio, parameter A and the exponent of stress
dependencym, it is possible to compute G 0at various stress levels. According to Benz, 2007 the
strain at 30% reduction of the maximum shear stiffness is given by:
  1  '
 0.385 max    2c1cos2   sin2
'
3.4
0.7 max 1 3
G0 4

Fromequation 3.4it is possible to compute


0.7 analytically for a given values of c, φ. This
analytical equation is compared with experimental results in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: comparison of the stress dependency of strain analytically and from experiment (experimental data are
reproduced from D’Elia, 2003)

In Figure 3.6 strength parameters of φ=340and c=0 are considered. It was not possible to find the
exact values of these strength parameters for that specific kind of Toyoura sand. Hence a partial
back calculation is done to fix these two parameters.

From the known values of0.7it is possible to compute strain at any level ofG/G0ratio and then
possible to draw the degradation curve from the following relation.

G 1 1 85
G0
0.3
 0.7
3.5

So using the relation inequation 3.5,it is easy to develop the degradation curve for the Toyoura
sand give above.

Figure 3.7: comparing the analytical and experimental results of Toyoura sand (Reproduced by
B.W. Ygzaw)

In Figure 3.7 one can see that there is a small shift to the right in the analytical case as compared
to the experimental values; this is because the 0.7 for the analytical case is relatively higher and
that is dependent on the angle of friction.
b) When
ref

0.7 is known
In this case we can simply use the formulation inequation 3.2to compute the strain at different
stress levels. Actually the value of the reference strain is approximately 0.0002. So substituting
the value for0.7in toequation 3.5and further simplifying gives:
P'm
G ref0.7Pref 3.6

G P'm
0
ref 0.385
0.7 ref
P  

Figure 3.8 shows the analytical and numerical results of the stress dependency of strainequation
3.6.
Figure 3.8: analytical solution of the stress dependency of strain (left), numerical result of the updated HS-Small
strain model (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

3.2. Stress dependency, enhancement of the existing extended HPmodel


3.2.1. Numerical results of the Existing small strain stiffness containing HPmodel

Whatever sophisticated type of model used, the real behavior of soils is better observed from
experimental results. All the experimental results covered above confirm that both the stiffness
and the strain are stress-dependent. So the hypoplastic model is expected to show this behavior.

Figure 3.9:stiffness degradation curve for the existing HP-extended model at various stress levels, Berlin sand (left),
stiffness degradation curve for the existing HP-Extended model at various stress levels, Hostun sand (right)
(B.W.Ygzaw, 2011)
Similar to the existing HS-Small, it is needed to enhance the model further to capture the stress
dependency of the strain.

3.2.2. Proposing a stress dependent strain (evolution equation) for thehypoplastic


model

i. The parameter R

This parameter is the range of strain in which the intergranular strain is the only strain in the
deformation of a soil fabric. As proposed by Neimunis and Herle (1997), this parameter is stress
dependent i.e., its length is almost the same for every levels of stresses. Therefore it is impossible
to put the parameter R as stress dependent to have a stress dependent strain.

ii. The parameter βr

It is a parameter which controls the stiffness degradation curve. This parameter has similar
influence as the parameter R. Results of the extended hypoplastic model shows that the stiffness
degradation curve depends on the value of βrthat is considered. The higher the value of βrthe
smaller the strain is. Accordingly one of the proposed analytical equations is expressing the
parameter βr as stress dependent similar toequation 3.7(Tsegaye, 2011, private communication).
k
rr0 PP'
ref
3.7
 

βr0is fixed to beonein this research even if it needs further study using various experiments on
different types of soils and soil groups. The recommended values ofβras per to some literatures is
in the range of 0.1 to 0.6; but as per to Masin (2010) the values are from 0.09 to 0.5. In this
research, a value of 0.5 and 1 are consider as value of k andβrrespectively.

iii. The parameter χ


This parameter has similar effect like that of the parameterβr.The main difference withβris
that χ increases as strain increases. The common values of χ are between 0.7 and 6, with a
common value of 6. So a similar formulation is used for this parameter.
P'k
3.8
ref 
ref
P 
Due to lack of experimental results available to decide the value of the parameter χref, in this
research the value of is considered to be 2 and that ofk is 0.5 for both sands and clays.
ref
Figures 3.10shows how the two analytical formulations givenin equations 3.7 and 3.8show the
stress dependency of strain.
The limits for the normalized shear stiffness are fixed according to the known boundary
conditions of the following.

χ 0 for γ =R
ρ   1 for γ =εSOM 3.9

Substituting these boundary values it is possible to find the two limits ofG/GR.

Figure 3.10: stress dependency of strain from stress dependent βr for Berlin sand (analytical solution) (left), stress
dependent strain from stress dependent χ for Berlin sand (analytical solution) (right) (B.W. Ygzaw,2011)

3.2.3. Numerical results after implementing the proposed stress dependency


equation

After incorporating the proposed formulation for the stress dependency of strain are plotted here
for the updated/enhanced HP model in figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11: numerical result of the updated HP-Small strain model (Berlin sand) (Left), numerical result of the
updated HP-Small strain model (Hostun sand) (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

From Figure3.11one can see that there is an improvement in the numerical results of the
proposed model.

4. Calibration of ModelParameters
4.1. Introduction
As there were no experimental results available, the calibration of the models is done one from
another model i.e. calibration of HP parameters from given HS-Small parameters and vice versa.

4.2. Calibration of HS-Smallparameters


Parameters of the HS-Small model are going to be calibrated from given parameters of HP
model for Berlin sand taken from PLAXIS-2D, Karstunen and Brinkgreve (2010).

Table 4.1 contains the existing and updated HS-Small model parameters. However it was not
needed to calibrate all these parameters. Only few parameters need to be calibrated and the other
parameters are either internal parameter or can be calculated from other calibrated parameter
using different equations which relate one parameter to the other.
Table 4.1: Basic HS-Small model parameters

User defined parameters


Parameter Symbol Unit Hardening HS-Small HS-Small-
SoilModel Updated
Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2]   
Triaxial secant stiffness E ref
50
[kN/m 2
]   
Oedometer tangent stiffness Eoed ref [kN/m 2
]   
Unloading/reloading stiffness Eurref [kN/m2]   
Effective friction angle φ [o]   
Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2]   
Dilatancy angle ψ (o)   
Power of stress dependency m [-]   
Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2]   
Failure ratio Rf [-]   
K0-value (normal consolidation) K0 nc [-]   
Poisson’s ratio νur [-]   
Tensile strength σ tension [kN/m 2
]   
Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] ---  
Small strain stiffness Eoref [kN/m2] ---  
Ratio of Gref
0
and G ur Gfac [-]   
Skempton B-parameter [-]   
Power for stress dependency of G0 m [-] --- ---- 
Exponent for γ0.7 m [-] --- ---- 
Internal parameters
ref
Initial secant stiffness Ei [kN/m2] 
Cap parameter (steepness) α [-]   
Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2]   
Cap parameter (stiffness ratio) Ks/Kc [-]  

Table 4.2: Additional state parameters for the HS-Small model

State parameters
Parameter Symbol Unit Hardening HS-Small HS-Small-
SoilModel Updated
Plastic deviatoric strain γps [-]  -- --
ps
Plastic shear strain γs [-] --  
Pre-consolidation pressure PP (kN/m2)   
Deviatoric strain history Hij [kN/m2] --  

4.2.1. Calibration procedures of HS-Small modelparameters

Triaxial and oedometer test were carried out using the given HP-model parameters and the
following procedures are followed to find the parameters of HS-Small model.

i. HS-Small parameters from triaxialtest

Triaxial test is done to calibrateE50ref, E0reforG0ref,Eurrefand γ0.7ref. So for this case a triaxial test with
the extended hypoplasticity model is done using the soil test in PLAXIS-2D.
Figure 4.1: Typical triaxial test for Berlin sand (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

The procedures followed to calibrate the parametersE50andmare as follows:

- Simulating the triaxial test at 50kPa, 100kPa,300kPa


- Computing theE50of the soil for each of the threetests
- Findinganequationwhichrelatesthe stressandtheE 50ofthesoiland wecans ee howthe
stiffness of the soil depends on the stress level, i.e.E
 
m
E ref
 ' P ref considering no
50 50 3

re
attraction, where f is the stiffness at a reference pressure, where here it is considered to be
E 50

100kPa. Here the exponentmcontrols the how the stiffness of the soil changes with the stress
range.

Figure 4.2: relation between the stress level and theE50of loose Berlin sand (B.W. Ygzaw,2011)

The parameterE0ref(reference small strain stiffness) is computed by unloading and reloading of


triaxial test before the test reaches the maximum strength as can be seen from Figure4.3.
Figure 4.3: the stiffness parameters of Berlin sand(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
ref
FromE0refit is possible to computeG0refusing,G 0.5E
ref
1and theγ0.7refis the strain
0 0

at 70% of the maximum shear stiffness in the stiffness degradation curve.

ii. HS-Small parameters from oedometertest

Similar to the triaxial test, an oedometric test is done to calibrate the rest of the parameters of the
HS-Small model, i.e.Eoedrefand theEref. Theufollowing oedometric model is takenforsimulating the
test. The same procedures like the once used in the triaxial test are followed to compute
bothErefand theEoed
ref
.

Figure 4.4: Typical oedometric test for Berlin sand using hypoplastic parameter (left), Comparison of the
settlement curves using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (loose Berlin sand) (right)(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 4.5: comparison of the strength of Berlin sand using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (loose Berlin sand)
(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.6: Stiffness degradation curve using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models for loose Berlin sand (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 4.7: Comparison of the settlement curves using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (dense Berlin sand)
(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.8: comparison of the strength of Berlin sand using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models (dense Berlin
sand) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 4.9:stiffness degradation curve using HS-Small and Hypoplasticity models for dense Berlin sand (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

4.3. Calibration of HP-modelparameters

HP-model has relatively large number of parameters to be calibrated than the corresponding HS-
Small model. Before proceeding to the direct calibration of HP-model parameters from given
HS-Small model parameters it is important to study what parameters are basic for HP-model and
determine their value from experiments.

4.3.1. Determination of Wolffersdorff’s Hypoplasticityparameters

These sets of parameters belong to the first set of parameters. The mechanical behavior of
granular soils (ranging from silt to gravel) can be modeled using the theory of hypoplasticity.
The model parameters depend mainly on the grain properties (grain shape and angularity,
distribution of grain sizes).Itis more appropriate to look for relations between constitutive
parameters and granulometric properties of grain assemblies instead of a detailed analysis of a
single grain.

i. Critical state friction angle(φc)

The critical state is reached during monotonic shearing if both the stress rate and the volume
deformation rate vanish. For instance considering a cylindrical compression the following
conditions may be satisfied in a critical state condition.

The influence of the critical angle of friction on strength and strain for Berlin sand can be seen
inFigure 4.10.
Figure 4.10: Influence of critical friction angle on, left: strength and right: strain of Berlin sand (numerical result)
(Reproduced by B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

ii. Granulate hardness hs and the exponentn

The parametershsis granulate hardness not the hardness of a single grain with the dimension of
stress and the exponentnis used to the pressure-sensitivity of grain skeleton (showing the non-
proportional increase of the incremental stiffness with increasing of mean stress). Both
parameters are better determined from oedometer test on loose (but not collapsible) soils, either
dry or fully saturated. Calibration of hs and n by direct regression is not recommended, but rather
adopt the physical meaning of the parameters. Small changes in measured data can cause large
scatter of calculatedhsandn.

Figure 4.11: Relation betweenei, ec, edwith the P (shaded zones denote in admissible states for simple grain
skeletons) (Herle and Gudehus, 1999)

Figure4.12and4.13show how the granulate hardnesshsand the exponentninfluences the strength


and strain or deformation of Berlin sand.
Figure 4.12: influence of granulate hardness on, left: strength, right: strain or settlement (numerical result) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 4.13: influence of the exponent n on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,
2011)
iii. The parameters ed0,ei0and ec0

a)Parameter eco:it is a critical void ratio showing the position of the critical state line in the lnp vs. e p
space. void ratio at zero pressure can be computed from:
3Pn
ec0ecexp  4.1
h
s
In general the value ofecocorresponds exactly to the index test values of maximum void ratio
(emax) (Herle and Gudehus, 1999).

Figure 4.14: influence of critical void ratio on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,
2011)

b)Parameter ed0:corresponds to the minimum void ratio at zero pressure and controls position of the
minimum void ratio line. Best densification of granular materials can be generally reached by means of
cyclic shearing with small amplitude under constant pressure (Herle and Gudehus, 1999). Knowing a
single value foredtogether withhsandna minimum void ratio at zero pressure can be given by:
3Pn
ed0edexp  4.2
h
s
          

Figure 4.15: Influence of minimum void ratio on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw,
2011)
c) Parameter ei0: maximum void ratio at zero pressure of a simple grain skeleton which is
reached during an isotropic consolidation of grain suspension in a gravity-free space (Herle and
Gudehus, 1999). It generally corresponds to the loosest possible state which is very difficult to
measure experimentally. Based on a study of idealized loosest packing of sphericalparticles
ei01.2ec0(Herle and Gudehus, 1999).

Figure 4.16: influence maximum void ratio on strength and settlement of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

iv. The exponentsand


a)Exponent: controls the influence of relative density,reon the peak friction angle,.

re= e-
4.3
edec-
ed

FromFigure 4.17one can also see how the critical and peak friction angles are related according
toequation 4.4.

A simpler expression for(Tsegaye, 2009) is:


c
tanktan 4.4
p

InFigure 4.17we can see the influence of the various values of the exponent α on strength and
settlement of Berlin sand.
Figure 4.17: influence of exponent α on strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

b)Parameter: the parameterplays an important role only ifeis substantially lower thaneiwhich
is mostly the behavior of dense soils. Henceaccounts the void ratio dependence of stiffness.
ne -tr(T)n-1 e - e
i
E h 1+e 3 +a 2
-3a i0 d0
 
α

s

i

h s

   e -e
 c0 d0 
 
ln
β=  2
3+ a-f d 3a
e
 4.5
lni
e

The value ofis between0and2.5according to Herle and Gudehus (1999) and for natural sands it
is common to assume=1 independently of the granulometric properties. The influence of
these ranges of value of β can be observed fromFigure 4.18below.
Figure 4.18: influence of the exponent β on the strength and strain of Berlin sand (numerical
result(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

4.3.2. Determination of small strain parameters in HP-model

Apart from the common values used for the small strain parameters (mR=5, mT=2,
r=1,6)
some correlation are made below how to calibrate the values of the five parameters. In addition
to this the effect of these parameters on the stiffness degradation curve is shown using some
experimental results from literature and PLAXIS triaxial test with 100kPa confining pressure of
a Berlin sand with the soil parameters attached in the appendix is included under eachparameter.

a)The parameter mR: parameter controlling the initial (very-small-strain) shears modulus up on
180ostrain path reversal and in the initial loading. Finding the small strain stiffness for the
180oreversal (GR) from cyclic simple shear tests or if this tests are not available it can be
computed from empirical formula as are given in the following equations respectively.

  
mREur
GR mRGur 2(1v) from cyclic shear strain
 ur
  P m 4.6
G  Af  e  OCR
k
  emprical formula
R P 
 ref

where A is a constant and different for different soils,


fe is function of the void ratio (
 2.17e2 (1e) formostsandsand 2.97e2 (1e) for most clay soils and fine grained
soils (Benz, 2007)), OCR is the effect of void ratio which is mostly taken to be 1 as the exponent
kis approximately 0 for most soils
Combining the two equations of equation 4.6 and solving formR(Tsegaye, 2009) has
proposedequation 4.7.
P m
2(1v)Af e  OCR k
 
ur
mR Pref
2 4.7
Eur

The influence of the parametermRon stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand can be seen from
PLAXIS soil test below.

Figure 4.19: influence of the parametermRon the stiffness degradation curve of Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

b) The parameter mT: parameter controlling the initial shear modulus up on 90 0strain reversal.
This strain reversal has relatively complex testing method for its determination, it is commonly
taken as mT=0.5mR>1.

c) Theparameter R,r,:theyare determinedthroughparametric studybyfittingthestiffness


degradation curve obtained using accurate local strainmeasurements.
Figure 4.20: effect ofRon the stiffness degradation curve (Masin, 2010)

Similarly, the numerical result inFigure 4.21confirms the influence of the elastic range in
Figure4.20.

Figure 4.21: influence of the parameter R on stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand (numerical result) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

Theparameters
r,control the stiffness degradation curves.
Figure 4.22: the influence ofrandon the stiffness degradation curves (Masin, 2010)

Similarly the influence of the two parameters in the stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand
can be seen inFigure 4.23.

Figure 4.23:Numerical Result for the influence of the parameter βr in the stiffness degradation curve in Berlin sand
(left) and influence of the parameterχin the stiffness degradation curve for Berlin sand (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
5. Validation and Verification ofmodels

The two updated models are validated and verified comparing their numerical resultsw i t h
similar numerical results simulated using their original models and
measured results, when available. Model validation is commonly done
using boundary value problems and element tests. One element test,
triaxial test and three boundary value problems, two excavations and
o n e t u n n e l a r e used.

Plaxis-2D is used for the calculation of the boundary value problems and some necessary results
are compared with available measured results and other results using original models.

5.1. Elementtests
For the element test, triaxial in this case, the data for the soils considered are taken from the J
Hintner et al. (2006). Dense Hostun sand is taken for the validation and verification of the two
models. The parameters for the HP-model are calibrated from the HS-Small. Some basic
properties of the soil considered are given in table 5.1.

Table 5.1: some basic properties of the dens sand used for the element test

U=D60/D10 D50 emin emax e


1.7 0.35mm 0.63 1.0 0.63-0.68

The soil test in PLAXIS is used to simulate the triaxial test at sigma3 of 100kPa, 300kPa, and
600kPa.
Figure 5.1: triaxial test results showing stress dependency, solid and broken lines represent the updated and
original HSS model results)(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.2: triaxial test results showing stress dependency, solid and broken lines represent the updated and original
HP model results (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

5.2. Boundary valueproblems

5.2.1. Excavations in Berlin sand

i. Excavation-1

This excavation is taken from Karstunen and Brinkgreve (2011). It is a hypothetical submerged
excavation in granular soil and its construction is close to a river where it is excavated in order to
construct a tunnel. The excavation is 30m wide and a final depth of 20m. As it extends
longitudinally to a large distance, plane strain model is used. The excavation side is supported by
30 m long diaphragm walls, which are braced by horizontal struts at an interval of 5m. There are
soil parameters for hypoplastic model only. The parameters for the HS-small model are
calibrated from the HP-model parameters.. There were no measured results to compare with;
hence the updated models are compared with their respective original models.Inaddition a cross
comparison between the two models can be done in terms some known behavior ofsoils.
Figure 5.3: geometry of Berlin excavation-1 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

a) Deformed Mesh:the deformed mesh after the final excavation phase for the two models
HS-Small and HP models (original and updated in Figures5.4 and 5.5. Fromb o t h
Figures it can be seen that there is no consistency in the
maximum deformation the original and updated models are
c o m p a r e d . H o w e v e r, i t c a n b e s e e n t h a t t h e r e i s r e l a t i v e l y
s m a l l e r d e f o r m a t i o n i n t h e H S S - m o d e l c o m p a r e d t o t h e HP-model.

Figure 5.4: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HP-models, left and right
respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 5.5: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HSS-models, left and right
respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

b) Settlement below the surface:This is common that Hypoplastic models gives a softer
response in settlement results as compared to elastoplastic models, especially HS-Small
model which considers the stress dependency of small strain stiffness gives stiffer
response. There is a consistency in the results of the settlements of the two models, i.e.
both updated models show a relatively softer behavior as compared to the original
models. This is because the formulation added in the updated models affects the stiffness
of soils in two opposite ways depth on depth, i.e. as our reference pressure is 100kPa, the
model predicts softer response for a point which is above 10m depth and stiffer for a soil
element below 10m considering a soil type of effective unit weight of 10kN/m 3. The
larger part of the excavation is in a depth of less than 10m, where the effective stress is
less than 100kPa (lower than the reference pressureconsidered).
Figure 5.6: settlement below surface of Berlin excavation for different soil models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

c) Horizontal deflection of the diaphragm wall: the dominating deflection response for
the diaphragm wall is the horizontal deflection; hence the horizontal deflection using the
models considered is given in Figure 5.7. The HSS model has stiffer response than the
corresponding HP model. In addition to this there is no pronounced change of the updated
models especially in theHP-model.

d) Vertical heave on the excavated surface: a vertical heave was checked at a distance of
7m to the right side of the wall. Calculation results are as shown in Figure 5.7. The
updated HSS-model gives stiffer result than all other model’s result considered here.
There is no still large difference in the results of the original and updatedHP-model.
Figure 5.7: horizontal deflection of diaphragm wall using different models (left), vertical heave on the excavated
surface (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
ii. Excavation-2

This excavation is also on Berlin sand, but with different soil parameters and different geometry.
In this excavation there was not available soil parameters for the HP-model; hence calibration of
parameters is done from the given HS-Small model. The geometry of the excavation is given in
Figure 5.8. The soil properties and the geometry of the excavation directly taken from Benz
(2007)
Figure 5.8: geometry of the a triple anchored deep excavation on Berlin sand(B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

In addition to those properties the anchor and plate properties are tabulated below. The interface
roughness is considered to be 0.8, except in the 1m extension indicated in the Figure. The 2D
deformation mesh and a detailed geometry for this excavation are included in appendix E.
Figure 5.9: settlement of the deep excavation using the different models considered (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure5.10: horizontal deflection results of the deep excavation for the different models (left), vertical heave for the
Tri anchored deep excavation (right) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

5.2.2. Excavation ofTunnel

In this research work a tunnel constructed in the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM)
method of supporting is considered. The geometry and the soil properties of this tunnel problem
are taken from Benz (2007).

Actually, the material parameters for the HP-model are calibrated from the known HSS-model.
Plain strain method of analysis with a fine type of mesh is considered. The material type is
drained. As the NATM type of excavation is used mostly used in weak ground conditions the
weak marble layer in the tunnel periphery is strengthened by reinforcing with rock bolts and this
is modeled in PLAXIS by introducing additional cohesion, in this case it is considered cohesion
of 25kN/m2. The lining in the tunnel is considered as a plate of stiffness (EA) =3.75×10 6,
flexural rigidity (EI) = 1.95×104, Poisson’s ratio () = 0.2 and unit weight ofc=25kN/m3.

Using the tunnel reduction method the tunnel remains unsupported until an artificial support
pressure of βp0, where β is the load reduction factor where its value is between 0 and 1and
p0represents the initial rock mass pressure before excavation. The load reduction factor is
implemented in the calculation phase.Itwill be briefed below and a value of β =0.25 is used here.
An interface roughness,R=1 is considered in the lining and soil/rockinteraction.
Figure 5.11: geometry and layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.12: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation of tunnel using the original and updated HSS-models, left
and right respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 5.13: deformed mesh of last phase of excavation using the original and updated HP-models, left and right
respectively (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.14: Bending moment diagrams on the plate of the lining of the tunnel using HP- original and updated (left
and right respectively) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure 5.15: Bending moment diagrams on the plate of the lining of the tunnel using HSS- original and updated (left
and right respectively) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Figure 5.16: the settlement of the surface due to tunnel construction for the different models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
The settlement of the ground surface due to tunnel construction for the different models shows
variety of results. However, there is consistent stiffening of the updated models as compared to
their corresponding original models. Similar to the previous boundary value problems, the HSS-
model shows stiffer results than the HP-model.

6. Conclusion andRecommendation
6.1. Conclusion

From various experimental results, the maximum stiffness of soils is noted to depend on mean
stress, void ratio, over consolidation ratio (OCR) and plasticity index (PI). It is further noted that
the rate of degradation of the normalized stiffness is dependent on mean normal stress. In this
research this mean stress dependency of the degradation is studied by evaluating several
experiments reported elsewhere (Wichtmann et al., 2004; Sagado et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2005;
Iwasaki et al., 1978 etc). Furthermore two well known soil models are enhanced so that this
experimentally observed dependency is incorporated in their response.

The two models enhanced were the commercially available HS-Small (Benz, 2007) and the
Hypoplastic model by Wolffersdorff (1996) later enhanced by Niemunis and Herle (1997).

The HS-Small model is extended from the HS model (Schanz, 1999) by Benz (2007) by adding
small strain stiffness by the Overlay approach. Similarly, the Wolffersdorff (1996) Hypoplastic
model has been enhanced by the intergranular strain in the small strain range and during change
of direction (Niemunis and Herle, 1997). In such a way, its excessive ratcheting behavior and
accumulation of pore pressure were significantly reduced. However, it is noted that the response
of these models can be considerably enhanced further by considering the stress dependency of
the rate of degradation of the stiffness which makes the central theme of this research work.
Accordingly, both models have been enhanced and evaluated with this regard. The enhanced
models are further evaluated both analytically and numerically. Numerical results of element
tests and boundary value problems show better trend clearly showing the influence of confining
stress on the rate of degradation of small strainstiffness.

It is also noted that generally, the results from both updated and original HS-Small models are
stiffer than the corresponding HP-models.

Referring to the boundary value problems considered in this thesis, the following is concluded:

1. Settlement: The settlements in both excavations considered have improvements in the


updated models, i.e., as the two updated models function to be stiff when the stress level
is greater than the reference stress (100kPa) considered. Therefore in both excavations
since the large part of the excavation is in a stress level less than this 100kPa.Inthe case
of the excavation of the tunnel the large portion of the excavation was in the stress level
which is greater than 100kPa; so that is why there is no a stiffer response in both updated
models.
2. Deflection: the deflection in the vertical wall can be seen along depth; hence we can see a
change of the updated models response from relatively softer response in a depth that can
produce a stress of less than 100kPa to a stiffer response in depths which produces stress
levels of greater than 100kPa. This behavior can better be seen in the Updated-HS-Small
model than the corresponding Updated HPmodel.

Vertical Heave:in the case of heave a nice result and the expected result is obtained in both
excavations and in both updated models. This is because the vertical heave considered in
both cases is at a depth that can produce a stress greater than the reference stress;
therefore a stiffer response of both updated models and that is what the two excavation
results confirmed.

6.2. Recommendation

It is believed that this thesis gets into a considerable depth in showing the influence of confining
stress on the rate of degradation of small strains. With this recognition two well known models
have been enhanced and evaluated.

Application of this concept on soil models is highly recommended. Further more tests on small
strain stiffness are still limited; it is thus believed that there is still a need for more experimental
results to confirm this stress dependency for many other types of soils.

There are no adequate boundary value problems (that the author is aware of) with sufficient
measurements (settlement, vertical heave and structure deflection) that allow a thorough
evaluation of such models at small strain level.Itis strongly recommended that the models should
be further evaluated with such measurements so that the gain by doing so is adequately
illustrated.

Considering the existing HP model a further investigation of the parameters should be done so
that a better parameter may also be obtained for the stress dependency, because there are model
parameters with similar influences in most respects.
7. References
Tsegaye, A.B., Ygzaw B.W. and Benz T. (2013) Stress-Dependency of Intergranular Strain. In:
Yang Q., Zhang JM., Zheng H., Yao Y. (eds) Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials.
Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Kolymbas, D. (2000). Introduction to hypoplasticity.Advances in geotechnical engineering
andtunneling.Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Wu, W. and Bauer, E. (1993). A hypoplastic model for barotropy and pycnotropy of granular
soils. In: D. Kolymbas (ed.),Modern Approaches to Plasticity,pp. 225-245.
Von Wolffersdorff, P. (1996). A hypoplastic relation for granular materials with a predefined limit
state surface.Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials,1(4), pp. 251-271.
Herle, I. and Gudehus, G. (1999). Determination of parameters of a hypoplastic constitutive
model from properties of grain assemblies.Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials, 4,
pp. 461-486.
Bauer, E. (1996). Calibration of a comprehensive hypoplastic model for granular
materials.Soilsand Foundations.36(1), pp. 13-26.
Wu, W., Bauer, E. and Kolymbas, D. (1996). Hypoplastic constitutive model with critical state
for granular materials.Mechanics of Materials,23(1), pp. 45-69.
Gudehus, G. (1996). A comprehensive constitutive equation for granular materials.Soils
andFoundations,36(1), pp. 1-12.
Wu, W. and Kolymbas, D. (1990). Numerical testing of the stability criterion for hypoplastic
constitutive equations.Mechanics of Materials, 9(3), pp. 245-253.
Kolymbas, D. (1991). An outline of hypoplasticity.Archive of Applied Mechanics,61(3), pp.
143-151.
Neimunis, A. and Herle, I. (1997). Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain
range.Mechanics of cohesive-frictional materials,2(4), pp. 279-299.
Hintner, J. Vermeer P. and Baun, C. (2006). Advanced finite element versus classical settlement
analyses. In: H. Schweiger (ed.),Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering.
London: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 539-546.
Masin, D. (2010). Hypoplasticity for practical applications. Ph. D Course Material on
Hypoplasticity, Charles University in Prague.
Niemunis, A. (2002).Extended hypoplastic models for soils. Ph. D. Thesis, Bochum University.
Tsegaye, A. (2009).Evaluation of material models for liquefaction. Master thesis. Delft
University of Technology.
Masin, D. (2010). PLAXIS implementation of hypoplasticity. Plaxis B.V., Delft.
Tsegaye, A.B. (2010). Modeling liquefaction behavior of sands by means of hypoplastic
model.NUMGE 2010,7thEuropean Conference Numerical Methods in
GeotechnicalEngineering, Benz and Nordal (eds), pp. 81-87.
Benz, T. (2007).Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences.Ph. D. Theis,
University of Stuttgart.
Kondner, R. and Zelasko, J. (1963). A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for
sands.2ndPanA m e r i c a n C o n f e r e n c e on Soil Mechanics and
F o u n d a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g , Brazil, pp. 289- 394.
Ishihara, K. (1996).Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jamiolkowski, M., Leroueil, S. and Lo Presti, D. C. F. (1991)Design parameters from theory
topractice, theme lecture,Proc., Geo-Coast, ‘91, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-41.
Wehnert, M. (2006).Ein Beitrag zur drainierten und undrainierten Analyse in derGéotechnique’,
Ph. D. Thesis. University Stuttgart.
Iwasaki, T. and Tatsuoka, F. (1977). Effect of grain size and grading on dynamic shear moduli of
sands.Soils and Foundations, 17(3): 19-35.
Roesler, S. (1979). Anisotropic shear modulus due to stress an isotropy.Journal of
GeotechnicalEngineering. Div. ASCE, 105(7): 871-880.
Hardin, B. (1978). The Nature of Stress-Strain Behavior for Soils,Earthquake Engineering
andSoil Dynamics, Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division
Specialty Conference, Pasadena, California, pp. 3-90.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F. and Takagi,Y. (1978). Shear modulus of sands under cyclic torsional
shear loading.Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 18 (1),
pp..39-56.
Hardin, B. Richart , F. (1963). Elastic wave velocities in granular soils.Journal of SoilMechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 89(1), pp.33-65.
Hardin B.O. and Black, W.L. (1969). Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay (closure).
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ASCE, 95(6), pp. 1531-1537.
Karstunen, M. and Brinkgreve, R. (2011). Soil modeling day. Advanced course in Computational
Geotechnics, 24 March. Schiphol, The Netherlands.
Soreide. O. K. (1990).Mixed hardening models for frictional soils. Ph. D Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
Tung-Chin Kung, G. Chang-Yu, O. and Hsein Juang , C. (2009). Modeling small-strain behavior
of Taipei clays for finite element analysis of braced excavations.Computersand
Geotechnics,36(1-2),pp.304-319.
D’Elia, B., Lanzo, G. and Pagliaroli, A. (2003). Small-Strain Stiffness and Damping of Soils in a
Direct Simple Shear Device.Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering,Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Università di Roma
“La Sapienza”,Italy.
Salgado, R., Bandini, P. and Karim, A. 2000.Shear Strength and Stiffness of Silty Sands.Journal
ofGeotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(5), pp. 451-462.
Wichtmann, T., Niemunis, A. and Triantafyllidis, T. (2004). Dynamic properties of sand. Ruhr-
University Bochum, University of Patras, Greece, October 2004 (Retrieved on 20thof
May, 2011:
fromhttp://www.rz.unikarlsruhe.de/~gn97/torsten/vortraege/patras_dynamic_2004.pdf)
Wichtmann, T. and Triantafyllidis, T., (2004). Influence of a cyclic and dynamic loading history
on dynamic properties of dry sand, part II: cyclic axial preloading.Soil Dynamics
andEarthquake Engineering, 24(11), pp. 789-804.
Wood, D. (1990).Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Matsuoka, H., and Nakai, T. (1977).Stress-strain relationship of soil based on the ''SMP''Proc.
Specialty Session 9,Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
andFoundations Engineering, Tokyo, pp. 153-162.
Rowe, P. (1962). The stress-dilatancy relation for the static equilibrium of an assembly of
particles in contact.In Proc. of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical
andPhysical Sciences, 269(1339), pp. 500-527.
Li, X. and Dafalias, Y. (2000). Dilatancy of cohesionless soils.Géotechnique,50(4), pp. 449- 460.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. and Bonnier, P. (1999). Formulation and verification of the Hardening-
Soil Model.Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 281-
290.
Benz, T., Vermeer, P. and Schwab, R. (2009). A small- strain overlay model.InternationalJournal
of Numerical and Analytical. Methods in Geo mechanics,33(1), pp. 25-40
Atkinson, J. (2000).Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.Géotechnique, 50(5),pp. 487- 508.
Jardine, R., Symes, M. and Burland, J. (1984).The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial
apparatus.Géotechnique, 34(3), pp. 323-340.
Clayton, C. and Khatrush, S. (1986). A new device for measuring local axial strains on triaxial
specimens.Géotechnique, 36 (4), pp. 593-597.
Zhou, Y. and Chen, Y. (2005). Influence of seismic cyclic loading history on small strain shear
modulus of saturated sands.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(5), pp. 341–
353.
Kumar, J. and Clayton, C. (2007). Effect of sample torsional stiffness on resonant column test
results.Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44(2), pp. 221-230.
Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.( 1 9 4 3 ) . D e s c r i p t i o n o f s t r e s s - s t r a i n c u r v e s b y t h r e e
parameters
Technical Note No. 902,National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington DC.
Ezaoui, A. and Di Benedetto, H. (2009). Experimental measurements of the global anisotropic
elastic behavior of dry Hostun sand during triaxial tests and effect of sample
preparation,Géotechnique, 59(7), pp. 621-635.
Ygzaw, B. (2010).Stress dependency of small strain stiffness. Semester project, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
Ygzaw, B. W. (2011).Formulation and evaluation of two stress dependent small strain
stiffnessmodels. Master Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim .
Ibrahim, A., Orense, R., Pender, M. and Kikkawa, N. (2009). Quasi-elastic stiffness of
Auckland clays. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineeringconference, Dept of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland. ,pp.55-62.
Darendeli, M . (2001).Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction
andmaterial damping.Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
Idriss, I. (1990). Response of Soft Soil Sites during Earthquakes. Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symposium, 2, pp. 273-289.
8. Appendix
8.1. AppendixA

Additional elaborations on Hardening Soil Model

1. Cap parameters and Cap hardening:

For pure isotropic compression; for the cap in this case:

ddepdp A.1
v v

If we consider the elastic swelling modulus, Ksand the elastoplastic compression modulus,
Kcsuch that:

 ep dP'
d 
v
 Kc A.2

dedP'

v
Ks

From equation A.2 the plastic volumetric strain increment can be given by:

p ' ' K
v d dP dP Ks cdP'
Kc K s KcK s
A.3
Considering the plastic modulus, H the plastic strain in equation in A.3 can be further written as:

p '
d dP A.4
v
H

Where Hrepresents KcK s


KsKc .

2. The cap yield function

The cap is modified type of cam clay yield function put in an equation form as:

c
f  q% 
 P'a 2  P' a 20 A.5
c
M2

Whereq%1123and a = ccotp

3. From plasticity theory (associated flow rule and normality of plastic strains to the plastic potential
function) we have:

g f
d d cd c2d
p

   P'c

v c c c
A.6
P' P'

Comparing equations A.4 and A.6 and holdingdp'dp'wec have:

 A.7
dPc' 2H(P'a)d

For a stress dependent modulus H, we may write the Janbu/Ohde stress dependency equation as:
Pam
HH ref

c A.8
 a
ref

From this equation A.7 can be written as:

 am
'

dP'2Href 3 
P'ad A.9
c ref c
P a

Here'is3 the minimum eigenvalue of the stress tensor and Prefis the reference confining
pressure. Hrefis the reference is stiffness at the reference pressure.

4. Consistency condition

In the theory of plasticity, the consistency condition assures the condition that the stress state
should satisfy the yield function, thus:

df0
 f f A.10
df d  0
  ij
 ij


Where k is the hardening parameter and relates the stress change to certain permanent
deformation or plastic deformation. In this case, plastic volumetric strain is related to the pre-
consolidation stressP'c. Thus we may further write equation A.10 as (for cap only):

f f f
 d
    
dfc   dP
'
0dP
'
 
  d ' 
  Pc c
f'
 P
  c

 f
P' 2(P'a)2
f
q%
  A.11
qf%M '
2

 '2 P ac
P
 c
f
 T  2q%dp'
 d  2P'a
2q%
2
2(P'a)d p' dq %
%   
2
M  dq  M





Considering an isotropic loadingdq%0:

f d  2(P'a)dp'


 A.12
 

Accounting the first line and fourth parts of equation A.11, equation A.12 we can have:


 '
dp 'a dp'
c P '
 Pc a
 'am
 '
dp 2Href 3 P'ad A.13
c
 ref
 c
 P a
 d dp'
c 
 ref  a
' m

 
3
P'a 
ref
P a
2H

For a special case of isotropic loading it is considered thatq%0and thusdp'dp' c

d   c
'
d A.14
c P am '


2Href c
ref
 P a
c'

P a
From equation A.7 and A.14 we can have:
 1  P'a m 
  dp
p
c  dp' 1  P a 
' 1m

 
v 
HrefPrefa 
c H P a m1m 
v
ref ref
c


 P a
'
Prefam
p c A.15
     for m < 1
H 1m P ac
v ref '


8.2. AppendixB

Table B.1: Relations for shear modulus G0for CLEAN SANDS and GRAVELS (Benz, 2007)
Table B.2: Relations for shear modulus G0of CLAYS (Benz, 2007)
Table B.3: Proposed relationships for the shear modulus G0of entire soil groups (Benz, 2007)

8.3. AppendixC

Experimental Results on Small Strain Stiffness and influence of related


parameters for some soils
Figure C.1: Effect of shearing rate on the strain-dependent (a) shear modulus and (b) normalized shear
modulus for Orewa residual soil (Ibrahim et al., 2009)

Figure C.2: the effect of over consolidation ratio on the variation of (a) shear modulus (b) normalized shear
modulus with shearing strain amplitude as measured in torsional resonant column (kaolinite specimen)
(reproduced from M.B. Darendeli, 2001)
Figure C.3:Maximum shear modulus vs. Void ratio for various confining stresses for Toyoura sand (T.
Wichtmann et al., 2004)

From Figure C.3 we can reproduce the following Figure C.4.

Figure C.3:Shows (a) maximum shear stiffness vs. sigma3 (b) normalized shear modulus vs.
normalized sigma3 (reproduced from T. Wichtmann et al., 2004)
Figure C.4:Gmax/f (e) vs. normalized mean stress relationship of air –dry Toyoura sand (reproduced from Iwasaki et
al., 1978)
Figure C.5:Relationship of normalized shear modulus vs. normalized mean principal stress for
saturated Toyoura sand (Iwasaki et al., 1978)

Figure C.6:(a) Normalized modulus vs. Shear strain amplitude at different stress levels (b) gamma 0.7 vs.
normalized mean stress (T.Wichtmann et al., 2004)

Figure C.7: variation in empirical normalized modulus reduction curves, (a): EPRI (1993c), (b) Idris (1990)
for different types of soils (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

8.4. AppendixD
A) Flow chart for the numerical implementation of the proposed HP model inPLAXIS
Tˆ ; Tˆ * ; a; F; D;e; ed; ec;
ei; fe; fd; f

Compose L and N :

L  fb f e
 
tr Tˆ 2
F 2 
I  a 2 Tˆ  Tˆ 

N  fb f e f d Fa Tˆ  Tˆ  
tr Tˆ 2  

Intergranular strain concept


Compose intergranular strain tensor :
included (mR > 2)?
h; h ; hˆ

Compose :


L : hˆ  hˆ  and N  hˆ

Compose tangent
stiffness M

hˆ : D > 0 ?
  
  mT  1  mR L  

m Rm
T L :hhˆ ˆ



 m LR  
T m  1 
1 m  L : hh ˆˆˆNh
T

Compose exponent
r :

stress
dependent strain ? r  r 0

Compose exponent
r :
 Pref k
   rr 0 
P'

Calculate objective stress rate and intergranular strain rate


T  M ; D; h

Updatestate var iables


T 't t  T't  Tt; ht t  ht  ht; e = 1 etr(D)

Figure D.1:Tsegaye, A.B. (2010)


B) Calibrationresults

1. Calibration results for Berlin excavation-2

Layer 20-40m:Figures D.1 shows calibration results of this layer

Figure D.2: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (layer 20-40m) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Layer below 40m:Figures D.2 shows calibration results of this layer
Figure D.3: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (layer below 40m) (B.W. Ygzaw,
2011)

2. Calibration results for the tunnelexcavation

The calibration results of the various layers of the NATM tunnel excavated in Steinhaldenfeld
are given in Figures D.3 to D.6 below.
Figure D.4: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (fill) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure D.5: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (upper marble) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure D.6: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)

For the limestone layer given in Figure D.6, the calibration result was complex and it is only the
calibration trial included here. This calibration is difficult, because the limestone layer is a rock;
hence this layer is considered as a rock with elastic material properties.
Figure D.7: calibration trial results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (limestone) (B.W.
Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure D.8: calibrated results of HP-model from given HSS-model parameters (lower marble) (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
8.5. AppendixE
PLAXIS Results

Figure E.1: Excavation in Berlin sand: 2D mesh (left) and detail geometry (right) (Benz, 2007)

Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HSS models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
Figure E.2: Deformed mesh of Berlin excavation-2 using the original and updated HP models (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
8.6. Appendix F
Material Parameters
Table F.1: existing hypoplastic model parameters for model comparison (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Soil type φc[0] hs [kPa] n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-] e0[-]
Hostun 32 3800000 0.29 0.61 0.91 1.09 0.134 1.35 0.65
sand
Berlin 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.608
sand
Parameters for intergranular strain concept
Soil type mR mT Rmax βr χ
Hostun 5 2 0.00006 0.5 2
sand
Berlin 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0
sand

Table F.2: existing HS-Small model parameters for Berlin sand for model comparison (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
ref ref
E50 [kPa] Eur [kPa]
ref
Soil type Eoedref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ[0] ψ[0] γ0.7ref[-] G0 [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]

Berlin 25000 28000 100000 0.55 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608
sand
Hostun 30000 30000 90000 0.55 0 42 16 0.0002 108000 0.25 0.65
sand

Table F.3:reference Hp parameters of Berlin sand-Excavation-1 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Wolffersdorff’s model parameters


layer φc[0] hs [kPa] n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-] e0[-]
1(loose) 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.716
2(dense) 30 5800000 0.28 0.53 0.84 1.0 0.13 1.0 0.608
Additional parameters of extended HP
layer mR mT Rmax βr χ
1(loose) 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0
2(dense) 5.0 2.0 0.00002 0.5 2.0

Table F.4: calibrated HS-Small parameters for the Berlin sand- Excavation-2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)
ref ref
E50 [kPa] Eur [kPa]
ref
layer Eoedref[kPa] m[-] cref[kPa] φ[0] ψ[0] γ0.7ref[-] G0 [kPa] vur[-] e0[-]

1(loose) 22500 23000 78960 0.6 1.0 340 0 0.00008 73000 0.25 0.716
4
2(dense) 25000 28000 100000 0.5 1 380 0 0.00008 88000 0.25 0.608
5
Table F.5: Berlin sand parameters of the reference HS-Small model-excavation 2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

User defined parameters

Parameter Symbol Unit Sand layer-1 Sand layer- Sand layer-3


2
Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 75000 125000 131300
ref
Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 45000 75000 105000

Oedometer tangent stiffness Eoedref [kN/m2] 45000 75000 105000


ref
Unloading/reloading stiffness Eur [kN/m2] 180000 300000 315000

Effective friction angle φ [o] 35 38 38

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 1 1 1

Dilatancy angle ψ (o) 5 6 6

Power of stress dependency m [-] 0.55 055 0.55

Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2] 100 100 100

Failure ratio Rf [-] 0.9 0.9 0.9


nc
K0-value K0 [-] 0.43 .38 0.38

Poisson’s ratio νur [-] 0.2 0.2 0.2

Tensile strength σtension [kN/m2] 0 0


0
Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
ref
Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 405000 675000 675000

Ratio of G0by Gur Gfac [-] 2.25 2.25 2.25

Skempton B-parameter [-] 0.987 0.987 0.987

Power for stress dependency m [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5


of G0

Power for stress dependency m [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5


of γ0.7
Internal parameters

Initial secant stiffness Eref i [kN/m2] 96662 154447 208642

Cap parameter (steepness) α=m [-] 1.48 1.87 1.88

Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2] 40280 64350 86900


Cap parameter (stiffness ratio) Ks/Kc [-] 2.15 2.07 1.59

Table F.6: calibrated HP- model parameters for Berlin sand in table F.5-Excavation-2 (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Parameter Unit Sand layer-1 Sand layer-2 Sand layer-3


Critical friction [0] 31.5 32.5 31
angle,φc
Granulate [kPa] 5000000 10000000 14000000
hardness,hs
Exponent,n [-] 0.35 0.32 0.32
Critical void ratio, [-] 0.84 0.88 0.92
ec0
Minimum void [-] 0.54 0.5 0.4
ratio,ed0
Maximum void [-] 1.1 1.38 1.41
ratio,ei0
Exponent,α [-] 0.22 0.2 0.2
Exponent,β [-] 2.2 2.2 2.2
Initial void ratio,e0 [-] 0.75 0.72 0.68
ore
Additional parameters for modeling the intergranular strain
Intergranular 0.00006 0.00006 0.00007
radius,R [-]
Exponent,χ [-] 2 2 2
Factor,mR [-] 4 4 4
Factor,mT [-] 2 2 2
Exponent,k [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameter, βr0 [-] 1 1 1
Table F.7:Updated HP-model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Wolffersdorff’s model parameters


0
φc(deg) φc[ ] hs n[-] ed0[-] ec0[-] ei0[-] α[-] β[-]
[kPa]
33 3800000 0.29 0.61 0.91 1.09 0.134 1.35 0.65
Additional parameters of extended HP
mR mT Rmax r0 χ K Pcut
5.0 2.0 0.00006 0.5 2.0 1 1.0

Table F.8: Updated HS-Small model parameters of dense Hostun sand for element test (B.W. Ygzaw,
2011)

User defined parameters

Parameter Symbol Unit Dense sand


Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 36000
ref
Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 30000

Oedometer tangent stiffness Eoedref [kN/m2] 30000

Unloading/reloading stiffness Eurref [kN/m2] 90000

Effective friction angle φ [o] 42

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 0

Dilatancy angle ψ (o) 16

Power of stress dependency m [-] 0.55

Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2] 100

Failure ratio Rf [-] 0.9


nc
K0-value (normal consolidation) K0 [-] 0.4

Poisson’s ratio νur [-] 0.25

Tensile strength σtension [kN/m2] 0.00

Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] 0.0002


ref
Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 270000

Ratio of G0by Gur Gfac [-] 3

Skempton B-parameter [-] 0.987

Power for stress dependency of G0 m [-] 0.5

Power for stress dependency of γ0.7 m [-] 0.5

Internal parameters
ref
Initial secant stiffness Ei [kN/m2] 65488

Cap parameter (steepness) α [-] 1.47

Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2] 26195

Cap parameter (stiffness ratio) Ks/Kc [-] 1.84

Table F.9: HSS- model material parameters for the all layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

User defined parameters


Parameter Symbol Unit Fill Upper Lower Limestone
marble marble
Reference shear modulus Gref [kN/m2] 12500 41666.67 20000 239583.33
ref
Triaxial secant stiffness E50 [kN/m2] 10000 33000 16000 190000

Oedometer tangent stiffness Eoedref [kN/m2] 10000 33000 16000 190000


ref
Unloading/reloading Eur [kN/m2] 30000 100000 48000 575000
stiffness

Effective friction angle φ [o] 25 25 25 35

Cohesion(effective) C [kN/m2] 10 25 25 200

Dilatancy angle ψ (o) 0 0 0 0

Power of stress dependency m [-] 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3

Reference stress for stiffness Pref [kN/m2] 100 100 100 100

Failure ratio Rf [-] 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9


nc
K0-value) K0 [-] 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.43

Poisson’s ratio νur [-] 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Tensile strength σtension [kN/m2] 0 0 0 0

Threshold shear strain γ0.7 [-] 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00005


ref
Small strain stiffness Eo [kN/m2] 405000 675000 675000 2400000

Ratio of G0by Gur Gfac [-] 4 4 4 4.17

Skempton B-parameter [-] 0.98 0.987 0.987 0.987


7
Exponent for G0 m [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Exponent for γ0.7 m [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Initial secant stiffness Eref i [kN/m2] 96662 154447 208642 415649

Cap parameter (steepness) α=m [-] 0.8 0.83 0.83 1.52

Initial secant shear ftiffness G0i [kN/m2] 10085.8 33840 16397 173187

Cap parameter (stiffness Ks/Kc [-] 1.62 1.72 1.71 1.95


ratio)
Table F.10: HP- model material parameters for the all layers of the NATM tunnel (B.W. Ygzaw, 2011)

Parameter Unit Fill Upper marble Lower marble Limestone


0
Critical friction [] 29 31 31 37
angle,φc
Granulate [kPa] 30900 52800 33800 15380000
hardness,hs
Exponent,n [-] 0.68 0.8 0.71 0.4
Critical void ratio, [-] 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
ec0
Minimum void [-] 0.65 0.69 0.68 1
ratio,ed0
Maximum void [-] 0,8 0.96 0.96 1.1
ratio,ei0
Exponent,α [-] 0.2 0.2 0.18 0.24
Exponent,β [-] 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.2
Initial void ratio,e0 [-] 0.7 0.69 0.68 0.65
ore
Additional parameters for m8odeling the intergranular strain
Intergranular 0.0001 0.00005 0.00015 0.00015
radius,R [-]
Exponent,χ [-] 2 2 2 1
Factor,mR [-] 8 8 8 8
Factor,mT [-] 2 2 2 2
Exponent,k [-] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Parameter, βr0 [-] 1 1 1 1
pcut 1 1 1 1
[kPa]