International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2003 Al Shayea 305 29

A Plastic-damage Model for StressStrain
Behavior of Soils
N. A. AL-SHAYEA,* K. R. MOHIB AND M. H. BALUCH
Civil Engineering Department,
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Box 368, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a constitutive model for soil, which combines
elements of plasticity with damage mechanics to simulate the stressstrain behavior.
The model is primarily suitable for soil types that exhibit a postpeak strain-softening
behavior, such as dense sand and stiff clay. The postpeak stress drop is captured by
the elasto-damage formulation, while the plasticity is superimposed beyond the
elastic range. The total strain increment is composed of an elasto-damage strain
increment and a plastic strain increment. The elasto-damage strain increment is
found using the elasto-damage formulation, while the plastic strain increment is
found using either the DruckerPrager classical plasticity model or as a function of
damage strain.
To implement this model, an experimental program was conducted on local
cohesive and cohesionless soils. Various physical and mechanical properties of these
soils were determined. Both triaxial tests and hydrostatic tests were performed under
different confining pressures, in order to obtain the model parameters. These
parameters were used to calibrate the model, which was coded in computer programs
to simulate the stressstrain behavior of soils. The model was verified and found to
be a good predictor of the geomaterial response for the selected stress path.
KEY WORDS: damage mechanics, soil plasticity, strain softening, confining
pressure.
INTRODUCTION
technique has been applied successfully
to various materials such as metals and concrete. It was assumed that
a purely brittle material unloads in an elasto-damage manner, with
nonlinearity caused by degradation in the modulus of elasticity due to
damage. However, a purely elasto-plastic material will always show
HE DAMAGE MECHANICS
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
International Journal of DAMAGE MECHANICS, Vol. 12October 2003

1056-7895/03/04 030525 $10.00/0
DOI: 10.1177/105678903036224
2003 Sage Publications
Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014
305
306
N. A. AL-SHAYEA ET AL.
permanent deformation when unloaded after yielding. In the case of soils,

plasticity plays a significant role in addition to damage. The actual soil
behavior is neither of a purely elasto-damage type nor of a purely elastoplastic type, but is assumed to be a combination of both.
In this paper, a plasto-damage model was developed for the stressstrain
behavior of cohesive and noncohesive soils (marl and sand). The model was
customized for the application of conventional triaxial compression (CTC),
because of the abundant use of this test for the determination of soil
strength. The dense soils investigated in this work have a damage effect,
which is the degradation in material compliance along with the plasticity
effect, which is the irrecoverable permanent deformation. The strainsoftening behavior is considered to be a combination of elasto-damage and
plastic behavior. Figure 1 represents schematically the various strain
components. The plasticity is assumed to cause no degradation in material
compliance, so a perfectly elasto-plastic material will always unload at the
same modulus as the initial modulus, but along a different path after
yielding has taken place (Path 1), which results in a permanent strain
following complete unloading. On the other hand, the elasto-damage strain
E2 < E3 < Eo
Eo
Path 2
Stress
E2
E3
Path 1
Path 3
Eo
Strain
Figure 1. Schematic unloading paths with ideal plastic deformation (path 1), perfectly brittle
behavior (path 2), and combined plasticity and damage (path 3) [Abu-Labdeh and Voyiadjis
(1993)].
StressStrain Behavior of Soils
307
is assumed to be completely recoverable and is composed of elastic and

damage parts. Such a material unloads with a degraded modulus of
elasticity after the occurrence of damage, and returns to a zero stress and
strain state, as shown by Path 2 in Figure 1. The damage part of the strain is
assumed to occur due to an increase in compliance caused by the damage.
The actual soil behavior is neither of these two types.
The actual soil material is assumed to follow Path 3, as shown in Figure 1,
so that there will be elastic strain, damage strain due to degradation in the
initial modulus of elasticity, and plastic strain due to dislocation and
permanent readjustment of the soil particles.
At a particular value of the stress increment, the total strain increment
was obtained by adding the elasto-damage strain increment and the plastic
strain increment, as found from the respective formulations. The total strain
increment (d") is composed of the elastic strain increment (d"e), the damage
strain increment (d"d), and the plastic strain increment (d" p); i.e.,
d" d"e d"d d"p
In this work, the elasto-damage component of the strain was obtained

from the elasto-damage formulation derived for the CTC test. The postpeak
stress-drop was also obtained by the same elasto-damage formulation. The
plastic strain was found by two different methods. In Method 1, the plastic
strain was taken as some factor times the damage strain. In Method 2, the
DruckerPrager model was derived for the conventional triaxial test case,
from which the plastic strain was calculated.
A rigorous analytical formulation was carried out to obtain the plastodamage stressstrain behavior by the two methods. Also, an extensive
experimental program was conducted on the two different types of soils
(sand and marl) at high density, exhibiting postpeak strain-softening
behavior, to find model parameters. In addition, FORTRAN programs
were developed based on the analytical formulations to be used for
predicting the soil behavior, and compared with the experimental results.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The theory of continuum damage mechanics (CDM) proposed by
Kachanov (1958) has been applied successfully to different materials, and
is used to predict both strain-hardening and strain-softening types of
behavior. The damage phenomenon and damage variable can be explained
by considering a damaged body, with (S ) being the overall cross sectional
area defined by the normal (n). Within the same cross section the cracks and
cavities have intersections of different shapes, with their area (SD). These
308
micro cracks and cavities cannot resist the externally applied load. The
effective area (S~ ) is obtained by subtracting the area of the voids (SD) from
the total area (S).
The damage variable (!n), associated with the normal (n), represents the
area of the cracks and cavities per unit surface in a plane perpendicular to
the normal (n) and is given as:
!n
S S~ SD
S
S
Therefore, !n 0 corresponds to the undamaged state, while !n 1

corresponds to the rupture of the element in two parts; a value between 0
and 1 characterizes the occurrence of damage. The effective area gives rise to
the effective stress concept in damage mechanics as given by Kachanov
(1958), as the mean density of the forces acting on the elementary surface
that effectively resists the applied load.
A practical soil model should be such that it involves a minimum possible
number of parameters and is still able to predict the behavior of the material.
The hyperbolic model (Kondner, 1963) is the frequently used model for
predicting the stressstrain behavior of soil. The limitation of the model lies
in its inability to predict the post peak stress-drop; i.e., the strain softening.
Chow and Wang (1987) presented the development of an anisotropic
elastic damage theory. They presented a modified damage effect tensor
~ D for the effective stress equations to take into account the effect of
M
anisotropic material damage. The reduction of the proposed tensor to a
scalar for isotropic damage state occurred not only in the principal stress
direction, but also in any arbitrary coordinate system. The model was
applied to metals.
To account for the plasticity effect, Chow and Wang (1988) further
developed a generalized damage characteristic tensor (J~), to characterize
anisotropic damage evolution in combination with plasticity. The tensorial
equation of the damage evolution for tensor (J~) reduced to a scalar if the
damage state was isotropic.
Following the developments in metals, Sauris et al. (1990) presented a
damage model for monotonic and cyclic loading of concrete. The
compliance tensor presented for the stressstrain relationship was dependent
on accumulated damage. Damage evolution was obtained by using a
loading surface ( f ) and bounding surface (F ), along with a limit fracture
surface ( fo) defined in terms of the thermodynamic force conjugates of the
damage variables, Figure 2. The model was applied to the case where
the principal stresses and the strain axes coincided and did not rotate as the
material deformed.
309
R3
Rc
Triaxial compression path

F
f Ri = ni
Ro
fo
in
45
b=
b=1
R2
Figure 2. Limit fracture, loading and bounding surfaces in strain energy release space after
Suaris et al. (1998).
Abu-Labdeh and Voyiadjis (1993) presented a plasticity damage model

for concrete under cyclic multi axial loading. The model was based on the
bounding surface concept and combined plastic deformations with
deformations due to damage. The total strain increment (d") was divided
into an elastic strain increment (d"e ), a damage strain increment (d"d ) and a
plastic strain increment (d"p ) at a particular value of stress.
Crouch and Wolf (1995) presented a constitutive model which treated
clays, silts, and sand in their loose and dense state under both monotonic
and complex stress paths within a single framework.
Karr et al. (1996) presented a brittle damage model for rock. In their
model the effect of material degradation on failure mechanism of brittle
damage materials was investigated.
Gupta and Bergstrom (1997) presented a model for the compressive
failure of rocks via a process of shear faulting. The model presented the
progressive growth of damage that led to the formation of a critical fault
nucleus, which grew unstably into its own plane by fracturing the grain
boundaries.
Khan et al. (1998) proposed a constitutive model for concrete based on
~ ) with a damage magnification
CDM, using the damage-effect tensor (M
factor and for tension and compression, respectively. The bounding
surface concept, as introduced by Dafalias and Popov (1977), was used for
the constitutive relationship and evolution of damage. The proposed model
310
was able to identify the degradation in elastic properties, strain softening,

the gain in strength under increasing confinement and different behaviors in
tension and compression.
ANALYTICAL BACKGROUND
The soil model proposed in this paper is primarily suitable for isotropic
soil types that exhibit a postpeak strain-softening behavior, under triaxial
loading condition. This model combines existing elements of damage
mechanics with plasticity to simulate the stressstrain behavior. It uses the
concepts given by Suaris et al. (1990) and the formulation developed by
Khan et al. (1998) for the damage part. The formulation utilized a damage
magnification factor results in a critical damage at !n 1/ rather than as
previously stated. The plastic part is added to the damage part by two
different methods. In Method 1, the plastic strain is taken as a constant
factor times the damage part. The constant factor does not result in a
constant plastic part, because the damage part is nonlinear. In Method 2,
the plastic strain is calculated using the DruckerPrager model for the
plastic part. The proposed model combines the damage mechanics and the
plasticity formulations by programming them to find the contribution of
each component to stress and strain. The equations are not combined
together mathematically in a closed form.
Damage Formulation
For the case of CTC test, 2 3 cell constant, and the deviator stress
in the axial direction ( 1) is changing. This case reduces to a uniaxial case.
The deviator part of the stress vector, causing the shearing failure in the
cylindrical soil specimen, is given as:

deviator 1
0 0
T
For the CTC test the compliance and stiffness terms for i j 1, and with
!1 0 and !2 !3 !, can be shown to be:
C~ 11
1
,
Eo 1 !4
or D~ 11 Eo 1 !4
where, Eo is the initial modulus of elasticity, and is the peak strength

factor or damage magnification factor.
311
The strain energy density (W ) for the deviator part of the CTC test,
which is to be predicted by the formulation, is given as:

h i
1
1
1 12
1 !1 2
T ~
2 ~2
W fi g Cij j 1 C11
2
2
2 Eo 1 !2 2 1 !3 2
where, (C~ ij ) is the effective compliance matrix, the inverse of the effective
stiffness matrix, (D~ ij ). The relationship between axial stress ( 1), strain
("1), and the strain energy (W ) gives:
1 "1 Eo
1 !2 2 1 !3 2
1 !1 2
Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (5) gives:

1 2
1 !2 2 1 !3 2
W "1 Eo
2
1 !1 2
The thermodynamic force conjugates (Ri) can be obtained by taking the

negative derivative of the strain energy density with respect to the damage
variables (!n ) as:
R1 0
R2 R3 "21 Eo 1 !3
R1 is set to zero since negative values for Ri are inadmissible in view of the
non-negativity of the thermodynamic conditions. This further implies that
damage in direction 1 is also zero, i.e., !1 0. For the CTC test,
!2 !3 !, due to symmetry. The final expression for strain energy release
rate at onset of damage (Ro), for the CTC test, is given as:
p
2 2
10
Ro
Eo
where, is some percentage of the peak deviator strength ( 1,p).
The final expression for critical value of strain energy release rate at
failure (Rc), for the CTC test, is given as:
Rc
p
2
21,p
Eo 1 !5
11
312
For the deviatoric stress increment in axial direction is:

d1 D~ 11 d"1 "1
where,
@D~ 11 @f
d
@!k @Rk
p
2 2"1 Eo 1 !3 d"1
d
,
H 32 "21 Eo 1 !2
12
13
D
damage modulus,
hin i
is the normalized distance between f and F surfaces, Figure 2, in is the

maximum distance between F and fo surfaces, Figure 2, and D is
the parameter used to control the shape of the peak.
Substituting all the terms in Equation (12), the final form of the
incremental stress for a strain-controlled formulation becomes:
"
#
82 "21 Eo2 1 !6
d1 Eo 1 !
d"1
H 32 "21 Eo 1 !2
4
14
Equation (14) gives the stressstrain relationship in an incremental form for

the conventional triaxial test case. Notice that d"0 in Equation (14) is the
elasto-damage strain, which is equal to d"e d"d. For the input of elastodamage strain increments on the right hand side of the equation, the
corresponding elasto-damage stress increments can be determined. These
stress and strain increments are added to provide the predicted behavior.
The elasto-damage behavior alone is not able to predict the actual behavior,
due to the missing plastic strain component.
For thepCTC,
the incremental form of the damage variable (!) is given as
d! d= 2: The d is a function of damage modulus (H ), which in-turn

depends on the normalized distances between the limit fracture, loading, and
bounding surfaces. The incremental expressions are programmed to get the
predicted stressstrain curves. The parameters, which are constant for a
particular prediction such as, cell pressure (), peak stress ( p), initial
modulus of elasticity (Eo), peak shape factor (D), peak deviator stress factor
(), and the strain increment (d"1) are given as input. The strain ("1),
the deviator stress (), and the damage variable (!) are initialized to zero.
The current level of the strain energy release rate (R) corresponding
to the
p
loading surface ( f ) is calculated from the expression [ 2Eo "21 1 !3 ].
313
The value of the strain-energy-release rate at the onset of damage (Ro) is

calculated using Equation (11). The comparison of the two values decides
weather the damage has started or not. If R is less than Ro the damage is not
occurring, and the value of damage increment (d!) and the total damage (!)
are zero. The corresponding stress is within the linear elastic range, and is
calculated as given by Equation (6) with (!1 0 and !2 !3 ! 0). The
current stress is obtained by adding the stress increment to the initial stress
value (i.e., 1 1 d 1). For the first iteration in the program 0.
The current strain value is updated as (" " d"). For the first iteration
"1 d"1. This process is repeated with updated values of deviator stress and
axial strain ( 1 and "1). For each iteration, the value of R is calculated and
compared with Ro. As soon as R becomes greater than Ro, the value of d,
the increment in damage (d!) are calculated. The evolution of damage takes
place in the subsequent iterations, as d is a function of the damage modulus
(H ), which in turn is a function of the normalized distance ( and in)
between the three surfaces shown in Figure 2. Once the damage increment
(d!) is evaluated, the damage ! is calculated as ! ! d!. Notice that
! 0 for the iterations before R becomes equal to Ro. After the values of
damage have been updated, the increment of the stress (d 1) is now
calculated from Equation (14) instead of Equation (6). The updated values
of stress ( 1) and strain ("1) are calculated. The program runs till the value
of R reaches Rc, which is calculated from Equation (11).
Plastic Strain (Method 1)
The total strain is assumed to be composed of elastic, damage, and plastic
strains. In terms of principal strains in axial direction, "e1 is the elastic strain;
"d1 is the damage strain resulting from the damage growth by the purely
brittle elasto-damage theory, and "p1 is the plastic strain component that is to
be added. The plastic strain is a nonlinear irrecoverable part, and is taken as
a factor times the damage strain so that:
"p1 Fp "d1
15
where Fp is a constant factor, which is determined by trial and error using

experimental results.
At any stress value found by the elasto-damage formulation, the purely
elastic part of the strain is found as:
"e1 1 =Eo
16
where Eo is the initial modulus of elasticity value, which is free from damage
effect.
314
The elastic strain (Equation (16)) is subtracted from the elasto-damage

strain (which is an input in Equation (14)) and the damage strain is
determined, from which the plastic strain can be obtained (Equation (15)).
The flow chart for the FORTRAN program developed to code this model is
shown in Figure 3.
Inputs for the particular soil; 1, Eo for a fixed value of D and Rc
Enter trial value of . Try different values of till the desired peak strength is obtained
2 (0.3or 0.2 1 )
R
and in = 1 o
Rc
Determine Ro =
Eo
Initialize 1 = 0.0 d1 = 0.0 and = 0.0
With input of d1, enter the DO LOOP for specified number of times, and
determine 1 = 1 + d1
1
(Ri Ri )2
= 2 E o 12 (1 )
For (Ri Ri )2 < Ro
For (Ri Ri )2 Ro
b=
H=
d 1 = E o (1 )4 d 1
Rc
d
2
d =
H + 3 2 12 E o (1 )2
= + d
d 1 = E o (1 )4
2 2 1 E o (1 ) d 1
3
( in )
d =
= 1
b
(Ri Ri )2
6
8 2 12 E o2 (1 )
d 1
H + 3 2 E o 12 (1 )2
1 = 1 + d 1
1
d1e =
Eo
d 1d = d 1 d 1e
d 1p = F p d 1d
1
(Ri Ri )2
> Rc
YES
STOP
Figure 3. Flow chart for elasto-plasto-damage FORTRAN code, with plastic strains added by
method 1.
315
DruckerPrager Model
The DruckerPrager model was used for finding the plastic strain by
method 2. The DruckerPrager failure criteria is given as:
p
f J2D z J1 k
17
where, p

is the positive material parameter defining the yield criteria in J1
versus J2D space, and represents the slope of the straight line fit, k is the
intercept of the yield envelope, J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor,
and J2D is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor.
As long as the material is within the linear elastic range, the governing
stressstrain equation for a general case is given by Desai and Siriwardane
(1984), and it has the following form for the CTC test case:
d1
4Go 3Ko Go 3Ko 3Ko 2Go 2Go 3Ko

d"1
33Ko Go
18
where, Go is the initial shear modulus, and Ko is the initial bulk modulus of
elasticity.
When the stress state reaches the yield envelope, the governing stress
strain equation for a general case is given by Desai and Siriwardane (1984),
and it has the following form for the CTC test case in the axial direction:

1 T1 1 R1 1 2T2 cell 2R2 2T1 cell R1 T2 1 R2
d1 2Go
d"1
1 2T2 cell 2R2
19
where, Ti A C i , and Ri A i B, with i 1, 2.
A and B are the factors depending on material parameters determined
from the test results, and are given as:
A
h
p0 k

J2D
92 Ko
p
1
Go
k

kp0 1
3Ko
J1
p
h
p
2Go
6 J2D
6 J2D
0
2h2
3Ko

, and
Eo
1 92 Ko =Go
20
21
22
23
316
1
p
2kp0 J2D
24
The plastic strain in this method was calculated using the DruckerPrager
model [Equation (18) or (19)], which is coded in a FORTRAN program,
whose flow chart is shown in Figure 4. Notice that d"1 in Equations (18) and
(19) is the plastic strain, which is equal to d"p. The total strain was assumed
to be composed of elasto-damage and plastic strain. The elasto-damage
strain and stress were determined using Equation (14).
Enter the valuesof cell, d1 as the given strain
increment and maximum strain as inputs
Compute incremental elastic trail stress ds1 by Eq. ( 18)
NO
IF J 2 D J 1 k 0.0
For the input strain

increment de1 compute
d 1 using Eq. (19). For
this elasto-plastic stress
increment find elastic
strain increment from
Eq. (18). Plastic strain
increment can be found
by subtracting elastic
strain increment from
d1
YES
d 1p = 0.0
Final stresses & strains:

1 = 1 + d 1
1 = 1 + d 1
1p = 1p + d 1p
NO
1 > Max. strain

YES
STOP
Figure 4. Flow chart for execution of DruckerPrager model for traxial test.
317
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
In order to implement the model and to determine its parameters, an
extensive experimental program was conducted. Two different types of soil
material were used, i.e., cohesive and noncohesive soil (marl and sand). The
marl had a specific gravity of 2.85, a liquid limit of 55.8, a plastic limit of
37.3, and a plasticity index of 18.49. Particle size distribution for marl was
obtained using sieve and hydrometer analyses, which indicated that marl
contained about 74% fines most of which are of clay size. The marl was
classified according to USCS as an organic clayey soil with high plasticity
(OH). The marl was tested at a maximum value of dry density of 1.526 g/cm3
and at optimum moisture content of 27.12% obtained from the Modified
Proctor compaction test.
The sand used was medium in size with Cu 2.342 and Cc 1.124. The
sand had a specific gravity of 2.64, and was classified according to USCS as
poorly graded medium sand (SP). The minimum and maximum densities of
the sand were found to be 1.86 and 1.609 g/cm3, respectively.
The marl samples were prepared at the maximum density and optimum
moisture content using five layers under static compaction, to obtain a
uniform sample. The sand was tested at a density of 1.853 g/cm3, which
corresponds to a relative density of 98%. The pluviation technique was used
for preparing the sand samples.
Unconsolidated drained triaxial compression tests were performed at cell
pressures of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 kPa, for both soils. A hydrostatic
compression test was conducted on both soils to obtain the initial bulk
modulus of elasticity (Ko). Isotropic cell pressures used were 25, 50, 100,
200, 400, 800, 1000 kPa for loading; and 800, 400, 200, 100, 50, 25 kPa for
unloading. All items of apparatus were calibrated to ensure accurate
measurements of stresses and strains.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Elasto-damage Model Parameters
The expressions for the damage model parameters were determined from
the experimental results and then used in the computer program. These
parameters are presented as follows:
INITIAL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (EO)
Eo was obtained from the results of the triaxial tests, as the slope of the
initial straight-line portion of the deviator stress versus axial strain curve,
for various values of cell pressure ( 3). Normalized values of Eo versus 3
318
10000
8
Soil type
Sand
4
Marl
(E /Pa)
1000
8
6
4
2
8
(3 / Pa)
Figure 5. Normalized plots of initial modulus of elasticity for marl and sand.
with respect to atmospheric pressure (Pa 101.325 kPa) are shown in Figure 5
for both marl and sand. The expressions for Eo in kPa are:
Eo a Pa
3
Pa
b
25
where a and b are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

PEAK DEVIATOR STRESS AND SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
The shear strength parameters, cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction
(), were determined by plotting the Mohr stress circles and MohrCoulomb
failure envelopes for the peak deviator stress value ( 1,p) at different cell
pressure values. For marl 33.73 and c 335 kPa. For sand 42.96
and c 0. Using these values, the value of 1 can be calculated as:
1,p
2c cos 3 sin
1 sin
26
319

Table 1. Parameters for fitting expressions.
Soil type
Parameter
a
b
R2
c
d
R2
e
f
R2
g
h
R2
i
j
R2
k
l
R2
Marl
Sand
682.5
1176.06
0.238156
0.862364
0.885948
0.986754
0.5697
0.87782
0.916701
0.785059
0.984115
0.993890
1.187 104
3.055
1.694
0.1845
0.928568
0.810207
3.2557 104
8.0804 105
0
0.075
0.964011
0.871921
2.8754
2.5230
518.542
0
0.945357
0.996425
101.23
52.76
1.6295
0.7781
0.810456
0.679902
PEAK SHAPE FACTOR (D)

This parameter is used to define the shape of the peak of the predicted
stressstrain curves. The value of this factor for both the marl and sand was
found, by trial and error, to be 0.0001 kPa.
STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE AT ONSET OF DAMAGE (RO)
The value of Ro corresponds to the stress level at which the damage
starts. The stress level at which the damage starts is taken as some
percentage of the peak deviator stress. Ro was calculated using Equation
(10) at 20 and 30% of the peak deviator stress value for marl and sand,
respectively; which was decided on the basis of the experimental
stressstrain data.
CRITICAL STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE (RC)
The values of Rc were calculated using Equation (11), and found to be 0.1
and 0.2 kN m/m3 for marl and sand, respectively. These are the minimum
values of Rc calculated at different cell pressures.
PEAK DEVIATOR STRESS FACTOR ()
The parameter is used to match the peak of the predicted stressstrain
curve with the experimental curve. The value of was calculated by trial and
320
0.01009
8
7
6
5
4
3
0.00109
8
7
6
Soil type
Sand
Marl
3
2
1000
1, p (KPa)
Figure 6. vs. peak deviator stress for marl and sand.
error. Figure 6 shows the variation of versus peak deviator stress ( 1,p)
for marl and sand, with the following equations of the fit:

d
c 1,p
27
where c and d are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

Plastic Strain by Method 1
The plastic strain in Method 1 was calculated as a factor (Fp) times
the damage strain, Equation (15). The damage strain was calculated and then
multiplied with the plastic strain factor (Fp) to obtain the plastic strain. The
total strain was obtained by adding the plastic strain to the elasto-damage
strain. Figure 7 shows the variation of the plastic strain factor (Fp) with cell
pressure ( 3) for marl and sand, with the expressions of the fit:
Fp e 3 f
where e and f are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.
28
321
10.00
8
6
Fp
1.00
8
6
Soil type
Sand
Marl
0.10
8
100
3 (KPa)
Figure 7. Plastic strain factor vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
Figure 8 shows a comparison between the experimental stressstrain

curve for sand at 3 200 kPa and the stressstrain prediction by elastodamage formulation. It is clear that without the plastic strain component,
the two curves are far apart from each other on the strain axis. After adding
the plastic strain, the elasto-plasto-damage prediction matches the experimental curve very closely.
The plasto-damage strain when plotted with the stress values gives the
stressstrain curves predicted by this method. Figure 9 shows a comparison
between the experimental and the predicted stressstrain curves by this
method for different cell pressures for sand. Similar curves were also
obtained for marl.
Plastic Strain by Method 2
The expression for the initial modulus of elasticity (Eo) is the same as that
given by Equation (25). Other parameters required for this method are
briefly explained as follows:
INITIAL BULK MODULUS (KO)
Ko values were found from the results of the hydrostatic tests, as the slope
of the reloading portion of the hydrostatic tests, as the slope of the reloading
322
1000
( KPa)
800
600
400
Experimental
without plastic strain
200
Elasto-plasto-da mage (1)

Elasto-plasto-da mage (2)
0
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
Figure 8. Comparison between experimental and predicted stressstrain curves for sand at
3 200 kPa, with and without plastic strain by the two different methods.
2200
Experimental
2000
Prediction
1800
( KPa)
1600
Cell pressure
500 KPa
1400
1200
400 KPa
1000
800
600
300 KPa
400
200 KPa
200
100 KPa
0
0.00
0.04
0.08
1
0.12
0.16
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental and predicted stressstrain curves for sand by
method 1.
323
portion of the hydrostatic stress versus volumetric strain curves. The average
Ko values found for marl and sand were 84,580 and 260,252 kPa,
respectively.
POISSONS RATIO ( ) AND INITIAL SHEAR MODULUS (GO)
The values of Eo and Ko were used to determine the values of Poissons
ratio ( ) and initial shear modulus (Go) by the following elastic relationships:

1 3Ko Eo

2
Ko
Go
Eo
21
29
30
YIELD ENVELOPE PARAMETERS () AND (K)

The yield envelope drawn between the first invariant of the stress tensor
(J1) andp
the square root of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress
tensor ( J2D ) is a straight-line fit. Figure 10 shows the DruckerPrager yield
envelopes for marl and sand. For marl, 0.2612 and k 397.7 kPa, while
for sand 0.3355 and k 9.477 kPa.
TOTAL ELASTO-PLASTIC STRAIN ("t)
One of the inputs used for finding plastic strains by the DruckerPrager
model is the total elasto-plastic strain ("t). Its values were found by trial and
error at different cell pressures. The value of "t is used for determining the
appropriate plastic strain component to be added to the elasto-damage
strain component to obtain the total strain. The value of "t was obtained by
trial and error by comparing the experimental stressstrain curve with the
analytical one. Figure 11 shows plots of "t versus 3 for marl and sand,
whose fits have the following expressions:
"t g 3 h
31
where g and h are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

ELASTO-PLASTIC RESIDUAL STRESS ( r)
This is used as an input for the determination of the plastic strains by the
DruckerPrager model. Figure 12 shows plots of r versus 3 for marl and
sand, whose fits have the following expressions:
r i 3 j
where i and j are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.
32
324
1400
Soil type
Sand
1200
Marl
(KPa)
1000
(J2D )
800
600
400
200
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
J1 (KPa)
Figure 10. DruckerPrager yield envelopes for marl and sand.
Soil type
0.20
Sand
Marl
0.10
0.00
0
200
400
600
3 (KPa)
Figure 11. Total elasto-plastic strain vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
Using the above expressions for different parameters, the FORTRAN

program was run and the predicted curves by Method 2 are compared
with experimental ones in Figure 13 sand. Similar plots were obtained
for marl.
325
2500
Soil type
Sand
2000
Marl
r (KPa)
1500
1000
500
0
0
200
400
600
3 (KPa)
Figure 12. Residual stress vs. cell pressure for marl and sand.
2200
Experimental
2000
Prediction
1800
( KPa)
1600
Cell pressure
1400
500 KPa
1200
400 KPa
1000
800
600
300 KPa
400
200 KPa
200
100 KPa
0
0.00
0.04
0.08
1
0.12
0.16
Figure 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted stressstrain curves for sand
by method 2.
326
Comparison Between Methods 1 and 2

In both methods the elastic and damage strain components are found
using the elasto-damage formulation. The plastic strain is found as Fp times
the damage strain in Method 1, while it is calculated from the elasto-plastic
DruckerPrager model in Method 2. Figure 8 also shows the comparison
between the experimental behavior and predictions by Methods 1 and 2, at
3 200 kPa for sand. Predictions by Methods 1 and 2 are very close to each
other and to the experimental behavior for sand. The difference between the
two methods is that in the case of Method 2 there is a singularity or sudden
change in slope when plastic strains are added to the elasto-damage strains
because of the behavior of the DruckerPrager model for CTC. It can also
be observed that the prediction by Method 1 is slightly better than that by
Method 2. Method 2 on the other hand is theoretically more sound, because
the plastic strain is evaluated from a rigorous elasto-plastic model. Both
methods validate each other.
Figure 14 shows the plots between Fp and "t for marl and sand. The
expressions between Fp and "t are given as:
F p k "t l
33
where k and l are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

2
10
8
6
Fp
1
8
Soil type
Sand
Marl
0
2
0.01
5 6 7 89
0.10
5 6 7 89
1.00
t
Figure 14. Variation of Fp with "t.
327
The fact that Fp can be expressed in terms of "t validates the assumption
that plastic strains can be taken as a factor of damage strains, and while
each one was calibrated separately and was obtained using different models,
a relationship still exists between them.
CONCLUSIONS
A new plasto-damage model is presented for the stressstrain behavior of
dense soils. The model is suitable for simulating post-peak strain-softening
stressstrain behavior of soil. The model combines elasto-damage strain and
plastic strain to determine the total strain. Two different methods were used
for finding the plastic strain. The predictions by both methods are excellent
and are able to identify all the features of the stressstrain behavior. It is
observed that the model is good for both cohesive and noncohesive types of
soils. Predictions by Method 1 are smoother than by Method 2. For a
conventional triaxial test case, the DruckerPrager model prediction by
Method 2 has a sudden change in slope of the predicted stressstrain curves
at transition from elastic to elasto-plasto-damage behavior. Method 1 is
very simple and needs fewer parameters to be calibrated than Method 2.
Only conventional triaxial test data is required, with no additional
experimental data required for the calculation of plastic strain. In the case
of Method 2, isotropic compression test data is also required in addition to
conventional triaxial test data for the calculation of plastic strain by the
DruckerPrager model.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
S~ effective area
~
Cij effective compliance matrix
D~ ij effective stiffness matrix
~ effective stress
c cohesion
CDM continuum damage mechanics
D peak shape factor
d proportionality factor defining relationship between damage
increment and loading surface
Eo initial value of modulus of elasticity
F bounding surface (damage model)
f loading surface function (damage model)
f yield function for DruckerPrager model
fo limit fracture surface (damage model)
328
Fp plastic strain factor (Method 1)

Go initial shear modulus
H damage modulus
J1 first invariant of stress tensor
J2D second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor
Ko initial value of bulk modulus of elasticity
k intercept of DruckerPrager yield function
Pa atmospheric pressure in kPa
Rc strain energy release rate at failure
Ri thermodynamic force conjugates in tensor notation
Ro strain energy release rate at onset of damage
S overall area of cross section
SD area of micro cracks and discontinuities
Poissons ratio
1,p peak deviator stress
slope of DruckerPrager yield function
peak stress factor for damage model
normalized distance between the loading surface and bounding
surface
in normalized distance between the limit fracture surface and
bounding surface
"ij strain tensor
"t elasto-plastic total strain (Method 2)
angle of internal friction
density
3 cell pressure
r elasto-plastic residual stress
! elasto-plastic residual stress
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals for providing computing and laboratory facilities.
The assistance of Dr. Asad-ur-Rehman Khan is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Abu-Lebdeh, T.M. and Voyiadjis, G.Z. (1993). Plasticity Damage Model for Concrete under
Cyclic Multi-axial Loading, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119(7): 14651484.
Chow, C.L. and Wang, J. (1987). An Anisotropic Theory of Elasticity for Continuum Damage
Mechanics, International Journal of Fracture, 33: 316.
Chow, C.L. and Wang, J. (1988). A Finite Element Analysis of Continuum Damage Mechanics
for Ductile Fracture, International Journal of Fracture, 38: 83102.
329
Crouch, R.S. and Wolf J.P. (1995). On a Three-Dimensional Anisotropic Plasticity Model for
Soil, Geotechnique, 45(2): 301305.
Dafalias, Y.F. and Popov, E.P. (1977). Cyclic Loading for Material with a Vanishing Elastic
Region, Nuclear Engineering Design, 41: 283302.
Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J. (1984). Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials with
Emphasis on Geologic Materials, p. 468, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Gupta, V. and Bergstrom, J.S. (1997). Compressive Failure of Rocks, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 34(34): 376378.
Kachanov, L.M. (1958). Time of the Rupture Process under Creep condition, Izv Akad Nauk,
U.S.S.R, Otd. Tekh. Nauk, 8: 2631.
Karr, D.G., Wimmer, S.A. and Sun, X. (1996). Shear Band Initiation of Brittle Damage
Materials, International Journal of Damage Mechanics, 5: 403421.
Khan, A.R., Al-Gadhib, A.H. and Baluch, M.H. (March 1998). An Elasto Damage
Constitutive Model for High Strength Concrete, In: Proceedings of the Euro-C 1998
Conference on Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures, pp. 133142, Austria.
Kondner, R.L. (January 1963). Hyperbolic StressStrain Response: Cohesive Soils, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 89(SM1): 115143.
Sauris, W., Ouyang, C. and Ferdenando, V.M. (May 1990). Damage Model for Cyclic Loading
of Concrete, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 116(5): 10201035.

International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2003 Al Shayea 305 29

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2003 Al Shayea 305 29

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Plastic-damage Model for StressStrain

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

International Journal of DAMAGE MECHANICS, Vol. 12October 2003

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

permanent deformation when unloaded after yielding. In the case of soils,

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

is assumed to be completely recoverable and is composed of elastic and

In this work, the elasto-damage component of the strain was obtained

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

Therefore, !n 0 corresponds to the undamaged state, while !n 1

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

Triaxial compression path

Abu-Labdeh and Voyiadjis (1993) presented a plasticity damage model

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

was able to identify the degradation in elastic properties, strain softening,

where, Eo is the initial modulus of elasticity, and is the peak strength

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (5) gives:

The thermodynamic force conjugates (Ri) can be obtained by taking the

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

For the deviatoric stress increment in axial direction is:

 is the normalized distance between f and F surfaces, Figure 2, in is the

Equation (14) gives the stressstrain relationship in an incremental form for

d! d= 2: The d is a function of damage modulus (H ), which in-turn

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

The value of the strain-energy-release rate at the onset of damage (Ro) is

where Fp is a constant factor, which is determined by trial and error using

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

The elastic strain (Equation (16)) is subtracted from the elasto-damage

Initialize 1 = 0.0 d1 = 0.0 and = 0.0

For (Ri Ri )2 < Ro

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

4Go 3Ko Go 3Ko 3Ko 2Go 2Go 3Ko

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

Compute incremental elastic trail stress ds1 by Eq. ( 18)

For the input strain

Final stresses & strains:

1 > Max. strain

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

where a and b are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

PEAK SHAPE FACTOR (D)

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

where c and d are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

Figure 8 shows a comparison between the experimental stressstrain

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

Elasto-plasto-da mage (1)

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

StressStrain Behavior of Soils

YIELD ENVELOPE PARAMETERS () AND (K)

where g and h are fitting parameters shown in Table 1.

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

Using the above expressions for different parameters, the FORTRAN

Downloaded from ijd.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on December 15, 2014

is the normalized distance between f and F surfaces, Figure 2, in is the

d! d= 2: The d is a function of damage modulus (H ), which in-turn