Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(2017) 25(1):40–51
DOI 10.1007/s40534-017-0123-0
Received: 25 July 2016 / Revised: 11 January 2017 / Accepted: 15 January 2017 / Published online: 6 March 2017
The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The hyperbolic function proposed by Abbo– through comparisons with the embedded model and the
Sloan was employed not only to approach the Mohr– limit analysis method, which shows that this subroutine is
Coulomb criterion but also to express the plastic potential more applicable and reliable than the latter two.
function. A better approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb
yield and potential surfaces was achieved by increasing the Keywords Hyperbolic yield function Plastic potential
transition angle and proven to be highly efficient in function First derivative Stress adjustment Slope
numerical convergence. When a Gaussian integral point stability analysis
goes into plastic state, two cases on yield stress adjustments
were introduced. They may avoid solving the second
derivative of the plastic potential function and the inverse 1 Introduction
matrix compared with the existing subroutine. Based on the
above approaches, a fully implicit backward Euler integral In 1773, Coulomb proposed a soil pressure theory of soil or
regression algorithm was adopted. The two- and three-di- rock failure, which is expressed by
mensional user subroutines which can consider the asso- s ¼ c r tan /; ð1Þ
ciated or non-associated flow rule were developed on the
platform of the finite element program—ABAQUS. To where s and r are respectively the shear strength and the
verify the reliability of these two subroutines, firstly, the normal stress (tensile stress is positive) in the shearing
numerical simulations of the indoor conventional triaxial surface; c and / are the cohesion and the angle of internal
compression and uniaxial tensile tests were performed, and friction of soil or rock, respectively.
their results were compared with those of the embedded Later, Mohr developed the Coulomb failure condition
Mohr–Coulomb model and the analytical approach. Then into the law of shear failure, namely the Mohr–Coulomb
the main influential factors including the associated or non- (M–C for short hereinafter) yield criterion, that could be
associated flow rule, the judgment criteria of slope failure, described in terms of the principal stresses (r1 C r2 C r3)
and the tensile strength of soil were analyzed, and the as
application of the two-dimensional subroutine in the sta- F ¼ ðr1 r3 Þ þ ðr1 þ r3 Þ sin / 2c cos / ¼ 0: ð2Þ
bility analysis of a typical soil slope was discussed in detail
A large number of experiments have shown that the M–
C yield criterion is able to reasonably depict the yield or
& Dai Zi-Hang failure behavior of soil and rock. In addition to Eq. (2), the
dzhang@fzu.edu.cn M–C criterion can be expressed in many other forms, for
example the following one in terms of stress invariants [1]:
1
College of Transportation and Civil Engineering, Fujian
Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350108, 1
F ¼ rm sin / þ r cos h pffiffiffi sin / sin h c cos / ¼ 0;
People’s Republic of China 3
2
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou ð3Þ
350108, People’s Republic of China
123
Numerical implementation of a modified Mohr–Coulomb model and its application in slope… 41
where rm is the average value of the three principal that the plastic flow rule of the model is always non-as-
pffiffiffiffiffi
stresses; r ¼ J2 , which is the equivalent stress; J2 is the sociated. Furthermore, this inconsistency is also a theo-
second deviatoric stress invariant; and h is the Lode angle retical flaw of the embedded M–C model in ABAQUS.
ranging from -30 to 30. Jia’s UMAT model [9] has overcome this drawback, but it
It is well known that the M–C yield criterion expresses a involves the second derivative of the plastic potential
hexagonal pyramid surface in principal stress space, which function, and the matrix inversion, resulting in not only the
has a flaw in numerical computation, i.e., the gradient complexity of programming, but also the increases of the
discontinuities which occur at both the edges and the tip of amount of calculation and the difficulty in numerical
the hexagonal pyramid surface. For that, researchers have convergence, particularly when smoothed transition points
ever presented the following three kinds of methods to are too close to the edges of the hexagonal pyramid sur-
overcome the flaw. Firstly, Drucker–Prager proposed the face. For that, a simplified method and the programming of
smooth circular conical surfaces, including the circum- new user-defined material subroutines will be introduced in
scribed, inscribed, and middle ones [2, 3], such that the this paper, and note that in the following text, UMAT only
ideal elasto-plastic constitutive model based on the refers to the new subroutines. And in order to test and
Drucker–Prager criterion was one of the earliest models verify the UMAT, firstly, the indoor conventional triaxial
used for soil and rock and was embedded in some of the compression and uniaxial tensile tests were numerically
earliest commercial finite element programs, such as SAP, replicated with the UMAT and compared with the results
ADINA, ANSYS. Although the above circular conical of the embedded M–C model and analytical or Mohr circle-
surfaces overcome the numerical singularity of the original drawing approaches. Then a typical two-dimensional
M–C model, they are significantly different in geometrical homogeneous soil slope [17] was simulated with the
shape from the hexagonal pyramid of the M–C model, UMAT and compared in detail with the results of the
resulting in the advent of more or less errors [3] even if the embedded M–C model.
equal area cone [4, 5] is employed while the above-men-
tioned programs are used. Secondly, the original M–C
surface is viewed as six separate planar yield surfaces and 2 Brief introduction of Abbo–Sloan yield function
the constitutive law is implemented as a multi-surface yield
function using the formulation of Koiter [6] and Clausen The hyperbolic yield function F proposed by Abbo–Sloan
et al. [7]. The third kind of methods, which is employed in [8] is smooth in both meridional and deviatoric planes and
this paper, is smoothing the vertices and approaching the can be expressed as
M–C yield surface. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F ¼ rm sin / þ r2 K 2 ðhÞ þ a2 c2 cos2 / c cos / ¼ 0;
In order to sufficiently approach the original M–C yield
surface, Abbo–Sloan [8] proposed a simple hyperbolic ð4Þ
yield surface to eliminate the singularity of the M–C yield where
surface and presented two efficient FORTRAN 77 sub- 8
routines to illustrate how this yield surface is implemented < A B sin 3h jhj [ hT
in practice. However, they did not build an entire numerical K ð hÞ ¼ 1 ; ð5Þ
: cos h pffiffiffi sin / sin h jhj hT
constitutive model. Based on Abbo–Sloan function, a user- 3
defined material subroutine (UMAT) was developed on the where
platform of ABAQUS by Jia et al. [9] using FORTRAN
language. 1
A ¼ cos hT ½3 þ tan hT tan 3hT þ
Generally speaking, the M–C model can be reliably 3
1
applied to stability analysis in geotechnical problems such pffiffiffi signðhÞðtan 3hT 3 tan hT Þ sin /; ð6Þ
as earth pressure [10, 11], slope stability [12, 13], and 3
bearing capacity of foundation soil [14, 15]. ABAQUS is a
well-known nonlinear finite element software, in which
actually an embedded M–C model is included. And in the 1 1
B¼ signðhÞ sin hT þ pffiffiffi cos hT sin / ; ð7Þ
embedded M–C model the true M–C yield surface is used 3 cos 3hT 3
but the plastic potential function proposed by Menétrey– where
William [16] is employed, which presents a hyperbola in (
meridional plane and a closed smooth curve combined by þ1 h 0
signðhÞ ¼ ; ð8Þ
three elliptic arcs in deviatoric plane, and it is the very 1 h\0
inconsistency between the yield and potential functions so
in above relevant expressions, K(h) is used to control the From Fig. 2, it is shown that for a specific value of a,
shape of the yield surface in deviatoric plane; hT is the error always becomes less and less with the increase of the
transition angle ranging from 0 to 30, and the greater the minor principle stress toward the direction of compression
value of hT, the better fitting the M–C cross section in stress. Meanwhile, if assuming hT = 29, as suggested by
deviatoric plane, but hT should not be too close to 30 in Owen and Hinton [19], the closer results to smooth the
order to avoid ill-conditioning of the approximation. A edges of the M–C hexagonal yield surface pyramid will be
typical value of hT is 25 as suggested by Abbo–Sloan [8] obtained. And the examples in this paper will show that
and Jia et al. [9]. In Ref. [8], the negative branch of the fast convergence can still be achieved and the higher pre-
hyperbola has been chosen, which takes into account the cisions than those of Abbo–Sloan [8] and Jia et al. [9] can
tensile strength of soil through parameter a. In fact, be obtained as well.
parameter a is somewhat similar to the meridional eccen- Theoretically, making the potential function similar to
tricity e included in the potential function of the embedded the yield function is reasonable, and only by this way, the
M–C model [18], and the Abbo–Sloan yield function associated flow rule can be achieved possibly. In this paper,
(Eq. 4) can closely model the M–C yield function (Eq. 3) the potential function G was assumed to have the same
by changing the magnitude of a and will theoretically be form as the hyperbolic yield function F. The only differ-
degraded as the latter if a is zero. The M–C yield surface ence is that the angle of internal friction / was replaced
and some sections of various smooth hyperbolic surfaces in with the dilation angle w (always w B /). If w = /, the
a deviatoric plane are plotted in Fig. 1. Evidently, with the associated flow rule is adopted, otherwise the non-associ-
decrease of parameter a, the Abbo–Sloan yield surface ated flow rule is used. Thus, the mathematical expression
gradually approaches the M–C yield surface. However, to of G is
avoid the ill-conditioning of numerical calculation, a is not pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
G ¼ rm sin w þ r2 K 2 ðhÞ þ a2 c2 cos2 w c cos w ¼ 0:
allowed to be zero just as there is a limitation of the
allowable minimum of 0.1 for the meridional eccentricity e ð9Þ
in the embedded M–C model [18]. Several meridional Obviously, the geometrical shape of the potential
sections of the hyperbolic yield surfaces with different surface is similar to the yield surface in Fig. 1, but the
a values as well as h = 0 and / = 30 are plotted in inclination angle (dilation angle) in the strain meridional
Fig. 2 [8]. One can infer that the hyperboloid is an plane (similar to the stress meridional plane shown in
approximation to the M–C yield surface in the meridional Fig. 2) is always less than or equal to the angle of internal
plane. Obviously, a value has a significant influence on the friction. Note that for an ideal elasto-plastic model, the
shape of the hyperbolic surface. When a = 0.05 and yield surface is fixed but the plastic potential surface may
hT = 25, the hyperbolic surface almost approaches the move outwards with the increase of plastic strain.
M–C yield surface with the maximum difference of less
than 0.15% [8].
3 First derivative used in UMAT
Fig. 1 M–C yield surface in 3D principal stress space and Abbo’s Fig. 2 Abbo’s hyperbolic approximation to M–C meridional section
rounded yield surface in deviatoric plane [8]
(kPa)
A
80
M-C yield envelope
φ =17.13°
60
40
c 20
O'
0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 20 40 60 80 (kPa)
Triaxial tension
Uniaxial tension
Pure shear
Uniaxial compression
Triaxial compression
(kPa)
A
80
M-C yield envelope
φ =17.13°
60
40
Hypothetical uniaxial tension
c 20
O'
0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 20 40 60 80 (kPa)
Uniaxial tension
Tension under low confining stress
Uniaxial compression
the factor (Fs) of safety. Generally, three judgment criteria dilation or full dilation (associated flow rule) is
were used: the non-convergence of numerical calculation considered.
(criterion 1), the plastic penetration (criterion 2), and the 2. When criterion 1 is used without tension cutoff, the
displacement mutation (criterion 3) [25–27]. Usually, the computed factors of safety with respect to the three
computed results by criteria 2 and 3 are not significant, and dilation angles by ABAQUS are respectively 15%,
they are close to the results of the limit equilibrium or limit 14%, and 6% greater than the exact factor of safety of
analysis methods. In this paper, the numerical analyses of 1.00; when criterion 2 is used without tension cutoff,
the slope using criteria 1 and 2 were performed. When they are respectively 8%, 3% greater or 2% less than
using the UMAT, the associated flow with w = /=20 and 1.00. Similar results are obtained by the UMAT.
non-associated flow rules with w = 0.5/ = 10 or with Moreover, for both ABAQUS and the UMAT, the
w = 0.1 (approximately 0, which is tantamount to no factors of safety by criterion 1 often deviate from 1.00
consideration of dilation because w is not allowed to equal farther than those of by criterion 2.
zero in both ABAQUS and the UMAT to avoid numerical 3. When criterion 1 is used with tension cutoff, the
singularity) were adopted respectively. And let parameter computed factor of safety by ABAQUS obviously
a be 0.05, 0.5, and 0.99, respectively. Actually, when decreases but its variation with the dilation angle is
a = 0.5 or 0.99, it means the uniaxial tensile strength is unremarkable; when criterion 2 is used with the tension
7.11 or around 0 kPa according to Eq. (4). Here, two cases cutoff, ABAQUS is unable to show the plastic penetra-
were considered. One is the conventional method that tion zone so that no values are listed in those columns in
parameter a of the whole soil mass is 0.5 or 0.99. Usually, Table 1, and in this case, criterion 3 was adopted to
tensile stresses merely occur in the shallow layer near the determine the factors of safety, which actually are
top of a slope, so in the second case, for the deep layer, let around 0.94 for both tensile strengths rt = 7.11 and
a be 0.05, and for the shallow soil layer like the top three 0.01 kPa and for all three dilation angles.
rows of elements in Fig. 12, let a be 0.5 or 0.99. Corre- At this point, it shows that the computed results by
spondingly, when using ABAQUS, firstly the maximum ABAQUS in consideration of tension cutoff are not
allowable dilation angle is w = 17.831 to keep its satisfying.
potential surface convex and similar in shape to the M–C 4. For the UMAT, when a = 0.05 for the whole slope,
yield surface. Then, when w = 10 or 0.1, similar analyses which means that tensile yield is not considered, the
were performed with the tension cutoff of 7.11 and factors of safety with criterion 2 are less than those by
0.01 kPa (approximately 0 kPa because it is not allowed to ABAQUS and closer to 1.00. The differences between
equal zero in ABAQUS to avoid numerical singularity). the results from UMAT and ABAQUS are caused by
Only when the tension cutoff was considered, criterion 3 the different potential functions.
was adopted to determine the factors of safety because 5. The tensile strength of clay may be considered by the
plastic penetration zone cannot be obtained. All the factors UMAT through changing the magnitude of parameter
of safety are listed in Table 1. a, but comparisons show that merely in the potential
From Table 1, the following conclusions can be drawn: tensile stress zone, a set to be the value matched with
the tensile strength is more reasonable, and if in slope
1. The factor of safety increases with the dilation angle,
stability analysis, a is set to be 0.99, that actually
and it reaches the minimum (even less than 1.00) or
means no tensile but shear strength is considered.
maximum (greater than 1.00), respectively, when zero
Given the non-associated flow rule with no dilation UMAT are quite similar or close. The slight differences
(w = 0.1), without considering the tensile strength of this between them are attributed to the different potential
clay, Figs. 13 and 14 show the contours of the magnitude functions. Likewise, without considering shear dilation but
of equivalent plastic strains (PEMAG in ABAQUS or considering a uniaxial tensile strength of 7.11 kPa (i.e.,
defined as SDV9 in the UMAT) and the contours of dis- rt = 7.11 kPa in ABAQUS or for the whole slope, a = 0.5
placements in critical plastic penetration state, respectively, in the UMAT), the same comparisons are shown in
obtained by ABAQUS (rt = not set) and the UMAT Figs. 15 and 16. One can see that no plastic penetration
(a = 0.05). Evidently, the contour distributions and dis- zone is shown by ABAQUS even if non-convergence
placement magnitudes obtained by ABAQUS and the occurred, but it can still be revealed by the UMAT. To save
the space, the contour comparison of other cases were not equals to the angle of internal friction of soil or rock) is
provided here. adopted by the UMAT. Usually, the limit equilibrium
method and limit analysis method cannot fully consider the
influence of the dilation of soil and rock. Consequently, if
6 Conclusions the accurate value of the dilation angle of soil or rock can
be obtained by test, the results by the UMAT or ABAQUS
The modified Mohr–Coulomb model in this paper can will be definitely more reliable than those of the limit
approach the hexagonal pyramid surface when hT = 29 equilibrium and limit analysis methods.
and a B 0.05. The methods of stress adjustment after When the tensile strength of soil or rock is considered, it
yielding avoid solving the second derivative of the plastic seems the factor of safety by ABAQUS is not so reliable
potential function and inverse matrix, and therefore, a fully because it is not sensitive to the magnitude of tensile
implicit backward Euler integral regression algorithm was strength. The relatively accurate results, however, can still
adopted in the UMAT and proved to be highly efficient in be obtained by the UMAT through setting parameter a in
numerical convergence. the potential tensile stress zone of a slope to be the value
The examples of the numerical simulations on the tri- matched with the tensile strength.
axial compression and uniaxial tension tests show that both
ABAQUS and the UMAT can obtain the solutions con- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
sistent with the analytical solutions. The magnitude of creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
dilation angle does not affect the yield strength of soil or use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
rock. appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
Theoretical analysis shows that the plastic flow direction link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
is related to the potential function. Therefore, even if the
total plastic strains are the same, the plastic strain com-
ponents such as the plastic shear strain and the plastic References
volumetric strain may still be different due to different
potential functions, which have been proven by compar- 1. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (2000) The finite element method.
isons of the contours of equivalent plastic strains and dis- Solid mechanics, vol 2, 5th edn. Woburn, Butterworth
placements obtained by ABAQUS and the UMAT. Heinemann
2. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastics
Comparisons of the typical soil slope stability analyses analysis or limit design. Quat Appl Math 10(2):157–165
by ABAQUS and the UMAT show that the differences are 3. Alejano LR, Bobet A (2012) ISRM suggested method: Drucker–
not remarkable when only the shear yield and the plastic Prager Criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:995–999
penetration criterion are considered. The results by the 4. Deng CJ, He GJ, Zheng YR (2006) Studies on Drucker–Prager
yield criterions based on M–C yield criterion and application to
UMAT are slightly less than that by ABAQUS and closer geotechnical engineering. Chin J Geotech Eng 28(6):735–739 (in
to the theoretical results. Therefore, the UMAT is more Chinese)
reliable than the embedded Mohr–Coulomb model. 5. Dai ZH, Shen PS (2003) Simplified form and applications of
The factor of safety of a slope is influenced by the Mohr–Coulomb equivalent area circle yield criterion. J Fuzhou
Univ 31(4):454–459 (in Chinese)
dilation angle. The larger the dilation angle, the greater the 6. Koiter WT (1953) Stress-strain relations, uniqueness and varia-
factor of safety, and the factor of safety reaches its maxi- tional theorems for elastic-plastic materials with a singular yield
mum when the associated flow rule (the dilation angle surface. Quart Appl Math 11:350–354
7. Clausen J, Damkilde L, Andersen L (2006) Efficient return 16. Menétrey PH, William KJ (1995) Triaxial failure criterion for
algorithms for associated plasticity with multiple yield surfaces. concrete and its generalization. ACI Struct J 92(3):311–318
Int J Numer Meth Eng 66(6):1036–1059 17. Dawson EM, Roth WH, Drescher A (1999) Slope stability
8. Abbo AJ, Sloan SW (1995) A smooth hyperbolic approximation analysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique 49(6):835–840
to the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion. Comput Struct 18. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp (2012) ABAQUS Analysis
54(3):427–441 User’s Manual
9. Jia SP, Chen WZ, Yang JP, Chen PS (2010) An elastoplastic 19. Owen DRJ, Hinton E (1980) Finite elements in plasticity theory
constitutive model based on modified Mohr–Coulomb criterion and practice. Pinerige press limited
and its numerical implementation. Rock and Soil Mechanics 20. Abbo AJ, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW et al (2011) A C2 continuous
31(7):2051–2058 (in Chinese) approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. Int J Solids
10. Peng MX, Chen J (2013) Coulomb’s solution to seismic pas- Struct 48(21):3001–3010
sive earth pressure on retaining walls. Can Geotech J 21. Chen LJ, Dai ZH, Liu ZW (2011) Three-dimensional nonlinear
50(10):1100–1107 finite element analysis of soft soil excavation engineering con-
11. Peng MX, Chen J (2013) Slip-line solution to active earth pres- sidering K0 consolidation. Rock Soil Mech 32(12):3796–3804 (in
sure on retaining walls. Geotechnique 63(12):1008–1019 Chinese)
12. Xu LY, Cai F, Wang GX, et al (2013) Nonlinear analysis of 22. Bishop AW, Garga VK (1969) Drained tension tests on London-
laterally loaded single piles in sand using modified strain wedge clay. Geotechnique 9(2):309–313
model. Comput Geotech 51:60–71 23. Chen WF (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier,
13. Lee YK, Pietruszczak S, Choi BH (2012) Failure criteria for Amsterdam
rocks based on smooth approximations to Mohr–Coulomb and 24. Fei K, Zhang JW (2010) Application of ABAQUS in geotech-
Hoek–Brown failure functions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci nical engineering. China waterpower press, Peking (in Chinese)
56:146–160 25. Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite
14. Sven K, Lars D, Kristian K (2012) Lower-bound calculations of elements. Geotechnique 49(3):387–403
the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings in cohe- 26. Ren S, Beley JD, Mukherjee S et al (2006) Probabilistic finite
sionless soil. Can Geotech J 49(3):298–310 element analysis using ANSYS. Struct Saf 28(1–2):17–43
15. Dimitrios L, Tanusree C, Rodrigo S (2006) Bearing capacity of 27. Eiramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2005) Probabilistic
strip footings on purely frictional soil under eccentric and assessment of stability of cut slope in residual soil. Geotechnique
inclined loads. Can Geotech J 45(6):768–787 55(1):77–84