THE HARDENING SOIL MODEL -

A PRACTICAL GUIDEBOOK
ZSoil.PC 100701 report
revised 17.03.2011

by
R. Obrzud
A. Truty

Zace Services Ltd, Software engineering

P.O.Box 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
(T) +41 21 802 46 05
(F) +41 21 802 46 06
http://www.zace.com,
hotline: [email protected]
since 1985
 List of modifications 17.03.2011

1. This report merges its previous version from 07.2010 and the technical report
”‘Hardening Soil Model with Small Strain Stiffness (Truty, 2008) from which
the following section have been included:

• Benchmarks for the Hardening Soil models (Section 4)

• A study case of a deep excavation in Berlin sand (Section 5)

2. 3D representation of strength anisotropy in the HS model (Figure 2.8)

3. Graphical illustration of the initial preconsolidation setup (Figure 2.9)

4. Figure 3.4 - revised

5. Typical values of the ”static” modulus Es (considered as Eur ) for coarse soils
have been compiled in Table 3.5

6. Typical values of the ”static” modulus Es (considered as Eur ) for fine soils have
been compiled in Table 3.13

7. Eq. (3.34) has been corrected

8. Setting Eoed for granular materials (Section 3.2.3)

9. A hyperbolic expression from which a typical ratio E50 /E0 can be deduced, has
been provided in Eq. 3.11 with the corresponding Figure 3.12

10. An approximating formula for the parameter γ0.7 has been provided in Eq.
(3.12)

11. Typical values of the stiffness exponent m obtained for sands are presented in
Figure 3.19 and 3.20

12. Experimental results Poisson’s ratio νur has been included in Section 3.2.4

13. Evaluating the undrained modulus from E u from the undrained shear strength
Eq. (3.39) with the chart for estimating the correlation coefficient Kc (Figure
3.30).

14. Typical values of voids ratio and dry unit weights observed for cohesive soils
have been provided in Table 3.18 and 3.19.

15. Quick Help for the Parameter Identification Toolbox for the HS models (Section
3.4)
Contents

Table of Contents 3

List of Symbols 5

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Why do we need the HS-SmallStrain model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Application fields of constitutive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Short introduction to the HS models 9

2.1 Hardening Soil-Standard model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1 Shear mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Volumetric mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.3 Additional strength criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.4 Initial state variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Hardening Soil-SmallStrain model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1 Non-linear elasticity for small strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.2 Modifications of the plastic part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3 Parameter identification 29
3.1 Experimental testing requirements for direct parameter identification 30
3.2 Alternative parameter estimation for granular materials . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 Initial stiffness modulus E0 and parameter γ0.7 . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2 Moduli E50 and Eur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2.3 Oedometric modulus Eoed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.4 Poisson’s ratio νur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.5 Stiffness exponent m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.6 Friction angle φ′ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2.7 Coefficient of earth pressure ”at rest” K0NC . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.8 Voids ratio e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3 Alternative parameter estimation for cohesive materials . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.1 Initial stiffness modulus E0 and parameter γ0.7 . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.2 Strength parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.3 Failure ratio Rf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.4 Stiffness moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.5 Oedometric modulus Eoed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.6 Stiffness exponent m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3
 3.3.7 Overconsolidation ratio OCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.3.8 Coefficient of earth pressure ”at rest” K0NC and K0 . . . . . . 70
3.3.9 Voids ratio e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.4 Parameter identification toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4 Benchmarks 79
4.1 Triaxial drained compression test on dense Hostun sand . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Isotropic compression of dense Hostun sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3 Oedometric compression test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5 Study cases 85
5.1 Excavation in Berlin Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2 Twin tunnels excavation in London Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A Determination of undrained shear strength 109

A.1 Non-uniqueness of undrained shear strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
A.2 Determination of cu from field tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

B Determination of compression index 113

List of Symbols

Stress and Strain Notation c∗ intercept for M ∗ slope in q − p′

ε strain plane (=6c cos φ/(3 − sin φ))
εv volumetric strain Cc slope of the normal compres-
= (ε1 + ε2 + ε3 ) sion line in log10 scale (=2.3λ)
γs shear strain Cr slope of unload-reload consoli-
σ stress dation line in log10 scale
τ shear stress D scaling parameter (by default
=1.0 for HS-Std, =0.25 for HS-
p total mean stress
SmallStrain)
= 31 (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )
Dr relative density
p′ mean effective stress
E Young’s modulus
q deviatoric stress
= √12 [(σ1 − σ2 )2 + e voids ratio
ft limit tensile strength
+ (σ2 + σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 ]1/2
G tangent shear modulus
Gur unload-reload shear modulus
Roman Symbols Gs secant shear modulus
cu undrained shear strength H parameter which defines the rate
E0 maximal soil stiffness of the volumetric plastic strain
e0 initial voids ratio IP plasticity index (= wL − wP )
Eoed at given oedometric (vertical) M parameter of HS model which
stress level defines the shape of the cap
E50 secant modulus corresponding surface
to 50% of qf m stiffness exponent
Eur unloading-reloading stiffness M∗ (or Mc∗ ) slope of critical state
G0 (or Gmax ) maximal small-strain line (= 6 sin φ′c /(3 − sin φ′c ))
shear modulus Me∗ slope of critical state line (=
K0 coefficient of in situ earth pres- 6 sin φ′c /(3 + sin φ′c ))
sure at rest MD one-dimensional constrained mod-
K0NC coefficient of earth pressure at ulus
rest of normally-consolidated soil pc effective preconsolidation pres-
K0SR set equal to K0NC in most study sure
cases with exception of isotrop- pco initial effective preconsolidation
ically consolidated soil K0SR = pressure
1 qa asymptotic deviatoric stress
q POP (=σc′ ) effective vertical precon- qc cone resistance
solidation stress qf deviatoric stress at failure
Bq pore pressure parameter for CPTU Qt normalized cone resistance for
c cohesion intercept CPT

5
qt corrected cone resistance Abbreviations
Rf failure ratio (= qf /qa ) CKo UC Ko consolidated undrained com-
u pore pressure pression
Vs shear wave velocity CKo UE Ko consolidated undrained ex-
wL liquid limit tension
wn water content CAP Cap model with Drucker-Prager
wP plastic limit failure criterion
z depth CIDC consolidated isotropic drained
compression
OCR ′ )
overconsolidation ratio (= σc′ /σvo
CIUC consolidated isotropic undrained
PI plasticity index
compression
CIUE consolidated isotropic undrained
Greek Symbols extension
γP S plastic strain hardening param- CPTU cone penetration test with pore
eter for deviatoric mechanism pressure measurements (electric
γd dry unit weight piezocone)
γs shear strain CSL critical state line
γw water unit weight DMT Marchetti dilatometer test
γ0.7 value of small strain for which DSS direct simple shear
Gs /G0 reduces to 0.722 FVT field vane test
κ slope of unload-reload consoli- MC Mohr-Coulomb model
dation line in ln scale MCC Modified Cam clay model
Λ plastic volumetric strain ratio NCL normally consolidation line
(= 1 − κ/λ) OED oedometric test
λ slope of primary consolidation PMT pressuremeter test
line in ln scale
SBPT self-boring pressuremeter test
ν Poisson’s coefficient
SCPT static penetration test with seis-
νur unloading/reloading Poisson’s mic sensor
coefficient
SLS serviceability limit state anal-
φ friction angle ysis
φ′c effective friction angle from com- SPT standard penetration test
pression test
TC triaxial compression
φ′e effective friction angle from ex-
UCS unified classification system
tension test
ULS ultimate limit state analysis
φ′cs critical state friction angle
φ′m mobilized friction angle Sign convention: Throughout this report,
φ′tc effective friction angle determined the sign convention is the standard conven-
from triaxial compression test tion of soil mechanics, i.e. compression is
ψ dilatation angle assigned as positive.
ψm mobilized dilatation angle
ρ soil density
σc′ (=q POP ) effective vertical pre-
consolidation stress
σL minimal limit minor stress
Chapter 1

Introduction

The use of the finite element analysis has become widespread and popular in geotech-
nical practice as a mean of controlling and optimizing engineering tasks. However,
the quality of any prediction depends on the adequate model adopted in the study.
In general, a more realistic prediction of ground movements requires using the models
which account for pre-failure behavior of soil. Such behavior, mathematically modeled
with non-linear elasticity, is characterized by a strong variation of soil stiffness which
depends on the magnitude of strain levels occurring during construction stages. Pre-
failure stiffness plays a crucial role in modeling typical geotechnical problems such
as deep excavations supported by retaining walls or tunnel excavations in densely
built-up urban areas.

The present study completes the ZSoilr report elaborated by Truty (2008) on the
Hardening Soil models. The objectives of the present report can be summarized
as follows:

• to highlight the need of using advanced constitutive models in daily engineer-

ing practice;

• to recall the main features of the Hardening Soil model and to facilitate
understanding of its mathematical background;

• to provide to practicing engineers who foresee using the Hardening Soil model
with a helpful guideline on specifying an appropriate testing programme or mak-
ing use of already acquired experimental results in order to estimate model
parameters;

• to show importance of using advanced constitutive models such as Hardening

Soil model in the analysis of tunnel excavation in an urban area.

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Why do we need the HS-SmallStrain model?

It is commonly known that soil behavior is not as simple as its prediction with a
simply-formulated linear constitutive models which are commonly used in numerical
analyses. Complex soil behavior which stems from the nature of the multi-phase
material, exhibits both elastic and plastic non-linearities and, deformations include
irreversible plastic strains. Depending on the history of loading, soil may compact or
dilate, its stiffness may depend on the magnitude of stress levels, soil deformations
are time-dependent, etc. In fact, soil behavior is considered to be truly elastic in
the range of small strains as schematically presented in Figure 1.1. In this strain
range, soil may exhibit a nonlinear stress-strain relationship. However, its stiffness
is almost fully recoverable in unloading conditions. In the aftermath of pre-failure
non-linearities of soil behavior, one may observe a strong variation of stiffness start-
ing from very small shear strains, which cannot be reproduced by models such as
linear-elastic Mohr-Coulomb model (see Figure 1.2).

SERVICEABILITY LIMIT ULTIMATE LIMIT

STATE ANALYSIS STATE ANALYSIS

1 Retaining walls
Shear modulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations
Unloading-
Tunnels
Reloading
PMT
DMT
VERY Initial loading PMT
SMALL CPTU
STRAINS SMALL STRAINS LARGER STRAINS
0
10-6 10 -5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100
Shear strain γS [-]

SCPT Screw plate

Geophysical methods Conventional soil testing

Local gauges

Figure 1.1: Typical representation of stiffness variation in function of the shear strain am-
plitudes; comparison with the ranges for typical geotechnical problems and
different tests (based on Atkinson and Sallfors, 1991, and updated be the au-
thor); SCPT - seismic cone penetration test; CPTU - piezocone penetration
test; DMT - Marchetti’s dilatometer test; PMT - Pressuremeter test.

2 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 (a)

(b)

Figure 1.2: Comparison of different model responses for drained triaxial compression test:
(a) evolution of strain-stress curves; (b) evolution of normalized tangent
stiffness-strain curves.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 3

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Engineers who are looking for reliable predictions of the engineering system re-
sponse should be aware that by applying linear-elastic, perfectly plastic models in
the finite element analysis, soil ground movements may be underestimated, which
may influence the magnitude of efforts which are computed in supporting structural
elements. The models which account for high stiffness at very small strains concen-
trate the development of high amplitudes of strain around the close neighborhood
of the source of deformations similarly to what is observed in reality. This can be
the case of braced excavations (e.g. Figure 1.3) or tunnel excavations (e.g. Figure
5.13) where the varying stiffness increases soil deformations at the unloading bound-
aries, appropriately reducing them away from the unloaded zone (Addenbrooke et al.,
1997). Furthermore, it is often observed in numerical analyses that not differentiat-
ing between loading and unloading stiffness moduli in the Mohr-Coulomb model may
result in an unrealistic lifting of the retaining wall associated with unloading of the
bottom of the excavation (see e.g. Figure 1.3(b)).
The Hardening Soil (HS) model in its two variants HS-Standard and HS-SmallStrain
can be a remedy for modeling of the problems which have been listed above, as they
account for most of soil behavior features (see Section 2). Despite the mathematical
complexity of the HS model, its parameters have explicit physical meaning and can
be determined with conventional soil tests.

1.2 Application fields of constitutive models

The finite element code ZSoilr includes soil models from simple linear elastic, per-
fectly plastic (e.g. Mohr Coulomb), elasto-plastic cap models (e.g. Cap, Modified
Cam Clay) to advanced nonlinear-elasto-plastic cap model HS-SmallStrain (ZACE,
2010). Table 1.1 summarizes each class of models in terms of basic model attributes.
The table includes the main model features, failure criteria, hardening laws, and a
comparison of required and corresponding soil parameters. It can be noticed that dif-
ferent models require a specification of different material properties. However, most
of them are common to all presented models.

The choice of a constitutive model depends on many factors but, in

general, it is related to the type of analysis that the user intends to per-
form (e.g. ultimate limit state analysis (ULS) or serviceability limit state
analysis (SLS)), expected precision of predictions and available knowledge of the
soil. In general, SLS analysis requires an application of advanced constitutive mod-
els which predict the stress-strain relation more accurately than simple linear-elastic,
perfectly plastic models. A perceived general applicability of constitutive models is
schematically proposed in Figure 1.4.

First approximation

Typically, the Mohr-Coulomb model (MC) is used for testing of the FE mesh
discretization and should be considered as a first quick approximation in the prelimi-
nary analyses. In general, MC model can be applied for the estimation of the ultimate
limit state (e.g. stability analyses) or modeling of less influential, massive soil bed

4 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Distance from surface Y [m]
Underestimation
of deflections

-Std

Field data

Horizontal displacements UX [m]

(a)

Lifting of
retaining wall

Surface level
Settlement UY [m]

Wall

Offset from the excavation center X [m]

(b)

Figure 1.3: An example of deep excavation in Berlin Sand (after Truty, 2008). Comparison
of model predictions: (a) wall deflections, (b) surface settlements.

layers. The model is often used in the cases where the number of soil tests and the
parameter database are limited.
The use of MC is not recommended for clays and soft soils because the model overes-
timates soil stiffness of normally- and lightly consolidated soils1 (there is no precon-
solidation pressure threshold beyond which important plastic straining occurs)and
loading and unloading stiffness are not distinguished.

Soft soils

1
It is generally assumed that a normally consolidated soil has OCR = 1, lightly overconsolidated
OCR between 1 and 3, whereas heavily overconsolidated OCR = 6 − 8 (Bowles, 1997).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

In many cases, modeling of soft and near normally-consolidated clay type soils
can be performed with the family of volumetric cap models, i.e. Cap model and
the Modified Cam Clay model, under the assumption that the deformation of the
considered soil layer are dominated by the volumetric plastic strains. The Modi-
fied Cam clay is however not recommended if the soil exhibits a distinct
non-associated (dilatant) behavior. This shortcoming comes from the fact that
the direction of strain increment is associated with that of stress increments and the
dilatancy cannot be modeled. In addition, natural soils, especially soft clays, may
exhibit viscous behavior which can be distinctly observed during secondary consoli-
dation. In the ZSoilr software, the creep effects can be modeled in conjunction with
the Cap model.

All type of soils

Most soil types can be modeled using the family of HS models as their formu-
lation incorporates two hardening mechanisms The shear mechanism deals with the
plastic straining which is dominated by shearing what can be observed in granular
soils and in overconsolidated cohesive soils. Having formulated the volumetric hard-
ening mechanism which is governed by the compressing plastic strains, HS models
are also suitable for modeling soft soils. It was demonstrated on many examples that
the HS models, especially the HS-SmallStrain with high stiffness amplitudes in small
strains, give realistic deformations for retaining walls and ground movements behind
the wall in modeling excavation problems, e.g. Finno and Calvello (2005); Kempfert
(2006); Benz (2007); Truty (2008).
Since HS models are developed in the isotropic framework for both elastic behav-
ior and hardening mechanisms (uniform expansion of the yielding surfaces in all di-
rections), modeling of heavily overconsolidated soils which exhibit strong
anisotropy should be treated carefully.

Selected SANDS SILTS CLAYS

soil models Type of Degree of
implemented analysis Dilatant, Overconsolidation
Non-dilatant,
in Z_Soil Low Compressible High Normal,
compressible Low
Stiff clays Soft clays

Mohr-Coulomb SLS
(Drucker-Prager) ULS
SLS
CAP
ULS
Modified SLS
Cam-Clay ULS
HS-Standard SLS
HS-Small Strain HS-Std
HS-Small Strain ULS

Figure 1.4: Recommendations for the model choice for different soils and two type analyzes:
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Dashed line:
eventually can be used but not recommended in terms of quality of results;
Solid line: can be applied; Green fill: recommended.

6 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

As regards the HS-Standard model, it does not include the formulation which deal
with high amplitudes of stiffness in the small strains, and therefore the stiffness pa-
rameters should be chosen according to dominant strain levels in the modeled task.
The HS-Std model is not able to reproduce hysteretic elastic behavior nor cyclic mo-
bility (gradual softening due to cyclic loading).
Since the HS-SmallStrain model reproduces the hysteretic elastic behav-
ior, it can be applied to a certain extent for cycling loading as long as
the cyclic mobility is not crucial for a given application and as long as
dynamically-induced liquefaction effects are not considered.

General limitations

Note that none of the models mentioned above is able to reproduce debonding
(destructuration) effects which can be observed as softening in the sensitive soils. It
should also be noted that the cap hardening parameter (preconsolidation pressure)
is not coupled with the degree of saturation, and therefore modeling of collapsible
behavior of partially saturated soils is not possible with the implemented models.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 7

 Table 1.1: Comparison of selected soil models implemented in ZSoilr .

Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Model Hardening Soil Cap Mohr-Coulomb
Type of model nonlinear elasto-plastic, shear and compres- elasto-plastic, compression strain hardening elastic-perfectly plastic
sion strain hardening
Basic features • hyperbolic stress-strain relation • non-linear stress-strain relation for normally • linear stress-strain relation
and lightly overconsolidated material
• stress dependent stiffness according to power • constant stiffness (possibility of introducing • constant stiffness (possibility of introducing
law linear stress dependent stiffness through su- linear stress dependent stiffness through su-
perelements) perelements)
• non-linear dilatancy according to Rowe’s law • linear soil dilatancy • linear soil dilatancy (+ cut-off for excessive
(+ cut-off for excessive plastic dilatancy) plastic dilatancy)
• distinction between primary loading and un- • distinction between primary loading and un-
loading loading
• evolution of preconsolidation pressure • evolution of preconsolidation pressure
• plastic straining in primary compression • plastic straining in primary compression
• plastic straining in primary deviatoric load-
ing
• small strain stiffness (HS-SmallStrain only)
• hysteretic, nonlinear elastic stress-strain re-
lationship (small strains only)
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb (hexagon in π-plane) Drucker-Prager (circular in π-plane) Mohr-Coulomb (hexagon in π-plane)
Cap yield surface ellipsoidal, defined by van Eekelen criterion in ellipsoidal, circular in π-plane none
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

π-plane
Hardening deviatoric-shear and isotropic-compaction isotropic-compaction none
Flow rule non-associated for shear hardening non-associated for shear hardening non-associated
associated for isotropic hardening associated for isotropic hardening
Corresponding soil
parameters
Small strain stiffness E0 and γ0.7 (HS-SmallStrain only) none none
Elastic characteristics υur and Eur υ and E υ and E
E50 and m
Failure criterion φ and c φ and c φ and c
Dilatancy ψ and emax ψ ψ and emax
ref
Cap surface parame- Eoed (can be determined from λ) λ none
ters
OCR and K0NC OCR

8
Chapter 2

Short introduction to the HS

models

The Hardening Soil model (HS-Standard) was designed by Schanz (1998); Schanz et al.
(1999) in order to reproduce basic macroscopic phenomena exhibited by soils such as:
• densification, i.e. a decrease of voids volume in soil due to plastic deforma-
tions, e.g. Figure 2.7;

• stress dependent stiffness, i.e. observed phenomena of increasing stiffness

moduli with increasing confining stress (mean stress), e.g. Figure. 2.4;

• soil stress history, i.e. accounting for preconsolidation effects;

• plastic yielding, i.e. development of irreversible strains with reaching a yield

criterion, e.g. Figure 2.2;

• dilatation, i.e. an occurrence of negative volumetric strains during shearing,

e.g. Figure 2.7.
Contrary to other models such us the Cap model or the Modified Cam Clay (let alone
the Mohr-Coulmb model), the magnitude of soil deformations can be modeled more
accurately by incorporating three input stiffness parameters corresponding to the tri-
axial loading stiffness (E50 ), the triaxial unloading-reloading stiffness (Eur ), and the
oedometer loading modulus (Eoed ).

An enhanced version of the HS-Standard, the Hardening Soil Small model (HS-
SmallStrain) was formulated by Benz (2007) in order to handle a commonly observed
phenomena of:
• strong stiffness variation with increasing shear strain amplitudes in the do-
main of small strains (Figure 1.1);

• hysteretic, nonlinear elastic stress-strain relationship which is applicable in the

range of small strains (Figure 2.13).
These features mean that the HS-SmallStrain is able to produce more accurate and
reliable approximation of displacements which can be useful for dynamic applications

9
CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Hardening Soil
Framework

Hardening Soil Hardening Soil

SmallStrain Standard

Very small Engineering

strains strains
10-7 10-4 100 γs
Figure 2.1: Schematic presentation of the family of HS models.

or in modeling unloading-conditioned problems, e.g. deep excavations with retaining

walls.
Although both models can be considered as advanced soil models which are able to
faithfully approximate complex soil behavior, they include some limitations related
to specific behavior observed for certain soils. The models are not able to reproduce
softening effects associated with soil dilatancy and soil destructuration (debonding of
cemented particles) which can be observed, for instance, in sensitive soils. As opposed
to the HS-SmallStrain model, the HS-Standard does not account for large ampli-
tudes of soil stiffness related to transition from very small strain to engineering strain
levels (ε ≈ 10−3 − 10−2 ). Therefore, the user should adapt the stiffness characteristics
to the strain levels which are expected to take place in conditions of the analyzed
problem. Moreover, the HS-Standard model is not capable to reproduce hysteretic
soil behavior observed during cycling loading.
As an enhanced version of the HS-Standard model, HS-SmallStrain accounts for
small strain stiffness and therefore, it can be used to some extent to model hysteretic
soil behavior under cyclic loading conditions with the exception of gradual softening
which is experimentally observed with an increasing number of loading cycles.

10 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

2.1 Hardening Soil-Standard model
2.1.1 Shear mechanism
The shear mechanism is introduced in order to handle the soil hardening which is
induced by the plastic shear strains. Domination of plastic shear strains can be
typically observed for granular materials such as sands, and heavily consolidated
cohesive soils.

Shear yield mechanism. The hardening yield function for shear mechanism f1 , is
described using the concept of hyperbolic approximation of the relation between the
vertical strain ε1 and deviatoric stress q for a standard triaxial drained compression
test (Figure 2.2). The yield condition is thus expressed as follows:

asymptotic deviatoric stress for

hyperbolic Duncan -Chang approximation

qa
Deviatoric stress q=σ1 -σ3

qf
E0 E50
1 Mohr-Coulomb
1 failure limit

0.5qf hyperbolic function

E ur
1

Shear strain ε1
Figure 2.2: Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship and the definition of different moduli in a
standard triaxial drained test.

qa q q
f1 = −2 − γP S for q < qf (2.1)
E50 qa − q Eur

where γ P S is the plastic strain hardening parameter, qa is the asymptotic deviatoric

stress which is defined by the ultimate deviatoric stress qf and the failure ratio 1 Rf
is defines as:
qf
qa = (2.2)
Rf
1
A suitable value of the failure ratio is set by default Rf = 0.9. For most soils, the value of Rf
falls between 0.75 and 1. See also Section 3.3.3.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 11

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

It means that for the larger values of the hardening parameter γ PS , the hyperbolic
relation is restrained by the ultimate deviatoric stress qf described by the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion (Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3):
2 sin(φ)
qf = (σ3 + c cotφ) (2.3)
1 − sin(φ)
which is defined by the friction angle φ and cohesion c.
The secant modulus E50 which corresponds to 50% of the value of qf is defined to
be minor stress dependent using the frequently adopted power law:
 ∗ m
ref σ3 + c cotφ
E50 = E50 (2.4)
σ ref + c cotφ
where σ3∗ = max (σ3 , σL ), i.e. stiffness degrades with decreasing σ3 up to the limit
minor stress σL which can by assumed be default σL = 10kPa. Note that E50 largely
controls the magnitude of the plastic strains which are related to the shear yield
mechanism. In natural soil, the exponent m varies between 0.3 and 1.0. Janbu
(1963) reported values of 0.5 for Norwegian sands and silts, whereas Kempfert (2006)
provided values between 0.38 and 0.84 for soft lacustrine clays (see also Section 3.3.6).
The user may set the material stiffness independent of the stress level (i.e.
constant stiffness like in the standard Mohr-Coulomb model) by setting m = 0.
By analogy with E50 , the modulus Eur which defines the slope of the unloading-
reloading curve is also defined as minor stress dependent:
 ∗ m
ref σ3 + c cotφ
Eur = Eur (2.5)
σ ref + c cotφ
An example of stress dependency is graphically presented in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.3: Cap surface of the volumetric hardening mechanism, yield loci for the different
values of the hardening parameter γ PS and the Mohr-Coulomb criterion limiting
the larger values of γ PS .

12 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 (a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2.4: An example of stress dependency at initial state defined in Eq. (2.5) for different
values of parameter (a) m, (b) φ, and (c) c.

Shear hardening law. The shear hardening yield function f1 can be decomposed
into part which is a function of stress - two first components, whereas the last com-
ponent is a function of plastic strains γ P S = εp1 − εp2 − εp3 . Assuming that in the
contractancy domain, the volumetric plastic strain εpv = εp1 + εp2 + εp3 is observed to be

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 13

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

very small εpv ≈ 0, it can thus be written:

γP S ∼ p
= 2ε1 (2.6)

Hence, for the primary loading in drained triaxial conditions, ε1 is evaluated using the
yield condition f1 (Eq.(2.1)) and decomposition of the elastic and the plastic strains:
 
q 1 qa q 2q qa q
ε1 = εe1 + εp1 = + − = (2.7)
Eur 2 E50 qa − q Eur 2E50 qa − q

For the drained triaxial conditions and the confining stress remaining constant (i.e.
σ2 = σ3 = const.), the modulus Eur remains constant and the elastic strains can be
computed from:
q q
εe1 = and εe2 = εe3 = νur (2.8)
Eur Eur
where νur denotes unloading/reloading Poisson’s ratio.

The hyperbolic relation between the axial strain and the deviatoric stress pre-
sented in Equation 2.7 can be rearranged into:
ε1
q= (2.9)
1 ε 1 Rf
+
2E50 qf

which can be also rewritten in the following form:

ε1
q= (2.10)
a + bε1

These equations are graphically presented in Figure 2.5.

Note that for an anisotropically consolidated clay, the initial state deviatoric stress
(after consolidation but before compression) which corresponds to the state of zero
strains is:
1 − K0
q0 = σ3 (2.11)
K0
so the the deviatoric stress after consolidation becomes:

qm = q − q0 (2.12)

and Eq.(2.9) can be rewritten as:

ε1
qm = (2.13)
1 ε 1 Rf
+
2E50 qm,f

with qm,f denoting qm at failure.

14 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 (a) (b)

Figure 2.5: Graphical representation of Eq.(2.9) and identification of failure ratio Rf (a)
hyperbolic curve plotted with laboratory data points (b) typical triaxial drained
compression results presented in the hyperbolic form (laboratory data from
Kempfert, 2006).

Plastic flow rule and dilatancy. The plastic flow rule is derived from the plastic
potential:
σ1 − σ3 σ1 + σ3
g1 = + sin ψm (2.14)
2 2
and it takes the linear form:
ε̇pv = γ˙p sin ψm (2.15)
where the mobilized dilatancy angle ψm is calculated in the HS-Standard model ac-
cording to:
sin ψm = 0 if φm < φcs (cut-off in contractancy domain) (2.16a)
sin φm − sin φcs
sin ψm = if φm ≥ φcs (Rowe’s dilatancy) (2.16b)
1 − sin φm sin φcs
where the mobilized friction angle2 , φm , is computed from:
σ1 − σ3
sin φcs = (2.17)
σ1 + σ3 − 2c cotφ
and the critical state friction angle which is a material property and is independent
of the stress conditions, is defined by the friction angle φ and the ultimate dilatancy
angle ψ as:
sin φ − sin ψ
sin φcs = (2.18)
1 − sin φ sin ψ
It means that dilatancy may occur for the larger values of the mobilized friction angle
φm > φcs , whereas for smaller stress ratios (φm < φcs ), the material contracts and the
mobilized dilatancy angle is controlled by the cut-off criterion as presented in Figure
2.6. The ultimate dilatancy angle ψ defines the dilatancy parameter d which defines
2
The mobilized friction angle φm describes the stress ratio τ /σ (at the critical state φm = φcs ).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 15

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Figure 2.6: Rowe’s dilatancy law and the cut-off criterion in the contractant domain for the
HS-Standard model.

the maximal slope of the ε1 − εv curve (Figure 2.7):

dεv ∼ dεpv 2 sin ψ

d=− = − p == (2.19)
dε1 dε3 1 − sin ψ

In order to avoid an extensive dilatancy which is produced by Rowe’s law for the
larger shear strains at the critical state, an additional cut-off criterion is introduced
to respect the maximal defined void ratio emax (Figure 2.7):

if e ≥ emax sin ψm = 0 (cut-off) (2.20)

otherwise Eq.(2.16b) is used to calculate sin ψm .

1
e max reached
d dilatancy cut -off
criterion activated
Volumetric strain εv

1 + emax
if εv − εv0 = − ln
1 + e0

Shear strain ε1

Figure 2.7: Strain curve for a standard triaxial drained compression test with the dilatancy
cut-off.

16 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

2.1.2 Volumetric mechanism
The volumetric plastic mechanism is introduced to account for a threshold point
beyond (preconsolidation pressure) which important plastic straining occur charac-
terizing a normally-consolidated state of soil. Since the shear mechanism generates
no volumetric plastic strain in the contractant domain, the model without volumetric
mechanism could significantly overestimate soil stiffness in virgin compression con-
ditions particularly for normally- and lightly overconsolidated cohesive soils. Such a
problem can be observed when using, for instance, the Mohr-Coulomb model.
The second yield mechanism is proposed in the form of the cap surface similarly
to other hardening models available in ZSoilr , e.g. Modified Cam Clay or Cap. The
yield function which is graphically presented in Figure 2.8 and 2.3, is thus defined as:

q2
f2 = + p′2 + p2c (2.21)
M 2 r2 (θ)

where r(θ) obeys van Eekelen’s formula in order to assure a smooth and convex yield
surface (cf. also the formulation of the Modified Cam Clay model); M is the model
parameter which defines the shape of the cap surface and is related to K0NC , and pc
denotes the preconsolidation pressure which defines an intersection of the cap surface
with the hydrostatic axis p′ . Evolution of the hardening parameter pc is described by
the hardening law:  m
pc + c cot φ
dpc = −H (2.22)
σref + c cot φ
where H is the parameter which controls the rate of volumetric plastic strains and
is related to the tangent oedometric modulus Eoed at given reference oedometric
(vertical) stress level (see Figure 3.7(b)).
The rate of the volumetric plastic strain is then computed:
 m
p pc + c cot φ
dεv = dλ2 2H p′ (2.23)
σref + c cot φ
Note that the parameters M and H can be easily calculated with the aid of the
internal ZSoilr calculator by providing the values of K0NC and Eoed .
The plastic potential in the volumetric mechanism is derived from the yield criterion
neglecting r(θ) term (Truty, 2008).

2.1.3 Additional strength criterion

Sometimes, it is necessary to control excessive tensile stresses which are built up
during the analysis, particularly when using materials with high values of cohesion.
The tensile strength condition is thus described with the Rankine’s criterion:

f 3 = σ3 + f t = 0 (2.24)

where ft is the user-defined tensile strength (default value ft = 0) and σ3 denotes

the minimal principal stress.
The plastic potential is associated with the cut-off condition.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 17

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Figure 2.8: 3D representation of strength anisotropy in the HS model with the Mohr-
Coulomb failure surface and the cap surface which obeys van Eekelen’s formula.

2.1.4 Initial state variables

Setting initial stress state is necessary for calculating the initial values of hardening
parameters γ PS and pc0 . This calculation can be performed by a numerical procedure
at the beginning of FE analysis based on the initial effective stress conditions σ0′ =
σ0 (σx0
′
, σy0
′
, σz0
′
) and its distance from the maximal stress point σ ’SR which is supposed
to be experienced by the soil (see Figure 2.10). In order to calculate this distance,
the user is asked to specify the following variables:

1. stress history variable which can be set in two ways:

• either the overconsolidation ratio OCR = σvc /σv0 ′

where σvc is the
vertical preconsolidation stress (see Figure 2.9)
• or the maximal preoverburden pressure q POP = σvc − σv0
′

2. the coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0SR which corresponds to the maximal
stress point σ ’SR , and its value can be assumed as:

• K0SR = K0NC in most study cases or for simulating the K0 -consolidated

compression or extension triaxial tests.
• K0SR = 1 when simulating the isotropically consolidated compression or
extension triaxial tests.

Note that σ0′ in ZSoilr is computed with the Initial State driver based on gravity-
induced vertical stress σy0′
and the user-specified K0 (Initial Ko State menu). The
initial K0 state can be also set in the FE pre-processor by applying σx0
′
, σy0
′
,σz0
′
with
Initial stress conditions.

18 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 2.9: Defining the initial preconsolidation setup with respect to the in situ vertical
effective stress.

q Computed with Mohr-Coulomb

specified OCR or qPOP failure limite f1*
e
NC - l in
Ko
σ’SR
Shear
mechanism f1

σ’0 Cap surface f2

Computed with soil weight γ pc0 p'

and user-provided initial state Ko
or
Set directly by the user through
initial stress conditions at the beginning of analysis

Figure 2.10: Initial stress state setup. Note that for normally-consolidated soil σSR′ coin-
′
cides with σ0 , and therefore the Initial K0 state which is required to be set
by the user is equal to K0NC specified in the Non-linear material menu. For
overconsolidated soil, the initial state coefficient K0 is typically larger than
K0NC (cf. Section 3.3.8).

At the beginning of the FE analysis, ZSoilr sets the stress reversal point (SR)
with:
σy’SR = σy · OCR or σy’SR = σy0
′
+ q POP (2.25a)
and

σx’SR = σy’SR K0SR and σz’SR = σy’SR K0SR (2.25b)

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 19

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Note that for sands the notion of preconsolidation pressure is not meaningful as it is
observed in cohesive soils and the overconsolidation ratio can be assumed OCR = 1
and the effect of density will be embedded in parameters H and M .

At the beginning of the FE analysis, ZSoilr uses σ ’SR stress state to compute initial
values of the hardening parameter γ0PS from the condition f1 = 0, and pc0 from f2 = 0.

20 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

2.2 Hardening Soil-SmallStrain model
The basic Hardening Soil-Standard model which is implemented in ZSoilr can be
extended with the Hardening Soil-SmallStrain model which allows accounting for S-
shaped stiffness reduction which is presented in Figure 1.1. In such a case the stress
paths which return to the elastic domain during unloading can be modeled as a non-
linear stress-strain relationship3 .

Since HS-SmallStrain is implemented as an extension of HS-Std model, the list

of model parameters remains the same as for HS-Std (cf. Table 2.1) and it is only
extended with two parameters which define small strain behavior, i.e. the maximal
shear modulus G0 and a characteristic shear strain level γ0.7 at which the secant
shear modulus Gs reduces to 70% of the initial shear modulus G0 .

2.2.1 Non-linear elasticity for small strains

In order to describe the nonlinear S-shaped stiffness reduction, the commonly known
in soil dynamics, hyperbolic Hardin-Drnevich relation is adopted. This relation relates
the current secant shear modulus Gs with an equivalent monotonic shear strain level
γhist , and it takes the following forms:
Gs 1
for primary loading: = γhist
G0 1+a (2.26a)
γ0.7
Gs 1
for unloading/reloading: = γhist
G0 1+a (2.26b)
2γ0.7
with a = 0.385 modifying the original Hardin-Drnevich formula. Note that for
γhist = γ0.7 , the ratio Gs /G0 is equal to 0.722 which means 72.2% reduction in the
case of more accurate considerations (see Figure 2.11).
The equivalent monotonic shear strain is computed from:
3
γhist = εq (2.27)
2
with εq denoting the second deviatoric strain invariant, and in triaxial test conditions
γhist can be expressed as:
γhist = ε1 − ε3 (2.28)
The corresponding tangent shear modulus G can be expressed as:
 2
G γ0.7
= (2.29)
G0 γ0.7 + aγhist
The modified Hardin-Drnevich formula is only valid if γhist ≤ γc , with γc being
the cut-off shear strain at which:
Eur
G = Gur where Gur = (2.30)
1 + νur
3
Note that during unloading/reloading, Hardening Soil Standard model reproduces linear elas-
ticity only.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 21

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Figure 2.11: Reduction of the secant shear modulus Gs using Eq.(2.26a) and interpretation
of the parameter γ0.7 .

Figure 2.12: Reduction of the tangent shear modulus G in the HS-SmallStrain model based
on Hardin-Drnevich formula (Eq.(2.29)).

The stiffness cut-off allows applying the Hardin-Drnevich formula in the elastic do-
main (see Figure 2.12), whereas further stiffness reduction is governed by the hard-
ening mechanism. The cut-off shear strain can be computed from:
r !
γ0.7 G0
γc = −1 (2.31)
a Gur

In Eq. (2.26b), the term 2γ0.7 replaces γ0.7 appearing in Eq.(2.26a) for virgin
loading in order to fulfill Masing’s rule which describes the hysteretic behavior in

22 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Figure 2.13: Hysteretic soil behavior using Masing’s rule.

loading/unloading conditions (see Figure). The rule assumes that (i ) initial tangent
shear modulus in unloading is equal to the initial tangent shear modulus during ini-
tial loading, and (ii ) size of the unloading and reloading curves is twice of the initial
loading curve.

Further details on implementation of Hardin-Drnevich relationship is provided in

Truty (2008).

2.2.2 Modifications of the plastic part

HS-SmallStrain model also requires some modifications in the plastic part of the HS-
Standard code. These modifications concern the plastic flow rule and dilatancy in
the domain of contractancy.

Introducing the cut-off for the contractancy domain (as it is in the HS-Standard
model, cf. Eq.(2.16a)) could yield too small volumetric strains. Therefore, allowing a
certain amount of contractancy for the mobilized friction angle φm before it reaches
the critical state (φm < φcs ). Introducing the scaling parameter D into Eq.(2.16b)
match Rowe’s dilatancy in the contractancy domain to the formula proposed by
Li and Dafalias (2000), see Figure 2.14. Rowe’s dilatancy law for HS-SmallStrain
model is thus formulated as:
sin φm − sin φcs
sin ψm = D (2.32a)
1 − sin φm sin φcs
where:
D = 0.25 if sin ψm < sin φcs (2.32b)
D = 1.00 if sin ψm ≥ sin φcs (2.32c)
Another modification concerns the hardening laws for parameters γ PS and pc .
The modification is executed by introducing hi function which is required for an
appropriate approximation of γ − G curve in the case when a stress path starts

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 23

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Figure 2.14: Scaled Rowe’s dilatancy vs the formula proposed by Li and Dafalias (2000).

directly from one or two yield surfaces. Evolution of the hardening parameters is
defined as follows:
 
PS ∂g1 ∂g1 ∂g2
dγ = dλ1 hi − − = dλ1 hi for shear mechanism (2.33)
∂σ1 ∂σ1 ∂σ3

and
 2
pc + c cot φ
dpc = dλ2 2Hhi p for volumetric mechanism (2.34)
σref + c cot φ

with the function hi being defined as:

Eur
1+
h i = Gm 2E50 (2.35)

where the stiffness multiplier Gm is calculated as:

Gmin
Gm = (2.36)
Gur
with the minimum stiffness in loading history:
G0
Gmin = (2.37)
γ max
1 + a hist
γ0.7
By substituting Eq.(2.37) into Eq.(2.36), the following formula can be obtained:

G0 /Gur E0ref /Eurref

Gm = = (2.38)
γ max γ max
1 + a hist 1 + a hist
γ0.7 γ0.7

24 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Table 2.1: List of parameters defining the HS-Standard ans HS-SmallStrain models.

Parameter Unit HS-Std. HS-SmallStrain Function

E0ref [kPa] – ✓ defines the initial slope of ε1 − q curve
at the reference minor principal stress
σ3ref
γ0.7 [–] – ✓ specifies a characteristic shear strain
level γs at which Gs /G0 = 0.722
ref
Eur [kPa] ✓ ✓ defines unloading/reloading stiffness at
engineering strains (ε ≈ 10−3 − 10−2 )
at the reference minor principal stress
σ3ref
ref
E50 [kPa] ✓ ✓ defines the secant stiffness at 50% of the
ultimate deviatoric stress qf at the ref-
erence minor principal stress σ3ref
σ ref [kPa] ✓ ✓ used to evaluated material stiffness for
different minor principal stress σ3
m [–] ✓ ✓ defines stress dependent stiffness
through Eq.(2.5)
νur [–] ✓ ✓ defines the unloading-reloading stiffness
Rf [–] ✓ ✓ used to compute the hardening param-
eter γ PS with the use of the asymptotic
deviatoric stress qa defining the hyper-
bolic function f2 (default Rf = 0.9)
c′ [kPa] ✓ ✓ defines the intercept of the Mohr-
Coulomb line at null stress condition
φ′ [o ] ✓ ✓ defines the slope of the Mohr-Coulomb
yield criterion
ψ [o ] ✓ ✓ defines the gradient of the volume
change curve ε1 − εv
emax [–] ✓ ✓ defines the cut-off limit corresponding
to the maximal voids ratio observed in
material for the ultimate state
ft [kPa] ✓ ✓ defines the maximal tensile strength for
material
D [–] ✓ ✓ controls Rowe’s dilatancy law in the
contractancy domain (default D = 0 for
HS-Std, D = 0.25 for HS-SmallStrain)
M [–] ✓ ✓ defines the shape of the elliptical cap
yield surface
H [kPa] ✓ ✓ defines the rate of the plastic volumet-
ric strain and the preconsolidation pres-
sure
OCR or q POP [–] or [kPa] ✓ ✓ sets up the initial position of stress with
respect to the cap surface and is used to
compute the hardening parameter γ PS

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 25

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

26 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

2.3 Model parameters
Although the HS model is mathematically complex, its parameters have physical
meaning and they can be derived from the standard laboratory test, i.e. the triaxial
compression and oedometer tests. A complete list of parameters that the user needs
to specify before running application is provided in Table 2.1. The details related to
the identification of specific parameters are provided in the subsequent chapter.

The following abbreviations apply to Table 2.2:

• CICD - triaxial test: consolidated isotropically compression drained

• CICU - triaxial test: consolidated isotropically compression undrained

• OED - oedometer test

• CPT - cone penetration test

• CPTU - piezocone cone penetration test

• DMT - Marchetti’s dilatometer test

• SCPTU - piezocone cone penetration test with seismic sensor

• SPT - standard penetration test

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 27

CHAPTER 2. SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE HS MODELS

Table 2.2: List of parameters which should be provided by the user (advanced parameters
in gray).

Model Direct estimation Alternative

parameter Unit test test or solution
Small stiffness (HS-SmallStrain only)
E0ref [kPa] SCPT or other geophysical unloading-reloading
method branch of CICD; geotech-
nical evidence; sands:
CPT
γ0.7 [–] CICD with local gauges geotechnical evidence
Elastic constants
ref
E50 (σ ref ) [kPa] min. 1 CICD at σ3ref sands: CPT
ref
Eur (σ ref ) [kPa] min. 1 CICD at σ3ref
geotechnical evidence
σ ref [kPa] 1 CICD
νur [–] min. 1 CICD with geotechnical evidence
unloading-reloding curve
m [–] 3 CICD at different σ3 geotechnical evidence
Shear mechanism
c [kPa] 3 CICD or CICU at differ-
ent σ3
φ [o ] 3 CICD or CICU at differ- geotechnical evidence;
ent σ3 sand: CPT, DMT, PMT,
SPT
ψ [o ] min. 1 CICD geotechnical evidence
Rf [–] min. 1 CICD default Rf = 0.9, geotech-
nical evidence
emax [–] min. 1 CICD on a dense or geotechnical evidence
preconsolidated soil speci-
men
ft [kPa] isotropic extension default ft = 0
D [–] min. 1 CICD default D=0 for HS-
Standard and D=0.25
HS-SmallStrain
Volumetric (cap) mechanism
ref ref
Eoed (σoed ) [kPa] min.1 OED clays: CPT
ref
σoed [kPa] idem idem
Initial state variables (soil history)
OCR or q POP [–/kPa] min. 1 OED clay: CPT, CPTU, DMT
K0SR [–] K0 -consolidation ”Jaky’s formula”

28 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Chapter 3

Parameter identification

As most of the constitutive models for soils, the Hardening-Soil Standard model
has been designed based on behavior of soil specimen which is observed during lab-
oratory tests with the use of standard devices such as triaxial cell and oedometer.
Therefore, still responding to certain test requirements such as drained compression,
model parameters can be derived directly from the experimental curves. Direct pa-
rameter identification is presented in Section 3.1. Sometimes, the test requirements
cannot be fulfilled (e.g. performing drained compression test on low permeable clay
specimen may prove to be too time consuming). Then, the model can still be cal-
ibrated using, for instance, the measurements derived from the undrained triaxial
compression test or the model parameters can be estimated based on results ob-
tained through in situ tests or approximated using parameter correlations observed
in geotechnical practice. Such an indirect parameter determination is presented in
Section 3.2 for sand type materials, and in Section 3.3 for cohesive soils.
Additional parameter which describes the small stain stiffness in the Hardening-
Soil Small model can be easily determined using the measurements derived from
one of the in situ probes equipped with a seismic sensor which allows measuring
the velocity of shear waves. Owing to time and economical constraints of laboratory
testing, and the effect of specimen disturbances during soil sampling, the use of labo-
ratory devices to determine G0 seems less reasonable. Nevertheless, an approximate
value of G0 can be derived from unloading-reloading branch derived from the triaxial
compression test.

The following sections provide a comprehensive guideline on parameter identifica-

tion which may help the user to effectively apply the advanced constitutive models.
In this context, the guideline may be helpful in specifying an appropriate testing pro-
gramme or making use of already acquired experimental results which need a specific
treatment in order to estimate model parameters.

29
CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.1 Experimental testing requirements for direct

parameter identification
Direct parameter identification for the Hardening-Soil Standard model re-
quires the use of two commonly used laboratory devices:

• triaxial cell with consolidated isotropically drained compression test (CICD);

three programmed compression tests at different confining pressures σ3 should
provide:

– stress paths in q−p′ plane which are used to determine strength parameters
φ (= φ′cs ) and c (= c′ ), according to Figure 3.1 or Mohr’s circles;
Note that φ and c can be also derived from the undrained compression test1
(CU) considering that the failure stress envelopes derived from drained and
undrained tests are essentially similar, see an example in Figure 3.2;
– relationships q − ε1 which is used to determine stiffness parameters Eur 2,3
and E50 , as shown in Figure 3.4; stiffness stress dependency parameter m
according to Figure 3.5; and the failure ratio Rf according to Figure 3.3;

– relationships εv − ε1 which is used to determine the dilatancy angle ψ

and the maximal void ratio emax , as shown in Figure 3.6.

• oedometer; the test should provide pre- and post-yield evolution of the void
ratio (or specimen height) with respect to changes of vertical effective stress,
e − σv′ , which is used to estimate:

– the preconsolidation pressure σc′ for cohesive deposits, which is then used
to determine the overconsolidation ratio OCR defined as:
σc′
OCR = (3.1)
σv0
′

ref
– the tangent oedometric stiffness Eoed for corresponding σoed which have
4
to be captured from the primary loading curve (postyield branch), see
Figure 3.7.

The preconsolidation pressure σc′ understood as a threshold point beyond which the
important plastic straining occur, is difficult to establish unambiguously. Among a
number of methods proposed in literature for determining σc′ , the following ones are
commonly used owing to their simplicity:
1
In the case of the undrained test, the maximum principal stress ratio (σ1′ /σ3′ )max and the max-
imum deviatoric stress (σ1 − σ3 )max can be considered as the failure criteria.
2
Note that Eur corresponds to Young’s modulus E which is specified by the user in Mohr-Coulomb
or Cap model.
3
Note that E0 > Eur > E50 or G0 > Gur > G50 .
4
This condition implies that at given oedometric pressure, both shear and volumetric mechanisms
are active following K0NC consolidation line, as shown in Figure 3.7(a).

30 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 • empirical, graphical Casagrande’s method (Casagrande, 1936), see Figure 3.9(a),
• simple graphical method proposed by Pacheco-Silva (1970), see Figure 3.9(b),
• and as a last resort, σc′ can be taken as the vertical stress which corresponds
to the intersection point of the reloading and the virgin compression lines, cf.
Figure 3.9(a).
It should be noticed that the in situ preconsolidation pressure may vary from that
derived from laboratory tests considering specimen disturbances due to sampling,
transporting or specimen trimming, etc. Leroueil et al. (1983a) demonstrated that
the in situ preconsolidation pressure is observed as:
′ ′
σc,in situ = α · σc,lab (3.2)
where α = 1.1 for normally consolidated clays (OCR < 1.2), α = 1.0 for lightly
consolidated clays (1.2 < OCR < 2.5), and α = 0.9 for overconsolidated clays
(2.5 < OCR < 4.5).

ref
Eoed and σoed are the input variables which are used to calculate parameters M and
H with the aid of the internal ZSoilr calculator, see material interface for nonlinear
characteristics of the HS model.
Clearly, Eoed can also be determined from:
1 + eref
 
Eoed = σ∗ (3.3)
Cc
where Cc is the compression index (see Figure 3.8), eref denotes the void ratio corre-
ref
sponding to σoed , and:
∆σ ′
σ∗ =  ref  (3.4)
σoed + ∆σ ′
log10 ref
σoed
Since we look for the tangent modulus Eoed , ∆σ ′ tends to 0, and σ ∗ is equal to
2.303σoed . In this case, Eoed can be derived from:
2.3(1 + eref ) ref
Eoed = σoed (3.5)
Cc
ref
Note that σoed and eref are relevant to material which undergoes plastic straining, i.e.
the stress point lies on the primary loading curve.
In the case of incompleteness of experimental results, the input model parameters
can be estimated using approximative parameter correlations which are provided in
Section 3.2 and 3.3.

Sometimes, the compression index Cc can be also expressed through the isotropic
compression index λ which is the slope of the virgin compression line plotted in ln p′ −e
axes. Since log10 x = 0.43 ln x, one can derive:
Cc = 2.3λ (3.6)
Some correlations for estimating Cc are provided in Appendix B.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 31

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Direct parameter identification for the Hardening-Soil Small model re-

quires the measurements derived from geophysical tests or one of the advanced in
situ probes equipped with a seismic sensor which allows measuring the shear wave
velocity Vs in the subsoil. Two commonly known devices, i.e. the seismic piezocone
(SCPT or SCPTU) or seismic Marchetti’s dilatometer (SDMT), can be used to
determine small strain stiffness G0 (or Gmax ) from the following expression:

G0 = ρVs (3.7)

where ρ is a density of soil.

Note that in natural conditions G0 is stress dependent and, in the HS-SmallStrain
model, this parameter is defined by analogy to other stiffness moduli with:
 ∗ m
ref σ3 + c cotφ
G0 = G0 (3.8)
σ ref + c cotφ

Having determined G0 , the parameter E0 which is defined by the user in the

material dialog, can be calculated from:

E0 = 2(1 + νur )G0 (3.9)

assuming that Poisson’s coefficient νur is a constant in the model.

If the seismic test are not provided for in the project framework, the small stiffness
of the soil can be estimated based on relationship presented in Figure 3.11.

Soil stiffness at very small strains can also be approximated based on the initial
part of the ε1 − q curve or the unloading-reloading branch derived from the triaxial
compression test, as demonstrated on Figure 3.4. However, an exact determination of
the initial soil stiffness Ei may prove to be difficult, especially in soft soils. Therefore,
one should realize that the initial slope Ei derived from triaxial test can be more than
once lower than soil stiffness E0 observed in natural conditions.

Identification of the parameter γ0.7 at which the secant shear modulus Gref s is
ref
reduced to 0.722G0 , requires the use of advanced laboratory devices in order to
determine the S-shape curve at very small strain levels. In practice, it may prove to
be time-consuming and expensive and therefore, it is suggested to estimate γ0.7 with
the use of experimentally observed data considering that the parameter depends on
the mean effective stress p′ in granular soils (see Figure 3.15), whereas in cohesive
materials on the plasticity index IP (PI) (see Figure 3.25). Having assumed all other
model parameters, it is also recommended to run a one-element simulation of the
triaxial compression test in order to examine the shape of log(ε1 ) − G (or E) curve
derived from the computed ε1 − q results.

32 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 6 sinφ
Residual Mohr-Coulomb M*=

Deviatoric stress q
envelope 3-sinφ
1
Critical state
point (q f)

Typical stress paths

derived from triaxial
6c cosφ drained compression tests
c*=
3-sinφ
1 2 3
σ3 σ3 σ3 Mean stress p’

 
3M ∗ 3 − sin φ
then φ = arcsin c = c∗ (3.10)
6 + M∗ 6 cos φ

Figure 3.1: Determination of the residual Mohr-Coulomb envelope and strength parameters
φ and c from typical stress paths derived from the triaxial drained compression
tests driven at three different confining pressures σ3 .

Figure 3.2: Compatibility of strength envelopes derived from drained and undrained triaxial
tests (from Kempfert, 2006).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 33

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Figure 3.3: Determination of the slope b for identification of failure ratio Rf from typical
triaxial drained compression results ε1 − q.

Figure 3.4: Determination of E moduli (input model parameters) from a typical curve
derived from the triaxial drained compression tests.

34 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Deviatoric
stress q
σ 3(1) = 600kPa
(1)
E 50 (σ 3 )
1

(1) E 50 (σ3 (2) ) σ 3(2) = 300kPa

q50 (σ 3 )
1

q 50(σ 3(2) ) (3) σ3(3) = 100kPa = σ 3 ref

E 50 (σ 3 )
1
q 50(σ 3(3) )

0
Shear strain ε1

ln E 50

m
Lineat trendline
1 y = ax + b

0 i
σ3 ( ) +c cotφ
ln ref
σ3 +c cotφ

Identification algorithm:
(i) (i)
1. Find three values of E50 corresponding to σ3 respectively.
2. Find a trend line y = ax + b by assigning variables
(i)
y as ln E
50 (i)and 
σ + c cotφ
x as ln
σ ref + c cotφ
3. Then the determined slope of the trend line a is the parameter m.

Figure 3.5: Determination of the stiffness stress dependency parameter m from three curves
derived from the triaxial drained compression tests.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 35

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

1
Dilatancy cut -off d
(if e0max reached)
Volumetric strain εv

  Shear strain ε1
d
ψ = arcsin
2+d

Figure 3.6: Determination of the dilatancy angle ψ from εv − ε1 curve obtained in the
triaxial drained compression test.

1 + 2K0NC ref
p∗ = σoed and q ∗ = (1 − K0NC )σoed
ref
3
ε1 Virgin
q Yield surface loading branch
ref
Point at virgin E oed
loading branch
1
q*

ref σ’1
p* pc p’ σoed
(a) (b)

Figure 3.7: Determination of the dilatancy angle ψ from εv − ε1 curve obtained in the
triaxial drained compression test.

36 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 e Preyield Postyield

∆σ’

eref

Cc Virgin loading
branch
1

ref
σoed log σ’v
Figure 3.8: Determination of the compression index Cc from typical results derived from
oedometer test for estimating the tangent modulus Eoed .

e 4
e0
7 e
4
2
e0
6 1 α
α 2
3
3
Cc 5

1. Point of the maximum curvature

2. Most probable preconsolidation stress
3. Maximum preconsolidation stress
4. Minimum preconsolidation stress
5. Laboratory virgin compression line
6. Laboratory reloading compression line
7. Intersect of primary loading and reloading lines

log σ’v

σ’c logσ ’v
(a) (b)

Figure 3.9: Estimation of preconsolidation pressure σc′ (a) Casagrande’s method, (b)
Pacheco Silva’s method.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 37

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Table 3.1: Typical values of shear wave velocity and density for different geomaterials (after
Lavergne, 1986).

Shear wave velocity Dry unit weight

Vs [m/s] γ [g/cm3 ]
Soil type Min Max Min Max
Screes, organic topsoil 100 300 1.7 2.4
Dry sands 100 500 1.5 1.7
Wet sands 400 1200 1.9 2.1
Clays 200 800 2 2.4
Marls 750 1500 2.1 2.6
Sandstones 1200 2800 2.1 2.4
Lime stones 2000 3300 2.4 2.7
Chalk 1100 1300 1.8 2.3
Salt 2500 3100 2.1 2.3
Anhydrite 2200 3100 2.9 3
Dolomite 1900 3600 2.5 2.9
Granite 2500 3300 2.5 2.7
Basalte 2800 3400 2.7 3.1
Carbon 1000 1400 1.3 1.8
Ice 1700 1900 0.9 0.9

Table 3.2: Typical values of shear wave velocity for different geomaterials (after FOWG,
2003).

Shear wave velocity

Vs [m/s]
Soil type Max Min
Top soil layers (3 to 6m), lightly compact., desagregated, unsat. 110 480
Ballast (gravelly or sandy), unsaturated 220 450
Ballast, saturated 400 600
Ballast cemented 1000 1500
Silt from the lake bottom, not completely saturated 290 540
Silt from the lake bottom, saturated 390 530
Silt at banks, unsaturated 120 400
Moraine 500 1150
Loess 150 300
Marl and mollase sandstone, soft, desagregated 520 1050
Marl , not desagregated 1000 1900
Sandstone, hard 1100 2200
Molasse at plateau 600 2500
Schist 1100 3100
Limestone 1800 3700
Gneiss 1900 3500
Granite 2500 3900

38 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Table 3.3: Typical values of shear wave velocity for different geomaterials (after Lindeburg,
2001).

Shear wave velocity

Vs [m/s]
Soil type Min Max
Hard rocks >1400
Firm to hard rocks 700 1400
Gravelly soils and soft to firm rocks 375 700
Stiff clays and sandy soils 200 375
Soft soils 100 200
Very soft soils 50 100

Table 3.4: Typical values of shear wave velocity for different geomaterials (after NAVFAC,
1986).

Shear wave velocity

Vs [m/s]
Soil type Min Max
Hard rock 1500
Rock 760 1500
Very dense soil and soft rock (N60 > 50, cu > 100kPa) 360 760
Stiff soil (15 > N60 < 50, 50 < cu < 100kPa) 180 360
Soft soil (N60 < 15, cu < 50kPa) 180
Any soil with PI> 20%,w> 40%, cu < 25kPa site eveluation

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 39

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.2 Alternative parameter estimation for granular

materials
3.2.1 Initial stiffness modulus E0 and parameter γ0.7
Geotechnical evidence. In the case of lack of test data at very small strain levels,
E0 can be evaluated from an empirical relation proposed by Alpan (1970). This re-
lation which is presented in Figure 3.10, relates so-called ”static” modulus Es to the
”dynamic” modulus Ed . For the sake of HS-SmallStrain model, Es can be considered
as Eur obtained at engineering strain levels (ε ≈ 10−3 ), whereas E0 can be considered
as ≈ Ed .

Figure 3.10: Approximative relation between ”static” soil stiffness (here Es ≈ Eur ) and
”dynamic” modulus Ed corresponding to E0 proposed by Alpan (1970).

Mayne (2007) provides a selection of secant modulus curves, represented by the

ratio Gs /G0 (or Es /E0 ). The curves were derived from monotonic laboratory shear
tests performed on an sorted mix of clayey ans sandy materials, and they are presented
in Figure 3.11. Such experimental results can be approximated with a hyperbolic
expression by Fahey and Carter (1993) (see Figure 3.12):
 g
Gs q
=1− (3.11)
G0 qmax

where the exponent g ≈ 0.3 ± 0.1 fits uncemented, insensitive and not highly struc-
tured soils.

Considering that E50 at 0.5qmax (qf ) has been determined, the chart 3.12 can be
used to evaluate E0 . It can be noticed that, in general, that the relation between
the maximal stiffness E0 and that measured at 50% of qf falls approximately bet-
twen E0 = 3.85E50 and E0 = 15E50 , with higher values observed for clayey soils and
smaller for sands.

40 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Estimation of E0 (Emax ) from E50

0.5qf

E50 = 0.26E0
6

E50 = 0.06E0 ?

Figure 3.11: Observed secant stiffness modulus reduction curves from static torsional and
triaxial shear data on clays and sands (from Mayne, 2007).

Estimation of E0 (Emax ) from E50

Figure 3.12: Cone resistance vs. maximal shear modulus G0 for sands (after
Robertson and Campanella, 1983).

Figure 3.13: Estimation from the hyperboli.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 41

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

CPT. Initial small strain stiffness for sands can be approximated from cone resis-
tance measurements qc derived from CPT. Robertson and Campanella (1983) related
the maximal shear modulus G0 with qc for different effective vertical stresses σv0
′
, as
presented in Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14: Cone resistance vs. maximal shear modulus G0 for sands (after
Robertson and Campanella, 1983).

42 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Geotechnical evidence. It has been proved experimentally that the parameter
γ0.7 does not depend on soil density of non-cohesive soils. On the other hand, it de-
pends on the mean effective stress p′ . Hence, the parameter γ0.7 can be approximated
from a diagram presented in Figure 3.15. Note that the model formulation does not
account for stress dependency of γ0.7 and this parameter should be approximated for
mean effective stress levels expected in a studied geotechnical problem.

An estimation of γ0.7 for a granular soil can be carried out using a linear interpo-
lation which is derived from Figure 3.15:

p′
γ0.7 = 8.3 · 10−5 + 1.1 · 10−4 (3.12)
pref

where pref = 100kPa.

Figure 3.15: Approximation of γ0.7 for cohesionless soils from the expected mean stress p′
(from Benz, 2007, after Wichtmann and Triantafyllidis (2004)).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 43

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.2.2 Moduli E50 and Eur

Geotechnical evidence. In the case of lack of test data for estimating Eur , the
unloading-reloading stiffness modulus can be considered as the ”static” (or secant)
modulus Es which is typically taken for defining the Mohr-Coulomb model. Typical
values for Es are given in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Typical values for the ”static” modulus Es [MPa] (compiled from Kezdi, 1974;
Prat et al., 1995).

Soil Density
Loose Medium Dense
Soil Type Min Max Min Max Min Max
Gravels/Sand well-graded 30 80 80 100 100 200
Sand, uniform 10 30 30 50 50 80
Sand/Gravel silty 7 12 12 20 20 30

In the case when one of the stiffness moduli cannot be directly determined, it may
be relevant for many practical cases to set:
ref
Eur
ref
=3 (3.13)
E50

CPT. Secant modulus E50 for sands can be approximated from cone resistance
measurements qc derived from CPT. Robertson and Campanella (1983) related E50
with qc for different effective vertical stresses σv0
′
, as presented in Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16: Cone resistance qc vs. secant E50 modulus for sands (after
Robertson and Campanella, 1983).

44 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.2.3 Oedometric modulus Eoed
In the case of lack of oedometric test data for granular material the oedometric
modulus can be approximately taken as:
ref ref
Eoed = E50 (3.14)
ref
In such a case, the oedometric vertical reference stress σoed must be matched to the
reference minor stress σref as it is regarded as the confining (horizontal) pressure
σref = σ3 = σh :
ref
σoed = σref /K0NC (3.15)

Figure 3.17: Comparison of reference stiffness moduli for sands from oedometer and triaxial
tests.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 45

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.2.4 Poisson’s ratio νur

Experimental measurements from local strain gauges show that the initial values of
Poisson’s ratio in terms of small mobilized stress levels (q/qmax ) varies between 0.1
and 0.2 for clays, sands and rocks (Figure 3.18). Therefore, the characteristic value
for the elastic unloading/reloading Poisson’s ratio of νur = 0.2 can be adopted for
most soils.

Figure 3.18: Poisson’s ratio ν vs. mobilized stress level derived from local strain measure-
ments on sand, clay and soft rock (after Mayne et al., 2009).

46 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.2.5 Stiffness exponent m
Geotechnical evidence In natural soil, the exponent m varies between 0.3 and
1.0. Janbu (1963) reported values of 0.5 for Norwegian sands ans silts.

Figure 3.19: Typical values for m obtained for sands from triaxial test vs. initial porosity
n0 .

Figure 3.20: Typical values for m obtained for sands from oedometric test vs. initial poros-
ity n0 .

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 47

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.2.6 Friction angle φ′

SPT. The friction angle for granular soils with a small content of fine grains can be
determined using the chart suggested by Peck et al. (1974). This chart also correlates
the SPT number with the bearing factors Nγ and Nq which are standardly used for
dimensioning of foundations.

Loose
Soil density

loose
Very
Compact Dense Very dense

Number of blows per 30 cm

Bearing factors Nγ , Nq

Friction angle [o ]
Figure 3.21: Determination of the friction angle φ′ and bearing factors for granular soils
based on the SPT number (from Peck et al., 1974).

Table 3.6: Estimation of the friction angle φ′ from the SPT number.

Standard Penetration Resistance Friction angle, φ [o ]

Soil type N30 , blows/0.3m Peck et al. (1974) Meyerhof (1956)
Very loose sand <4 < 29 < 30
Loose sand 4-10 29-30 30-35
Medium sand 10-30 30-36 35-40
Dense sand 30-50 36-41 40-45
Very dense sand > 50 > 41 > 45

48 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 3.22: Cone resistance vs. peak friction angle φ′ for sands (after
Robertson and Campanella, 1983).

CPT. The most widely accepted relationship which relates the cone resistance qt
with φ′ for granular materials is the expression proposed by Robertson and Campanella
(1983) (Figure 3.22):
  
′ qt
φ = arctan 0.10 + 0.38 log (3.16)
σv0
′

DMT. Two direct empirical correlations suggested in Totani et al. (1999) can be
used to estimate lower and upper bounds of the range of the friction angle:

φ′max = 31 + KD /(0.236 + 0.066KD ) (3.17)

φ′min = 28 + 14.6 log KD − 2.1(log KD )2 (3.18)

with KD denoting horizontal stress index which is calculated based on the first
dilatometer reading p0 , i.e. KD = (p0 − u0 )/σv0
′
.

Geotechnical evidence. Typical values of the friction angle for granular soils are
provided in Tables 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 49

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Table 3.7: Representative values of φ observed in sands (after Schmertmann, 1978).

Relative Friction angle φ [o ]

density Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained
Dr [%] Uniform Well-graded Uniform Well-graded Uniform Well-graded
40 34 36 36 38 38 41
60 36 38 38 41 41 43
80 39 41 41 43 43 44
100 42 43 43 44 44 46

Table 3.8: Representative values of φ observed in cohesionless soils (after

Carter and Bentley, 1991).

φ [o ]
Soil type Loose Dense
Uniform sand, round grains 27 34
Well-graded sand, angular grains 33 45
Sandy gravels 35 50
Silty sand 27-33 30-34
Inorganic silt 27-30 30-35

Table 3.9: Representative values of φ observed in compacted sands and gravels (after
Carter and Bentley, 1991).

Soil type UCS class φ [o ]

Well-graded sand-gravel mixtures GW > 38
Poorly-graded sand gravel mixtures GP > 37
Silty gravels, poorly graded sand-gravel-clay GM > 34
Clayey gravels, poorly graded sand-gravel-clay GC > 31
Well-graded clean sand, gravelly sands SW 38
Poorly-graded clean sands SP 37

Table 3.10: Representative relationships between relative density Dr and friction angle φ
for granular soils.

State of compaction Relative density Dr [%] φ [o ]

Very loose 0-15 < 25
Loose 15-35 25-30
Medium 35-65 30-37
Dense 65-85 37-43
Very dense 85-100 > 42

50 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.2.7 Coefficient of earth pressure ”at rest” K0NC
Various relationships can be found in literature for estimation of the coefficient of
earth pressure ”at rest” for normally consolidated soils. They commonly relate the
value of K0NC to the effective friction angle φ′ , and the most popular are5 :

K0NC = 1 − sin φ′ (3.19a)

√ √
K0NC = ( 2 − sin φ′ )/( 2 + sin φ′ ) (Simpson, 1992) (3.19b)
These equations are illustrated in Fig.3.23.

Figure 3.23: Typical relationships between K0NC and φ′ observed for soils.

In the case of sands, the notion of preconsolidation pressure is not as meaningful

as in the case of cohesive soils, and therefore OCR = 1 (i.e. K0SR = K0NC ) can be
assumed when calculating parameters H and M .

In the case of running a simulation of isotropic consolidation (the case of

isotropically consolidated triaxial compression tests, i.e. CIU or CID), the coefficient
should be assumed as K0SR = 1.

5
Note that Eq.(3.19a) is often erroneously called ”Jaky’s equation” as it is a simplified form of his
original expression K0NC = (1 − sin φ′ )/(1 + sin φ′ )(1 + 2/3 sin φ′ ) (Jaky, 1947) which gives essentially
the same results as Eq.(3.48).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 51

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.2.8 Voids ratio e

The voids ratio for a saturated soil can be calculated from:

e = w n Gs (3.20)

where wn is the water content, Gs is the specific gravity of soil solids and S is the
saturation ratio.
In the case of partially unsaturated soil the void ratio can be obtained from:

Gs γw (1 + wn ) Gs γ w
γ= or e = − 1 or e = wn Gs /S (3.21)
1+e γd
where γd is the dry unit weight.
Hence, the maximum void ratio emax can be calculated from:
Gs γ w
emax = −1 (3.22)
γd,min

The maximum void ratio emax can also be estimated according to approximate
relationship presented in Figure 3.24 between the void ratio the coefficient of unifor-
mity for different granular soils.
Typical values of void ratios and dry unit weights observed in granular soils are
provided in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11: Typical values of voids ratio and dry unit weights observed in granular soils
(after Das, 2008).

Voids ratio Dry unit weight

e [–] γ [kN/m3 ]
Soil type Max Min Min Max
Gravel 0.6 0.3 16 20
Coarse sand 0.75 0.35 15 19
Fine sand 0.85 0.4 14 19
Standard Ottawa sand 0.8 0.5 14 17
Gravelly sand 0.7 0.2 15 22
Silty sand 1 0.4 13 19
Silty sand and gravel 0.85 0.15 14 23

52 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 3.24: Generalized charts for estimating emax , and emin from gradational and particle
shape characteristics (from UFC, 2004; Das, 2008).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 53

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.3 Alternative parameter estimation for cohesive

materials
3.3.1 Initial stiffness modulus E0 and parameter γ0.7
Geotechnical evidence. In the case of lack of test data at very small strain levels,
E0 for cohesive soils can be evaluated from an empirical relation proposed by Alpan
(1970), see Figure 3.10. The chart relates so-called ”static” modulus Es to the ”dy-
namic” modulus Ed . For the sake of HS-SmallStrain model, Es can be considered as
Eur obtained at engineering strain levels (ε ≈ 10−3 ), whereas E0 can be considered
as ≈ Ed .

Mayne (2007) provides a selection of secant modulus curves, represented by the

ratio Gs /G0 (or Es /E0 ). The curves were derived from monotonic laboratory shear
tests performed on an sorted mix of clayey ans sandy materials, and they are pre-
sented in Figure 3.11. Considering that E50 at 0.5qf has been determined, the chart
can be used to evaluate E0 . It can be noticed that, in general, that the relation
between the maximal stiffness E0 and that measured at 50% of qf falls approximately
bettwen E0 = 3.85E50 and E0 = 16.67E50 , with higher values observed for clayey
soils and smaller for sands.

Geotechnical evidence. For cohesive soils, the parameter γ0.7 at which Gs /G0 =
0.7 depends on the plasticity index IP and can be approximated from a diagram
presented in Figure 3.25. Stokoe et al. (2004) proposed a linear interpolation for γ0.7 :

γ0.7 = 5 · 10−6 IP + 1 · 10−4 (3.23)

Note, that results for PI < 30 have been experimentally proved in many research,
whereas extrapolation for soils which exhibit PI > 30 should be treated carefully
(Benz, 2007).

Figure 3.25: Approximation of γ0.7 for cohesive soils from the plasticity index IP (PI) (from
Benz, 2007, after Vucetic and Dobry (1991)).

54 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.3.2 Strength parameters
It is commonly known that the strength of clays in terms of effective stresses is mostly
frictional and the effective cohesion c′ ≈ 0. Small values of cohesion which are ob-
served during testing may appear in partially saturated clays where the meniscus ef-
fects (suction) draw soil particles together resulting in inter-particles stresses. Larger
magnitudes of cohesion can be often observed in cemented soils due to bonding effects.

Geotechnical evidence. The values of the effective friction angle φ′ observed for
fine soils fall in a wide range from 18o to 42o . Some representative values of φ′ for
compacted clays are provided in Table 3.12 after Carter and Bentley (1991).

Table 3.12: Representative values of φ′ observed in compacted clays (after

Carter and Bentley, 1991).

Soil type UCS class φ [o ]

Silty clays, sand-silt mix SM 34
Clayey sands, sandy-clay mix SC 31
Silts and clayey silts ML 32
Clays of low plasticity CL 28
Clayey silts MH 25
Clays of high plasticity CH 19

CPTU. The estimation of effective stress parameters from the total stress analysis
of undrained penetration is difficult. The solution needs to account for excess pore
water pressure for which the distribution around the cone is highly complex and
difficult to model analytically. Interpretation methods can be thus viewed as rather
approximative.
The effective friction angle φ′ can be estimated using the solution which is based
on the bearing capacity theory (Sandven et al., 1988)6 :
Nq − 1
qt − σvo = Nm (σvo
′
+ a) with Nm = (3.24)
1 + Nu B q
where a′ denotes the attraction (a′ = c′ cot φ′ ), β is the angle of plastification, Nq and
Nu are the bearing capacity factors (Nq = Nq (φ′ , β) and Nu ∼ = Nu (φ)).
Mayne (2005, 2007) proposed a simplified expression applying to the ranges of 20◦ ≤
φ′ ≤ 45◦ and 0.1 ≤ Bq ≤ 1.0 (see Figure 3.26). By setting for the above method the
effective cohesion intercept c′ = 0 and plastification angle β = 0, the values of φ′ were
evaluated line-by-line and the following approximate expression was obtained:
φ′ ≈ 29.5◦ Bq0.121 (0.256 + 0.336Bq + log Qt ) (3.25)

6
The approach proposed by researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU) is referred to NTNU method.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 55

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Resistance number Nm

Friction angle φ′ [o ]
Figure 3.26: Friction angle for sands, silts and clays based on approximation of NTNU
original method (from Mayne, 2005).

Strength parameters vs. undrained shear strength. Best-quality predictions

of the strength parameters φ′ and c′ for cohesive soils can be essentially derived from
laboratory tests. In the case of lack of laboratory data, these model parameters can
be approximatively calibrated based on the undrained shear strength cu . The mag-
nitude of cu can be determined from a variety of in situ tests such as field vane tests
(FVT), pressuremeter tests, cone penetration tests (CPT or CPTU), etc. Some in-
terpretation formula for determining cu from commonly used field tests are provided
in Appendix A.

Considering that the undrained shear strength in the undrained triaxial conditions is
defined as:
1 1
cu = (σ1 − σ3 )f = qf (3.26)
2 2
the model parameters φ and c can be adjusted so that they satisfy the normalized
condition:
cin situ 1/2qfsim
u ∼
= (3.27)
p’0 in situ p’0 sim
where cin
u
situ
and p’0 in situ denote field test results of the undrained shear strength
and the effective mean stress respectively, whereas qfsim is the failure deviatoric stress
obtained through a numerical simulation of the undrained compression triaxial test
at given initial effective mean stress p’0 sim . Note that the above relation should be
considered as approximative since cu is not a unique soil parameter as, it depends,
among others, on the type of test, which involves particular strain paths related to
dominant shear modes appearing during testing (cf. Wroth, 1984; Jamiolkowski et al.,

56 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

1985).
Conceptually, normalization of data in terms of initial stress conditions removes
the effect of depth. Although the mechanisms of particular field test are influenced
by both σh0′
and σv0
′
, for practical reasons, the normalization can be carried out in
terms of σv0 since there is often little information about σh0
′ ′
. Therefore, calibration
of the strength parameters can be carried out to satisfy the following relation:

cin
u
situ 1/2qfsim
’ in situ
≈ ’ sim
(3.28)
σv0 σ1,0
’ sim
where σ1,0 denotes the axial effective stress at the beginning of simulation.
The calibration procedure can be summarized as follows:

1. Assess field values of cu for, at least, two different depths (different σv0
′
) and
plot the data on σv0 − cu chart.
′

2. Run two simulations of the undrained triaxial compression test (preferably

aniotropically-consolidated with the specified K0SR 6= 1.0) for different σ1,0
’ sim

and corresponding OCRs with an initial guess of parameters φ and c, and an

assumed failure ratio Rf (note that an explicit ultimate deviatoric stress can
be obtained for the dilatancy angle ψ = 0, or non-zero ψ with the assumed
dilatancy cut-off).

3. Plot numerical results of 1/2qf on σv0

′
− cu chart (as in Figure 3.27) and check
the degree of fit for numerical and in situ trend lines.

4. Return to step 2 if the degree of fit is not satisfactory and modify parameters
φ and c. Note that each modification of φ and c requires updating K0NC and
evaluating of parameters M and H before the next calculation run.

In the case, of overconsolidated material, if the initial mean effective stress p′0
lies before the mean effective stress p∗ which value corresponds to the intersection
between deviatoric and isotropic mechanisms (see Figure 3.28), qf can be estimated
directly from the Mohr-Coulomb criterion (cf. Figure 3.1):

qf = α (p′0 + c cot φ) (3.29)

where α is related to the friction angle φ which depends on the dominating shear
mode which is appropriate to a given in situ test.
6 sin φ
α= for triaxial compression conditions (3.30a)
3 − sin φ
6 sin φ
α= for triaxial extension conditions (3.30b)
3 + sin φ
√
α = 3 sin φ for plane strain conditions (3.30c)

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 57

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

’ sim (p∗ de-

Figure 3.27: Undrained shear strength cu against normalizing effective stress σ1,0
notes the intersection between deviatoric and isotropic mechanisms, see Figure
3.28).

Figure 3.28: Effective stress paths derived from simulations of undrained compression test
in normally- and overconsolidated soil.

58 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.3.3 Failure ratio Rf
For most soils, the value of Rf falls between 0.75 and 1 and an average value of
the failure ratio can be taken as Rf = 0.9. Kempfert (2006) reported some Rf
values derived from triaxial compression tests for three lacustrine soft soils in southern
Germany:

• CICD test: Rf = 0.73 − 0.88, with the average value of 0.82

• CICU test: Rf = 0.70 − 0.99, with the average value of 0.89

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 59

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.3.4 Stiffness moduli

Geotechnical evidence. In the case of lack of test data for estimating Eur , the
unloading-reloading stiffness modulus can be considered as the ”static” modulus Es
which is typically taken for defining the Mohr-Coulomb model. Typical values for Es
are given in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13: Typical values for the ”static” modulus Es [MPa] (compiled from Kezdi, 1974;
Prat et al., 1995).

Soil Consistency
Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Soil Type Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Silts
slight plasticity 2.5 4 5 8 10 15 15 20 20 40 40 80
low plasticity 1.5 3 3 6 6 10 10 15 15 30 30 60
Clays
low to medium plast. 0.5 3 2 5 5 8 8 12 12 30 30 60
high plasticity 0.35 2 1.5 4 4 7 7 12 12 20 60 32
Silt organic 0.5 5
Clay organic 0.5 4

In the case when one of the stiffness moduli cannot be directly determined, it may
be relevant for many practical cases to set:
ref
Eur
ref
=3 (3.31)
E50
Assuming that during unloading/reloading soil behaves elastically, the modulus
Eur can be related with the constrained unloading/reloading oedometric modulus
Eoed,ur through:
(1 + νur )(1 − 2νur )
Eur = Eoed,ur (3.32)
1 − νur
Note, however, that Eur is not a unique value for a given soil in the oedometric test
because Eur depends on the previous maximal stress level σc′ attained before the un-
loading and the corresponding void ratio ec , as shown in Figure 3.29. Therefore,
assuming an infinitesimal change of the compression stress, i.e. ∆σ ′ → 0, the unload-
ing/reloading oedometric modulus Eoed,ur should be approximated by similarity with
Eq.(3.5) as:
2.3(1 + ec ) ′
Eoed,ur = σc (3.33)
Cs
where Cs is the swelling index (Figure 3.29).
Since the Eoed,ur was approximated for the stress point belonging to the primary
loading line (K0NC -line), such a determined reference unloading/reloading modulus
ref
Eur corresponds thus to the reference stress σ ref which can be estimated from:

σ ref = K0NC σc′ (3.34)

60 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 e
∆σ ’
Unloading/
reloading Primary loading
branch

Cs 1
ec

σ’c log σ’v

Figure 3.29: Idealized plot of one-dimensional oedometric compression test.

Undrained vs drained moduli - theoretical relationship. In the case of lack

of drained compression test data, the stiffness moduli can be calibrated based on the
results derived from the undrained triaxial compression test (e.g. CIUC or CAUC).
Since water filling skeleton pores has no shear stiffness, the shear modulus is not
affected by the drainage condition so one can write:
Eu E
= Gu = G = (3.35)
2(1 + νu ) 2(1 + ν)
where νu is the Poisson’s coefficient in undrained conditions.
Considering that the undrained conditions imply ε1 = ε3 , and therefore νu = 0.5, the
above equation can be rewritten as:
Eu 3
= (3.36)
E 2(1 + ν)
and for the drained Poison’s coefficient ranging for most soils between 0.12 and 0.4:
Eu
≈ 1.07 to 1.34 (3.37)
E
An assumption of νu = 0.5 for undrained conditions can be also expressed with the
condition of no volume change (∆εv = 0). Since the undrained bulk modulus Ku
tends to infinity in such conditions , νu → 0.5:
∆σ Eu
Ku = = (3.38)
∆εv 3(1 − 2νu )
The undrained ”static” modulus Esu can be estimated based on a value of undrained
shear strength cu using an empirical correlation:
E u = Kc c u (3.39)
with an empirical correlation coefficient which depends on the plasticity index PI and
OCR, and can be estimated from Figure 3.30.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 61

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Figure 3.30: Evaluating the undrained modulus from E u from cu : chart for estimating the
correlation coefficient Kc in Eq. (3.39) (from Duncan and Buchignani, 1976).

Undrained vs drained moduli - curve fitting. The ”drained” model moduli can
also be calibrated by means of curve-fitting. The calibration of ”drained” stiffness
moduli (Eur′
, E50
′
) from ”undrained” test requires thus fitting laboratory data, i.e.
curve ε1 − q, with the results obtained through a one-element simulation of undrained
compression. Considering that strength parameters φ′ and c′ can be directly estimated
from undrained test data, they should be kept unmodified during curve-fitting. In
order to avoid excessive gain in material resistance after reaching the failure stress
point, the dilatancy angle can be set ψ = 0 during ”undrained” simulations. The
parameter calibration flowchart is presented in detail in Figure 3.31.

62 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Estimate strength
parameters
φ’, c’, Rf, ψ
(this parameters are kept
unchanged through the
parameter calibration )

Provide estimates of
"drained" moduli
(E0’), Eur’, E50’
for σ ref = σ 3’
(the following relationships
can be used at the
begininning :
Eur /E50 =3, E50 /E0=0.2 )

Run a displacement-controlled
simulation of the undrained triaxial
compression compression test
(make sure that ‘Consolidation’ driver type
is chosen before switching to pure
‘Deformation’ analysis;
set small RHF tolerance~1e-6;
start with the very smallincrements of
compressive displacements
if HS-SmallSmall is calibrated)

Compare ε1-q curves derived

from numerical simulation
and laboratory test

Update values of
E moduli according to NO Degree of fit YES
END
degree of fit for satisfactory?
given parts of ε1-q curve

Figure 3.31: Flowchart for calibration of stiffness moduli E0 , Eur , E50 based on ε1 − q curve
derived from the undrained compression triaxial test (CU).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 63

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Geotechnical evidence. Kempfert (2006) have provided typical results for the
ratios between stiffness moduli. These ratios are presented below in Tables 3.14 and
3.15.
Table 3.14: Relationship between triaxial stiffness moduli and oedometric moduli for three
lacustrine clays in Germany, from Kempfert (2006).

Ei /Eoed E50 /Eoed Eur /Eoed,ur Eoed,ur /Eoed

Soil 1 2.08 1.03 2.33-2.52 2.60
Soil 2 1.63 0.77 1.29-2.09 3.63
Soil 3 2.82 1.45 1.32-2.51 6.65
Average 2.17 1.08 4.29
Ei was derived from the initial slope of the triaxial curve ε1 − q
Eoed,ur denotes unloading/reloading oedometer modulus

Table 3.15: Relationship between stiffness moduli derived from drained and undrained tri-
axial tests for three lacustrine clays in Germany, from Kempfert (2006).

Drainage conditions Ei /E50 Eur /Ei Eur /E50

Soil 1 drained 2.02 3.20 5.93
undrained 1.48
Soil 2 drained 2.17 3.10 6.72
undrained 1.84
Soil 3 drained 1.94 6.55 12.66
undrained 3.02
Average drained 2.04 4.28 8.43
undrained 2.11
Ei was derived from the initial slope of the triaxial curve ε1 − q

64 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.3.5 Oedometric modulus Eoed
The one-dimensional constrained tangent modulus Eoed (which is often assigned as
MD in literature) is obtained for steady state measurements based on the oedometer
test through the expression:
δσ ′
Eoed = MD = v (3.40)
δεv
which can also be expressed as:
2.3(1 + e)σv′ (1 + e)σv′
Eoed = MD = = (3.41)
Cc λ
where Cc is the compression index(Cc = 2.3λ).

CPT. The constrained modulus for clays can be interpreted from the CPT or
CPTU test using the measured cone resistance qc and an empirical coefficient αm .
Lunne et al. (1997) quote the values of αm for different types of soils proposed by
Sanglerat (1972).

Table 3.16: Estimation of constrained modulus MD for clays (after Lunne et al. (1997)).

MD = α m · qc
qc < 0.7 MPa 3 < αm < 8 Clay of low plasticity (CL)
0.7 < qc < 2.0 MPa 2 < αm < 5
qc > 2.0 MPa 1 < αm < 2.5
qc < 2.0 MPa 1 < αm < 3 Silts of low plasticity (ML)
qc > 2.0 MPa 3 < αm < 6
qc < 2.0 MPa 2 < αm < 6 Highly plastic silts and clays (MH, CH)
qc < 1.2 MPa 2 < αm < 8 Organic silts (OL)
qc < 0.7 MPa Peat and organic clay (Pt ,OH)
50 < w < 100 1.5 < αm < 4 (w-water content [%])
100 < w < 200 1 < αm < 1.5
w > 200 0.4 < αm < 1

CPTU. The constrained modulus can be interpreted from the CPTU using the net
cone resistance qt − σv0 (qt denotes the corrected cone resistance):

MD = αn (qt − σv0 ) (3.42)

where αn is observed for most clays between 5 and 15 while for normally consolidated
clays, it is between 4 to 8 (Sandven et al., 1988; Senneset et al., 1989). A more general
correlation was suggested by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) (cf. Figure 3.32):

MD = 8.25(qt − σv0 ) (3.43)

As discussed be Lunne et al. (1997), the estimation of ”drained” parameter MD

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 65

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

or
err
40%

error
40%

Figure 3.32: General MD correlation for CPTU data proposed by Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990) (from Lunne et al., 1997).

from an undrained penetration test using general empirical correlations may suffer
from errors as large as ±100%. An individual site-specific calibration is thus rec-
ommended for αn . They also concluded that it is difficult to correlate ”drained”
parameters without accounting for the pore pressure measurements as the cone resis-
tance is measured in total stress.

66 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.3.6 Stiffness exponent m
Geotechnical evidence The formulation of HS models assumes the same expo-
nent m for four different stiffness moduli, i.e. E0 , E50 , Eur and Eoed . Kempfert (2006)
demonstrated that in reality, the following relation may appear m0 < m50 < mur ; they
also provide some typical values derived from drained tests (oedometer loading and
triaxial tests) for three lacustrine soft soils:

moed mavg
oed m0 mavg
0 m50 mavg
50 mur mavg
ur
(no. of (no. of (no. of (no. of
tests) tests) tests) tests)
Soil 1 0.73- 0.75 (2) 0.3- 0.34 (3) 0.39- 0.45 (3) 0.74 0.74 (1)
0.76 0.42 0.51
Soil 2 0.58- 0.64 (2) 0.52- 0.68 (4) 0.66- 0.72 (4) 0.61- 0.64 (2)
0.69 0.79 0.84 0.67
Soil 3 0.58 0.58 (1) 0.42- 0.51 (3) 0.38- 0.48 (3) 0.79- 0.84 (3)
0.56 0.54 0.89

Kempfert (2006) also highlighted that the exponent m for undrained tests can be
generally higher than for drained tests.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 67

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.3.7 Overconsolidation ratio OCR

CPTU. One of the best working approaches relates the overconsolidation ratio
OCR to the net cone resistance qt − σv0 :
qt − σv0
OCR = kσt (3.44)
σv0
′

where kσt is an empirical coefficient which falls in the interval from 0.1 to 0.5 for non-
fissured clays (Larsson and Mulabdić, 1991; Hight and Leroueil, 2003). The higher
values are suggested for cemented, aged and heavily consolidated soils (between 0.9
and 2.2). For good-quality interpretation, this coefficient needs to be calibrated for
specific site conditions based on the benchmark values derived from oedometer test.
However, the first-order approximates of OCR can be obtained using the values of kσt
from multiple regression analyzes which are based on historical syntheses from many
characterization sites (see Table 3.17). Mayne (2006) suggests assuming kσt = 0.30
for first-order estimates.
Table 3.17: Comparison of the empirical coefficients obtained from multiple regression an-
alyzes for non-fissured clays.

Results of regression analysis

Ref. Geographical Number Number
region of sites/points kσt R2 of sites/points kσe R2
[1] Sweden 9/110 0.292 - 9/110 0.50 -
[2] Canada 31/153 0.294 0.90 31/153 0.546 0.96
[3] Worldwide 123/1121 0.305 0.84 84/811 0.50 0.75
[1] Larsson and Mulabdić (1991); [2] Demers and Leroueil (2002);
[3] Chen and Mayne (1994, 1996)

Another approach combines measurements of cone resistance qt and pore pressure

u2 measured behind the cone:
 
q t − u2 qe
OCR = kσe = kσe (3.45)
σv0
′
σv0
′

with kσe being obtained through site-specific correlations. By analogy to the previ-
ous approach, the first-order approximates of OCR can be obtained using the values
of kσe through regression analyzes (see Table 3.17). Mayne (2006, 2007) suggested
assuming kσe = 0.60 for the first-order estimates. This approach is often used as a
comparative to the previous one and local correlations are strongly recommended.
The formula is also viewed as less reliable in soft, lightly overconsolidated clays the
qt results accompanied by large values of u2 yield in a small number for qt − u2
(Houlsby and Hitchman, 1988; Lunne et al., 1997).

68 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

DMT. Based on dilatometer measurements, estimation of OCR for clays can be
carried out with the formula proposed by Marchetti which relates the horizontal
stress index7 KD to OCR from oedometer tests with the following correlation:

OCR = (0.5KD )1.56 (3.46)

The application of this correlation is restricted to materials with ID < 1.2, free of ce-
mentation which have experienced simple one-dimensional stress histories (Totani et al.,
2001).
An improved relationship which takes into account a large range of soil plasticity
in the exponent was proposed by Lacasse and Lunne (1988):
1.35÷1.67
OCR = 0.225KD (3.47)

where the exponent varies from 1.35 for plastic clays, up to 1.67 for low plasticity
materials.

Figure 3.33: Various correlations KD − OCR for cohesive soils from various geographical
areas (from Totani et al., 2001).

7
Horizontal stress index which is calculated based on the first dilatometer reading p0 , i.e. KD =
′
(p0 − u0 )/σv0 .

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 69

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.3.8 Coefficient of earth pressure ”at rest” K0NC and K0

The coefficient of earth pressure ”at rest” for normally-consolidated clays can be
estimated through Eq.(3.19a) or the similar expression suggested in Brooker & Ireland
(1965):
K0NC = 0.95 − sin φ′ (3.48)
In the case of cohesive soils, K0NC can be also related through empirical correlations
with soil plasticity:

K0NC = 0.19 + 0.233 log IP (Alpan, 1967) (3.49a)

and similar
K0NC = 0.44 + 0.0042IP (Holtz & Kovacs, 1981) (3.49b)
where IP is the plasticity index in %.

It is commonly known that in the case of cohesive soils the preconsolidation plays
an important role and K0 typically increases with the overconsolidation ratio OCR.
Estimations of the initial stress state for overconsolidated soil take a general form:

K0 = K0NC OCRm (3.50)

where m is a coefficient which for estimation of K0NC for most practical purposes can
be taken as:
m = 0.5 suggested by Meyerhof (1976) (3.51a)
m = sin φ′ suggested in Kulhawy & Mayne (1982) (3.51b)
The equations are presented graphically in Fig.3.34 (K0NC was calculated using Eq.
(3.19a)).

SBPT. Approximation of K0 from the self-boring pressuremeter test requires deter-

mination of the horizontal effective stress σh0
′
since the vertical effective stress σvo
′
can
be estimated based on depth, unit weight and groundwater information. In the case of
SBPT, the in situ total horizontal stress can be directly estimated from the ”lift-off”
pressure (Jamiolkowski et al., 1985; Clough et al., 1990; Amar et al., 1991). The ”lift-
off” pressure corresponds to the internal cavity pressure ψ0 when the membrane starts
to deform the wall of a borehole, therefore ψ0 ∼= σh0′
+u0 (Figure 3.35). The ”lift-off” is
typically estimated based on the averaging procedure including the measurements of
three feeler arms spaced at 120◦ around the instrument (Dalton and Hawkins, 1982;
Mair and Wood, 1987). In general, the lateral stress measurements can be considered
as fairly accurate in clays, particularly in soft deposits (Jamiolkowski et al., 1985).

70 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 3.34: Typical relationships between K0 and OCR observed for clays based on the
correlation proposed by Mayne and Kulhawy (1982).

Figure 3.35: Example of the total horizontal stress estimation from the lift-off pressure in
soft clay at Panigaglia site (after Jamiolkowski et al., 1985).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 71

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

Figure 3.36: Approximation of K0 based on the normalized pore pressure difference PPSV
from dual sensor cone (after Sully and Campanella, 1991).

CPTU. At present, no reliable method exists for interpretation K0 from CPT data.
Rough evaluations related directly to CPTU measurements can be made using vari-
ous approximative methods.

Observing that the pore pressure distribution around the cone is a function of
σho
′
, Sully and Campanella (1991) proposed to approximate K0 based on a linear
regression analysis using the normalized difference between pore pressure measured
at the cone tip u1 and behind the tip at the sleeve shoulder u2 :

K0 = 0.11 · PPSV + 0.5 (3.52)

where PPSV= (u1 − u2 )/σv0 ′

and the empirical coefficient aK was obtained equal to
0.11, see Figure 3.36. Note that the regression analysis reveals a considerable scatter
and this identification approach should be used carefully.

Masood and Mitchell (1993) proposed the estimation of K0 based on measure-

ments at the friction sleeve fs . In this method, K0 is a function of the normalized
sleeve friction fs /σv0
′
and the overconsolidation ratio OCR, as presented in Figure
3.37. Thus the approach requires prior evaluation of OCR and reliable measurements
of fs .

72 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 3.37: Proposed relationship between K0 , fs and OCR Masood and Mitchell (after
1993).

The most common technique for estimating K0 employs an empirical formula

which is based on the normalized cone resistance:
 
qt − σvo
Ko = kK (3.53)
σvo
′

where kK is an empirical coefficient. Using the regression analysis, Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990) obtained the value of kK = 0.1 for several K0 values estimated from the self-
boring pressuremeter test (SBPT), see Figure 3.38.

DMT. K0 can be also interpreted from dilatometer test data. Since the original
Marchetti relationship tends to overestimate K0 , its estimation can be carried out
through the correlation suggested in Lacasse and Lunne (1988):
0.44÷0.64
K0 = 0.34KD (3.54)

where the lower exponent value is associated with highly plastic clays, whereas higher
values are suggested for for low plasticity materials.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 73

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

.
err
%
r
30 ro
er
%
30

Figure 3.38: General K0 correlation for CPTU data proposed by Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990) (adapted from Lunne et al., 1997).

74 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

3.3.9 Voids ratio e
Typical values of voids ratio and dry unit weights observed for cohesive soils are
provided in Table 3.18 and 3.19.

Table 3.18: Typical values of void ratios and dry unit weights observed in coshesive soils
(from Hough, 1969).

Voids ratio
e [–]
Soil type Min Max
Silty or sandy clay 0.25 1.8
Gap-graded silty clay w. gravel or larger 0.2 1
Well-graded gravel/sand/silt/clay 0.13 0.7
Clay (30 to 50% of 2microns size) 0.5 2.4
Colloidal clay (over 50% of 2microns size) 0.6 12
Organic silt 0.55 3
Uniform, inorganic silt 0.4 1.1
Organic clay (30 to 50% of 2microns size) 0.7 4.4

Table 3.19: Typical values of void ratios and unit weights observed in granular soils (from
Terzaghi et al., 1996).

Voids ratio Dry unit weights Wet weights

Soil type e [–] [kN/m3 ] [kN/m3 ]
Glacial till, very mixed grained 0.25 20.8 22.7
Soft glacial clay 1.2 12 17.4
Stiff glacial clay 0.6 16.7 20.3
Soft slightly organic clay 1.9 9.1 15.5
Soft very organic clay 3 6.7 14.4
Soft bentonite 5.2 4.2 12.5

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 75

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

3.4 Parameter identification toolbox

Figure 3.39: Activation of the parameter identification toolbox from the Materials
window

Figure 3.40: Initialization of the parameter identification toolbox: Basic soil setup

76 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 3.41: Post-processing after basic parameter selection: parameters proposed by the
basic parameter selection and their possible ranges.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 77

CHAPTER 3. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

78 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Chapter 4

Benchmarks

4.1 Triaxial drained compression test on dense Hos-

tun sand
Files:
HS-std-dh-sand-100kPa.inp, HS-small-dh-sand-100kPa.inp,
HS-std-dh-sand-300kPa.inp, HS-small-dh-sand-300kPa.inp,
HS-std-dh-sand-600kPa.inp, HS-small-dh-sand-600kPa.inp

The following section presents a validation of both HS and HS-small models on

a triaxial drained compression test for Hostun sand. Material properties are taken
from PhD thesis by Benz (2007) and are given in the following table:

Parameter Unit Value Parameter Unit Value

ref
Eur [kPa] 90000 ψ [o ] 16.0
ref
E50 [kPa] 30000 ft [kPa] 0.0
σ ref [kPa] 100 D [–] 0.0/0.251
m [–] 0.55 M [–] 1.727/1.723
νur [–] 0.25 H [kPa] 55967/57055
Rf [–] 0.9 OCR [–] 1.0
c [kPa] 0.0 E0ref [kPa] 270000
φ [o ] 42.0 γ0.7 [–] 0.0002

The parameters M and H were estimated automatically by the code assuming

K0NC = 0.4 and Eoed = 30000 kPa at reference stress equal to 100 kPa. It must be
emphasized that M and H values will not be equal to the ones given by Benz because
of the different hardening law applied to the preconsolidation pressure pc . All results
obtained with Z Soil match very well results published by Benz. The only differences
appear in G − γ plots where Z Soil results for standard HS-model are lower than
the reference ones. In our opinion, G − γ curves for standard HS model which were
published by Benz, begin at Gur value and are not obtained from the elasto-plastic
solution.

79
CHAPTER 4. BENCHMARKS

σ1
(a) (ε1 ) (Z Soil) (b) G(γ) (Z Soil)
σ3

σ1
(c) (ε1 ) (zoom) (Z Soil) (d) εv (ε1 ) (Z Soil)
σ3

(e) Solution by Benz Benz (2007)

Figure 4.1: Results for the confining pressure σ 3 = 100 kPa

80 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 σ1
(a) (ε1 ) (Z Soil) (b) G(γ) (Z Soil)
σ3

σ1
(c) (ε1 ) (zoom) (Z Soil) (d) εv (ε1 ) (Z Soil)
σ3

(e) Solution by Benz Benz (2007)

Figure 4.2: Results for the confining pressure σ 3 = 300 kPa

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 81

CHAPTER 4. BENCHMARKS

σ1
(a) (ε1 ) (Z Soil) (b) G(γ) (Z Soil)
σ3

σ1
(c) (ε1 ) (zoom) (Z Soil) (d) εv (ε1 ) (Z Soil)
σ3

(e) Solution by Benz Benz (2007)

Figure 4.3: Results for the confining pressure σ 3 = 600 kPa

82 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

4.2 Isotropic compression of dense Hostun sand
File: HS-isotropicCompr.inp

This benchmark is solved analytically for the HS-Std model. The decomposed
total strain increments for the elastic and plastic part in isotropic compression con-
ditions (p = pc ) are presented in the following expression (NB. the increment of total
volumetric strain is measured from the initial configuration of equilibrium p0 = pc0
to the current one):

" 1−m 1−m #

σ ref + c cotφ

pco + c cotφ pc + c cotφ
−
1−m σ ref + c cotφ σ ref + c cotφ
∆εpv = (4.1)
H

 " 1−m 1−m #

σ ref + c cotφ
 
3(1 − 2νur ) pc + c cotφ pco + c cotφ
∆εev = ref
−
Eur 1−m σ ref + c cotφ σ ref + c cotφ
(4.2)

∆εv = ∆εev + ∆εpv (4.3)

Verification was carried out on an single axisymmetric finite element which is
subject to an external uniformly distributed load varying from q = 50 kN/m2 to
q = 250 kN/m2. The initial effective stresses are σ o = {−50, −50, 0, −50}T kPa.
Material data for the dense Hostun sand (see section (4.1)) is used in the simulation.
Numerical and analytical solutions are compared in in the following figure.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 83

CHAPTER 4. BENCHMARKS

4.3 Oedometric compression test

File: HS-oedometer.inp,HS-oedometer-1.inp

This single element benchmark demonstrates that using the HS-Std model an
ref
assumed Eoed = 30000 kPa at the reference stress σoed kPa and K0NC =0.4 are correctly
reproduced. This benchmark uses material data for dense Hostun sand presented in
Section 4.1).
The first test is modeled in axisymmetry, with an element subject to an external,
uniformly distributed load which varied from q = 75 kN/m2 to q = 275 kN/m2. In
the second test, a strain driven program is applied in one step with vertical strain
amplitude ∆εy = −1e − 5. The initial effective stress state is described as σ o =
{−30, −75, 0, −30}T kPa.
The results which are derived the first test are shown in the following two figures.
The result of the second test yields the tangent oedometric modulus which were
∆σy
computed with the forward difference scheme, equal to Eoed = = 30000 kPa,
∆εy
which is an exact value.

σy − εy plot for different number of load increments

Estimated K0NC

84 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Chapter 5

Study cases

5.1 Excavation in Berlin Sand

File: HS-std-Exc-Berlin-Sand-2phase.inp
File: HS-small-Exc-Berlin-Sand-2phase.inp
File: MC-Exc-Berlin-Sand-2phase.inp

This example demonstrates the importance of modeling excavation problems with

the use of the Hardening Soil model. The study case presents an analysis of main dif-
ferences between HS-Std, HS-Small and standard Mohr-Coulomb (MC) models based
on a numerical simulation of a deep excavation in Berlin Sand.

An engineering draft of the problem and the sequence of both excavation and
construction steps, are given in Figure 5.1. Material data for calibration of sand was
taken from Benz (2007) and Schweiger (2002). The data with standard MC model
was generated assuming that stiffness of sand varies according to the power law:
√
E = 20000 y kPa for y ≤ 20m
√
E = 60000 y kPa for y > 20m
where y is the depth expressed in [m]. The same strength parameters apply to both
the MC model and HS models.

85
CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Figure 5.1: An engineering draft and the sequence of both excavation and construction
stages for the deep excavation in Berlin sand.

Sequence of stages:

1. Generating an initial stress state for an assumed K0in situ in sand layers
2. Installation of the diaphragm wall
3. Lowering the ground water level in the excavated zone up to the elevation -
17.90m
4. Excavation step 1 (up to -4.80m)
5. Introducing the first row of anchors (distance 2.30 m) and applying the prestress
P0 = 768 kN
6. Excavation step 2 (up to -9.30m)
7. Introducing of the second row of anchors (distance 1.35 m) and and applying
the prestress P0 = 945 kN
8. Excavation step 3 (up to -14.35m)
9. Introducing of the third row of anchors (distance 1.35 m) and and applying the
prestress P0 = 980 kN
10. Excavation step 4 (up to -16.80m)

86 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Figure 5.2: Excavation in Berlin Sand: FE mesh.

A finite element model of the problem is shown in the figure below. The mesh
represents:

• deposits consisting of two sand layers which are described with two different
groups of stiffness characteristics

• three rows of prestressed anchors

• diaphragm wall

• contact interfaces between sand and the wall

• zone of artificial contact elements which are used to model a hydraulic barrier
(preserving continuity of displacement field and discontinuity of pore pressure)

• external displacement boundary conditions (BC) (box type)

• pressure BC which are applied via fluid head and set up along the right hand side
boundary, as well as along the left hand boundary up to the level of impermeable
barrier (pressure fluid head BC is applied with the aid of seepage elements)

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 87

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Table 5.1: Excavation in Berlin Sand: material properties for soils

Material Model Data group Properties Unit Value

1 Sand (-20m↑) HS-small Elastic Eur [kN/m2 ] 180000
σref [kN/m2 ] 100.0
νur – 0.2
m – 0.50
σL – 10.0
E0ref [kN/m2 ] 405000
γ0.7 – 0.0002
Density γD [kN/m3 ] 16
γF [kN/m3 ] 10
e0 – 0.66
Non-linear φ [◦ ] 35
ψ [◦ ] 5
c [kN/m2 ] 1
E50ref [kN/m2 ] 45000
Rf – 0.9
D – 0.25/0.0(HS-std)
ft – 0.0
M – 1.85
H [kN/m2 ] 129305
K0NC – 0.426
pmin
c0 [kN/m2 ] 10.0
Initial K0 state K0x′ /K ′ – 0.43
0z
2 Sand (-20m↓) HS-small Elastic Eur [kN/m2 ] 300000
σref [kN/m2 ] 100
νur – 0.2
m – 0.55
σL – 10.0
E0ref [kN/m2 ] 675000
γ0.7 – 0.0002
Density γD [kN/m3 ] 16
γF [kN/m3 ] 10
eo – 0.66
Non-linear φ [◦ ] 38
ψ [◦ ] 6
c [kN/m2 ] 1
E50ref [kN/m2 ] 75000
Rf – 0.9
D – 0.25/0.0(HS-std)
ft – 0.0
M – 2.955
H [kN/m2 ] 128964
K0NC – 0.38
pmin
c0 [kN/m2 ] 10.0
Initial K0 state Kox′ /K ′ – 0.38
oz

88 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Table 5.2: Excavation in Berlin Sand: material properties for the diaphragm wall, anchors
and interfaces

Material Model Data group Properties Unit Value

3 Wall Beams Elastic E [kN/m2 ] 30000000
ν – 0.15
Density Unit weight [kN/m3 ] 24
Geometry Interval [m] 1.0
A [m2 ] 0.8
Iz [m4 ] 0.0426667
4 Anchors Truss Elastic E [kN/m2 ] 210000000
Density Unit weight [kN/m3 ] 0.0
Geometry Interval [m] 2.3
A [m2 ] 0.0015
5 Anchors Truss Elastic E [kN/m2 ] 210000000
Density Unit weight [kN/m3 ] 0.0
Geometry Interval [m] 1.35
A [m2 ] 0.0015
6 Anchors Truss Elastic E [kN/m2 ] 210000000
Density Unit weight [kN/m3 ] 0.0
Geometry Interval [m] 1.35
A [m2 ] 0.0015
7 Interface Contact Non-linear φ [◦ ] 28
ψ [◦ ] 0
c [kN/m2 ] 0.0

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 89

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

The chart below presents four unloading functions which are defined and associ-
ated with the excavated elements in order to gradually unload each excavated region.
Note that the same unloading functions must be applied to interface elements ad-
jacent to the excavated continuum. All existence functions and unloading functions
which are applied for excavated zones of sand are shown in the chart below.

Figure 5.3: Excavation in Berlin Sand: unloading functions

90 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 (a) (b)

Figure 5.4: Excavation in Berlin Sand: Bending moments and wall deflections at the last
stage of excavation

Remarks:

1. The largest bending moments are generated by HS-Std model due to excessive
plastic soil deformation as the result of lack of small strain stiffness . The shape
of the M diagrams is similar for all models.

2. The most significant overshoot is observed in the bottom part of the wall. In
the basic MC model elastic stiffness remains unchanged and insensitive to the
current stress state while HS-Std and HS-Small models exhibit strong stress
dependency (cf. Eq.(2.5)).

3. Prediction of wall deflection by the HS-Small model matches in situ measure-

ments.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 91

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.5: Excavation in Berlin Sand: Soil deformations at last stage of excavation
(a) vertical heaving of subsoil, (b) settlements of the ground behind the wall
(y = 0 m)

Remarks:

1. The HS-Std and MC models with variable stiffness generate similar heavings.

2. Vertical heaving generated by The HS-Small model is significantly reduced with

respect to results which are generated by HS-Std and MC models

3. The MC model results in an unrealistic lifting of the retaining wall associated

with unloading of the bottom of an excavation. Settlements behind the wall are
realistically generated with HS-Std and HS-Small models.

92 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

5.2 Twin tunnels excavation in London Clay
This example demonstrates the importance of modeling tunnel construction problems
with the use of advanced constitutive models such as Hardening Soil models which
allows modeling pre-failure non-linear stiffness. The study highlights the differences in
predictions of subsurface displacements during tunnel excavations in the stiff, heavily
overconsolidated London Clay modeled with:

• Linear-elastic, perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb model.

• Non-linear elastic, perfectly plastic models: HS-Std and HS-SmallStrain.

This study reanalyzes the excavation model of the twin Jubilee Line Extension
Project tunnels beneath St James’s Park (London, UK) which has been reported in
the original paper by Addenbrooke et al. (1997). The predictions of displacements
obtained with the Hardening Soil models are additionally compared with the results
obtained by Addenbrooke et al. (1997) for the isotropic non-linear elastic model J4
and field data.

The problem statement, i.e. subsurface stratigraphy and the orientation of tunnels
is presented in Figure 5.6. The following paragraphs present the analysis details, the
excavation/construction stages and the material data assumed in the analyzes.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 93

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Analysis details

• analysis type: plain strain deformation + flow

• driver type: consolidation

• mesh: Figure 5.7

• constitutive models:

– Sand: linear elastic

– Thames Gravel: linear elastic Mohr-Coulomb (M-C)
– London Clay: three variants (i ) M-C, (ii ) Hardening Soil Standard (HS-
Std), (iii ) Hardening Soil Small Strain (HS-SmallStrain)
– Woolwich and Reading Bed Clay: M-C

Excavation/construction stages

1. Generating the initial state in substrata for the assumed K0insitu across the FE
mesh presented in Figure 5.7

2. Installation of seepage elements around the tunnel which permits free flow sim-
ulating drains and excavation of the westbound tunnel with gradual unloading
- 100% unloading after 8 hours

3. Installation of the 1st tunnel lining at 75% of unloading; parameter for tunnel
lining are given in Table 5.7 and removing seepage elements

4. Consolidation during 8.5 months

5. Installation of seepage elements around the tunnel which permits free flow sim-
ulating drains and excavation of the eastbound tunnel during 8 hours with
gradual unloading

6. Installation of the 2nd tunnel lining at 70% of unloading and removing seepage
elements

7. Consolidation

94 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 Sand 4.5m
Thames Gravel 2.7m
φ ’=35º, c’ = 0 kPa

20.0m
London Clay Eastbound
φ ’=25º, c’ = 5 kPa tunnel

30.5m
D=4.75 m

Westbound
tunnel 34.3m
D=4.75m

Drainage prior 21.5m

installation of the
tunnel lining

Woolwich and
Reading Bed Clay
φ ’=27 º, c’ = 200kPa

Figure 5.6: Soil stratigraphy and diagonally oriented tunnels at St James’s Park, London,
UK.

PRESSURE BC SEEPAGE elements around

imposing hydrostatic the tunnels simulating free
gorund water pressure drainage during excavation BEAM elements simulating
the tunnel linning
65m

90m 90m

Figure 5.7: Finite element mesh.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 95

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Material data

• Unit weights - see Table 5.3

• Stiffness parameters

– for HS models - E0 , Eur , E50 and γ0.7 calibrated using laboratory ε1 −q data
points for the isotropically consolidated undrained extension triaxial test
(CIEU) at p′0 = 750 kPa, as shown in Figure 5.10. The constant m was as-
sumed for London Clay equal to 0.75 as reported in Viggiani and Atkinson
(1995). The stiffness parameters are given in Table 5.5. A similar value of
E0 to the calibrated E0 = 390 MPa has been also reported by Gasparre
(2005).
– for the M-C model: two variants for E have been considered (see Table
5.4)
Set 1: E varying with depth z in meters (E = 6000z) as in the original
paper by Addenbrooke et al. (1997),
Set 2: profile for E adapted to the Eur profile assumed for HS models (i.e.
E = 3600z), as graphically presented in Figure 5.8.

• Strength and plastic potential parameters - typical values for London Clay (see
Table 5.3) have been adapted from the original paper (Addenbrooke et al., 1997)
for all considered models.

• Initial state parameters (see Table 5.6)

– the value of the overconsolidation ratio OCR for London Clay was assumed
equal to 15 as it is typically observed for depths around 20-30 meters.
– although the estimates of K0in situ for the London Clay are typically reported
of around 1.5, the value K0 = 1.0 has been adopted in the analysis. It
was observed that the isotropic Hardening Soil models may give incorrect
predictions for K0 >> 1.0 since stiffness in the model depends on the minor
principal stress (maximal settlements were not observed in the tunnel axis
but on its sides for K0 = 1.5). The comparative results produced by model
J4 in Addenbrooke et al. (1997) were obtained for K0 = 1.5.

• Permeability - sand and gravel were modelled as highly permeable materials,

whereas clayey soils were attributed with an anisotropic permeability decreasing
with depth, as shown in Figure 5.9. The fluid bulk modulus was assumed equal
to βf = 2.2 GPa.

• Characteristics for the tunnel lining which were adopted after the original paper
are summarized in Table 5.7.

96 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 5.8: Variation of the unloading-reloading modulus E (Eur ) with depth for different
models considered in the study.

Figure 5.9: Permeability profile assumed in the analysis.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 97

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Comments:

• Small strain nonlinear models, HS-SmallStrain and J4, well match laboratory data
points (in red) both in the very small strain (up to 0.01%) and in the small strains
(between 0.01 and 0.4%.

• HS-Std acceptably fits laboratory data at small strains, i.e. from 0.1%).

• M-C model fitted to laboratory data at 0.1% of axial strain strongly overestimates
soil stiffness with the increasing axial strain.

(a) Very small strains (b) Small strains

Figure 5.10: Stress-strain curves: comparison between non-linear models (HS-Std, HS-
SmallStrain, and J-4 model), linear Mohr-Coulomb model and laboratory test
data points obtained in the isotropically consolidated undrained extension test
(p′0 = 750 kPa).

98 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Figure 5.11: Variation of the undrained secant stiffness-strain curve ε1 − Esud : comparison
between numerical models and laboratory data points obtained in the isotrop-
ically (CIEU) and anisotropically (CAEU) consolidated undrained extension
tests (p′0 = 750 kPa).

Comments:

• In practical applications, linear models may underestimate excess pore water pressure
at very small strains.

• In consolidation analyses, M-C model may overestimate excess pore water pressure
in the zones of small strain (in this example beyond the axial strain of 0.1%.

(a) Very small strains (b) Small strains

Figure 5.12: Pore pressure-strain curves: comparison between non-linear models (HS-Std,
HS-SmallStrain, and J-4 model), linear Mohr-Coulomb model and laboratory
test data points obtained in the isotropically consolidated undrained extension
test (p′0 = 750 kPa).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 99

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Comments:

• Predictions from M-C model are strongly underestimated in contrast to the field data.

• Non-linear pre-failure analyses predict deeper and narrower profiles.

• HS-SmallStrain model gives narrower shape of surface settlements than HS-Std. The
higher stiffness of the HS-SmallStrain concentrates the strain levels at the unloading
boundary giving slightly deeper profile than HS-Std, and therefore the displacements
from 10m-offset from the tunnel axis are reduced further away to the mesh sides.

• The family of HS models gives a similar settlement profile to J4 model used in the
original paper.

Figure 5.13: Surface settlement profiles after excavation of 1st tunnel: comparison for dif-
ferent models.

100 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Comments:

• Decreasing K0 to 0.8 pronounces the effect of smaller horizontal stresses by bringing

closer the numerical results to the field data.

• The results obtained for K0 = 1.2 resemble the settlement profile which was obtained
with J4 model for K0 = 1.5 (cf. Figure 5.13).

Figure 5.14: Surface settlement profiles after excavation of 1st tunnel: HS-SmallStrain re-
sponse for different K0 .

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 101

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Figure 5.15: Pore pressure in the 1st tunnel axis: comparison of different models.

102 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Comments:

• A slight asymmetry in the field data is accordingly reproduced by all models.

• The family of HS models significantly better reproduces the shape of the surface
settlement profile in contrast to the M-C model.

Figure 5.16: Surface settlement profiles after excavation of 2nd tunnel: comparison for dif-
ferent models.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 103

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Figure 5.17: Surface settlement profiles after excavation of 2nd tunnel: HS-SmallStrain re-
ponse for different K0 .

104 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 (a)

(b)

Figure 5.18: Excavation of the westbound tunnel (a) vertical settlement in the tunnel axis;
(b) horizontal displacements along tunnel axis level of the westbound tunnel.

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 105

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Comments:

• In general, M-C produces smaller vertical and horizontal displacements in the tunnel
axes than non-linear models.

• Unlike to HS models, the model J4 does not automatically return high stiffness be-
havior on loading reversal occurring during consolidation after 1st excavation, the
displacements profiles for 2nd excavation are smaller than those obtained with HS
models. However, the results by HS models reveal accordance with the J4 model for
which the strains were zeroed across the entire mesh prior to 2nd excavation (J40).

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.19: Excavation of the eastbound tunnel (a) vertical settlement in the tunnel axis;
(b) horizontal displacements along tunnel axis level of the eastbound tunnel.

106 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Table 5.3: Unit weight, permeability, yield surface and plastic potential parameters for
Mohr-Coulomb and HS-models.

Sand Gravel London Clay Woolwich and

Reading Clay
Strength Linear c′ = 0 kPa c′ = 5.0 kPa c′ = 200 kPa
parameters elastic φ′ = 35o φ′ = 25o φ′ = 27o
Angle of dilatation elastic ψ = 17.5o ψ = 12.5o ψ = 13.5o
Bulk unit weight γdry = 18 γsat = 20 γsat = 20 γsat = 20
kN/m3 γsat = 20
Permeability coeffi- 10−5 10−4 see Fig. 5.9 see Fig. 5.9
cient m/s

Table 5.4: Elastic parameters of soil for linear elastic models, varying with depth below
ground surface, z in meters.

Sand Gravel London Woolwich and

Clay Reading Clay
Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Young’s modulus,
E kPa
set 1 ∗∗ 5000 6000z 6000z ∗
6000z
set 2 ∗∗ 5000 6000z 3600z 6000z
∗
E moduli of London Clay for HS models are provided in Table 5.5.
∗∗
set 1: values of E modulus from the reference paper; set 2: profile of E
modulus for London Clay similar to the profile of Eur obtained for the HS
models as shown in Figure 5.8.

Table 5.5: Stiffness parameters of London Clay for HS models at the reference stress σref =
360 kPa.

E0 [MPa] γ0.7 [-] Eur [MPa] E50 [MPa] m [-]

390 7e − 005 70000 40000 0.75

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 107

CHAPTER 5. STUDY CASES

Table 5.6: Initial state parameters assumed in this study.

K0NC [-] K0SR [-] K0 OCR

[-]
Sand 0.5 -
Gravel 0.5 -
London Clay 0.58 0.58 1.0 15
Woolwich and 1.0 -
Reading Clay

Table 5.7: Tunnel lining parameters.

Young’s modulus E Poisson’s ratio υ Cross sectional area Moment of inertia

A Iz
28 GPa 0.15 0.168 m2 /m 3.95136 m4 /m

108 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Appendix A

Determination of undrained shear

strength

A.1 Non-uniqueness of undrained shear strength

It has been widely recognized that the in situ behavior of soils may be significantly
different from that of laboratory samples. This can be mainly attributed to the qual-
ity of the intact specimens which may depend on drilling and sampling methods and
sample geometry (DeGroot and Sandven, 2004). The disturbance of samples may
increase during their insertion into a sampling tube, transportation, relaxation of
stresses, drying, temperature changes, trimming and, finally, their installation in the
testing cells, etc. (Hight et al., 1992). Different sampling devices such as piston sam-
plers, thin walled tubes or downhole block samplers can provide specimens for which
different magnitudes of preconsolidation pressure or undrained shear strength cu are
measured (e.g. Hight et al., 1992; Tanaka and Tanaka, 1999). Experience shows that
sample disturbance may lead to underestimation of the apparent preconsolidation
pressure or undrained shear strength (Karlsrud, 1999; Fioravante, 2004).
Inconsistencies in cu values measured by laboratory and field tests may also stem
from the non-uniqueness of this property. The undrained shear strength cu is not a
unique soil parameter (Wroth, 1984; Jamiolkowski et al., 1985), as it depends on the
type of test, which involves particular strain paths (cf. Figure A.1).
The differences in interpreted results also stems from the time-dependent be-
havior of soils (e.g. Vaid and Campanella, 1977; Leroueil, 1988; Sheahan et al., 1996;
Penumadu et al., 1998). The undrained shear strength increases linearly with the log-
arithm of the shear strain (Bjerrum, 1972; Nakase and Kamei, 1986). For instance,
the testing speed for SBPT or CPTU can be one or more orders of magnitude greater
than that used in the triaxial compression test TC (ε̇ = 0.01%/min), see Figure A.2.
Laboratory tests with the use of a model pressuremeter in clays have revealed an in-
crease of cu of about 10% for every tenfold increase of strain rate (Prapaharan et al.,
1989). While the overstimation of cu derived from pressuremeter test due to the strain
rate effect can be reasonably small, in the order of 10-20%, the differences for CPTU
can be much larger. The extrapolated results of Bjerrum (1972) (Figure A.2) can
indicate that neglecting the strain effect in the analysis of penetration may lead to
the considerable overestimation of cu of about 40% with respect to the value obtained

109
APPENDIX A. DETERMINATION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

0.5

0.45 CIUC

0.4
nc
(c /σ ´)

CKoUC
0.35
vo

PSC
0.3
u

0.25
FVT

0.2
DSS

15 20 25 30 35 40 45
o
φtc´ [ ]

(a) (b)

Figure A.1: Undrained shear strength in normally consolidated soil (a) as a function of
shear modes for various tests: triaxial undrained compression tests (CIUC
and CK0 UC), plain strain compression test (PSC), direct simple shear test
(DSS) and field vane test (FVT) (after Wroth, 1984), (b) profiles for field and
laboratory tests on Onsøy clay (from Lacasse et al., 1981).
.

for the conventional triaxial compression. Since the undrained shear strength is a
function of the stress history, the similar effects can be observed for the derived val-
ues of preconsolidation pressure σp′ . The study carried out by Leroueil et al. (1983b)
revealed the increase of about 10-14% for σp′ per log cycle of volumetric strain rate ε˙v
in the constant rate of strain oedometer test (CRS).

110 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 1.5

CPTU
TEST
SBPT
TC

STRAIN

C
1.4
RATE
PS ted
pola
8)

Vaid & Campanella tra

ex
99

(1977) CIUC
(1

1.3
al.
et

UC
cu / cu,0.01

du

Prapaharan et al.(1989)
ma

K o
1.2 PMT )C
nu

2
97
Pe

(1
r um
1.1 er
Bj

1
Nakase & Kamei (1986) CKoUC

0.9 M10
M15
M30
0.8 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Strain Rate, ε⋅ [%/min]
Figure A.2: The strain rate effect on undrained shear strength cu for different shear modes
and a schematic comparison of test strain rates for triaxial compression (TC),
self-boring pressuremeter (SBPT) and piezocone (CPTU).

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 111

APPENDIX A. DETERMINATION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

A.2 Determination of cu from field tests

FVT. The interpretation of cu from the standardly used field vane test (see Figure
A.3) can be carried out with the conventional formula:

6M M
cu = 3
= 0.2728 3 (A.1)
7πD D
in which M is the maximum recorded torque, and D is the diameter of vane.
Since the values of cu obtained with the above equation can be too conservative,
Chandler (1988) suggested increasing the factor 0.2728 to 0.2897.

Figure A.3: Standard dimensions of the most commonly used field vane test (from Chandler,
1988).

DMT. The values of cu can be correlated with the Marchetti’s dilatometer data
through the original formula suggested by Marchetti (1980):
′
cu = 0.22σv0 (0.5KD )1.25 (A.2)

where KD is the horizontal stress index which is calculated based on the first dilatome-
ter reading p0 (KD = (p0 − u0 )/σv0′
).

112 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

Appendix B

Determination of compression
index

113
APPENDIX B. DETERMINATION OF COMPRESSION INDEX

Table B.1: Some correlation equations for estimating consolidation parameters (after
Holtz et al., 1986; Bowles, 1997; Kempfert, 2006).

Compression index Applicability Reference

Cc = 0.009(wL − 10) Normally consolidated clays of low
Terzaghi and Peck
to medium sensitivity and wL <
(1967)
100(±30% error)
Cc = 0.007(wL − 10) Remoulded clays
Skempton (1944)
Cc = 0.007(wL − 7) Remoulded clays
Bowles (1984)
Cc = 0.0093wn Chicago clays and Alberta Province in
Canada (109 data points) Koppula (1981)
Cc = 0.0115wn Organic soils - meadow mats, peats,
and organic silt and clay Holtz et al. (1986)
Cc = 0.0115wn Organic silts and clays
Bowles (1984)
Cc = 0.75(e0 − 0.50) Soils with low plasticity
Bowles (1984)
Cc = 0.30(e0 − 0.27) Inorganic silty sand-silty clay
Hough (1969)
Cc = 1.15(e0 − 0.35) All clays
Nishida (1956)
Cc = 0.009wn + 0.005wL All clays
Koppula (1986)
Cc = 0.141G1.2
s [(1 + e0 )/Gs ]
2.38
All clays
Rendon-Herrero
(1983)
Cc = 0.37(e0 + 0.003wL + 678 data points
Azzouz et al.
0.0004wn − 0.34)
(1976)
Cc = PI/74 Data from different soils
Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990)

Recompression index Regions of applicability Reference

Cs = 0.000463wL Gs
Nagaraj and Murthy
(1985)
Cs = 0.00194(PI − 4.6) Best for PI< 50%
Nakase (1988)
Cs = PI/370 Data from different soils
Kulhawy and Mayne
(1990)
Cr /Cc is observed between 0.05 and 0.5, with typical values between 0.1-0.25 and the average
0.2 (cf. Mayne, 1980, 2007; Kempfert, 2006); lower values are observed for cemented soils
PI - plastic index in [%], wL - liquid limit in [%], wn natural water content in [%] .

114 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

References

Addenbrooke, T., Potts, D., and Puzrin, A. (1997). The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the
numerical analysis of the tunnel construction. Géotechnique, 47(3):693–712. 4, 93, 96

Alpan, I. (1970). The geotechnical properties of soils. Earth-Science Reviews, 6:5–49. 40, 54

Amar, S., Clarke, B., Gambin, M., and Orr, T., editors (1991). The application of pressuremeter test
results to foundation design in Europe. Part 1: Predrilled pressuremeters/self-boring pressureme-
ters. Balkema, Rotterdam. 70

Atkinson, J. and Sallfors, G. (1991). Experimental determination of soil properties. In Proc. 10th
ECSMFE, volume 3, pages 915–956, Florence, Italy. 2

Azzouz, A., Krizek, R., and Corotis, R. (1976). Regression analysis of soil compressibility. Soils and
Foundations, 16(2):19–29. 114

Benz, T. (2007). Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Phd, Universitat
Sttutgart. 6, 9, 43, 54, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85

Bjerrum, L. (1972). Embankments on soft ground. In Proc. Am.Soc. Civ Engs Specialty Conf. on
Perfomence of Earth and Earth supported Structures., volume 2, pages 1–54, Perdue University.
109

Bowles, J. (1984). Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. McGraw Hill, New York. 114

Bowles, J. (1997). Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill. 5, 114

Carter, M. and Bentley, S. (1991). Correlations of soil properties. Penetech Press Publishers, London.
50, 55

Casagrande, A. (1936). The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance.
In Casagrande, A., editor, In Proc. 1st Int Soil Mech and Found Engng Conf, 22-26 June 1936,
volume 3, pages 60–64, Cambridge, Mass. Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass. 31

Chandler, R. (1988). The in-situ measurements of the undrained shear strength of clays using the
field tests. Technical report, ASTM. 112

Chen, B. and Mayne, P. (1994). Profiling the OCR of clays by piezocone tests. Technical Report
Rep. No. CEEGEO-94-1, Georgia Institute of Technology. 68

Chen, B. and Mayne, P. (1996). Statistical relationships between piezocone measurements and stress
history of clays. Can Geotech J, 33:488–498. 68

Clough, G., Briauld, J., and Hughes, J. (1990). The developement of prssuremeter testing. In
Pressuremeters, 3rd Int Symp on Pressuremeters, pages 25–45, Oxford. Thomas Telford, London.
70

115
References

Dalton, J. and Hawkins, P. (1982). Fields of stress - some measurements of the in-situ stress in a
meadow in the Cambridgeshire countryside. Ground Engineering, 15(4):15–23. 70

Das, B. (2008). Advanced Soil Mechanics. Taylor & Francis, London & New York. 52, 53

DeGroot, D. and Sandven, R. (2004). General report: Laboratory and field comparisons. In de Fon-
seca, V. and Mayne, editors, Proc. ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization,
pages 1775–1789, Porto, Portugal. Millpress, Rotterdam. 109

Demers, D. and Leroueil, S. (2002). Evaluation of preconsolidation pressure and the overconsolida-
tion ratio from piezocone tests of clay deposits in quebec. Can Geotech J, 39:174–192. 68

Duncan, J. and Buchignani, A. (1976). An engineering manual for settlement studies. Technical
report, University of California. 62

Fahey, M. and Carter, J. (1993). A finite element study of the pressuremeter in sand using a nonlinear
elastic plastic model. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(2):348–362. 40

Finno, R. and Calvello, M. (2005). Supported excavations: the observational method and inverse
modeling. J Geotech Geoenv Engng ASCE, 131(7):826–836. 6

Fioravante, V. (2004). General report: Enhanced characterization by combined in situ testing. In

de Fonseca, V. and Mayne, editors, Proc. ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Character-
ization, pages 1585–1596, Porto, Portugal. Millpress, Rotterdam. 109

FOWG (2003). Documentation de base pour la vérification des ouvrages dâaccumulation aux séismes.
Technical report, Swiss Federal Office for Water and Geology. 38

Gasparre, A. (2005). Advanced laboratory characterisation of London Clay. PhD thesis, Imperial
College. 96

Hight, D., Böese, R., Butcher, A., Clayton, C., and Smith, P. (1992). Disturbance of the Bothkennar
clay prior to laboratory testing. Géotechnique, 42(2):199–217. 109

Hight, D. and Leroueil, S. (2003). Characterisation of soils for engineering purposes. In Tan, T.,
Phoon, K., Hight, D., and Leroueil, S., editors, Characterisation and engineering properties of
natural soils, volume 1, pages 254–360, Singapore. Swets and Zeitlinger. 68

Holtz, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1986). Lessons from oedometer tests on high
quality samples. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 112(8):768–776. 114

Hough, B. (1969). Basic soil engineering. Ronald Press Company, New York. 75, 114

Houlsby, G. and Hitchman, R. (1988). Calibration chamber tests of a cone penetrometer in sand.
Géotechnique, 38(1):39–44. 68

Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C., Germaine, J., and Lancellotta, R. (1985). New developments in field
and laboratory testing of soils. In Proc. 11th ICSMFE, volume 1, pages 57–153, San Francisco.
Balkema. 56, 70, 71, 109

Janbu, N. (1963). Soil compressibility as detrmined by oedometer and triaxial tests. In Proc.
ECSMFE, volume 1, pages 19–25, Wiesbaden. 12, 47

Karlsrud, K. (1999). General aspects of transportation infrastructure. In Barends, e. a., editor, 12th
European Conf on Soil Mech and Geotech Engng, volume 1, pages 17–30, Amsterdam. Balkema.
109

Kempfert, H. (2006). Excavations and foundations in soft soils. Springer, Heidelberg. 6, 12, 15, 33,
59, 64, 67, 114

116 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 References

Kezdi, A. (1974). Handbook of Soil Mechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 44, 60

Koppula, S. (1981). Stastical estimation of compression index. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 4(2):68–
73. 114

Koppula, S. (1986). Discussion: Consolidation parameters derived from index tests. Géotechnique,
36(2):291–292. 114

Kulhawy, F. and Mayne, P. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design.
Technical report, Electric Power Research Institute. 65, 66, 73, 74, 114

Lacasse, S., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., and Lunne, T. (1981). In situ characteristics of two
Norwegian clays. In Proc. 10th Int Conf Soil Mech and Found Engng, volume 2, Stockholm. 110

Lacasse, S. and Lunne, T. (1988). Calibration of dilatometer correlations. In Penetration Testing

88, ISOPT-1, volume 1, pages 539–548, Orlando, Florida. 69, 73

Larsson, R. and Mulabdić, M. (1991). Piezocone tests in clay. Technical Report Report No.42,
Swedish Geotechnical Institute. 68

Lavergne, M. (1986). Méthodes sismiques. Technip, Paris. 38

Leroueil, S. (1988). Tenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Recent developments in consolida-

tion of natural clays. Can Geotech J, 25:85–107. 109

Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., and Le Bihan, J.-P. (1983a). Propriétés caractéristiques des argiles de l’est
du Canada. Can Geotech J, 20(4):681–705. 31

Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., Samson, L., and Morin, P. (1983b). Preconsolidation pressure of champlain
clays. part II. laboratory determination. Can Geotech J, 20(4):803–816. 110

Li, X. and Dafalias, Y. (2000). Dilatancyfor cohesionless soils. Géotechnique, 50(4):449–460. 23, 24

Lindeburg, M. (2001). Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam. Professional Publica-
tions, Belmont, California. 39

Lunne, T., Robertson, P., and Powell, J. (1997). Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice.
Blackie Academic & Professional, London. 65, 66, 68, 74

Mair, R. and Wood, D. (1987). Pressuremeter testing. Methods and interpretation. Butterworths,
London. 70

Marchetti, S. (1980). In situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 106(3):299–321. 112

Masood, T. and Mitchell, J. (1993). Estimation of in situ lateral stresses in soils by cone-penetration
test. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 119(10):1624–1639. 72, 73

Mayne, P. (1980). Cam-clay predictions of undrained strength. J Geotech Engng ASCE,

106(GT11):1219–1242. 114

Mayne, P. (2005). Versatile site characterization by seismic piezocone. In Proc. 16th ICSMGE,
volume 2, Osaka. Millpress. 55, 56

Mayne, P. (2006). In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. In Tan, Phoon, Hight, and
Leroueil, editors, Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, volume 3, pages
1601–1652, Singapore. Taylor & Francis Group, London. 68

Mayne, P. (2007). Cone penetration testing. a synthesis of highway practice. Technical report,
Transportation Research Board. 40, 41, 54, 55, 68, 114

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 117

References

Mayne, P., Coop, M., Springman, S., Huang, A.-B., and Zornberg, J. (2009). State-of-the-art paper
(soa-1): Geomaterial behavior and testing. In ICSMGE, editor, 17th Int Conf Soil Mech And
Geotech Engng, volume 4, pages 2777–2872, Alexandria, Egypt. Millpress/IOS Press Rotterdam.
46

Mayne, P. and Kulhawy, F. (1982). Ko − OCR relationship in soils. J Geotech Engng ASCE,
108(6):851–872. 71

Meyerhof, G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J Soils Mechanics
and Foundation Division ASCE, 82(SM1). 48

Nagaraj, T. and Murthy, B. (1985). Prediction of the preconsolidation pressure and recompression
index of soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 8(4):199–202. 114

Nakase, A. (1988). Constitutive parameters estimated by plasticity index. J Geotech Engng ASCE,
114(GT7):844–858. 114

Nakase, A. and Kamei, T. (1986). Influence of strain rate on undrained shear characteristics of
ko -consolidated cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 26(1):85–95. 109

NAVFAC (1986). Foundations and earth structures: Design Manual DM-7.02. Technical report,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Publications Transmittal. 39

Nishida, Y. (1956). A brief note on compression index of soils. J Soils Mechanics and Foundation
Division ASCE, 82(SM3):1027. 114

Pacheco-Silva, F. (1970). A new graphical construction for determination of the pre-consolidation

stress of a soil sample. In 4th Brazilian Conf on Soil Mech and Found Engng, volume 1, pages
225–232, Rio de Janeiro. 31

Peck, R., Hanson, W., and Thornburn, T. (1974). Foundation Engineering Handbook. Wiley, London.
48

Penumadu, D., Skandarajah, A., and Chameau, J. (1998). Strain-rate effects in pressuremeter testing
using a cuboidal shear device: experiments and modeling. Can Geotech J, 35:27–42. 109

Prapaharan, S., Chameau, J., and Holtz, R. (1989). Effect of strain rate on undrained strength
derived from pressuremeter tests. Géotechnique, 39(4):615–624. 109

Prat, M., Bisch, E., Millard, A., Mestat, P., and Cabot, G. (1995). La modelisation des ouvrages.
Hermes, Paris. 44, 60

Rendon-Herrero, O. (1983). Closure: Universal compression index equation. J Geotech Engng ASCE,
109(GT5):755–761. 114

Robertson, P. and Campanella, R. (1983). Interpretation of cone penetration tests. part I: Sand.
Can Geotech J, 20(4):718–33. 41, 42, 44, 49

Sandven, R., Senneset, K., and Janbu, N. (1988). Interpretation of piezocone tests in cohesive soils.
In De Ruiter, J., editor, ISOPT-1 Penetration Testing, pages 939–953. Balkema, Rotterdam. 55,
65

Sanglerat, G. (1972). The penetrometer and soil exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 65

Schanz, T. (1998). Zur modellierung des mechanischen verhaltens von reinbungsmaterialien. Mitt
Inst fur Geotechnik, Universitat Stuttgart, 1998, 45. 9

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P., and Bonier, P., editors (1999). Formulation and verification of the Hard-
ening Soil model. Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam. 9

118 Z Soil.PC 100701 report

 References

Schmertmann, J. (1978). Guidlines for cone penetration test, performance and design. Technical
report, US Federal Highway Admininstration. 50

Schweiger, H. (2002). Benchmarking in geotechnics. part I: Results of benchmarking. part II refer-

ence solution and parametric study. Technical report, Institute for Slil Mechnaics and Foundation
Engineering, Graz University of Technology. 85

Senneset, K., Sandven, R., and Janbu, N. (1989). The evaluation of soil paramters from piezocone
tests. Transportation Research Record, 1235:24–37. 65

Sheahan, T., Ladd, C., and Germaine, J. (1996). Rate-dependent undrained shear behavior of
saturated clay. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 122(2):99–108. 109

Skempton, A. (1944). Notes on the compressibility of clays. Quarterly Journal of Geotechnical

Society, London., pages 119–135. 114

Stokoe, K., Derendeli, M., Gilbertl, R., Menq, F., and Choi, W. (2004). Development of a new family
of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. In Int Workshop on Uncertainties
in Nonlinear Soil Properties and their Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, UC Berkley.
54

Sully, J. and Campanella, R. (1991). Effect of lateral stress on CPT penetration pore pressures. J
Geotech Eng ASCE, 117(7):1082–1088. 72

Tanaka, H. and Tanaka, M. (1999). Kay factors governing sample quality. In Int Symp on Coastal
Engng in Practice, pages 57–82, Yokohama. 109

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley and Sons, New
York. 114

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley, New
York. 75

Totani, G., Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., and Calabrese, M. (1999). Impiego della prova dilatometrica
(dmt) nella progettazione geotecnica. In XX National Geotechnical Congress, volume 1, pages
301–308, Parma. 49

Totani, G., Marchetti, S., Monaco, P., and Calabrese, M. (2001). Use of the flat dilatometer test
(dmt) in geotechnical design. In Rahardjo, P. and Lunne, T., editors, IN SITU 2001 Int Conf In
Situ Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Indonesia. 69

Truty, A. (2008). Hardening soil model with samll strain stiffness. Technical report, Zace Services
Ltd. 1, 5, 6, 17, 23

UFC (2004). Unified facilities criteria: Soils and geology procedures for foundation design of build-
ings and other structures (except hydraulic structures). technical manual TM 5-818-1/AFM 88-3.
Technical report, Joint Departments of the Army and Air Force USA. 53

Vaid, Y. and Campanella, R. (1977). Time-dependent behavior of undisturbed clay. J Geotech Eng
ASCE, 103(7):693–709. 109

Viggiani, G. and Atkinson, J. (1995). Stiffness of fine grained soil at very small strain. Géotechnique,
45(2):249–265. 96

Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng ASCE,
117(1):89–107. 54

Z Soil.PC 100701 report 119

References

Wichtmann, T. and Triantafyllidis, T. (2004). Influence of a cyclic and dynamic loading history on
dynamic properties of dry sand, part i: cyclic and dynamic torsional prestraining. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Eng., 24(2):127–147. 43

Wroth, C. (1984). The interpretation of in situ tests. Géotechnique, 34(4):449–489. 56, 109, 110

ZACE (2010). Zsoil pc2010, user manual, soil, rock and structural mechanics in dry or partially
saturated media. Technical report, ZACE Servoces Ltd, Software Engineering. 4

120 Z Soil.PC 100701 report