CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE AND AIMS

This book is concerned with plasticity theory of geomaterials (i.e. clay, sand, silt,
rock etc) and its application to geotechnical analysis and design. In a classic book.
Hill (1950) gives the following concise definition for plasticity theory:
"The theory of plasticity is the name given to the mathematical study of stress
and strain in plastically deformed solids. It takes as its starting point certain
experimental observations of the macroscopic behaviour of a plastic solid
in uniform state of combined stress. The task of the theory is two fold: first,
to construct explicit relations between stress and strain agreeing with the ob-
servations as closely and as universally as need be; and second, to develop
mathematical techniques for calculating non-uniform distributions of stress
and strain in bodies permanently distorted in any way. "

This definition is followed in the present book which will focus on developments
of appropriate constitutive theories of stress-strain relations for geomaterials and
various analytical and computational solution techniques that can be used to solve
geotechnical design problems involving plastic deformation.
Since the subject now has a very wide scope and is still undergoing a steady de-
velopment, it will be a difficuU task to write a 'definitive' book that would cover
every aspect of the development. Instead of covering the whole field cursorily, this
book aims to bring together, in one volume, key concepts behind some of the most
useful developments in plasticity theory for geomaterials and to discuss their ap-
plications to geotechnical analysis. The emphasis is on recent achievements, the
inter-relation of key concepts together with their connections to classical metal
plasticity, as well as the research work that I have been involved with over the past
two decades. Despite this selective nature, the book still gives a comprehensive and
unified account of plasticity theory for geomaterials. It is hoped that this publica-
tion will facilitate further development and application of plasticity theory in geo-
technical engineering.

1.2 A BRIEF HISTORICAL OUTLINE

In this section, a very brief review is given on the development of the subject of
plasticity theory of geomaterials. In view of the above discussion, it is instructive
2 INTRODUCTION

to treat elastic-plastic stress-strain relations and plastic solution techniques sepa-

rately.

1.2.1 Elastic-plastic stress-strain relations

The foundation of classical plasticity theory was laid by the 1950s and 1960s after
several decades of theoretical and experimental research on plastic behaviour of
metals. A review of this early development can be found in Nadai (1950), Hill
(1950), Drucker (1950), Prager (1955) and Naghdi (1960). Key concepts of this
foundation include the assumption of coaxiality of the principal stress and strain
rate tensors by de Saint-Venant (1870), plastic potential theory by von Mises (1928)
and Melan (1938), maximum plastic work principle by Hill (1948), Drucker's sta-
bility postulate (Drucker, 1952, 1958), and kinematic hardening laws by Prager
(1955) and Ziegler (1959).
The early development of plasticity theory of geomaterials has been built upon
this foundation achieved in metal plasticity. Unlike metal plasticity, however, vol-
ume changes during loading play a key role in modelling plastic behaviour of geo-
materials. The work on soil hardening by Drucker et al. (1957) and that on soil
yielding by Roscoe et al. (1958) laid the foundations for critical state theory, a con-
cept that underpins much of the later developments in plasticity theory for geomat-
erials (Schofield and Wroth, 1968; Roscoe and Burland, 1968; Wroth and Houlsby,
1985; Yu, 1998).
More recent developments of metal plasticity include important concepts such
as bounding surface plasticity (Dafalias and Popov, 1975; Krieg, 1975), multi-sur-
face plasticity (Mroz, 1967; Iwan, 1967), and endochronic theory (Valanis, 1971).
All these concepts have been applied with considerable success in modelling geo-
materials over the last two decades. Other notable concepts that have been used to
develop plastic stress-strain relations for geomaterials are double shearing theory
(Spencer, 1964; deJosselinde Jong, I971;Harris, 1995; Yu and Yuan, 2005,2006),
yield vertex theory (Rudnicki and Rice, 1975; Yang and Yu, 2006a,b), thermome-
chanical approach (Houlsby, 1982; Maugin, 1992; Collins and Houlsby, 1997),
mathematical theory of envelopes (Chandler, 1985), and hypoplastic theory
(Green, 1956; Kolymbas, 1991). Apart from stress space-based formulations,
Naghdi and Trapp (1975) and Yoder and Iwan (1981) show that plasticity models
can also be formulated in strain space. Although the strain space approach was used
by a few geotechnical researchers (Zheng et al., 1986; Simpson, 1992; Einav,
2004), its application in geotechnical engineering has so far been very rare.
Most stress-strain relations currently in use are developed based on experimental
observations of the macroscopic behaviour of geomaterials in a uniform state of
 CHAPTER 1 3

combined stress in tiie laboratory (e.g. Jamiolkowski et ah, 1985; Mitchell, 1993).
In recent years, however, there has been an increasing use of micromechanics and
the discrete element method (DEM) (Cundall and Strack, 1979; Thornton, 2000;
McDowell and Bolton, 1998; McDowell and Harireche, 2002; Jiang et al, 2005;
Jiang and Yu, 2006) for validating or providing physical insights for continuum
plasticity theories.

1.2.2 Plastic solution techniques

Once a suitable stress-strain relation is developed, it needs to be combined with

equilibrium equations and compatibility conditions for solving geotechnical
boundary value problems. In general, these governing equations are too complex
to be solved analytically. Analytical solutions are possible only for problems with
very simple geometry and boundary conditions such as cavity expansion problems
solved by Hill (1950) and Yu (2000a). For most problems of practical interest, how-
ever, numerical methods (e.g. finite element methods, finite difference methods,
boundary element methods, and discrete element methods) will have to be
employed (e.g. Sloan and Randolph, 1982; Brown, 1987; Gens and Potts, 1988;
Zienkiewicz et al, 1998; Carter et al, 2000; Yu, 2000b).
Many geotechnical designs rely on two key calculations: stability analysis and
deformation analysis (Terzaghi, 1943; Wroth and Houlsby, 1985). The former is to
ensure that geotechnical structures are safe and stable and the latter is to ensure that
deformation experienced by a geotechnical structure under working loads is not ex-
cessively large. In the past, geotechnical stability analysis has been carried out
largely based on a perfectly plastic material model. This is because that for perfectly
plastic behaviour, the slip line method and bound theorems of limit and shakedown
analysis developed in the classical plasticity theory allow the failure and stability
calculations to be carried out in a relatively simple manner (Hill, 1950; Sokolovski,
1965; Koiter, 1960; Davis, 1968, Chen, 1975; Salencon, 1977).
With respect to deformation analysis, past practice has been based on elastic
analysis (Poulos and Davis, 1974). This is now recognized to be inaccurate for
many cases as experimental research suggests that behaviour of geomaterials is
highly nonlinear and plastic, even at very small strain (Burland, 1989). Therefore
an appropriate deformation analysis would need to be based on the use of nonlinear
elasticity and accurate plastic stress-strain relations.
There is no doubt that a most important development over the last three decades
in geotechnical analysis has been the widespread application of finite element
methods in both stability and deformation calculations (Naylor et al, 1981; Chen
and Mizuno, 1990; Zienkiewicz et al, 1998; Potts and Zdravkovic, 1999; Carter
4 INTRODUCTION

et al., 2000). Finite element analysis is particularly popular because it is very gener-
al and is capable of incorporating any material stress-strain relations. The finite ele-
ment method can easily account for both material and geometric nonlinearities,
which are often present in boundary value problems facing the geotechnical engi-
neer.

1.3 CONTINUUM VERSUS DISCRETE APPROACHES

Mechanics is the science that deals with the interaction between force and motion.
In understanding the difference between continuum (i.e. macroscopic) and discrete
(i.e. microscopic) approaches, the following remarks of Spencer (1980) may prove
instructive:
"Modem physical theories tell us that on the microscopic scale matter is dis-
continuous; it consists of molecules, atoms and even smaller particles. How-
ever, we usually have to deal with pieces of matter which are very large
compared with these particles; this is true in everyday life, in nearly all engi-
neering applications of mechanics, and in many applications in physics. In
such cases we are not concerned with the motion of individual atoms and
molecules, but only with their behaviour in some average sense. In principle,
if we knew enough about the behaviour of matter on the microscopic scale
it would be possible to calculate the way in which material behaves on the
macroscopic scale by applying appropriate statistical procedures. In prac-
tice, such calculations are extremely difficult; only the simplest systems can
be studied in this way, and even in these simple cases many approximations
have to be made in order to obtain results."

Continuum solid mechanics is concerned with the mechanical behaviour of solids

on the macroscopic scale. It ignores the discrete nature of matter and treats material
as uniformly distributed throughout regions of space. For reasons outlined above,
continuum mechanics has been for many years and, in my view, will continue to
be the main theoretical basis for modelling mechanical behaviour of geomaterials.
As noted earlier, we have seen an increasing use of discrete mechanics (i.e. the
microscopic approach) in recent years. In geotechnical engineering, this trend
stems from the development of the Discrete Element Method (DEM) by Cundall
and Strack (1979) for modelling granular material. The discrete element method
was originally intended as a research tool for investigating the micro-mechanics of
granular materials in order to identify the appropriate physically sound continuum
model that then might be used in finite element analysis of boundary value prob-
lems. As stated by Thornton (2000), however, little progress has been made towards
achieving this long term goal. Despite this slow progress, DEM simulations have
 CHAPTER 1 5

provided useful insights into the behaviour of granular materials at the grain scale
(Rothenburg and Bathurst, 1992; Cundall, 2000; Thornton, 2000; Jiang et al,
2005; Jiang and Yu, 2006). Thornton (2000) was right to point out that such in-
formation obtained from DEM simulations about what happens inside granular ma-
terials could lead to reassessment of the underlying concepts and assumptions em-
bedded in traditional continuum mechanics.
In view of the above discussion, this book is mainly concerned with continuum
theories of plasticity. However, microscopic information derived from analytical
micro-mechanical studies or discrete element modelling will also be used to aid our
development whenever possible.

1.4 SIGN CONVENTIONS

Much of the theory of plasticity was initially developed for metals for which tensile
stresses are usually considered to be positive. Unfortunately the opposite sign con-
vention is usually adopted in geomechanics because compressive normal stresses
are more common than tensile ones. In general, this book adopts the conventional
geomechanics sign notation. As in the book of Davis and Selvadurai (1996), how-
ever, there are exceptions to this convention particularly in some of the later chap-
ters that deal with elastic-plastic solutions (e.g. Chapters 8, 10, 12 and 13). This
should not cause confusion as we will make it clear at each stage of the text whenev-
er a tension positive notation is employed.

REFERENCES

Brown, E.T. (1987). Analytical and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Me-
chanics, "Expanded version of the lectures given at the John Bray Colloquium", Allen
& Unwin, London.
Burland, J.B. (1989). Small is beautiful: the stiffness of soils at small strains, Can. Geo-
rec/i./.. Vol 26,499-516.
Carter, J.P., Desai, C.S., Potts, D.M., Schweiger, H.F. and Sloan, S.W. (2000). Computing
and computer modelling in geotechnical engineering, Proc. of GeoEng2000, Vol I,
1157-1252.
Chandler, H.W. (1985). A plasticity theory without Drucker's postulate, suitable for
granular materials, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol 33, 215-226.
Chen, W.F. (1975). Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Chen, W.F. and Mizuno, E. (1990). Nonlinear Analysis in Soil Mechanics. Elsevier, Ams-
terdam.
6 INTRODUCTION
Collins, I.F. and Houlsby, G.T. (1997). Application of thermomechanical principles to the
modelling of geotechnical materials, Proc. R. Soc. A., Vol 453, 1975-2001.
Cundall, P.A. (2000). A discontinuous future for numerical modelling in geomechanics,
Proc. ICE: Geotech. Eng., Vol 149,41-47.
Cundall, P.A. and Strack, O.D.L. (1979). A discrete numerical model for granular assem-
blies, Geotechnique., Vol 29, 47-65.
Dafalias, Y.F. and Popov, E.P. (1975). A model of nonlinearly hardening materials for
complex loadings, Acta Meek, Vol 21, 173-192.
Davis, E.H. (1968). Theories of plasticity and the failure of soil masses. In: Soil Me-
chanics: Selected Topics, (Editor: 1. K. Lee), Butterworths, London, 341-380.
Davis, R.O. and Selvadurai, A.P.S. (1996). Elasticity and Geomechanics, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
de Josselin de Jong, G. (1971). The double sliding, free rotating model for granular assem-
blies, Geotechnique., Vol 21, 155-162.
de Saint-Venant, B (1870). Memoire sur I'etablissement des equations differentielles des
mouvements interieurs operes dans les corps solides ductiles au dela des limites ou I'e-
lasticite pourrait les ramener a leur premier etat, C.R. Acas. Sci. (Paris), Vol 70,
473-480.
Drucker, D.C. (1950). Stress-strain relations in the plastic range: a survey of the theory and
experiment. Report for Office of Naval Research Contract N7-onr-358, December,
Brown University.

Drucker, D.C. (1952). A more fundamental approach to plastic stress-strain relations, In:
Proc. 1st US Nat. Congn Appl. Mech., ASME, New York, 487-491.
Drucker, D.C. (1958). The definition of a stable inelastic material, I Appl. Mech., ASME,
Vol 26, 101-106.
Drucker, D.C, Gibson, R.E. and Henkel, D.J. (1957). Soil mechanics and working harden-
ing theories of plasticity. Trans. ASCE, Vol 122, 338-346.
Einav, I. (2004). Thermomechnical relations between stress space and strain space mo-
dels, Geotechnique, Vol 54, 315-318.
Gens, A. and Potts, D.M. (1988). Critical state models in computational geomechanics.
Eng. Comput., Vol 5, 178-197.
Green, A.E. (1956). Hypo-elasticity and plasticity, Proc. R. Soc. A., Vol 234,46-59.
Harris, D. (1995). A unified formulation for plasticity models of granular and other materi-
als, Proc. R. Soc. A., Vol 450, 37-49.
Hill, R. (1948). A variational principle of maximum plastic work in classical plasticity,
Q.J. Mech. Appl. Math., Vol 1, 18-28.
 CHAPTER 1 7

Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Houlsby, G.T. (1982). A derivation of the small-strain incremental theory of plasticity
from thermodynamics, Proc. lUTAM Conf. on Deformation and Failure of Granular
Materials, Delft, 109-118.
Iwan, W.D. (1967). On a class of models for the yielding behaviour of continuous and com-
posite systems, J. Appl. Meek, Vol 34, 612-617.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C, Germaine, J.T. and Lancellotta, R. (1985). New develop-
ments in field and laboratory testing of soils, Theme Lecture, Proc. 11th Int. Conf on
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., San Francisco, Vol 1, 57-153, Balkema.
Jiang, M.J., Harris, D. and Yu, H.S. (2005). Kinematic models for non-coaxial granular
materials: Part I and Part II, Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol 29, 643-689.
Jiang, M.J. and Yu, H.S. (2006). Application of the discrete element method to modern
geomechanics, In: Modern Trends in Geomechanics, (Editors: W. Wu and H.S. Yu),
Springer.
Koiter, W.T. (1960). General theorems for elastic-plastic solids. In: Progress in Solid Me-
chanics, (Editors: I.N. Sneddon and R. Hill), Vol 1, 167-221.
Kolymbas, D. (1991). An outline of hypoplasticity, Arch. Appl. Mech., Vol 61, 143-151.
Krieg, R.D. (1975). A practical two-surface plasticity theory, J. Appl. Mech., Vol 42,
641-646.
Maugin, G.A. (1992). The Thermomechanics of Plasticity and Fracture, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
McDowell, G.R. and Bolton, M.D. (1998). On the micromechanics of crushable aggre-
gates, Geotechnique, Vol 48, 667-679.
McDowell, G.R. and Harireche, O. (2002). Discrete elment modelling of yielding and
nomral compression of sand, Geotechnique, Vol 52, 299-304.
Melan, E (1938). Zur plastizitat des raumlichen Kontinuums, Ing. Arch., Vol 9, 116-125.
Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Mroz, Z (1967). On the description of anisotropic hardening, J. Mech. Phys. Solids., Vol
15, 163-175.
Nadai, A. (1950). Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Naylor, D.J., Pande, G.N., Simpson, B. and Tabb, R. (1981). Finite Elements in Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Pineridge Press, Swansea.
Naghdi, P.M. (1960). Stress-strain relations in plasticity and thermoplasticity. In: Plastici-
ty, (Editors: E.H. Lee and P S . Symonds), Pergamon Press, 121-169.
8 INTRODUCTION

Naghdi, P.M. and Trapp, J.A. (1975). The significance of formulating plasticity theory
with reference to loading surfaces in strain space. Int. J. Eng. ScL, Vol 13, 785-797.
Prager, W. (1955). The theory of plasticity - a survey of recent achievements, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng., London, 3-19.
Potts, D. M. and Zdravkovic, L. (1999). Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical En-
gineering: Theory, Thomas Telford, London.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1974). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics, John
Wiley, New York.
Roscoe, K.H. and Burland, J.B. (1968). On generalised stress strain behaviour of wet clay.
In: Engineering Plasticity (edited by Heyman and Leckie), 535-609.
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.R (1958). On yielding of soils, Geotech-
nique.. Vol 8, 28.
Rothenburg, L. and Bathurst, R.J. (1992). Micromechanical features of granular assem-
blies with planar elliptical particles, Geotechnique, Vol 42, 79-95.
Rudnicki, J.W. and Rice, J.R. (1975). Conditions for the localisation of deformation in
pressure-sensitive dilatant materials, J. Mech. Phys. Solids., Vol 23, 371-394.
Salencon, J. (1977). Applications of the Theory of Plasticity in Soil Mechanics, Wiley,
Chichester.
Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.P (1968). Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill,
London.
Simpson, B. (1992). Retaining structure: displacement and design, Geotechnique, Vol 42,
539-576.
Sloan, S.W. and Randolph, M.F. (1982). Numerical prediction of collapse loads using fi-
nite element methods. Int. J. Num. Analy. Meth. Geomeck, Vol 6, 47-76.
Sokolovskii, V.V. (1965). Statics of Granular Media, Pergamon, Oxford.
Spencer, A.J.M. (1964). A theory of the kinematics of ideal soils under plane strain condi-
tions, J. Mech. Phys. Solids., Vol 12, 337-351.
Spencer, A.J.M. (1980). Continuum Mechanics. Dover Publications, New York.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Thornton, C. (2000). Microscopic approach contributions to constitutive modelling, In:
Constitutive Modelling of Granular Materials, (Editor: D. Kolymbas), Springer
193-208.
Valanis, K.C. (1971). A theory of viscoplasticity without a yield surface, Arch. Mech., Vol
23,517-534.
von Mises, R (1928). Mechanik der plastischen Formaenderung von Kristallen, Z. angew.
Math. Meek, Vol 8, 161-185.
 CHAPTER 1 9

Wroth, C.P. and Houlsby, G.T. (1985). Soil mechanics - property characterisation and ana-
lysis procedures, Proc. 11th Int ConfoflSSMFE, Theme Lecture, Vol 1, 1-55.
Yang, Y. and Yu, H.S. (2006a). Numerical simulations of simple shear with non-coaxial
soil models, Int. J. Num. Analy. Meth. Geomech., Vol 30, 1-19.
Yang, Y. and Yu, H.S. (20G6b). A non-coaxial critical state soil model and its application
to simple shear simulations, Int. J. Num. Analy. Meth. Geomech. (in press).
Yoder, P.J. and Iwan, W.D. (1981). On the formulation of strain-space plasticity with
multiple loading surfaces. J. Appl. Meek, Vol 48,111>-11^.
Yu, H.S. (1998). CASM: A unified state parameter model for clay and sand. Int. J. Num.
Analy. Meth. Geomech., Vol 22, 621-653.
Yu, H.S. (2000a). Cavity Expansion Methods in Geomechanics, Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers.
Yu, H.S. (2000b). Theoretical Methods in Geomechanics, DSc Thesis, University of
Newcastle, Australia.
Yu, H.S. and Yuan, X. (2005). The importance of accounting for non-coaxial behaviour
in modelling soil-structure interaction, Proc. 11th Int Conf. of lACMAG, (Editors: G
Barla and M. Barla), Patron Editore, Invited Issue Paper, Vol 4, 709-718.
Yu, H.S. and Yuan, X. (2006). On a class of non-coaxial plasticity models for granular
soils, Proc. R. Soc. A., Vol 462, 725-748.
Zheng, Y, Chu, J. and Xu, Z. (1986). Strain space formulation of the elasto-plastic theory
and its finite element implementation. Comput. Geotech. Vol 2, 373-388.
Ziegler, H. (1959). A modification of Prager's hardening rule. Quart. Appl. Math. Vol 17,
55.
Zienkiewicz, O.C, Chan, A.H.C., Pastor, M., Schrefler, B.A. and Shiomi, T (1998). Com-
putational Geomechanics, Wiley.