See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266468953

Review of Visco-plastic Soil Models for Predicting

the Performance of Embankments on Soft Soils
CONFERENCE PAPER JANUARY 2008

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

19

13

1 AUTHOR:
Md Rajibul Karim
Queen's University Belfast
23 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Md Rajibul Karim

Retrieved on: 17 July 2015

th

The 12 International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Review of Visco-plastic Soil Models for Predicting the Performance

of Embankments on Soft Soils
Md. Rajibul Karim
PhD student, School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, UNSW,ADFA, Australia

Carthigesu T. (Rajah) Gnanendran

Senior Lecturer, School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, UNSW,ADFA, Australia
Keywords: Creep, soft soil, constitutive model, embankments, rate effects, secondary compression
ABSTRACT: A number of constitutive models that account for creep or secondary compression and rate
dependent behaviour of soil have been reviewed in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. Some results of
numerical analysis of some embankments have been discussed and an effort has been made to find out their
strengths and limitations.

1.

Introduction

Soft soils are problematic due to low shear strength, high water content and large time dependent deformations.
However due to rapid growth of infrastructure and transportation development, the necessity of constructing road
embankments and other geotechnical structures on such problematic soils is common. Excessive ground
deformation which is a common scenario in such problematic soils, causes severe damages to pavements and/or
related structures and has been a great concern to geotechnical engineers.
Research on soft soils has been an active subject for the last few decades but still there are major difficulties in
predicting the multiple behavior characteristics (settlement, lateral displacement, pore water pressure and their
variation with time) of embankments and other geotechnical structures constructed on soft-sensitive soils with a
single analysis using a single set of parameters.
An increasing effort has been devoted since 1960s to develop a more comprehensive description of soil
behaviour. Numerous formulations have been proposed in the soil mechanics literature and considerable
attentions have been given to the development of constitutive equations for soil media. Though a number of
different models have been proposed, there is not yet firm agreement among researchers. Elastic (Duncan &
Chang, 1970), Endochronic (Bazant & Krizek, 1976; Valanis & Read, 1982), Micromechanical, Elasto-plastic
(Pender, 1977; Roscoe & Burland, 1968) and many Elastic visco-plastic models (Adachi & Oka, 1982; Borja &
Kavazanjian, 1985; Kutter & Sathialingam, 1992; Sekiguchi, 1977) with various degree of sophistication and/or
complexity have been proposed. Among them Elastic visco-plastic models appear to be most promising
(Prevost & Popescu, 1996).
Although simple nonlinear elastic stress-strain models like hyperbolic models are not capable enough to model
the fundamental aspects of the real soil behaviour, they still remain popular in practice because of their simplicity.
The discussion of this paper is limited to the two main groups of elastic visco-plastic constitutive models namely
the Creep formulated models (e.g. Yin & Graham, 1989, 1990, 1999; Kutter & Sathialingham, 1992; Borja &
Kavazanjian, 1985) and Rate formulated models (e.g. Adachi & Okano, 1974; Oka, 1981; Adachi & Oka, 1982;
Sekiguchi 1977, 1985) and their numerical implementation. Both types of models predict the time dependent
behaviour of clays. The rate formulated models describe the rate dependent behavior of clays directly whereas
the creep behaviour is described in an indirect manner and on the other hand the creep formulated models are
capable of modeling the creep directly through its mathematical formulation whereas the rate-sensitive behaviour
is modeled indirectly (Gnanendran et al., 2006). From here on, the rate formulated models are referred as rate
model and creep formulated models are referred as creep model.
The objective of this paper is to critically review these two major streams of elastic visco-plastic constitutive
models namely the rate and creep models and discuss some of the results from recent studies concerning
numerical implementation for predicting the multiple behaviour characteristics of embankments on soft soils.

2.

Elastic visco-plastic models

The first attempt to rationalize the behaviour observed in the laboratory soil tests was made by the Cambridge

945

group in early 1960s. The Cam-clay model they proposed was the first and simplest modern elasto-plastic
constitutive model. Although Cam-clay makes a significant step forward in modeling of soil behaviour, there is
some aspect of stress-strain modeling where it is deficient. For example the shear strain predicted by Cam-clay is
too high at low stress ratios. Burland (1965) and Roscoe & Burland (1968) changed the assumption for dissipated
work in Cam-clay formulation and came up with a new elliptical shape for the yield surface. Better prediction of
shear strain was achieved at lower stress level with the modified form of the Cam-clay.
Under the effect of cyclic loading, pore pressure in soil tends to build up by a certain cumulative amount in each
cycle. If one uses Cam-clay or modified Cam-clay in this situation, then the pore pressure increases in the first
cycle, but after that it remains constant. This problem can obviously be circumvented by abandoning the
assumption of elasticity beneath the stable state boundary surface (Britto & Gunn, 1987). Another limitation of
Cam-clay or modified Cam-clay formulation is that it can not explain the k0 compression (straining under zero
lateral strain condition) behaviour of soil properly, probably due to the assumption of isotropy in its formulation.
The value of earth pressure coefficient at rest (k0, which is generally considered as constant) changes during
loading.
Though Cam-clay can model the inviscid (non viscous) stress-strain behaviour of soils quite successfully, no
deformation is predicted by this model under constant effective stress in the absence of hydrodynamic lag. That
is, the Cam-clay is not capable of modeling the time/rate dependent behaviour of soils which is of vital importance
in the long term performance of structures especially those constructed on rate sensitive soils.
It has long been recognized that the secondary compression (or secondary consolidation) also known as soil
creep deformation is a major contributor to the total deformation of young clays (Bjerrum, 1967). Mesri & Choi
(1979) have confirmed that in soft clays, settlements take place with almost constant values of effective stresses
and pore water pressure. Febro-Cordero & Mesri (1974) pointed out that the secondary consolidation occurred
even in the case of isotropic consolidation.
Based on experimental works, Singh & Mitchell (1968), Shibata & Karube (1969), Barden (1969), Walker et al.
(1969) suggested that the creep rate of clays might be a function of deviatoric stress or the ratio of deviatoric
stress and mean normal stress and they proposed various empirical relations. Though these equations really
represent the dynamic process of deformation of clays, they are restricted in the specific dimension or phase of
behaviour and not to be referred to as the general constitutive equations (Adachi & Okano, 1974). The situation
was like this until Adachi & Okano (1974) first came up with their general elastic visco-plastic formulation to
describe the rate dependent behaviour of the soil media.
2.1

Rate models

Adachi & Okano (1974) were the first to propose a rate formulated elastic visco-plastic constitutive model that
extended the critical state energy theory or Cam-clay theory (Roscoe et al., 1963). Perzynas (1963) viscoplastic
continuum and experimental results were used to extend the constitutive equations to describe the viscous
effects of normally consolidated clays.
Perzyna (1963) pointed out that the difference of the dynamic and static behaviour of material takes place
because of the strain rate sensitivity of the material and defined this as viscoplastic behaviour. He assumed the
existence of so called excess stress function F which is represented by the difference between the dynamic
vp
p
loading function fd (ij, , ij ) = kd and static yield function given by fs(ij, , ij ) = ks. The excess stress function F
was defined as follows:
fd
(1)
1
F =
fs
And the viscoplastic strain rate tensor for the simple case of an infinitesimal strain field was given by,
f
vp
(2)
&ij = ( ) < ( F ) > d
ij
Here ij is the stress tensor, is the temperature, ijvp is the visco-plastic strain tensor, ijp is the inviscid plastic
strain tensor, ks is the work hardening parameter and kd represents the effect of both work hardening and strain
rate hardening. When the strain rate is zero, kd and ks becomes equal that is the behaviour of the soil becomes
static. Figure 1 below shows the two loading functions or yield surfaces as proposed by Adachi & Okano (1974). If
the soil was loaded at very slow rate (theoretically zero strain rate) the stress state should lie on the static yield
surface (fs) and if the loading is at a certain rate, the stress state should lie on the dynamic yield surface. That is
the material will exhibit stiffer response and over time it will get soften and finally meet the static yield surface.

946

2 j2

2 j2

CSL

CSL
fd = kd

fd = kd
fs = ks

f s = ks

'm

'm
Figure 1: Static and Dynamic yield surfaces
proposed by Adachi and Okano (1974)

Figure 2: Static and Dynamic yield surfaces

proposed by Adachi and Oka (1982)

In the formulation of Adachi & Okano (1974) the fully saturated clay was considered to be a mixture of soil
skeleton (solids), absorbed water (viscous fluid), and free water (non viscous fluid). A fundamental concept of this
study was that soil structure system consisting of soil skeleton and absorbed water responds to the effective
stress as an elastic visco-plastic continuum and the overall work hardening phenomena are due to strainhardening of soil skeleton. It was assumed that the clay reaches the static equilibrium state (i.e. the state when
the volumetric strain rate becomes zero) at the end of primary consolidation. However Arulanandan et al. (1971)
made it clear that the pore water pressure increases when going back to undrained condition after the end of
primary consolidation in a triaxial consolidation test, which is an indication of continuing volumetric strain even
after the end of primary consolidation. This suggests that the assumptions of Adachi & Okano (1974) were not
perfectly valid.
Oka (1981) generalized Adachi & Okano (1974) model assuming that the normally consolidated clay never
reaches the static equilibrium state at the end of primary consolidation so that he could not only explain such time
dependent behaviours as creep, stress relaxation and strain rate effects but also as secondary consolidation
(delayed compression) (Adachi & Oka, 1982)
Following the theory of Oka (1981), Adachi & Oka (1982) generalized the Adachi & Okano (1974) model and the
viscoplastic volumetric strain was taken as a hardening parameter. In their formulation, the yield surfaces (static
and dynamic) were taken as shown in Figure 2. The behaviour of the soil will be perfectly elastic when the stress
state lies below the static yield surface (i.e. within the elastic nucleus) and visco-plastic when the stress state is
on the dynamic yield surface and a stress state outside the dynamic yield surface is not possible. The existence
of elastic nucleus in this model not only caused it to have different domain of applicability for elastic and plastic
theories but introduced additional parameters as well. Same was the case for Adachi & Okano (1974)
formulation.
Oka et al. (1986) modified the Adachi & Oka (1982) model to include stress anisotropy based on Sekiguchi &
Ohta (1977) and implemented it numerically for a two dimensional consolidation analysis.
One of the limitation of overstress type visco-plastic constitutive models (i.e. the models discussed above are
overstress type models because the visco-plastic effect is expressed as a function of excess stress) are that they
can not describe the acceleration creep or creep rupture except when the static stress-strain relation shows strain
hardening or softening (Adachi et al., 1987). To overcome this, an approach was proposed by Adachi et al.
(1987a). They generalized the Adachi & Oka (1982) model comparing its mathematical structure with a non
stationery flow surface type model (Sekiguchi, 1977) and checking with experimental findings. Table 1 shows the
comparison of undrained behaviour of these two models.

947

Table 1. Comparison of undrained behaviour of Adachi & Oka (1982) and Sekiguchi (1977) model (from Karim &
Gnanendran, 2007).
Adachi & Oka (1982) model (overstress type)

Sekiguchi (1977) model (non stationary flow

surface type)

p&
q&
X1 + X 2 X 3 = 0
p
p

p&
q&
X1 + X 2 X 3 = 0
p
p

(undrained condition)

(undrained condition)

q
k
X 1 = A (t ) D M +
p 1 + e0

X 2 = DA (t )

k
X1 =
1 + e0
X2 = 0
X 3 = C (M

f vp
q
) exp

1
v

, A (t ) = 1 e x p (
1 + e0
m

The over-dots indicate the time derivative.

f vp
X 3 = v&0 exp

In the above table, D is the coefficient of negative dilatancy originally proposed by Shibata (1963), f is the static
yield function and M, , e0, p and q are slope of critical state line (CSL), recompression index, initial void ratio,
hydrostatic stress and deviatoric stress respectively.
Because the stress rate is ignored in the overstress type model, then X1 = k / (1+e0) and X2 = 0. The main factor
that made the two models performing differently is the initial rate of volumetric strain ( v& o) in Sekiguchi (1977)
model. During the shearing process,

v&0 was

taken as constant where as the equivalent term in Adachi & Oka

(1982) model, C (M q / p) decreased with increase in q. Although the visco-plastic parameter C was
considered as a constant, C (M q / p) decreased with increase in q. Adachi et al. (1987) showed that in the
undrained creep process as the critical state draws near, C increases explosively and diverges to infinity and they
concluded that a unique relation exists between the axial strain rate ( &1 1 ) and the parameter C. It is natural that
the C value determined from strain-controlled undrained triaxial compression test should be constant. But in
cases such as the acceleration creep process in which strain rate changes drastically, the parameter C should
also change. They proposed the following relation for the viscoplastic parameter C,

(3)
C = exp

(M q / p)

Here and are material parameters to be determined from experiments. Inclusion of the effective stress state
dependency in the formulation made the model to be able to predict undrained acceleration creep. In another
paper Adachi et al. (1987b) proposed a new elastic visco-plastic constitutive model to describe the undrained
creep acceleration and creep rupture. The new model included Aubreys model (1985) which introduced a
damage creep law. A new material function, that is a variant of Perzyna (1980), was used to develop an elastic
visco-plastic constitutive model that describes clay failure within the framework of the theory of internal variables.
Undrained creep rupture and acceleration creep could be described with this modified theory.
A non-stationary flow surface type constitutive relation for normally consolidated clays was derived by Sekiguchi
(1977) primarily based on the concept of viscoplastic potential. It could describe the phenomenon of strain rate
effect on undrained stress-strain response, stress relaxation characteristics (reduction of stress with time if a rate
sensitive soil is left with constant strain) and creep rupture (the culmination in the deformation process of
creep) characteristics.
Sekiguchi (1984) tried to develop a theory of undrained creep rupture for normally consolidated clays within the
framework of the elastic visco-plastic constitutive model mentioned above. This model could indicate the
influence of K0 consolidation upon the subsequent undrained creep rupture behaviour. However, time was
incorporated explicitly in both of the formulations of Sekiguchi and this caused it to have the drawback of
predicting time dependent deformations under the condition of zero effective stress. Also it is difficult to determine
the origin of time if the stress history of the soil is not known.
Among others, Liang & Ma (1992) proposed a unified elastic visco-plastic model based on Perzynas (1963,
1966) viscoplastic theory. The limit surface and conjugate static yield surface formed the basic framework. The
time and rate effects were accounted for by using a single internal state variable, preconsolidation pressure that
is affected by the aging effect. An alternative constitutive model was developed by Fodil et al. (1997) based on
Hujeexs (1985) elasto-plastic model and Perzynas (1963, 1966) theory of visco-plasticity. Rowe & Hinchberger

948

(1998) proposed an elastic visco-plastic elliptical cap model. In this formulation, the soil model proposed by
Adachi & Oka (1982) was modified with an elliptical cap. Table 2 below summaries the assumptions and the
basis on which these theories were developed and their strengths and limitations.
Table 2. Summery of rate models in terms of their strengths and limitations (after Karim & Gnanendran, 2007)
Model

Assumptions/Basis

Capabilities/Strengths

Limitations

Perzynas(1963)
viscoplasticity and
critical state energy
theorem (Schofield &
Wroth, 1968)
Perzynas (1963, 1966)
visco-plasticity and
critical state energy
theorem (Roscoe et al.
1963), clay was
assumed to never
reach the static
equilibrium state

Could explain rate

dependent behaviour

Clay was assumed to

reach static equilibrium
state at the end of primary
consolidation, not verified
with real test data.
Acceleration creep could
not be explained, never
verified for real field
condition, not formulated
for anisotropic condition,
formulated for wet side of
CSL

Adachi & Oka

(1982)

Perzynas(1963, 1966)
visco-plasticity and
critical state energy
theorem (Roscoe et al.,
1963)

Adachi et al.
(1987a)

Perzynas(1963, 1966)
visco-plasticity and
critical state energy
theorem (Roscoe et al.,
1963) and experimental
findings

Could explain time

dependent behaviors
of soil as creep,
stress relaxation,
strain rate effects and
secondary
consolidation
Could explain the
acceleration creep
and undrained creep
rupture

Adachi et al.
(1987b)

Perzynas(1980) viscoplasticity and critical

state energy theorem
(Roscoe et al., 1963)
and Aubreys (1985)
damage creep law

Could explain the

time dependent
behaviour such as the
strain rate effect on
stress-strain
behaviour and creep
rupture including
acceleration creep.

Sekiguchi (1977)

Critical state energy

theory(Schofield &
Wroth, 1968 ) and the
concept of visco-plastic
potential

Sekiguchi (1984)

Critical state energy

theory(Schofield &
Wroth, 1968 ) and the
concept of viscoplastic
potential

Could explain strain

rate effect on
undrained stressstrain response,
stress relaxation
characteristics,
acceleration creep
and undrained creep
rupture
Undrained creep
acceleration and
creep rupture
behaviour

Adachi & Okano

(1974)

Oka (1981)

Could explain time

dependent behaviors
of soil as creep,
stress relaxation,
strain rate effects and
secondary
consolidation

949

Acceleration creep could

not be defined and
formulated for isotropic
condition mainly for the
wet side of the CSL

Was not formulated to

incorporate anisotropic
behaviour of soil, not
verified for difficult
boundary conditions as
encountered in real field,
formulated for wet side of
the CSL.
Was not formulated to
incorporate anisotropic
behaviour of soil, not
verified for difficult
boundary conditions as
encountered in real field
and for long term tests,
formulated for wet side of
the CSL
Time incorporated
explicitly and deformation
was predicted at zero
effective stress. Developed
for normally consolidated
clay. Theoretical structure
is not clear

Formulated for normally

consolidated condition and
for only isotropic condition
as well.

2.2

Creep models

Bjerrum (1967) divided the observed displacements of soil as immediate and delayed compression. Based on
this concept Borja & Kavazanjian (1985) used the modified Cam-clay plasticity model (Roscoe & Burland, 1968)
to describe the time dependent elasto-plastic strains. To develop the time dependent component of strains, the
concept proposed by Kavazanjian & Mitchel (1980) was adopted. The classical theory of plasticity was employed
by Borja & Kavazanjian (1985) to characterize the time-independent stress-strain behaviour of cohesive soils
using the ellipsoidal yield surface of the modified Cam-clay. The time dependent strain was divided into an elastic
part and a plastic part. The plastic part was evaluated using normality condition and consistency requirements on
the yield surface. To include creep deformation they used Taylors (1948) secondary compression equation for
volumetric part and deviatoric creep formulation was based on Singh & Mitchel (1968). However it had all the
limitations of Singh & Mitchel (1968) formulation (e.g. Singh & Mitchel (1968) deviatoric stress formulation
underestimates the creep strains for D close to zero and overestimates for D close to one, here D is the stress
intensity, often expressed as a ratio of the normal strength before creep). This model used 13 material
parameters proper description of soil behaviour. In 1990 Hsieh et al. proposed a double yield surface model. This
was the outgrowth of Borja & Kavazanjian (1985) model. The model implements the concept of double yield
surface criterion represented by Cam-clay model and the Von Mises cylinder inscribed in the ellipsoid. Bjerrums
(1967) concept of immediate and delayed settlement was used there as well. This new model accounts for plastic
shear distortion that occurs without volume change below the state boundary surface. More accurate predictions
are engendered with this model than earlier with Cam-clay models particularly at low strain levels where the
single yield surface theory tends to predict the stress strain behaviour of soil on the stiffer side. The complexity
was high in this model and it needed seven material constants to describe the material behaviour at the absence
of creep. If creep was to be included in the prediction, six more parameters were needed. The proposed model
was validated using the deformation behaviour data of I-95 test embankment constructed near Boston in 1967.
This embankment traverses a marsh underlain by a thick layer of Boston Blue clay.
Creep and stress relaxation are often treated as two different phenomena although physical consideration
suggests that one process could be responsible for the other. Borja (1992) made an approach to unify these two
phenomena. He considered the delayed response of the soil to be due to the stress relaxation rather than creep.
The model was formulated only for triaxial conditions and the pore water response behaviour of soil was not well
described.
In 1989, Yin & Graham came up with a one dimensional model for stepped loading using a new concept of
equivalent time (similar to equivalent pressure for overconsolidated clay) during time dependent straining. This
model was then developed into a general constitutive equation for continuous loading. Bjerrum (1967) mentioned
the term equivalent time in his paper but never gave a clear definition of it. Yin & Graham (1989, 1994, and
1999) developed this concept. They considered unloading to be independent of time. However their models have
the tendency of underestimating the effect of time and strain rate on the change of undrained shear strength. The
full implementation of the equivalent time line concept was fully appreciated and used for deriving time dependent
stress-strain behaviour under isotropic stressing. Yin & Graham (1999) modified their 1989 model by generalizing
into general stress space based on modified Cam-clay and visco-plasticity concept of Perzyna (1966). This model
could simulate accelerating creep when the deviator stress is close to the shear strength envelop. It could also
model the behaviour in unloading-reloading and relaxation. It also provides realistic modeling for the changes in
the shearing rate. In 2002 Yin et al. modified the Yin & Graham (1999) model to make it applicable for both
normally consolidated clay and overconsolidated clay and the formulation was made in 3D stress space.
One of the limitations of the previous models (Yin & Graham 1989, 1994, 1999) was that a logarithmic function
was used for the determination of S function (scaling function, equivalent to <(F)> in overstress type models
discussed above). When the time is infinite the creep strain also goes to infinity. To eliminate this problem, a nonlinear creep function along with a limit for creep were introduced there. This model needed ten material
parameters for successful interpretation of stress-strain-time and pore water pressure behaviour. Another
limitation of Yin & Graham models were the description of K0 behaviour of soil. Zhou et al. (2005) presented a
new elastic visco-plastic model to describe the stress strain behaviour of K0 consolidated soil.
In their model Yin & Graham (1989,1994, 1999) and Zhou et al. (2005) used /v, /v and /v instead of , and
(where and are slope of swelling and compression line respectively, is the secondary compression index
and v is the specific volume), the use of normalized parameters made it little more difficult for practical
implementation.
Kutter & Sathialingam (1992) proposed a new constitutive model based on Bjerrums (1967) concept of delayed
compression. In their model they assumed that the elastic part of compression is independent of time. Similar to
Borja & Kavazanjian (1985), they divided the total settlement into instant and delayed part. The model was
based on Critical state soil mechanics (modified Cam-clay) framework and Perzynas (1966) mathematical
formulation for visco-plasticity, with the rate dependency introduced by only one parameter C (coefficient of
secondary compression). Their model needed only 7 material parameters for full description of material
behaviour. The proposed model over predicts the shear stress for undrained stress paths for dilative soils to
some extent. Table 3 below summaries the models in terms their assumptions, strengths and limitations.

950

Table 3. Summery of the creep models in terms of their strengths and limitations (after Karim & Gnanendran,
2007)
Model

Assumptions/Basis

Capabilities/Strengths

Limitations

Borja & Kavazanjian

(1985)

Bjerrums (1967)
concept of delayed
compression, modified
Cam-clay, Singh and
Mitchells (1968)
deviatoric creep
equations and Taylors
(1948) volumetric creep
formulation.

Good predictions of
stress-strain-time
behaviour of wet clays
were achieved for
triaxial and plane stress
condition.

Hsieh et al. (1990)

Modified Cam-clay
model (Roscoe &
Burland, 1968), VonMisses cylinder,
Bjerrums (1967)
concept of delayed
compression.

Borja (1992)

Modified Cam-clay
(Roscoe & Burland,
1968), Singh and
Mitchells (1968)
deviatoric creep
equations, Bjerrum
(1967) concept of
delayed compression.
Bjerrums (1967)
concept of delayed
compression,
equivalent time
concept.

Accounts for plastic

shear distortion that
occurs without volume
change below the state
boundary surface,
better prediction of
shear strain at low
stress level was
achieved.
Could explain stress
relaxation and creep in
a unified manner.

Overestimates creep
strain at D close to 1
and underestimates
for D close to 0.
Formulated for wet
clays only, not
validated for long term
lab test data, Isotropic
formulation for wet
side of CSL.
Number of
parameters used is
high and the
complexity of the
model is high as well,
formulation is
isotropic and for wet
side of the CSL.

Yin & Graham

(1989)

Yin & Graham

(1999)

Yin & Graham

(2002)

Zhou et al. (2005)

Kutter &
Sathialingham
(1992)

Incorporation of
equivalent time.

Bjerrums (1967)
concept of delayed
compression and
Perzynas (1966)
formulation for viscoplasticity.
Bjerrums (1967)
concept of delayed
compression and
Perzynas (1966)
formulation for
viscoplasticity.

Could simulate
acceleration creep and
behaviour of soil in
unloading and reloading
and relaxation.

Perzynas (1963) viscoplasticity, modified

Cam-clay (Roscoe &
Burland, 1968),
nonsymmetrical flow
surface function of
Dafalias (1987).
Modified Cam-clay and
Perzynas (1966)
concept of viscoplasticity.

Could explain K0
consolidation of soil.

Applicable to both
normally consolidated
soil and
overconsolidated soil.

Used only seven

parameters for full
description of viscoplastic behaviour of soil,
simple formulation.

951

Pore water response

in undrained condition
is not well understood,
not verified for long
term test data.

Formulated for 1D
condition,
underestimates the
effect of time and
strain rate on the
change of undrained
shear strength.
Logarithmic function
used for the scaling
function this caused
the creep to become
infinite in infinite time.
Validated only for
triaxial boundary
conditions not for
difficult boundary
conditions usually
encountered in the
field.
Structural anisotropy
is not a part of the
formulation, not
verified for field
boundary conditions
and long term creep
tests.
Formulated only wet
side of the CSL, when
applied numerically
prediction at higher
stresses lack
accuracy.

Numerical implementation

The theoretical structures of the elastic visco-plastic models are very complicated and it becomes even more
complex while applied numerically because of coupling of a diffusion theory (e.g. Biot, 1941) with a constitutive
model. Only in very limited cases, there exists an exact solution. Numerical methods such as the Finite Element
Method (FEM) are often used for predicting the performance of geotechnical structures constructed on soft soils.
Extensive research has been carried out in this area for the past several years (Rowe & Hinchberger, 1998; Yin &
Zhu, 1999; Zhu & Yin, 2001; Li & Rowe, 2002). The benefit of using the FEM includes its comprehensive ability to
predict the deformation and excess pore water pressure as well as the collapse or failure of the geotechnical
structures. Recently the importance of considering the rate and time effects of the foundation soil for predicting
the behavior of certain embankments has been highlighted and different elastic visco-plastic formulations have
been used for this purpose (Yin & Zhu, 1999; Rowe & Hinchberger, 1998; Rowe & Li, 2002; Mannivanan, 2005).
The importance of inclusion of time dependent deformation in the analysis of rate sensitive soils has been felt
since 1930s. But comprehensive implementation of the idea was not possible till the 1990s because of limited
computational resources and in some cases limited knowledge in the rate sensitive behaviour of soils as well.
Rowe & Hinchberger (1998) showed the ability of the conventional analysis methods to predict the behaviour of
an embankment constructed on a rate sensitive foundation soil and demonstrated the importance of including the
time dependent viscoplastic behaviour of the soil in the analysis. Following them, some other researchers have
tried to use numerical methods for predicting the behaviour of geotechnical structures constructed on rate
sensitive foundation soils. Yin & Zhu (1999) used Yin & Graham (1999) model to describe the pore water
pressure increase long time after the completion of an embankment on a clay layer at Tarsuit Island, Canada.
Zhu et al. (2001) applied the same model numerically to model the consolidation behaviour of a test embankment
at Check Lap Kok International airport in Hong Kong. Kutter & Sathialingham (1992) and Adachi & Oka (1982)
model was implemented by Mannivanan (2005) to predict the multiple behaviour characteristics of Leneghans
and Sackville Embankments, Borja & Kavazanjian (1985) model was used to predict the final settlement of a MIT
test embankment. The predictions using elastic visco-plastic models seem to be better than those from elastoplastic analysis. They could explain things that were not possible by conventional analysis (e.g. continuing
settlement of structures even after the end of primary consolidation, or increase of pore water pressure after the
completion of construction).
None of the models implemented numerically so far were without limitations. For example, the main focus of Yin
& Zhu (1999) was only the prediction of excess pore pressure dissipation, large discrepancies in pore water
pressure prediction suggest that the nonlinear nature of hydraulic conductivity needs to be taken into account in
Zhu et al. (2001) analysis; Prediction of Mannivanan (2005) lack accuracy at higher stresses, Borja &
Kavazanjian (1985) model over predicts the final settlement at the centerline of the embankment and failed to
predict the pore water pressure response accurately.
Gnanendran et al. (2006) presented a comparative analysis of two different types of elastic visco-plastic models
and one elasto-plastic model. All the three analysis were done using the same experimental database for the
material properties and it was then compared with the actual field performance of the embankment. They used
Kutter & Sathialingham (1992) model (representative of the creep model) and Adachi & Oka (1982) model
(representing the rate model) and modified Cam-clay model (representing elasto-plastic model) to analyze the
behaviour of the well documented test embankment constructed at Sackville, Canada, using a coupled (with
Biots (1941) theory of consolidation) analysis and the same finite element mesh. Both of the elastic visco-plastic
models were based on Perzynas (1963, 1966) formulation of visco-plasticity.
In Adachi & Oka (1982) formulation they used a dynamic yield function (fd) and static yield function (fs). When the
viscoplastic volumetric strain rate is close to zero the two yield functions merge and the dynamic yield surface can
not move away from the static one indefinitely. This distinguishes the Adachi & Oka (1982) model from that of
Kutter & Sathialingham (1992) model which is based on Bjerrums (1967) family of lines i.e. pseudo
preconsolidation stress.
As shown by Gnanendran et al. (2006) at lower loads all the three models over-predict the settlement to some
extent. However the numerical models could not capture the vertical settlement accurately at higher fill
thicknesses of the embankment. The creep model prediction seems to be slightly better than the other two at
higher stress levels. All three models overestimated the excess pore pressures and all of them failed to predict
the failure of the embankment based directly on Rowe & Soderman (1987) criterion which is the best and
strongest indication of failure. Predictions of excess pore pressures in the foundation soil and the lateral
movements at the toe of the embankment also lack accuracy.
They showed that all the three models are capable of predicting the performance of the embankment
satisfactorily despite their inability to give sufficiently accurate predictions for few of the behaviour characteristics.
They concluded that the creep model prediction was a little better than the other two at the cost of one extra
parameter and much smaller time step required for the analysis.
Constitutive models used in the finite element analysis are often selected according to their tractability in
computer program rather than their ability to represent soil behaviour (Tavenas, 1981). Most of the models

952

applied numerically so far are formulated for isotropic behaviour of soils and mostly for the wet side of the critical
state line. As pointed out by Tavenas (1981), clay fabric is strongly anisotropic in all natural clay deposits. Still not
many models which include anisotropy (stress or material anisotropy) have been applied numerically. The reason
may be the complexity of the models as well as the deficiency of field data to validate the performance of those
models.
4.

Comparative summary of elastic viscoplastic models and discussion

A number of constitutive models of different types have been reviewed. More emphasis has been given to those
which have been applied numerically so far. An effort has also been made to maintain their time sequence of their
development.
Most popular and widely used soil models are cap models based on classical isotropic plasticity theory because
of their simple mathematical formulations but the most obvious limitations of these cap models are that they do
not adequately model stress-induced anisotropy and they are not applicable to cyclic loading conditions.
Moreover in most of these models the material behaviour is assumed to remain unchanged as the stress state
rotate around the hydrostatic axis (e.g. Pender, 1978).
A number of elastic visco-plastic constitutive models have been reviewed. Very few of the constitutive models
were found to be completely describing all the behaviour characteristics of the soil with sufficient accuracy. Most
of the models were developed on the framework of Cam-clay or modified Cam-clay and the visco-plasticity
formulation of Perzyna (1963, 1966). The most obvious limitation of many of these models is that the stress
anisotropy is not included into the formulation. Some models though were formulated for anisotropic conditions;
they have never been verified for actual field boundary conditions or long term test data. For predicting the long
term performance of structures, verification of those models against long term test data and actual field data is
important.
Some of the models were very complex in nature and used a number of soil parameters (e.g. Hsieh et al. (1990)
used 13 parameters in their formulation) and was difficult for use in real field conditions (see Table 4 for a detailed
comparative summary of various models). As most of the models were formulated on Cam-clay or modified Camclay framework they should have the limitation in predicting the K0 behaviour of soils. Recently some efforts have
been made to describe K0 behaviour of soil by some researchers (e.g. Zhou et al., 2005).
Table 4 below shows the summary of the constitutive models in terms of their predicting abilities and limitations.

Camclay and modified

Cam-clay

No

No

No

--

No

-Dir.

Formulated for

Time
incorporated

Rate effects

No. of types of
Experiments
needed to
determine the
parameters

Anisotropy

Creep starts
with loading

Creep effect

Time
dependent
PWP increase

Acceleration
creep

Number of
Material
parameters

Model

Table 4. Comparison of different constitutive models (after Karim & Gnanendran, 2007)

--

Wet

Indir.

Wet

Adachi & Okano (1974)

No

Yes

Yes

--

No

Oka (1981)

No

Yes

Yes

--

No

Dir.

Indir.

Wet

Adachi & Oka (1982)

No

Yes

Yes

--

No

Dir.

Indir.

Wet

Adachi et al. (1987a)

Yes

Yes

Yes

--

No

Dir.

Indir.

Wet

Adachi et al. (1987b)

Sekiguchi (1977)
Sekiguchi (1984)

9
7
7

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

----

No
No
No

3
3
3

Dir.
Dir.
Dir

Indir.
Dir.
Dir.

Wet
Wet
Wet

Yin & Graham (1999)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Indir.

Eq
time

Wet

Yin et al. (2002)

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Indir.

Eq.
time

Wet &
Dry

Zhou et al. (2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Indir.

Eq.
time

Wet

Kutter & Sathialingham

(1992)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Indir.

Indir.

Wet

Borja & Kavazanjian

(1985)

13

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Indr.

Indir.

Wet

Hsieh et al. (1990)

13

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Indir.

Indir.

Wet

Dir = Directly, Indir = Indirectly, eq. time = equivalent time, Wet = formulated for wet side of the CSL

953

Most of the constitutive models discussed were restricted to normally consolidated soils (e.g. Adachi & Okano,
1974; Oka, 1981; Adachi & Oka, 1982; Kutter & Sathialingham, 1992; Borja & Kavazanjian, 1985; Yin & Graham,
1989, 1994, 1999) and were formulated under isotropic conditions. Moreover, most of the soil models reviewed
was verified to describe the soil behaviour for simple boundary conditions simulating triaxial or plane strain
laboratory stress conditions and one dimensional consolidation for a short duration test (e.g. Adachi & Oka (1982)
model was validated with undrained triaxial test and one dimensional consolidation test data). But the triaxial
compression test boundary conditions do not always comply with the actual field situations. Few of the models
reported in the literature included stress anisotropy. The constitutive relations that include anisotropy were rarely
been implemented numerically and tested against actual field performance.
Though a few cases of successful numerical implementation to predict long term performance of geotechnical
structures have been reported in the literature, most of them lack accuracy in predicting some of the behaviour
characteristics. The mathematical complication of the formulations of constitutive models makes it difficult for
practical application and many of them involve the use of a number of soil parameters. Furthermore the
determination of these parameters requires sophisticated laboratory experiments. Alternatively, some of the
parameters used in analysis had to be estimated through back analysis (e.g. Mannivanan, 2005; Gnanendran et
al, 2006 estimated the permeability by back analysis). In many occasions, the analysis was found to be very
sensitive to some parameters (e.g. coefficient of permeability, intercept of normal consolidation line with the void
ratio axis at unit hydrostatic pressure i.e. eNS). Moreover, numerical analyses with these models require very high
computational resources. An analysis can take from a few minutes to few weeks on a high speed computer
depending upon the finite element mesh details, size of the structure, and the constitutive model used.
5.

Concluding remarks

Despite the enormous effort expended by the researchers over more than 3 decades, elastic visco-plastic
analysis is yet to be popular to the geotechnical engineers. The causes for that may be listed as below,
1. Mathematical complication involved in the formulation of the constitutive models is not favorable for easy
practical application.
2. Uncertainty associated with the analysis (i.e. unconvincing benefit in terms of the accuracy of
prediction).
3. Requirement of additional parameter(s) and the difficulties/uncertainties in determining them.
4. Higher requirement of computational resources.
5. Cost and time needed for analysis being on the higher side.
6. Simplicity of the conventional techniques.
In conclusion, the multiple behaviour characteristics of embankments or other geotechnical structures need to be
predicted accurately for the effective design and durability of the earth structure. Further studies are necessary in
this regard to better understand the pore pressure response behaviour of soils and potential of applying any
newly developed model to the problems that involve complicated stress paths and stress conditions other than
isotropic and simple triaxial.
6.

References

Adachi T., Mimura M., Oka F., 1985. Descriptive accuracy of several existing constitutive models for normally consolidated
clays, Fifth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, Japan,
Adachi T., Oka F., 1982. Constitutive equations for normally consolidated clay based on elasto-viscoplasticity Soils and
Foundations, 22, (4), 57-70.
Adachi T., Oka F., Mimura M., 1987. An elasto-viscoplastic theory for clay failure, 8th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Adachi T., Okano M., 1974. A constitutive equation for normally consolidated clay, Soils and Foundations, 14, (4), 55-73.
Aubry D., Kodaissi E., Meimon Y., 1985. A viscoplastic constitutive equation for clays including a damage law, Fifth
International conference on numerical methods in geomechanics, Nagoya, 421-428.
Bazant Z. P., Krizek R. J., 1976. Endochronic Constitutive Law for Liquefaction of Sand, J. Eng. Mech. Div, ASCE, 102, (EM2),
225-238.
Biot M., 1941. General theory of three dimensional consolidation, Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 155-169.
Bjerrum L., 1967. Engineering geology of Norwegian normally consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings
Geotechnique, 17, (2), 81-118.

954

Borja R. I., 1992. Generalized creep and stress relaxation model for clays, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118, (11),
1765-1786.
Borja R. I., Kavazanjian E., 1985. A constitutive model for the stress-strain-time behaviour of 'wet' clays, Geotechnique, 35, (3),
283-298.
Britto A. M., Gunn M. J., 1987. Critical State Soil Mechanics via Finite Elements, Ellis Horwood Limited (New York)
Burland J. B., 1965. The yielding and dilation of clay (Correspondence), Geotechnique, 15, 211-214.
Carter J. P., Ballam N. P., 1995. AFENA Users' Manual Version 5.0, Center for Geotechnical Research, University of Sydney,
Sydney-2006, Australia
Dafalias Y. F., 1987. Anisotropic critical state clay plasticity model, 2nd International conference on constitutive laws for
engineering materials, 513-521.
Duncan J. M., Chang C.-Y., 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
Proceedings of ASCE, 96, (SM5), 1629-1653.
Febro-Cordero E., Mesri G., 1974. Influence of testing conditions on creep behaviour of clay, Series, Report No. FRA-ORD &
D-75-29, UILU-ENG-74-2031
Karim M. R., Gnanendran C. T., 2007. State of the art review of constitutive models for describing the viscoplastic behaviour of
soft clays, Paper submitted to Computers and Geotechnics Journal (under review).
Kutter B. L., Sathialingam N., 1992. Elastoviscoplastic modeling of the rate dependent behaviour of clays Geotechnique, 42,
142-164.
Mesri G., Febres-Cordero E., Shields D. R., Castro A., 1981. Shear stress-strain-time behaviour of clays, Geotechnique, 31,
(4), 537-552.
Mesri G., Godlewski P. M., 1977. Time and stress compressibility interrelationship, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 103, (GT5), 417-430.
Oka F., 1981. Prediction of time dependent behaviour of clay, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Japan, 215-218.
Oka F., Adachi T., Okano Y., 1986. Two-dimensional consolidation analysis using an elasto-viscoplastic constitutive equation,
International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 10, 1-16.
Perzyna P., 1963. Constitutive equations for rate-sensitive plastic materials, Quarterly of applied mathematics, 20, 321-331.
Perzyna P., 1966. Fundamental Problems in Viscoplasticity, Advances in Applied Mechanics, 9, 244-368.
Perzyna P., 1980. Modified theory of visco-plasticity application to advanced flow and instability phenomena, Arch. Mech. , 32,
(3), 403-420.
Roscoe K. H., Burland J. B., 1968. On the Generalized Stress-Strain Behavior of Wet Clay, Engineering Plasticity, 535-609.
Roscoe K. H., Schofield A. N., Thurairajah A., 1963. Yielding of claysin states wetter than critical, Geotechnique, 13, (3), 211240.
Rowe R. K., Hinchberger S. D., 1998. The significance of rate effects in the modeling the Sackville test embankment, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35, 500-516.
Schofield A., Wroth P., 1968. Critical state soil mechanics,
Sekiguchi H., 1977. Rheological Characteristics of Clays, Proceedings 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Japan, 289-292.
Sekiguchi H., 1984. Theory of undrained creep rupture of normally consolidated based on elasto-viscoplasticity, Soils and
Foundations, 24, (1), 129-147.
Shibata T., 1963. On the volume change of normally-consolidated clays, Annuals, Disaster prevention research institute, Kyoto
University, 6, 128-134 (in Japanese).
Singh A., Mitchell J. K., 1968. General stress-strain-time function for soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, 94, (SM1), 21-46.

955

Tavenas F., 1980. Some aspects of clay behaviour and their consequences on modeling techniques, Laboratory Shear strength
of soil, Chicago, 667-677.
Taylor D. W., 1948. Fundamentals of soil mechanics, John Willy & Sons (New York, USA)
Valanis K. C., Read H. J. E., 1982. A New Endochronic Plasticity Model for Soils, Wiley
Yin J.-H., Graham J., 1989. Viscous-elastic-plastic modeling of one-dimensional time-dependent behaviour of clays, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 26, 199-209.
Yin J.-H., Zhu J.-G., 1999. Elastic viscoplastic consolidation modeling and interpretation of pore-water pressure responses in
clay underneath Tarsiut Island, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, (4), 708-717.
Yin J.-H., Zhu J.-G., Graham J., 2002. A new elastic viscoplastic model for time dependent behaviour of normally and
overconsolidated clays: theory and verification, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, (1), 157-173.
Yin J. H., Graham J., 1994. Equivalent times and one dimensional elastic visco-plastic modelling of time dependent stressstrain behaviour of clays, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31, (1), 42-52.
Zhou C., Yin J.-H., Zhu J.-G., Cheng C.-M., 2005. Elastic anisotropic viscoplastic modeling of the strain-rate dependent stressstrain behaviour of Ko-consolidated natural marine clays in triaxial shear tests, International Journal of Geomechanics, 5,
(3), 218-232.

956