LOWLAND TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL Vol. 7, No.

1, 1-11, June 2005

International Association of Lowland Technology (IALT), ISSN 1344-9656

THE APPLICATION OF NORMALITY RULE AND ENERGY BALANCE

EQUATIONS FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAYS
A. S. Balasubramaniam1, E. Y. N. Oh2 and M. Bolton3

ABSTRACT: In this paper, it is reiterated that the Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963) formulation of the stress strain behaviour
of normally consolidated clays is indeed in a more generalized form which is easily amenable to incorporate deformations
under various degrees of drainage and can be extended to include cyclic loading and time effects beyond the primary phase of
deformation. Also, the formulation can be used for stress states below the state boundary surface to include lightly
overconsolidated and heavily overconsolidated clays. Particularly, it is shown here that Cam Clay model of Roscoe et al.
(1963) and Modified Cam Clay model of Roscoe and Burland (1968) as based on energy balance equations and the normality
concept can be considered as the special cases of the original formulation of Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963). In order to
achieve this, all theories are presented in similar mathematical forms, adopting the same formulation of Roscoe and
Poorooshasb (1963). Modified Cam Clay Model of Roscoe and Burland, and the Roscoe and Poorooshasb theory made
identical predictions of the shape of the state boundary surface, the pore pressure development during undrained behaviour,
and the volumetric strain in the drained tests for all types of applied stress paths. Also, Modified Cam Clay model was only
successful in predicting the shear strains along radial stress paths. For non-radial stress paths, Modified Cam Clay model
needed an additional set of constant deviator stress yield loci, and when such a set was incorporated, the prediction from
Modified Cam Clay model was the same as the original prediction of Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963).

Keywords: Energy balance equation, normality concept, incremental stress-strain theory.

INTRODUCTION contribution of the Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963)

Soon after the original contribution of Roscoe and
Poorooshasb (1963) on the correlation of the undrained and
drained behaviour of normally consolidated clays in the
axi-symmetric triaxial apparatus, extensive developments
have taken place in formulating elasto-plastic stress strain
models for cohesive and cohesionless soils, however, the
relative importance of the more generalized form of Roscoe
and Poorooshasb (1963) work is only presented in a very
brief or cursory form in many of the subsequent textbooks
by well known authors on “Critical State Soil Mechanics”.
Indeed nowadays, the term “Critical State Soil Mechanics”
predominantly implies a particular form of the “plastic
potential surface” which in conjunction with a coinciding
“yield surface” leads to a rather special type of the
constitutive equation describing the flow of granular media
(Poorooshasb 2000). Prior to the classical work of Roscoe
and Poorooshasb (1963), all the research work was
primarily concerned with the stress-volumetric strain
relationship for soils as measured in the various types of
tests. The position in 1960 was well summarised by Henkel
(1960), “….. so far it has not been possible to relate shear
strains in the various types of tests. For a complete
understanding of the stress-strain behaviour of clays, it is
necessary that the shear stresses and the shear strains be
related. Until this problem is solved it will not be possible
to examine in any fundamental way, the deformation
behaviour of clays”. This clearly illustrates the milestone
________________________________________________________
formulation.
This paper expresses the three classical theories of
Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963), Cam Clay model (Roscoe
et al. 1963), and Modified Cam Clay model (Roscoe and
Burland, 1968), as developed for normally consolidated
clays, in similar forms and then examine the implication of
the energy balance equation used in the Roscoe and
Burland theory and the normality concept in achieving a set
of volumetric yield loci from which contributions are
derived for the volumetric and shear strains. Later work by
Dafalias et al. (1987), Atkinson et al. (1987) and others,
also formulated the energy balance equation in a form
similar to Roscoe et al. (1963) and Roscoe and Burland
(1968), so that the plastic strain increment ratio was still
dependent on the stress ratio. Notable difference was the
work of Pender (1978), where a realistic plastic strain
increment ratio was formulated for clays to be dependent on
both the mean normal stress and the stress ratio, for
overconsolidated states. It appears that, Modified Cam Clay
model could predict the strains in radial type of stress paths
while for non radial types, the shear strains can only be
predicted correctly by the incorporation of a second set of
constant q yield loci. The use of the two sets of yield loci
makes the predictions from Modified Cam Clay model the
same as the original Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963) theory.
The concept of the bounding surface model is more a
sophisticated version of the double yield loci approach used
in the revised version of Modified Cam Clay model. With

1 Professor, School of Engineering, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, PMB 50, GCMC, QLD 9726, AUSTRALIA
2 PhD Candidate, School of Engineering, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, PMB 50, GCMC, QLD 9726, AUSTRALIA
3 PhD Candidate, School of Engineering, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, PMB 50, GCMC, QLD 9726, AUSTRALIA
Note: Discussion on this paper is open until December 2005
 The application of normality rule and energy balance equations for normally consolidated clays
the use of only the volumetric yield loci, the strains in
radial type of stress paths only can be predicted
successfully using Modified Cam Clay model. These
conclusions are well supported by the extensive laboratory
tests performed by Balasubramaniam (1969) at Cambridge
University on re-sedimented specimens of Kaolin tested
under a wide range of applied stress paths with stress states
below and on the state boundary surface. Also the
subsequent work at the Asian Institute of Technology on
undisturbed samples of Bangkok clay, has further
confirmed these findings (Balasubramaniam, 1975;
Balasubramaniam and Chaudhry, 1978; Balasubramaniam et
al., 1992; Balasubramaniam et al., 1999). The Roscoe and
Poorooshasb (1963) formulation for undrained behaviour
under quasi-static repeated loadings were presented in
Balasubramaniam and Chui (1976).
Thus, worldwide use of these theories and models in
numerical analysis based on finite element analysis and
other similar techniques must realize their inherent
restrictions and limitations.
INCREMENTAL STRESS STRAIN THEORY OF
ROSCOE AND POOROOSHASB
An incremental stress strain theory was developed for
normally consolidated clays by Roscoe and Poorooshasb
(1963) for stress states on the state boundary surface. In this
formulation the incremental axial strain associated with a
given infinitesimally small stress increment in a drained test
can be considered as the sum of two components that occur
in (i) a constant volume or undrained deformation and (ii) a
consolidation process in which the stress ratio remains
constant. The relevant strain characteristics of the clay are
therefore determined from the undrained and anisotropic
consolidation tests alone and from these, the strains that
occur in any type of partially or fully drained tests can be
predicted. The validity of this formulation was thoroughly
verified by Balasubramaniam (1969) and his subsequent
student researchers at the Asian institute of Technology.
Thus the classical contribution of Roscoe and
Poorooshasb (1963) can be expressed as
éæ ö ù éæ de ö ù
(de1 )drained = êçç de1 ÷÷
dh ú + êçç 1 ÷÷ de v ú (1)
êëè dh ø v úû êëè de v øh ú
û
where (de 1 )drained is the incremental axial strain in a
drained test. Also, the first term on the right hand side
represents the variation of axial strain increment de1 with
the increment in stress ratio dh in a constant volume shear
(undrained shear) while the second term corresponds to the
variation of de1 with the volumetric strain increment de v
in a constant h (anisotropic consolidation) stress path. Also,
de v is the incremental volumetric strain along the drained
path and is the same as component from the anisotropic
consolidation. This will be explained in the latter sections.
In terms of shear strain Equation (1) can be expressed as
éæ de ö ù éæ de ö ù
(de s )drained = êçç s ÷÷ dh ú + êçç s ÷ de v ú
÷ (2)
êëè dh ø v úû êëè de v øh ú
û
In Equation (2), the first term on the right hand side
refers to the undrained component of the shear strain and
the second term refers to the shear strain during the
anisotropic component of the drained stress increment.
Appendix 1 elaborates these aspects in detail.
Equation (2) allows a variety of versatile tools which can
be applied either in terms of total strains or in terms of
plastic strains. The effect of prolonged time and creep in
undrained or drained behaviour can be realised by studying
the effect in each of the components (de s / dh )h ,
(de s / de v ) and de v . Similarly, the effect of cyclic loading
and stress reversals.
The original contribution of Roscoe and Poorooshasb
(1963) restricted the validity of equation (2) to stress states
on the state boundary surface. That is for normally
consolidated clays. Also, the stress ratio must increase
monotonically from any stress state to the critical state.
However, latter work at the Asian Institute of technology
by Kim (1991) and others (Balasubramaniam and Uddin
1977; Kim et al. 1994) show that the Roscoe and
Poorooshasb (1963) formulation can be extended to
overconsolidated clays as well, when the stress states lie
below the state boundary surface.
Equation (2), when considered in terms of only plastic
strains, with non-zero independent terms for (de s / dh )h
and (de s / dh )de v , indicates a strain hardening plastic
behaviour with contributions of shear strains from two sets
of yield loci. On the other hand when (de s / dh )h equals
zero, then the plastic shear strains derived is obeys an
associated flow rule of the type encountered in Cam Clay
Model (Roscoe et al. 1963) and Modified Cam Clay model
(Roscoe and Burland 1968).
In this paper, it will be shown that the shear strain
derived from Cam Clay Model and Modified Cam Clay
model can be expressed in mathematical forms similar to
Equation (2). Also, Modified Cam Clay model of Roscoe
and Burland (1968) needs a set of constant q yield loci to
contribute the term (de s / dh )h which is needed for the
satisfactory prediction of the shear strains for non radial
type of stress paths. For the radial stress paths, the
contribution from the volumetric yield loci as obtained
using the energy balance concept, and the normality
criterion are sufficient to predict the volumetric and shear
strains.
ALL THEORIES EXPRESSED IN SIMILAR
MATHEMATICAL FORM FOR EASE OF
COMPARISON
Equation (2) of the Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963)
formulation can be expressed as
 Balasubramaniam et al.

(de s )drained = (de s )undrained + çç de s ÷÷
Volumetric strain contours (see Fig. 1) plotted by
Balasubramaniam (1969) in the (q, p) plot for stress paths
with monotonically increasing stress ratio revealed that the
volumetric strain, e v , can be expressed as a function of the
mean normal stress, p and the stress ratio h = q/p, thus
e v = F (h , p)
Equation (4) is the same as the state boundary surface
expressed in (p,q ,e) plot, three dimensionally and then
æ q p ö
expressed as çç , ÷÷ in a two dimensional plot.
è pe pe ø
Differentiating Equation (4),
¶F ¶F
de v = dF (h , p) = dh +
¶h ¶p
Also, the experimental observation on undrained tests in
normally consolidated clays (Roscoe and Poorooshasb,
1963; Roscoe et al., 1963; Roscoe and Burland, 1968;
Balasubramaniam and Chaudhry, 1978) reveal that the
undrained shear strain can be expressed as a continuous and
differentiable function of h . Thus
h stress ratio, h .
(e s )undrained = ò f (h )dh
0
æ ö d
de v (3) ie f (h ) =
dh
( f1 (h ))
è de v ø anisotropic
Figures 2 and 3 express such behaviour in relation to the
contribution from the constant q yield loci as proposed by
Roscoe and Burland (1968). Similar observations were
noted on soft Bangkok clay by many researchers
(Balasubramaniam and Uddin, 1977; Kim et al., 1994), and
notably Kim (1991) who has investigated the stress strain
behaviour both from the isotropic and anisotropic stress
states with a variety of applied stress paths.
(4)
The slope (de v / de s )h during anisotropic and isotropic
consolidation is dependent on the stress ratio, h (see Fig.
4) and can be expressed as
æ de v ö
çç ÷÷ = f 2 (h ) (7)
è de s øh
Experimental evidence in support of Equation (7) for the
dp (5) formulation of (de v / de s )h as a function of the stress ratio
h is presented in Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963), Roscoe
et al. (1963), Roscoe and Burland (1968) and
Balasubramaniam (1969) on Kaolin and the subsequent
work at the Asian Institute of technology on undisturbed
samples of soft Bangkok clay. The energy balance
equations developed at Cambridge and elsewhere, revealed
that the plastic dilatancy ratio, that is, (de vp / de sp ) along the
volumetric yield locus at any stress ratio is a function of the
(6)

600
Vol. Strain % AO AD AY
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
450 3.0
Deviator Stress, q, kN/m2

4.0
Section of Hvorslev Surface
5.0
CU
6.0

300

CV

150
Volumetric Strain Contours CW

0
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050
Mean Normal Stress, p, kN/m2

Fig. 1 Constant volumetric strain contours in (p, q) plot (Balasubramaniam, 1969)

 The application of normality rule and energy balance equations for normally consolidated clays

k is the slope of the isotropic swelling line in (e, ln p) plot.

Similarly, l is the slope of the isotropic consolidation line
in the (e, ln p) plot.
Deviator Stress, q

Volumetric Yield Loci 5

Critical State Line Test
Desigation h
BF 0.20
BC 0.40
BT 0.51
4
BL 0.57
Constant q T10 0.71

Strain Increment Ratio (dev /des )h

Yield Loci

at Constant Stress Ratio

3
h
Mean Normal Stress, p
Modified Cam Clay Model
2
Fig. 2 Constant q yield loci
Cam Clay Model
0.8
1

0.6

Contribution of Shear Strain from

Stress Ratio, q/p

0
Constant q Yield Loci 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Stress Ratio, q/p
0.4

Fig. 4 Observed and predicted dilatancy ratio

0.2
(Balasubramaniam, 1969)

For Modified Cam Clay Model of Roscoe and Burland,

0 the energy balance equation is
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear Strain, es, %

Fig. 3 Shear strain from constant q yield loci (virtually

é
pde vp + qde sp = p ê de vp
ë
( ) + (Mde ) ùúû
2 p 2
s (11)
same as undrained shear strain) (Balasubramaniam, 1969)

This gives the plastic dilatancy ratio, de vp / de sp as

In order to obtain the plastic dilatancy ratio, de vp / de sp ,
Cam Clay model used the energy balance equation: de vp M 2 -h2
= (12)
de sp 2h
pde vp + qde sp = Mpde sp (8)
The dilatancy ratio in terms of total strains for radial
M is the slope of the critical state line in (q, p) plot. stress path in Modified Cam Clay Model becomes
From this equation, de vp / de sp can be derived as:
æ de v ö 1 æç M 2 - h 2 ö
÷
çç ÷÷ =
de vp è de s øh æç1 - k ö÷ çè 2h ÷
ø
(13)
= M -h (9)
de sp è lø

Equations (10) and (13) are strictly valid only for radial
This plastic dilatancy ratio, when expressed in terms of
total strains for isotropic and anisotropic consolidation stress paths. For non-radial stress paths, de v / de s depends
æ de ö both on the mean normal stress, p and the stress ratio, h.
paths give, çç v ÷÷ in Cam Clay model as
è de s øh
ELASTIC WALL CONCEPT AND VOLUMETRIC
YIELD LOCUS
æ de v ö 1
ç
ç de
÷ =
÷ (M - h )
è s øh æç1 - k ö÷ (10) Drucker et al. (1957) tried to associate the plastic strain
è lø rate vector to the Mohr Coulomb failure envelope, while
the Cambridge researchers and Calladine (1963) used the
 Balasubramaniam et al.

normality concept of Drucker (1959) for a stable material (3), the volumetric strain e v is used instead of the voids
and obtained the relation. ratio, e or the mean equivalent pressure pe .

dq é de p ù
= -ê vp ú (14)
dp êë de s úû VOLUMETRIC AND SHEAR STRAINS IN DRAINED
TESTS
Thus the following differential equation emerged for the The incremental expressions for the volumetric and shear
volumetric yield locus: strains in Cam Clay model and Modified Cam Clay model
are given below.
For Cam Clay Model
For Cam Clay model
æ dq ö
çç ÷÷ = -(M - h ) (15)
è dp ø y æ l öæ dp ö æ l - k ö 1
de v = ç ÷çç ÷÷ + ç ÷ dh (20)
è 1`+e øè p ø è 1 + e ø M
æ dq ö
çç ÷÷ is the slope of the volumetric yield locus at any
è dp ø y æ l -k öæ 1 öé dp æ 1 ö ù
de s = ç ÷çç ÷÷ê + ç ÷dh ú (21)
stress ratio, h in the (q, p) plot. è 1+ e øè M - h øë p è M ø û

For Modified Cam Clay Model For Modified Cam Clay model

æ dq ö é M 2 -h 2 ù æ l öæ dp ö æ l - k öæç 2h ö
÷dh
çç ÷÷ = - ê ú (16) de v = ç ÷çç ÷÷ + ç ÷ç 2 (22)
è 1`+ e øè p ø è 1 + e øè M + h 2 ÷
è dp ø y êë 2h úû ø

These equations were then integrated to obtain the æ l -k öæç 2h ö é dp

÷ 2hdh ù
de s = ç ÷ç 2 +
2 ÷ê p ú
volumetric yield locus and then the state boundary surface. (23)
è 1+ e øè M - h ø êë M 2 + h 2 úû
For Cam Clay Model the state boundary surface is given by
The incremental stress–strain relationships given by
é ù
ê Equations (20) to (23) are only dependent on the
q M úú æ pe ö fundamental soil constants M, l, and k. M is the slope of
=ê lnç ÷ (17)
pe ê æ k ö ú çè p ÷ø the critical state line in the (q, p) plot. l is the slope of the
ê ç1 - l ÷ ú isotropic and anisotropic consolidation lines in the (e, ln p)
ëè øû
plots. k is the slope of the isotropic swelling line in the (e,
pe is the mean equivalent pressure and is defined as ln p) plot. The values of M, l, and k are taken to be 0.9,
0.26 and 0.06 respectively.
Equation (3) of the Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963)
é æ e - e öù model can be expressed as
pe = p0 êexpç 0 ÷ú (18)
ë è l øû
de s = f (h )dh + f 2 (h )dF (h, p ) (24)
(e0, p0) corresponds to the voids ratio and the mean normal
stress at the pre-shear consolidation pressure and e, refers to In a similar manner the expression for the shear strain in
the voids ratio at the current state after drained shear with Cam Clay model as given by Equation (21) can be
mean equivalent pressure, p e . expressed as
For Modified Cam Clay model, the state boundary
surface is given by de s = f1* (h ) dh + f 2* (h )dF * (h , p ) (25)

æ kö
ç1 - ÷
Also,
p æç M 2 ö÷ è l ø (19)
=
pe çè M 2 + h 2 ÷ø ¶F * ¶F *
dF * (h, p) = dp + dh (26)
¶p ¶h
It can be seen that Equations (17) and (19) for the state
boundary surface are functions of h and p and are therefore For Modified Cam Clay model, the shear strain in Equation
in agreement with the formulation of Roscoe and (23) can also be expressed as
Poorooshasb (1963) as given by Equation (3). In Equation
 The application of normality rule and energy balance equations for normally consolidated clays

de s = f1** (h ) dh + f 2** (h ) dF ** (h , p )
1.24
(27) q/p = 0.4
l = 0.26

Also,

1.2
¶F ** ¶F **
dF ** (h , p) = dp + dh (28)
¶p ¶h

Void Ratio, e
For Cam Clay model and Modified Cam Clay model the
expressions are written with superfix * and ** respectively 1.16

and function f1 (h ) for undrained shear strain. Then for

Cam Clay model from Equations (21) and (25)

æ l - k öæ k öæ 1 öæ 1 ö
f1* (h ) = ç
1.12
÷ç ÷ç ÷çç ÷÷ (29)
è 1 + e øè l øè M øè M - h ø

For Modified Cam Clay model from Equations (23) and

(27) 1.08
500 750 1500
1000
Mean Normal Stress, p, kN/m2
æ l - k öæ k öæç 2h öæ 2h ö
f1** (h ) = ç ÷ç ÷ç 2 ÷ç ÷ (30) Fig. 5 Voids ratio-mean normal stress relation during
è 1 + e øè l øè M - h ÷øçè M + h ÷ø
2 2 2
isotropic and anisotropic consolidation (typical case for
h =0.4) (Balasubramaniam 1969)
Also for Cam Clay model from Equations (10) and (25)
Experimental observations provided in Fig. 6, confirm
æ l -k öæ 1 ö that Modified Cam Clay model makes better prediction of
f 2* (h ) =ç ÷çç ÷÷ (31)
è l øè M - h ø the volumetric strain in constant p tests and as such

For Modified Cam Clay model from Equations (13) and ¶F ** ¶F

(27) = (36)
¶h ¶h

æ l -k öæç 2h ö For Cam Clay model and Modified Cam Clay model the
f 2** (h ) = ç ÷ç 2 ÷ (32)
2÷ following similar expressions can be arrived as
è l øè M - h ø

æ k ö * ¶F * (37)
Further from Equations (20), (22), (26) and (28) f1* (h ) = ç ÷ f 2 (h )
è l -k ø ¶h
¶F * ¶F ** æ l ö 1
= =ç ÷ (33) and
¶p ¶p è1+ e ø p

æ k ö ** ¶F **
All the theories seem to be able to predict the volumetric f1** (h ) = ç ÷ f 2 (h ) (38)
strains correctly in the constant stress ratio paths wherein è l -k ø ¶h
the voids ratio-log mean normal stress relation is linear (see
Fig. 5). æ k öæ l ö 1
Further for Cam Clay model, from Equations (20) and ç1 - ÷ç ÷
¶F ** è l øè 1 + e ø M
(26) =
¶h 1
* é æ k ö
2 ù2 (39)
¶F 1 æ l -k ö ê ç1- ÷ 2ú
= ç ÷ (34) l æ 1 ÷ ú ö
¶h M è 1+ e ø ê1 + ç ÷ ç
ê ç M ÷ ç f 2** (h ) ÷ø ú
ê çè ÷ è ú
and for Modified Cam Clay model, from Equations (22) ë ø û
and (28)
Equation (16) can be rearranged to give
¶F **
æ l -k öæç 2h ö
÷
=ç ÷ç 2 2÷
(35)
¶h è 1+ e øè M + h ø
 Balasubramaniam et al.

¶F ** ((de v / de s )h = f 2 (h )) . Cam Clay model was found to over

¶h predict the volumetric strain in drained test and hence the
f 2** (h ) = 1 shear strain as well.
é æ ö
2 ù2 (40) However, when it comes to the prediction of the shear
ê 2 ç ÷ æ ¶F ** ö
2ú
strain, Modified Cam Clay model with a single set of
æ
êç l ö M ç ÷ ú
÷ -ç ÷ volumetric yield loci satisfying the normality concept of
êè 1 + e ø ç k ÷ ç ¶h ÷ ú
ê ç1- ÷ è ø ú Drucker (1959), is deficient in the prediction and an
ë è l ø û additional set of constant q yield loci based on the deviator
stress are needed (see Fig.s 2 and 3).
It thus appears, for Cam Clay model and Modified Cam Also it appears from experimental observations (see
Clay model the energy dissipating function when combined Figures 7 and 8) that
with the normality rule becomes the single most factor that
controls the shape of the predicted state boundary surface, f 2 (h )dF (h, p ) = f1** (h )dh + f 2** dF ** (h, p ) (41)
the volumetric strain in drained behaviour, the pore
pressure development in undrained behaviour for all types
Thus, Modified Cam Clay model lacks the undrained
of stress paths and in the case of shear strain, the prediction
is only limited to radial stress paths. component of shear strain ( f (h ) dh ) as used in Equation
Experimental evidence is provided (see Figures 4 and 6) (6). This is why the second set of constant q yield loci was
to illustrate that Modified Cam Clay model can successfully used by Roscoe and Burland so that in the revised version
predict the volumetric strains and the dilatancy ratio of Modified Cam Clay model the shear strain needs to be

0.8
Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963)Theory

0.6
Modified Cam Clay
Stress Ratio, q/p

Model

Cam Clay Model

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volumetric Strain, ev, %

Fig. 6 Volumetric strains in constant p tests (Balasubramaniam, 1969)

0.8

0.6
Stress Ratio, q/p

Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963)

0.4

0.2
Undrained Test
Constant p Test
Anisotropic Consolidation
Component of Constant p
Path Strain
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear Strain, es, %

Fig. 7 Various components of shear strain (undrained, anisotropic and drained) (Balasubramaniam, 1969)
 The application of normality rule and energy balance equations for normally consolidated clays
0.8
0.6
Stress Ratio, q/p
0.4
0.2
0
0 2
Fig. 8 Predicted shear strain by Roscoe and Burland (1968) after using contribution
from constant q yield loci (Balasubramaniam, 1969)
obtained in two parts one from the constant q yield loci and
the other from the volumetric yield loci as
de s = [f (h ) dh ]
[
+ f1** (h )dh + f 2** (h ) dF ** (h , p )
The energy dissipation in the use of the constant q yield
loci don’t seem to be accounted for in the energy balance
equation used to obtain the plastic dilatancy ratio which
governs the shape of the volumetric yield loci through the
normality rule and which can only make contributions for
radial type of stress paths.
Experimental evidence is provided (see Figures 4 and 6)
to illustrate that Modified Cam Clay model can successfully
predict the volumetric strains and the dilatancy ratio
( )
(de v / de s )h = f 2 (h ) . Cam Clay model was found to over
predict the volumetric strain in drained test and hence the
shear strain as well.
However, when it comes to the prediction of the shear
strain, Modified Cam Clay model with a single set of
volumetric yield loci satisfying the normality concept of
Drucker (1959), is deficient in the prediction and an
additional set of constant q yield loci based on the deviator
stress are needed (see Figures 2 and 3).
Also it appears from experimental observations (see
Figures 7 and 8) that
f 2 (h )dF (h, p ) = f1** (h )dh + f 2** dF ** (h, p )
Thus, Modified Cam Clay model lacks the undrained
component of shear strain ( f (h ) dh ) as used in Equation
(6). This is why the second set of constant q yield loci was
used by Roscoe and Burland so that in the revised version
Revised Theory of Roscoe and Burland (1968)
4 6 8 10
Shear Strain, es, %
of Modified Cam Clay model the shear strain needs to be
obtained in two parts one from the constant q yield loci and
the other from the volumetric yield loci as
] (42) de s = [f (h ) dh ]
[ ]
+ f1** (h )dh + f 2** (h ) dF ** (h , p )
(42)
The energy dissipation in the use of the constant q yield
loci don’t seem to be accounted for in the energy balance
equation used to obtain the plastic dilatancy ratio which
governs the shape of the volumetric yield loci through the
normality rule and which can only make contributions for
radial type of stress paths.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The classical theories of Roscoe and Poorooshasb (1963),
and Cam Clay model (Roscoe et al., 1963), and Modified
Cam Clay model (Roscoe and Burland, 1968) are expressed
in similar mathematical forms to understand the
implications of the use of energy balance equations and the
normality rule. All the theories seem to be able to predict
the volumetric strains correct in the constant stress ratio
paths wherein the voids ratio log mean normal stress
relation is linear. It appears for Cam Clay model of Roscoe
et al. (1963) and Modified Cam Clay model of Roscoe and
Burland (1968), the energy dissipating function when
combined with the normality rule becomes the single most
(41) factor that controls the shape of the predicted state
boundary surface, the volumetric strain in drained
behaviour, the pore pressure development in undrained
behaviour for all types of stress paths while in the case of
shear strain, the prediction is only limited to radial stress
paths.
 Balasubramaniam et al.

REFERENCES Roscoe, K. H. and Burland, J. B. (1968). On the generalized

stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. In: Engineering
Atkinson, J. H., Richardson, D and Robinson, P. J. (1987). Plasticity, Cambridge: 535-609.
Compression and extension K0 normally consolidated Roscoe, K. H. and Poorooshasb, H. B. (1963). A theoretical
Kaolin. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE. 113(12):1468-1482. and experimental study of strains in triaxial tests on
Balasubramaniam, A. S., Kim, S. R., Lin, D. G., Acharya, S. normally consolidated clays. Geotechnique, 13(1):12-38.
S. S., Seah T. H. and Bergado D. T. (1999). Selection of Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N. and Thurairajah, A. (1963).
soft clay parameters for Bangkok lowland development. Yielding of clays in state wetter than critical.
Lowland Technology International, 1(1):85-98. Geotechnique, 13(3):211-240.
Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1969). Some factors influencing
the stress-strain behaviour of clays. Ph.D. Thesis,
Cambridge University. APPENDIX A. SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS
Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1975). Stress-strain behaviour of
saturated clay for states below the state boundary surface.
e0 , e initial and current voids ratio
Soils and Foundations. 15(3):13-25.
Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Chaudhry, A. R. (1978). functions defined with
F , f1 , f 2
Deformation and strength characteristics of soft Bangkok respect to Roscoe and
clay. J. Geotech Eng. Div. ASCE. 106(GT6):716-720. Poorooshasb (1963) theory
Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Chui, K. F. (1976). Behaviour of
soft Bangkok clay under repeated loading. The 1st F * , f1* , f 2* functions defined with
Conference of the Road Engineering Association of Asia respect to Roscoe et al.
and Australia, Bangkok, Thailand: 254-272. (1963) theory
Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Uddin, W. (1977). functions defined with
Deformation characteristics of weathered Bangkok clay F ** , f1** , f 2**
respect to Roscoe and
in extension. Geotechnique. 27(1):75-92. Burland (1968) theory
Balasubramaniam, A. S., Handali, S., and Wood, D. M.
(1992). Pore pressure-stress ratio relationship for soft k slope of isotropic swelling
Bangkok clay. Soils and Foundations. 32(1):117-131. line in (e, ln p) plot
Calladine, C. R. (1963). On the yielding of soils and a
L0 , L initial and current height of
theoretical and experimental study of strains in triaxial
sample in triaxial test
compression tests on normally consolidated clays.
Geotechnique. 13(3):250-255. M slope of critical state line
Dafalias, Y. F. (1987). An anisotropic critical state
p mean normal stress
plasticity model. Constitutive Laws for Engineering
materials Theory and Applications, (Desai et al., eds). p0 isotropic consolidation stress
1:513-522
Drucker, D. C., Gibson, R. E., and Henkel, D. J. (1957). pe mean equivalent pressure =
Soil mechanics and work-hardening theories of plasticity. æe -eö
A. S. C. 122:338-346. p0 expç 0 ÷
è l ø
Drucker, D. C. (1959). A definition of stable inelastic
material. J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME, 26:101-106. q deviator stress
Henkel, D. J. (1960). The relationships between the
strength pore water pressure and volume change ev volumetric strain
characteristics of saturated clays. Geotechnique. 10(2):41 initial and current volume of
V0 , V
-54. sample
Kim, S. R. (1991). Stress-strain behaviour and strength
characteristics of lightly overconsolidated clays. Ph.D. s 1¢ , s 2¢ , s 3¢ principal effective
Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, compressive stresses
Thailand.
e1 , e 2 , e 3 principal compressive strains
Kim, S. R., Seah, T. H. and Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1994).
Formulation of stress-strain behaviour inside the state ev volumetric strain
boundary surface. Proc. of 13th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, es shear strain
ISSMFE. 1: 51-56.
Pender, M. J. (1978). A model for behaviour of l slope of isotropic
overconsolidated soil. Geotechnique. 28(1):1-25. consolidation line in (e, ln p)
Poorooshasb, H. B. (2000). Comments on the critical state. plot
Proc. Geotech-Year 2000, (Balasubramaniam et al. eds.), h stress ratio = q/p
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
1:297-303. f (h ) function associated with the
 The application of normality rule and energy balance equations for normally consolidated clays

shear strain from constant q determined. Then the undrained stress path AC through the
yield loci point A is drawn. The path AB is divided into a large
number of small steps AB1, B1B2, B2B3, …BnB. Then each
d
f1 (h ) step AB1 is considered in two parts; AC1, along an
dh undrained stress path and C1B1 along an anisotropic
consolidation path. The volumetric strain experienced by
p=
(s1¢ + 2s 3¢ ) since s 2¢ = s 3¢ the specimen at states, B1, B2, ....Bn and B are denoted by
3 (e v )B , (e v )B ,...(e v )B n and (e v )B respectively. Similar
1 2
q = (s 1¢ - s 3¢ ) notation is used for the shear strain as well as
(e s )B , (e s )B ,...(e s )B and (e s )B . The incremental strains
e v = e1 + 2e 3 1 2 n
for the steps AB1, B1B2, ...BnB will then be in the case of
2 since e 2 = e 3 the volumetric strains as (de v ) AB , (de v )B B ,...(de v )B B .
es = (e1 - e 3 ) 1 1 2 n
3 Also the incremental shear strains are
Axial strain , L0 dL (de s ) A B , (de s )B B ,...(de s )Bn B . The notations for the
e1 = ò 1 1 1 2

L L shear strains along the undrained stress path AC for the

states C1, C2, ....Cn are (e s )C , (e s )C ,...(e s )C , and for the
Volumetric strain , æV ö æ 1 + e0 ö 1 2 n
e v = lnç 0 ÷ = lnç ÷ incremental shear strains for the steps AC1, C1C2, .... CnC
V
è ø è 1+ e ø are (de s ) AC , (de s )C C ,...(de s )C C .
1 1 2 n
(de1 )drained is the incremental axial strain As stated before, since an undrained stress path is a zero
in the drained stress path volumetric strain contour, it can be shown that:
(de1 )undrained is the incremental axial strain
in the undrained stress path (de v ) AB1 = (de v )C1B1 (B1)
æ de 1 ö is the slope of the axial
çç ÷÷ strain-stress ratio, h
è dh ø v relationship during undrained
shear with constant volume,
v.

æ de 1 ö is the slope of the axial

çç ÷÷ strain – volumetric strain
è de v øh relation during anisotropic
and isotropic consolidation
with constant stress ratio, h.

æ de s ö is the slope of the shear

çç ÷÷ strain- stress ratio, h
è dh øv relationship during undrained
shear with constant volume,
v.

æ de s ö æ de s ö is the slope of the shear strain

çç ÷÷ = çç ÷÷ – volumetric strain relation
è de v øh è de v ø anisotropic during anisotropic and
isotropic consolidation with
constant stress ratio, h.

æ dq ö is the gradient of the

çç ÷÷ volumetric yield locus at any
è dp ø y point in the (q, p) plot with
stress ratio, h

APPENDIX B. DETERMINATION OF VOLUMETRIC Fig. B1 Incremental steps in the calculation of volumetric

AND SHEAR STRAIN and shear strains in drained tests

The procedure adopted for calculating the volumetric

strain along any applied stress path is as follows. Let AB in
Figure B1 be the applied stress path for which the
volumetric strain stress ratio relationship is being
 Balasubramaniam et al.

Let (e0, p0 ) be the voids ratio and the mean normal stress The same procedure can be repeated to
at point A on the isotropic consolidation line in Fig. B1. determine (e v )B , (e v )B ...(e v )B
4 n
and
Then the isotropic consolidation can be expressed as 3

(de v )B2 B3 , (de v )B3B4 ....(de v )BnB . Hence, the volumetric

æp ö strain-stress ratio relationship can be established.
e0 - e = -l lnçç 0 ÷÷ (B2)
è p ø
The undrained shear strain can be obtained from the
If ( p )C1 , ( p )C 2 denote the mean normal stress for states (e s ,h ) relationship, which can also be expressed as
C1 and B1 and if (e )B1 is the void ratio corresponding to the h
state B1, then:
(e s )undrained = ò f1 (h )dh (B9)
0

æ ( p )C ö Thus, the shear strain (e s )C , (e s )C .........(e s )C for

e0 - (e )B1 = -l lnç 1 ÷ (B3) 1 2 n
ç ( p) ÷ stress ratio, h1 ,h 2 ,.....h n can be obtained for points
è B1 ø
C1 , C2 ,.........C n .
Also, In the previous sections, the dilatancy ratio is given and
can be expressed as
æ 1+ e ö
(e v )B1 = (de v )C1B1 = (de v ) AB1 = lnçç 0 ÷ (B4) æ de v ö
1 + (e ) B ÷ çç ÷÷ = f 2 (h )
è 1 ø (B10)
è de s øh
Hence, knowing e0 , l , ( p )C1 and ( p )B1 , (e)B1 can be
calculated, and therefore, (e )B1 , (de v )C B and
1 1
Hence, the shear strain in the drained path can be
computed for various values of h using the relation
(de v )AB1 can be determined. Similarly considering the state
æ 1 ö
points C2 and B2: (e s )B1 = (e s )C1 + çç ÷÷(de v ) AB (B11)
è 2 (h ) ø
f 1

æ ( p )C ö
e 0 - (e )B2 = -l lnç 2 ÷ (B5) and
ç ( p)B ÷
è 2 ø
æ 1 ö
and
(e s )B2 = (e s )C2 + çç ÷÷(de v ) AB
è f 2 (h ) ø 1
(B12)
æ 1 ö
æ 1+ e ö + çç ÷(de v )B B
(e v )B2 = lnç 0 ÷ (B6) è f 2 (h ) ÷ø 1 2
ç 1 + eB ÷
è 2 ø
Thus,
From Equations (B4) and (B6), the following can be
derived. i= j æ 1 ö
(e s ) B j = (e s )C j + å çç ÷÷(de v )B B (B13)
i =1 è f 2 (h ) ø i -1 i
æ 1 + (e ) B ö
(de v )B1B 2 = (e v )B2 - (e v )B1 = lnçç 1 ÷
(B)
1 + (e ) B2 ÷ In Equation (B13) when i = 1, B0 coincides with A.
è ø