Assessment of Free Energy Functions for Sand

The advantages of constitutive models in energy‐conservation frameworks have been widely addressed in the literature. A key component is choosing an appropriate energy potential to derive the hyperelastic constitutive equations. This article investigates the advantages and limitations of different energy potentials found in the literature based on mathematical conditions to guarantee numerical stability, such as the desired order of homogeneity, positive and non‐singular stiffness within the application range, and equivalent Poisson's ratio from a constitutive modelling standpoint. Potentials meeting the aforementioned criteria are employed to simulate the response envelopes of Karlsruhe fine sand (KFS). Moreover, the performance of the potentials, in conjunction with plasticity theories, is examined. To achieve this, the hyperelastic constitutive equations have been coupled with the bounding surface plasticity model of Dafalias and Manzari to reproduce the soil response in a hyperelastic–plastic frame. Finally, one of the potentials is modified, whereas recommendations for incorporating other appropriate free energy functions into different soil constitutive models are presented. Furthermore, 100 closed elastic strain cycles have been simulated with the bounding surface plasticity model of Dafalias and Manzari considering the original hypoelastic stiffness and hyperelastic–plastic constitutive equations. Using the hypoelastic framework in the simulation led to stress accumulation after 100 closed elastic strain loops, while a reversible response was predicted using the hyperelastic stiffness tensor.