04/01/2012

Application of Hardening Soil Model in

Excavation Analysis

Wong Kai Sin

&
Teo Pei Ling
WKS Geotechnical Consultants

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 1

Typical Drained Behaviour of Soil

 Failure
 Non-linear
 Inelastic
 Stress dependent εv

 Dilatancy
ε1
 Strain Softening

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 2

1
 04/01/2012

Components of a Constitutive Model

Failure Criteria  c′ and φ′ σ

Elastic σ-ε relationship  Δεe

• E, n Δσ

Plastic σ-ε relationship  Δεp Δεp Δεe

• Yield Function ε

• Hardening Law
• Plastic potential Function

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 3

Hardening Soil Model

Failure Criteria : Mohr-Coulomb
2 c’ cos f + 2 s3 sin f
(s1-s3)f =
1-sin f

Yield Functions :
q
s1
E50 & Eoed
combined hardening

E50
shear hardening Eoed
cap hardening
s3
Eur
s2
elastic
p’p p’
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 4

2
 04/01/2012

Hardening Law for Yield Function under Shear

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 5

Flow Rule for Plastic Strains due to Shear

gp

fs (s, f′ )

gs (s, y )

ep

Plastic potential function with non-associated flow rule :

g
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 6

3
 04/01/2012

Cap Yield Function

α = related to Ko,NC

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 7

Hardening Law for Cap

ev
Dev
Dp’

log p’
Kc related to Cc and Ks related Cs

Associated flow rule : gc = fc gp

gc
α

ep

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 8

4
 04/01/2012

Hardening Soil Model s

E50
• Nonlinear
• Inelastic
• Stress dependent Eur
1
oed oed

Parameters
c’
f’
E50,Ref
Eoed,Ref
Eur,Ref
m
Ψ
nur
Ko,nc
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 9

s High σ’3 Determination E50,Ref & Eur,Ref

E50

Need CD test on 3 samples

Low σ’3 with unloading-reloading
Eur
In the absence of test data, set
Eur,Ref = 3 E50,Ref
e

Ref

ln E50

ln
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 10

5
 04/01/2012

Determination Eoed,Ref
Need consolidation test

s1 ‘

In the absence of test data, set Eoed,Ref = E50,Ref

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 11

Parameters
c’
f’
Other parameters:
E50,Ref
Ψ = f′ - 30o
Eoed,Ref
nur = 0.2 Eur,Ref
Ko,nc = 1 - sin f′ m
Ψ
nur
Ko,nc
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 12

6
 04/01/2012

Model of soil behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models

Plastic
UU Test s s s
on Clay Elastic-
Elastic-
cu > 0 plastic Elastic plastic
fu = 0 Inelastic
Inelastic
e e e
Plastic
s s s
CD Test
on Clay
or Sand
c' ≥ 0 Inelastic Elastic Inelastic
f' > 0 e e e

Real Soil Mohr-Coulomb Soil Hardening Soil

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 13

Importance of Modeling Nonlinear Behaviour

Mohr-Coulomb Hardening Soil Model

s
s

Constant E

e e

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 14

7
 04/01/2012

Example 1 on Nonlinearity
Soil Modulus changes at various stages of excavation
s
s E3 E4
E2
E1

Constant E

e
e

Wall Deflection (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
5
2
3 10

Depth (m)
1 2 3 4
4 15

20

25

30

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 15

At early stage of excavation,

Mohr-Coulomb, Linear E  larger d
Hyperbolic, Non-linear E  smaller d

Et

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 16

8
 04/01/2012

At final stage of excavation,

Mohr-Coulomb, Linear E  smaller d
Hyperbolic, Non-linear E  larger d

Linear
Et

Nonlinear

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 17

Mohr-Coulomb
Eu/cu ~ 100 to 500

Constant E

Advanced Soil Model

M-C model may not
produce good matches at s
every stage of excavation.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS

e 18

9
 04/01/2012

Example 2 on Nonlinear Behaviour

Fill

Soft
Marine
Clay

0 50 100 150
0

dV,MAX = 33 mm
dH,MAX = 28 mm
35

Is the mode of deformation reasonable?

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 19

Results using a Nonlinear Model

Fill

Soft
Marine
Clay

0 50 100 150
0

dV,MAX = 72 mm
dH,MAX = 59 mm
35

Is the mode of deformation reasonable?

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 20

10
 04/01/2012

Linear Fill

vs Soft Marine Clay

Non-Linear
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
0 0

35 35

s s

e e

HS model produces more reasonable results.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 21

Importance of Modeling Inelastic Behaviour

M-C Soil HS Soil

Triaxial Test Plastic
s s

Inelastic
Elastic
e e

Oedometer Test
p p
p

e e
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 22

11
 04/01/2012

Example 1 on Inelastic Behaviour

OA(B)
OA(A)

FCBB

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 23

Plastic
Results from Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model s

Elastic
e

OA(B)

OA(A)

FCBB

MC model may not produce reasonable response in excavation analysis.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 24

12
 04/01/2012

Results from Hardening Soil Model s

Inelastic

OA(B)

OA(A)

FCBB

HS model produces more reasonable response in excavation analysis.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 25

Sand Fill
Example 2 on Soft
Inelastic Behaviour Clay

Vertical displacement behind a sheetpile wall in clay

Vertical displacement (mm)

Distance from wall (m)

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 26

13
 04/01/2012

Importance of Stress Dependency under Drained Condition

Example 1 on Stress Dependency

s

HS

d MC

sand

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 27

Example 1 on Stress Dependency

Stress Dependent Behaviour of Soil under Drained Condition

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 28

14
 04/01/2012

20 mm

6 mm

6 mm
13 mm
99 mm
55 mm

39 mm 24 mm MC model HS model

s s

e e

Warning:
 MC model may not be best suited for excavation analysis.
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 29

Importance of Modeling Soil Plasticity under Drained Condition

Stress Paths in an Elastic Medium Example 1 on

Soil Plasticity
Ko
D
C
B
E
s1 s3
s1 - s3

A
Ds1 Ds3

E – Questionable Zone
F – Dangerous Zone

s3
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 30

15
 04/01/2012

Ko Zone F - Stress Path

D
C s1-s3
B High σ′3
E
s1 - s3

Low σ′3
F B

s3
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 31

Stress Path in Zone F under Drained Condition

predicted

measured

e1 (%)

ev (%)

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 32

16
 04/01/2012

s1-s3 s1-s3
(kg/cm2) Mohr-Coulomb Hardening Soil
soil (kg/cm2)
2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0
measured

MC HS
1.5 1.5
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
e1 (%)
ev(%)
-0.2

1.0
-0.1 Measured
HS
0 MC
s3(kg/cm3)
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.5
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 33
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

s
Which one is correct?

B
A B

e
Measured Computed

Lesson learned:
 MC model may produce “incorrect” response!
 HS model generates better results under primary loading.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 34

17
 04/01/2012

Ko Zone E - Stress Path

D
C
s
B High σ′3
E
s1 - s3

B Low σ′3
F A

s3
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 35

Example 2 on Soil Plasticity

Stress Path in Zone E under Drained Condition

s1 =300
s3 =300

For MC model, results may be sensitive to Poisson’s Ratio.

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 36

18
 04/01/2012

Example 3 on Soil Plasticity

Wall Deflection (mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
c’=5 kPa 0

f’=35o
5
E’=8000 kPa
H=9 m 10
n=0.4
Pois. Ratio = 0.4

n=0.2
Pois. Ratio = 0.2

Depth (m)
n=0.2 n=0.4
15

Mmax ,kNm/m 298 477

20

Strut 1, kN/m 77 114

Strut 2, kN/m 226 335 25

Strut 3, kN/m 163 178

30

For MC model, results may be sensitive to Poisson’s Ratio.

HS model does not have this problem. nur ≈ 0.15 to 0.2
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 37

Importance of Generating Correct Horizontal Stress

600
p
500
Horizontal Stress (kPa)

400

300

200
Warning:
 MC model may not
100
generate reasonable
0 horizontal stresses.
0 200 400 600 800
Vertical Stress (kPa)  HS model more
reasonable σ′H .
MC HS Ko = (1-sin f′) √ OCR
Emiprical

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 38

19
 04/01/2012

Does the HS model have any

shortcomings ?

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 39

Effective and Total Stress Paths from Analysis of CU Tests

Mohr-Coulomb & Hardening Soil Model

Mohr-Coulomb Soil 2 cu by MC
q (kPa)

MC
Hardening Soil 2 cu by HS Effective
HS Stress

qD Real Soil 2 cu of Real Soil D C B A

Real Soil

Total Stress

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 40

p or p’ (kPa)

20
 04/01/2012

Why does HS Model yield higher cu than Mod. Cam Clay?

q
M

2cu by HS
2cu by MCC

p p’ p’

How do we overcome this problem?

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 41

How to obtain correct cu using HS Model?

q
M

M’

2cu

p p’ p’

Use a smaller friction angle!

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 42

21
 04/01/2012

Any problem in using a smaller friction angle?

q
M

M’

Method A
Using c’-f’ to
determine cu
p p’ p’

This procedure produces the correct initial cu, but if there are any
changes in effective stress in subsequent loads, cu will be changed
as well. Must check if the program produces correct cu/σ′v ratio.
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 43

How to obtain correct cu using HS Model?

q
M

2cu Method B
Use cu
instead of c’-f’
p p’ p’

Use Method B  Input cu instead of c’-f’

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 44

22
 04/01/2012

Shortcoming #3:
Inability to produce correct cu for different stress paths using c’- φ

Typical cu/p' = 0.195

Hs (f = 25o) 0.24 Extension
Direct Simple
Compression
Shear Test
Test Test
cu/p' = 0.245 cu/p' = 0.310
Hs (f = 25o)  0.31 Hs (f = 25o)  0.32

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 45

 Excavation analysis faces

similar stress paths.
 Method A  What f’ to use?
 Method B  What cu to use?

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 46

23
 04/01/2012

Shortcoming #2: Determination of excess pore pressure

 Under-estimate Du for NC clay
 Over-estimate Du for heavily OC clay

Mohr-Coulomb Soil u at qD = UAB

q (kPa)

Hardening Soil u at qD = UAC Effective

Stress

Real Soil u at qD = UAD D C B A

qD

Total Stress

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 47

p or p’ (kPa)

Shortcoming #4: Elastic behaviour below yield surfaces

When the stress path is within the elastic zone, the HS soil
will suffer the same shortcomings as the MC model.

q
E50 & Eoed
combined hardening

E50
shear hardening Eoed
cap hardening
Eur
elastic
p’p p’
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 48

24
 04/01/2012

Case Studies using

Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Models

 Rochor Complex
 Lavender MRT Station
 Hougang-Buangkok CC tunnel

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 49

Evaluation of HS soil parameters

Sand Fill
Use correlations by Teo and Wong (2011)

Soft Clay and OA Sand Fill

c’ = cu or 5N (kPa) (N≈10)

f′ = fu = 0 Soft Clay
E50,Ref = 250 cu cu ≈ 20 kPa

Eoed,Ref = E50,Ref OA
(N=70)
Eur,Ref = 3E50,Ref
m=0 s s
Ψ=0
Ko,nc = 1 – sin f′
MC HS

e e
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 50

25
 04/01/2012

HS parameters for Sand

1000 0.9
E50ref (MPa) = 6 e (0.025 Dr) 0.8 m = 0.45 + 0.003 Dr
0.7
100 0.6
(MPa)

0.5
E50ref(MPa)

m 0.4
E50,Ref

10 0.3
Sacramento River Sand
Port Allen Lock Sand 0.2 Port Allen Lock Sand
Fine Silica Sand Fine Silica Sand
0.1
Monterey No. 0 Sand Monterey No. 0 Sand
1 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density (%) Relative Density (%)

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 51

Rocher Complex Soil Profile

Undrained Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
0.0 0.6m Preload=28kN/m
1.5m Preload=104.3kN/m
SAND g = 20 kN/m3 3
20 kN/m 1.5m
f’ == 30
f’ 30oo 3.8m Preload=175.1kN/m
5.05
6.3m

UPPER MARINE CLAY

g = 16 kN/m3 24m
Depth, z (m)

Cu = 15 to 30 kPa FSP IIIA Sheetpile

PI = 45/%

18.5
FIRM CLAY g = 17kNm3 Cu = 100 kPa PI = 20%
21.25 Width of excavation = 95m
LOWER MARINE CLAY g = 16kN/m3 Cu = 33.1 to 36.1 kPa PI = 40%
40%
21.4

VERY STIFF
STIFFSILTY
SILTYCLAY
CLAY
Cu == 200
Cu 200kPa
kPa
PI == 20%
PI 20%

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 52

26
 04/01/2012

Rochor Complex
Hardening Soil Model Mohr-Coulomb Model
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

-8 -8

-10 -10

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

-12 -12

-14 -14

-16 -16

-18 -18

-20 -20 Measured final excav

Measured final excav
-22 -22 MC model. Total stress.
HS model - Eu/Cu = 200
Eu/Cu = 250
HS model - Eu/Cu = 250 -24 MC model. Total stress.
-24
HS model - Eu/Cu = 300 Eu/Cu = 300
-26
Hardening Soil Model by WKS -26 53

Rochor Complex

Distance from wall (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Settlement (mm)

0
-20
-40
-60
HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
-80
-100 MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
-120

Distance from wall (m)

0 10 20 30 40 50
100
80 HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
Heave (mm)

MC model. Eu/Cu = 300

60
40
20
0
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 54

27
 04/01/2012

Rochor Complex
HS Model Parameters – E50,ref/cu = 250
MC Model Parameters – Eu/cu = 300

s HS

HS
e

s MC

MC
e

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 55

Lavender Station Soil Profile

Half excavation width
11.5 m
0m Preload = 190kN/m -0.5 m
Fill g = 18 kN/m3 -1.5 m
-3.6 m Preload = 390kN/m
-3.6 m
Preload = 327kN/m
-6.53 m
Upper Marine Clay Preload = 260kN/m
1000 mm Diaphragm Wall -9.4 m
g = 16 kN/m3 Preload = 233kN/m -11.31 m
-13 m Preload = 220kN/m -13.21 m
Lower Marine Clay g = 16 kN/m3 -15.66 m
-17.5 m
Medium Dense Silty Course Sand g = 20(N
kN/m3 (N = 27)
= 27)
-22.6 m -22.6 m
Dense Silty Coarse Sand g = 20 kN/m3 (N = 83)
-26.6 m -26.6 m

Very Dense Clayey Silt g = 20 kN/m3 (N > 100)

-40 m -40 m

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 56

28
 04/01/2012

Lavender Station
HS Model MC Model
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0
Measured Measured
-2 final excav 1 -2 final excav 1
-4 Measured -4 Measured
final excav 2 final excav 2
-6 Measured -6 Measured
final excav 3 -8 final excav 3
-8
Hs model. MC model,
-10 Eu/Cu = 250 -10 Eu/Cu = 300
HS model. MC model,
-12 -12

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Eu/Cu = 300 Eu/Cu = 400

-14 -14
-16 -16
-18 -18
-20 -20
-22 -22
-24 -24
-26 -26
-28 -28
-30 Soil Model by WKS
Hardening -30 57

Ground Settlement at Final Excavation

Distance from wall (m)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Settlement (mm)

10

-10

-20 HS model. Eu/Cu = 250 Lavender Station

MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
-30

Ground Heave at Final Excavation

Distance from wall (m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
50
Heave (mm)

40

30

20
HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
10 MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
0
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 58

29
 04/01/2012

Lavender Station
HS Model Parameters – E50,ref/cu = 250
MC Model Parameters – Eu/cu = 300

HS

MC

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 59

Hougang-Buangkok Excavation Section A-A

Half Excavation Width = 8 m

GL 104.5 m
g=19 1m 2W24, 610 X229X101 kg/m
Fill 1.5m kN/m 3
2m
Loose Silty Sand N=4 3m
3.95 m 2W24, 610X229X125 kg/m
E g=13 kN/m3 4.6 m
Organic Silt N = 0~1
6.5 m 6.4 m 2W24, 610X324X155 kg/m
F1 g=19 kN/m3 7.0 m
Loose Clayey Sand N=4 8m

OA1 g=20 kN/m3 9.45 m 2W24, 610 X229X101 kg/m

Loose Silty Sand N=5
11.5 m 11.5 m

13.3 m
OA2 g=20 kN/m 3
Very Stiff Clayey SiltN = 27
16 m
OA3 g =20 kN/m3 Sheetpile Wall, LX32
Very Dense Silty Sand N = 80 18 m
OA4 g =20 kN/m3
Very Dense Silty Sand N = 120
21 m

OA5 g =20 kN/m3

Very Stiff Clayey Sand N = 150

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 60

30
 04/01/2012

Hougang-Buangkok
Deflection (mm)
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0

-2

-4

-6

-8
Depth (m)

-10

-12

-14

-16
Measured final excav
HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
-18 HS model. Eu/Cu = 300
MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
-20 MC model. Eu/Cu = 350
MC model. Eu/Cu = 400
Hardening Soil Model by WKS
-22 61

Hougang-Buangkok
Hardening Soil Model. Eu/cu = 250 Mohr-Coulomb Model. Eu/cu = 400
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-8 -8

-10 -10

-12 -12

-14 Measured 1st excav -14 Measured 1st excav

Measured 2nd excav Measured 2nd excav
Measured 3rd excav Measured 3rd excav
-16 -16
Measured 4th excav Measured 4th excav
Measured final excav Measured final excav
-18 -18 Analysis 1st excav
Analysis 1st excav
Analysis 2nd excav
Analysis 2nd excav
-20 -20 Analysis 3rd excav
Analysis 3rd excav
Analysis 4th excav
Analysis 4th excav
-22 Analysis final excav
Hardening Soil Model by WKS -22 62

31
 04/01/2012

Hougang-Buangkok
Distance from wall (m)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Settlement (mm)

4
0
-4
-8 Measured
-12 HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
-16 HS model. Eu/Cu = 300
-20 MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
-24 MC model. Eu/Cu = 350
-28 MC model. Eu/Cu = 400
-32

Distance from wall (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
22
HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
20 HS model. Eu/Cu = 300
Heave (mm)

18 MC model. Eu/Cu = 300

16 MC model. Eu/Cu = 350
14
12
10
8
6
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 63

Hougang-Buangkok
Strut Force (kPa)
0 50 100 150
0

-2
Depth (m)

-4

-6

-8

Measured Strut Force

-10 HS model. Eu/Cu = 250
MC model. Eu/Cu = 300
-12
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 64

32
 04/01/2012

Hougang-Buangkok
HS Model Parameters – E50,ref /cu = 250
MC Model Parameters – Eu/cu = 400

HS

MC

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 65

Conclusions & Recommendations

1. HS model can better simulate real soil behaviour.
• Nonlinear
• Inelastic
• Stress Dependent
• Shear stress and volume change or pore pressure are
coupled

Nonlinear
s
Stress
dependent

Inelastic

e
Hardening Soil Model by WKS 66

33
 04/01/2012

Conclusions & Recommendations

2. HS model can produce more realistic wall and ground
movements in excavation analysis.
• More realistic ground settlement
• Less toe displacement
• Less bottom heave
• Less wall heave
• Less soil failure

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 67

Conclusions & Recommendations

3. HS model has been validated against field measured. The
limited study supports:
• Clay: use Method B, E50,ref = 250 cu and m=0
• Sand: use correlations by Teo & Wong (2011)
Half Excavation Width = 8 m
GL 104.5 m
g=19 kN/m 3 1m 2W24, 610 X229X101 kg/m
Fill
2m
Loose Silty Sand N=4 3m
3.95 m 2W24, 610X229X125 kg/m
E g=13 kN/m3 4.6 m
Organic Silt N = 0~1
6.5 m 6.4 m 2W24, 610X324X155 kg/m
F1 g=19 kN/m3 7.0 m
Loose Clayey Sand N=4 8m

OA1 g=20 kN/m3 9.45 m 2W24, 610 X229X101 kg/m

Loose Silty Sand N=5
11.5 m 11.5 m

13.3 m
OA2 g=20 kN/m 3

Very Stiff Clayey Silt N = 27

16 m
OA3 g =20 kN/m3 Sheetpile Wall, LX32
Very Dense Silty Sand N = 80 18 m
OA4 g =20 kN/m3
Very Dense Silty Sand N = 120
21 m

OA5 g =20 kN/m3

Very Stiff Clayey Sand N = 150

Need further validation with more case records!

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 68

34
 04/01/2012

Conclusions & Recommendations

Last but not the least . . . .

5. Need more sharing within the geotechnical fraternity.

• HS parameters for different soil types
• Limitations
• Range of applications

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 69

Thank you for your

attention!

Hardening Soil Model by WKS 70

35