L5 - Drained and Undrained Behavior

26/6/2018
KL IEM Workshop on FEM

11 July 2018
Lecture 5: Drained and Undrained
(Method A, B and C) and Consolidation
Some materials were originally created by:

Prof. Helmut Schweiger, Technical University of Graz, Austria
By: Professor Harry Tan

National University of Singapore
Contents
• Definition drained / undrained
• Drained / undrained soil behaviour
• Typical results from drained and undrained triaxial tests
• Skempton‘s parameters A and B
• Modelling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
• In terms of effective stresses with drained strength parameters
• In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength parameters
• In terms of total stresses
• Influence of constitutive model and parameters
• Influence of dilatancy
• Undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
• Undrained behaviour with Hardening Soil Model
• Excavation Example
• Summary
1
26/6/2018
Drained / undrained
• Drained analysis appropriate when

• Permeability is high
• Rate of loading is low
• Short term behaviour is not of interest for problem
considered
• Undrained analysis appropriate when

• Permeability is low and rate of loading is high
• Short term behaviour has to be assessed
Drained / undrained
Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

T < 0.10 (U < 10%) use undrained conditions
T > 0.40 (U > 70%) use drained conditions
k = Permeability
k E oed
T t Eoed = Oedometer modulus
γ w D2 w = Unit weight of water
D = Drainage length
t = Construction time
T = Dimensionless time factor
U = Degree of consolidation
2
26/6/2018
Undrained behaviour
Implications of undrained soil behaviour:
• Excess pore pressures are generated

• No volume change
In fact small volumetric strains develop because a
finite (but high) bulk modulus of water is introduced
in the finite element formulation
• Predicted undrained shear strength depends on soil
model used
• Assumption of dilatancy angle has serious effects on
results
5
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
 Implications of undrained soil behaviour

• excess pore pressures are generated
• no volume change
in fact small volumetric strains develop because a finite (but high)
bulk modulus of water is introduced in the finite element formulation
• predicted undrained shear strength depends on soil model used
• assumption of dilatancy angle has serious effects on results
q
ine
el
advanced lur
fai
models
advanced
models
elastic-perfectly
cu,3 plastic models
cu,1 cu,2
pc’ p’
Results from undrained triaxial tests using simple and advanced constitutive models
3
26/6/2018
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
q [kN/m 2] drained
q [kN/m2]
350 Mohr-Coulomb / Soft Soil
300
undrained
250
Mohr-Coulomb
200
undrained
Soft Soil
150
100
50
0
0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350
p' [kN/m2]
p' [kN/m2]
Undrained shear strengths predicted by Mohr-Coulomb and Soft Soil Model
Triaxial test (NC) – drained / undrained

Typical results from drained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)
4
26/6/2018
Triaxial test (OC) – drained / undrained

Typical results from drained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils
Undrained triaxial test– NC / OC

Typical results from undrained triaxial tests on (a) normally consolidated and (b) overconsolidated clay
(from Ortigao, 1995)
10
5
26/6/2018
Skempton’s parameters A and B

Skempton 1954: pw  B  3  A 1   3 
- Fully saturated soil
- No inflow / outflow of pore water
- Bulk modulus of soil grains is considered to be very high
- Isotropic linear elastic material behaviour (Hooke´s law)
 vol , skeleton   vol , pore water

p' E´
 vol , skeleton  K' 
K' 31  2´ 
n p w
 vol , pore water 
Kw
11

Assuming triaxial compression:  1 ;  2   3
1  2 3  3pw K w

p w  
3K' n
1  1 
leading to p w 
nK '   3  3  1   3 
1  
Kw
pw  B  3  A 1   3 
with 1 1
B A
nK ' 3
1
Kw
12
6
26/6/2018
• Notes on parameters A and B:
• For Kw large compared to K´, parameter B ~ 1.0

(corresponds to pw = p > p´ = 0)
• Small amount of drapped air reduces parameter B
significantly (see next figure)
• Parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic
material behaviour
• Parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex
elastic-plastic constitutive models but is a result of the
model behaviour for the stress path followed
13
Dependence of pore pressure parameter B on degree of saturation
14
7
26/6/2018
Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained material
type is chosen using the following approximation:
Kw Eu 2 G 1   u 
K total  K'   
n 31  2 u  31  2 u 
E' 1   u 
K total  assuming u = 0.495
31  2 u  1  '
Notes:
• This procedure gives reasonable B-values only for ´ < 0.35 !
• Real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for n = 0.5)
• In Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely for undrained materials
15

Example 1:
E´ = 3 000 kPa, ´ = 0.3, u = 0.495

 K´ = 2 500 kPa, Ktotal = 115 000 kPa  Kw/n = 112 500 kPa
1
with B = 0.978 > reasonable value for saturated soil
nK '
1
Kw
Example 2:
E´ = 3 000 kPa, ´ = 0.45, u = 0.495

 K´ = 10 000 kPa, Ktotal = 103 103 kPa  Kw/n = 93 103 kPa
B = 0.903 > poor value for saturated soil
16
8
26/6/2018

Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters c´, ´, ´
effective stiffness parameters E50´, ´
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained
undrained strength parameters c = cu,  = 0,  = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50´, ´
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained or non-porous
total strength parameters c = cu,  = 0,  = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
17

Notes on different methods:
• Method A:
• Recommended
• Soil behaviour is always governed by effective stresses
• Increase of shear strength during consolidation included
• Essential for exploiting features of advanced models such as the
Hardening Soil model, the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
• Method B:
• Only when no information on effective strength parameters is avilable
• Cannot be used with the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
• Method C:
• NOT recommended
• No information on excess pore pressure distribution (total stress analysis)
18
9
26/6/2018
Undrained strength from Mohr circle

Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour
(Mohr Coulomb in elastic range)
pw = p > p´ = 0
 centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point
cu 
2

1 'o

 x   'yo sin '  c' cos '
Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)

19
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs ADVANCED MODELS
Parameters used for Hardening Soil model (HS)

Parameter Meaning Value
 [kN/m³] Unit weight (unsaturated) 16
r [kN/m³] Unit weight (saturated) 16
ϕ′ [°] Friction angle (Mohr-Coulomb) 24
c′ [kPa] Cohesion (Mohr-Coulomb) 0
ψ [°] Angle of dilatancy 0
ur [-] Poisson’s ratio unloading-reloading 0.20
E50ref [kPa] Secant modulus for primary triaxial loading 2 000
Eoedref [kPa] Tangent modulus for oedometric loading 1 000
E re
ur f [kPa] Secant modulus for un- and reloading 7 500
m [-] Exponent of the Ohde/Janbu law 1.0
pref [kPa] Reference stress for the stiffness parameters 100
K0nc [-] Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (NC) 1-sin(ϕ′)
Rf [-] Failure ratio 0.90
σTension [kPa] Tensile strength 0
Parameters for Soft Soil model and Mohr Coulomb model accordingly
10
26/6/2018
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs ADVANCED MODELS
Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - Method A)

Preconsolidation to 100 kPa > compression / extension
125
Advanced models - Method A
100
(HS / HSS / SS)
75
2cu
50
q [kN/m ]
2
25 Mohr Coulomb model

0
-25
-50
-75
-100
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00
2
p' [kN/m ]
Triaxial compression: Triaxial extension:

cu/v' = 0.47 (MC) cu/v' = 0.35 (MC)
cu/v' = 0.36 (HS) cu/v' = 0.26 (HS)
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs HARDENING SOIL MODEL
Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation - Method A)

K0-consolidation to v' = 100 kPa > compression / extension
-75
-50
Hardening Soil model
-25
cu
t [kN/m ]
2
Mohr Coulomb model

25
50
s = ½(x + y)
t = ½(x - y)
75
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00
s' [kN/m2]
Plane strain compression:
cu/v' = 0.32 (MC)
cu/v' = 0.29 (HS)
11
26/6/2018
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB - HARDENING SOIL MODEL
Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - Method A)

Test 1: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > compression / extension
Test 2: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > isotropic unloading to 150 kPa > compression / extension
Test 3: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > isotropic unloading to 100 kPa > compression / extension
200
150
Hardening Soil model 2cu (NC)
Test 1
100
cu = 0 (OC)
50 Test 2
Test 3
q [kN/m ]
2
-50
-100
-150
Mohr Coulomb model
-200
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00 -175.00 -200.00 -225.00
p' [kN/m2]
Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation)

K0-consolidation to v' = 100 kPa > compression
Comparison METHOD A / METHOD B

-40
Mohr Coulomb
Method A
Hardening Soil cu (MC - HS)
-30 Method A Method A
Mohr Coulomb
Method B
t [kN/m2]
-20 (cu based on HS-Method A)
Hardening Soil
Method B
-10
0 s = ½(x + y)
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00
s' [kN/m2] t = ½(x - y)
12
26/6/2018
Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation)

K0-consolidation to v' = 100 kPa > compression
Comparison excess pore pressures - METHOD A / METHOD B

Difference in excess pore
pressure for HS model when
-20
Hardening Soil using Method A or B
Method A (Note: cu is the same)
Mohr Coulomb
EX_PP [kN/m ]
2
Method A
-10 Mohr Coulomb
Method B
(cu based on HS-Method A) Hardening Soil
Method B
(cu based on HS-Method A)
0
0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 -40.00
s' [kN/m2]
Consequence: consolidation analysis following undrained analysis with method B by means of "model
change" (introducing effective strength parameters) starts with incorrect pore pressures
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY
300
275
250
225
200
175
q [kN/m ]
2
150
125
100
75
MC non dil
50 MC dil
HS_1 non dil
25 HS_1 dil
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
1 [%]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - q vs 1
13
26/6/2018
300
275  > 0: unlimited strength

250
225
200
175
q [kN/m2]
150
125
100
75 MC non dil
MC dil
50 HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
25 total stress path
0
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00
p' [kN/m2]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - q vs p´
100
90 MC non dil
MC dil
80
HS_1 non dil
excess pore pressure [kN/m ]
2
70 HS_1 dil
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
1 [%]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - pw vs 1
14
26/6/2018
1.0
0.9 MC non dil
0.8 MC dil
HS_1 non dil
0.7 HS_1 dil
0.6
0.5
parameter A
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
1 [%]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - A vs 1
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF K0nc
125
100 K0nc increased
75 K0nc decreased
50
q [kN/m2]
25
-25
-50
-75
-100
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00
2
p' [kN/m ]
Soft Soil Model
15
26/6/2018
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF Eoed and K0nc
125
100
75 HS-TC-Eoed >
HS-TC
HS-TC-K0nc <
50
HS-TC-Eoed + K0nc >
q [kN/m2]
25 HS-TE-Eoed >
HS-TE
nc
HS-TE-K0 <
0
HS-TE-Eoed + K0nc >
CSL-TC
-25
CSL-TE
-50
-75
-100
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00
2
p' [kN/m ]
Hardening Soil Model
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE
p
 sin 'm 
sin 
ˆm  sin  m  
 sin ' 
e.g. SOREIDE 2003
consequence of flow rule in

undrained triaxial compression
stress path
Undrained shear strength often correlated to
effective vertical stress:
cu = '; with  ~ 0.25 – 0.35
Note: undrained shear strength of
 < ~ 0.28 with HS-model difficult to achieve;
BUT possible with HS-small model
16
26/6/2018
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE
Undrained shear strength often

correlated to effective vertical stress:
cu = '; with  ~ 0.25 – 0.35
Note: undrained shear strength of
 < ~ 0.28 with HS-model difficult to
achieve; BUT possible with HS-small
model
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE (HS-small with CIU test)

Actual Oedometer Tests Data from Nicoll Highway Study
17
26/6/2018
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE (HS-small with CIU test)

Actual Triaxial Tests Data from Nicoll Highway Study
Undrained Softening
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE (CIU Test)
Sigv’=100 kPa
Cu=40/2=20 kPa
Cu/Sigv’=0.2
18
26/6/2018
INFLUENCE OF FLOW RULE (CKoU Test)
Ko=1-sin24=0.60
Sigv’=100/0.6=167 kPa
Cu=58/2=29 kPa
Cu/Sigv’=29/167=0.18
EXAMPLE - EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION
Influence of consolidation on stability

(only possible with Method A and advanced model)
influence of construction speed is investigated
"fast" construction: 2 days of consolidation per placement of 1 m embankment
"slow" construction: 3 days of consolidation per placement of 1 m layer embankment
19
26/6/2018
Influence of consolidation on stability (Method A)

"slow": max. excess porewater
pressure: 86 kPa
"fast": max. excess porewater

pressure: 100 kPa

"slow": stable
"fast": failure
20
26/6/2018

excess pore pressure [kPa]
excess pore pressure [kN/m2]
Chart 1
-50
slow
fast fast
-40
-30
-20
slow
-10
0
0 4 8 12 16
Time [day]
time [days]
Simplified representation of stress path during embankment construction

t = ½ (1 - 3)
s = ½ (1 + 3)
s = ½ (1 + 3)
from Ortigao, 1995
21
26/6/2018
COMPARISON METHODS A AND B

Practical example: deep excavation in soft 0clay
schluffiger TON und feinschluffiger
grober SAND
-5 organischer TON
-10
breiiger mariner TON
UPPER MARINE CLAY
-15
schluffiger TON
-20
Depth [m]
-25 breiiger mariner TON
LOWER MARINE
-30 CLAY
cu = 300 kN/m² organischer TON

-35
schluffiger TON
-40
altes Schwemmland feinschluffiger
grober SAND
OLDschluffiger
ALLUVIUM TON
-45
0 20 40 60 80 100
cu-Profile according to geotechnical design
c_u [kN/m²]
parameter table

Practical example: deep excavation in soft clay
100
Cu (Mohr-Coulomb)
95 Cu (Geotechnical Design Parameter Table)

Method A:
90
Mohr-Coulomb effective (' and c')
Method B:
Method A
85
Mohr-Coulomb (cu)
Elevation, RL (m)
> significant difference in

80 undrained shear strength
Method B
75
70
65
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear strength (kPa)
22
26/6/2018

Practical example: deep excavation in soft clay
ABH 32 ABH 31
Fill Fill
E (U) E (U)
c’, ’ Method A with Mohr-Coulomb (!)

M (U) M (U) overestimates undrained shear strength
Marine Clay
~62mm
for normally consolidated soft soils
F2 ~170mm
F2
cu > difference in calculated horizontal

M (L)
displacements significant
M (L)
> bending moments differ by a factor
Marine Clay of 2
> strut forces differ by approx. 10%
E (L)
F2
OA > minor differences in earth
F2 SW2
OA
pressures
SW2 OA
SW1
OA
SW1
OA CZ OA CZ
SUMMARY
 Undrained analysis should be performed in effective stresses and
with effective stiffness and strength parameters
 Undrained shear strength is result of the constitutive model

Check if you have data on undrained shear strength !
If uncertain use undrained parameters directly!
 Dilatancy angle should be set to zero!
 Note that for NC-soils in general

• factor of safety against failure is lower for short term (undrained)
conditions for loading problems (e.g. embankment)
• factor of safety against failure is lower for long term (drained)
conditions for unloading problems (e.g. excavations), but for very soft
soils it may be different
23
26/6/2018
Example: Real Excavation Case in Stiff

Residual Soils-What is likely Field Conditions?
cv *t
T 2
H
Cv=66 m2/day
H = 15 m
Cv=125 m2/day
Cv=53 m2/day
47
What is West Coast Station Situation ???
• Cv= 50 m2/day
• H=15 m
• t = 100 days
• T=50*100/(15*15) = 22.2 >>> 0.4
• Situation on Passive Side is likely to be
DRAINED Condition
48
24
26/6/2018
Excess PP at Formation Level for k=1e-7 and 1e-8 m/s
49
Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s

Displacements at Formation Level
50
25
26/6/2018
Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s

BMs at Formation Level
51
Wall Deflection at B (15/83.85 – 1.65m above FL)

Ux at B
Ux at B [m]
0.2
DRN
UND
0.15
k=1e-7
k=1e-8
0.1 k=1e-9
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [day]
52
26
26/6/2018
Heave at C(0/78.7 – 3.5m below FL)

Uy at C
Heave at C [m]
0.035
DRN
0.03
UND
0.025
k=1e-7
0.02
k=1e-8
0.015 k=1e-9
0.01
5e-3
-5e-3
0 30 60 90 120
Time [day]
53
References
Atkinson, J.H., Bransby, P.L. (1978)
The Mechanics of Soils, An Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw Hill
Ortigao, J.A.R. (1995)
Soil Mechanics in the Light of Critical State Theories – An Introduction. Balkema
Schweiger, H.F. (2002)
Some remarks on pore pressure parameters A and B in undrained analyses with the Hardening Soil
Model. Plaxis Bulletin No.12
Skempton, A.W. (1954)
The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143-147
Vermeer, P.A., Meier, C.-P. (1998)
Proceedings Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt, 177-191
54
27
26/6/2018
FEM Theory of Soil Consolidation
• Formulation
• Stress Equilibrium – Deformation Part
• Continuity Equilibrium – Hydraulic Part
• Global Assembly
• Step by step Integration (Implicit Method)
• Output
55
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES 6/26/2018
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION FOR CONSOLIDATION (1)
 Effective stresses
 Constitutive law
 Discretization
 In terms of excess pore pressure

 Use same shape functions for
displacements and pore pressures
56
28
26/6/2018
 Mechanical deformation problem: equilibrium equation
Stiffness matrix
Coupling matrix
Incremental load vector

57
 Hydraulic (flow) problem: continuity equation
Flow matrix
Coupling
matrix
Water compressibility
matrix
58
29
26/6/2018

 Global system of equations
 Step-by-step integration procedure
0 <  < 1 ; Generally,  1 fully implicit) 59

 Time step
 Automatic time stepping is required
 Critical time step
H2

80cv
H2

40cv
 Consolidation analysis
 Prescribed time
 Maximum excess pore pressure
60
30
26/6/2018
FEM compare Terzaghi theory
61
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
6/26/2018
Plaxis (AE) Model at 1 day
Load = 100
kPa
62
31
26/6/2018

Plaxis AE
Excess Pore Pressures P/Po
T=0.01
T=0.02
T=0.05
T=0.1
Depth
…. Dash lines are T=0.2
Plaxis AE
T=0.5
• Terzaghi T=1.0
__ Plaxis Ver 9 T=2.0
63

Plaxis AE
Terzhagi
theory
Plaxis
64
32
26/6/2018
For Saturated soils, No real difference between Classic (Excess PP

only – solid lines) and Advanced (Fully Coupled TPP-dashed lines) 65
6/26/2018
mode ofPLAXIS
Consolidation Analysis
FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
Fully Coupled with Unsaturated Soil

Model - Plaxis 2010 and AE
66
33
26/6/2018

Model - Plaxis 2010
67

Model - Plaxis 2010
Results for Terzaghi’s 1D
Consolidation Test
68
34
26/6/2018
Real Soils Consolidation
• Cv is not constant with consolidation process

• Both kv and mv (or Eoed) are varied as
consolidation progress
• Cv is one order larger for OC state compared to
NC state
69
1D CONSOLIDATION – NUMERICAL
SIMULATION
applied load = 100 kPa
soil layer 2D = 10 m
drainage at top and bottom
Investigate influence of:

 compressibility of pore water
(by means of B-value)
 permeability depending on void ratio
 elastic-plastic soil behaviour
(by means of changing constitutive model)
70
35
26/6/2018
1D CONSOLIDATION – NUMERICAL
SIMULATION
0
reference elastic
pore water compressible
20 (B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
settlement [mm]
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
time [days]
71
1D CONSOLIDATION – FEM Study
-100
-80
-60
-40
reference elastic
pore water compressible
-20 (B=0.85)
permeability e-dependent
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
time [days]
72
36
26/6/2018
1D CONSOLIDATION – FEM SIMULATION
elastic Hardening Soil model

73
distribution of excess pore pressures at 50% consolidation along centre line
influence of parameters in HS-model
0
vertical displacements [mm]
-20
-40
-60
HS_ref
B=0.85
-80 E50 <
E50 >
Ko_nc >
-100
Ko_nc <
-120
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time [days]
74
37
26/6/2018
-100
-80
-60
HS_ref
-40 B=0.85
E50 <
E50 >
-20 Eoed <
Ko_nc >
Ko_nc <
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time [days]
75
0
degree of consolidation [%]
20
40
HS_ref
60 B=0.85
E50 <
E50 >
80 Eoed >
Ko_nc >
Ko_nc <
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time [days]
76
38
26/6/2018
Consolidation Modeling in a
Reclaimed Land
• Why a Mohr-Coulomb Model is grossly
incorrect ?
• Why we need to use Updated Mesh
Analysis for Correct Simulation?
77
Consider a Reclaimed Land

Sand Loading in 365 days
RECLAIM SAND FILL
CLOSED FLOW
BOUNDARIES
SOFT MARINE CLAY
78
39
26/6/2018
Soil Parameters (AE)

Equivalent Oedometer Parameters in HS Model:
Cc=1.0 Cs=0.1 eo=2.0 and m=1.0 for logarithmic compression response
79
PLAXIS FINITE ELEMENT CODE FOR SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSES
6/26/2018
HS Model can produce results very close to

Oedometer Test Data
80
40
26/6/2018
Compare Settlements of Seabed

Which Model is Correct ?
MC = 1,000 mm in 20,000
days
HS = 4,380 mm in 40,000
days
81
Compare Exc-PP at base of Clay

Which Model is Correct ?
MC
model
HS
model
82
41
26/6/2018
Amount of Settlement (hand calculation)
Single layer 1-D compression Estimate:
Cc=1.0, eo=2.0, Ho=15m

Po = 7.5m*5 = 37.5 kPa
P_inc = 10m*18 = 180 kPa
Pf = Po+P_inc = 217.5 kPa
Sett = Ho*Cc/(1+eo)*log(Pf/Po) = 15000*0.254 = 3,817 mm
• This is a single layer computation and it grossly under-estimate

amount of settlements; but 3,817 mm >> 1,000 mm by MC Model,
and is much closer to 4,380 mm by HS Model
• Thus HS Model gave realistic answer and MC Model is grossly
incorrect
83
Compare with Program UniSettle

Using same
oedometer
parameters of
Cc=1.0, eo=2.0; del-
P=180 kPa
UniSettle = 4418
mm
HS = 4380 mm
UniSettle 15-layer
computation gave
nearly same results
as Plaxis HS model84
Non-linear
42
26/6/2018
Compare with Program UniSettle

Which Model is Correct ? • Using same
oedometer
parameters of
Cc=1.0, eo=2.0; del-
MC = 1,000 mm in 20,000 days P=180 kPa
• Cv=2 m2/yr
HS = 4,380 mm in 40,000 days
• UniSettle = 4418 mm
• HS = 4380 mm
• UniSettle 15-layer
computation gave
nearly same results
as Plaxis HS model
• Non-linear
compression from Cc
model of soil
stiffnesses
PLAXIS (non-linear theory)
UNISETTLE (linear elastic theory)

85
Effects of Updated Mesh
Current Sealevel
Original Sealevel
Settle 3,398mm compare to

4,380mm with small strain
analysis, WHY?
86
43
26/6/2018
Settlement of Marine Clay
HS UPDATED=3,390mm in
20,500 days
HS = 4,380 mm in 40,000
days
87
Exc-PP at Base of Marine Clay
Exc-PP dissipated much faster

in Updated Mesh model
88
44
26/6/2018
Effective Stress in Sand Layer
FILL UNLOADING FROM

BUOYANCY EFFECTS
89
Conclusions
• MC Model cannot be used for consolidation analysis of soft
soils
• The linear elastic model in MC cannot predict both the rate
and amount of consolidation settlements of highly nonlinear
soft clays
• The HS Model with equivalent oedometer parameters will give
very good predictions of both rate and amount of consolidation
settlements
• However, for reclaimed land over very thick soft clay layers,
Updated Mesh analysis must be used to predict correct rate
and amount of consolidation settlements
90
45

L5 - Drained and Undrained Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

L5 - Drained and Undrained Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26/6/2018

KL IEM Workshop on FEM

Some materials were originally created by:

By: Professor Harry Tan

• Drained analysis appropriate when

• Undrained analysis appropriate when

Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

Implications of undrained soil behaviour:

• Excess pore pressures are generated

 Implications of undrained soil behaviour

Triaxial test (NC) – drained / undrained

Triaxial test (OC) – drained / undrained

Undrained triaxial test– NC / OC

Skempton’s parameters A and B

 vol , skeleton   vol , pore water

Skempton’s parameters A and B

1  2 3  3pw K w

pw  B  3  A 1   3 

Skempton’s parameters A and B

• Notes on parameters A and B:

• For Kw large compared to K´, parameter B ~ 1.0

Skempton’s parameters A and B

Dependence of pore pressure parameter B on degree of saturation

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

E´ = 3 000 kPa, ´ = 0.3, u = 0.495

E´ = 3 000 kPa, ´ = 0.45, u = 0.495

B = 0.903 > poor value for saturated soil

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

Undrained strength from Mohr circle

 centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point

Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs ADVANCED MODELS

Parameters used for Hardening Soil model (HS)

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs ADVANCED MODELS

Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - Method A)

25 Mohr Coulomb model

Triaxial compression: Triaxial extension:

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs HARDENING SOIL MODEL

Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation - Method A)

Mohr Coulomb model

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB - HARDENING SOIL MODEL

Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - Method A)

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs HARDENING SOIL MODEL

Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation)

Comparison METHOD A / METHOD B

-20 (cu based on HS-Method A)

s' [kN/m2] t = ½(x - y)

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: MOHR COULOMB vs HARDENING SOIL MODEL

Undrained test plane strain (numerical simulation)

Comparison excess pore pressures - METHOD A / METHOD B

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY

275  > 0: unlimited strength

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF DILATANCY

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF K0nc

100 K0nc increased

Soft Soil Model