CG11 Undrained Soil Behaviour and Consolidation: Helmut F. Schweiger

S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
CG11
UNDRAINED SOIL BEHAVIOUR

AND CONSOLIDATION
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
Acknowledgements for some of the slides: A. Gens, UPC, Barcelona
Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

Undrained Soil Behaviour and Consolidation
2
Drained / Undrained | Skempton’s Parameters | Modelling Undrained Behaviour | Consolidation I Example
CONTENTS
 Definition drained / undrained
 Drained / undrained soil behaviour
• Skempton‘s parameters A and B
 Modelling undrained behaviour

• 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
 Consolidation
 Example - stability of embankment
 Summary
3
 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
 Implications of undrained soil behaviour
• excess pore pressures are generated
u  0,   '
• 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

4
2] Chart 1
q q[kN/m
[kN/m2] Failure drained:
350 Mohr-Coulomb / Advanced
SS_DR
model
MC_DR
300 Failure undrained:
Mohr-Coulomb SS_UNDR
Excess porewater pressure:
250 MC_UNDR
Mohr-Coulomb
Failure undrained:
200 Advanced model
2cu
150
100
Excess porewater pressure:
Advanced model
50
q = 1 - 3
0
0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 ptriax = (1 + 23)/3
p' [kN/m2]
p' [kN/m2]
Undrained shear strength predicted by Mohr-Coulomb and advanced constitutive model
5
PORE PRESSURE 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 >>>
 isotropic linear elastic material behaviour (Hooke´s law)
 vol, skeleton   vol, pore water

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

6

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

pw  
3K ' n
1  1 
leading to pw 
nK '
 
 3 3 1   
3 
1 
Kw
pw  B 3  A 1  3 
1 1
with B A
nK ' 3
1
Kw
7

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
 parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic material behaviour
 parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex elastic-plastic

constitutive models > is a result of the model behaviour for the stress path
followed

8
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

principle of effective stress:    '  f
 f  pw pw pw 0 0 0

T
with
since the strains are the same in each phase
 '  D' 
13 03 Kf Ke: pore fluid stiffness,
D f  Ke Ke 
 f  D f  03 03 n
related to the bulk modulus
of pore fluid (water) Kf
We need D:  D

 '  f    D   D '   D f   ( D ' D f )
D  D ' D f
9
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
all the above (which is valid for any soil (or model) for which the
principle of effective stress applies) can be easily combined with the
FEM
instead of specifying the components of D, specify D'‚ and Ke
D  D ' D f
when calculating stresses,
 f  K e  v
   '  f
 '  D' 

10
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 '
Note:
- this procedure gives reasonable B-values only for ´ < 0.35 !
- real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for n = 0.5)

11
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
   c    tan   total stresses
Cu
  1   3  1   3 
 2 
 F
 2 
 F   cu  , 
-Cu
Effective stresses
 Soil behaves as if it was cohesive

 cu (  su ) : undrained shear strength
 cu only changes if drainage occurs (no change if undrained conditions prevail)

12
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS
UNDRAINED A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

effective strength parameters c´, ´, ´
effective stiffness parameters E50´, ´
UNDRAINED B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

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

total strength parameters c = cu,  = 0,  = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

13
UNDRAINED A
Constitutive equations in terms of
t
effective stresses:  '  D ' 
uf
u the total stiffness matrix is computed as:
TSP
cu ESP
D  D ' D f
s, s’
 single set of parameters in terms of effective stress (undrained, drained,

consolidation analysis consistent)
 realistic prediction of pore pressures (if model is appropriate)
 the undrained analysis can be followed by a consolidation analysis
(correct pore pressures, correct drained parameters and cu is updated
automatically)
 cu is a consequence of the model, not an input parameter!!
Available for all models (including user defined models)!

14
UNDRAINED C
t
Constitutive equations in terms of
total stresses:   D 
TSP=ESP
cu
s, s’
 parameters in terms of total stress

 no prediction of pore pressures (only total stresses are obtained)
 the undrained analysis can not be followed by a consolidation
analysis
 cu is an input parameter!!
Available for Linear elastic, Mohr Coulomb, NGI-ADP models

15
UNDRAINED B
t
ESP TSP
cu
s, s’
 parameters in terms of total stress and effective stress

 prediction of pore pressures (but generally unrealistic)
 the undrained analysis should not be followed by a consolidation
analysis (pore pressures unrealistic and cu is not updated
automatically). Note: "Model change" to effective parameters also
not recommended because of unrealistic pore pressure distribution.
 cu is an input parameter!!
Available for Mohr Coulomb, HSM, HSSM, NGI-ADP models

16
UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM MOHR-COULOMB
Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour

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

17
UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM MOHR-COULOMB
The Mohr Coulomb model in terms of effective stresses

OVERESTIMATES the undrained shear strength of soft clays!
t
cuMC
cu real
s, s’

18
UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM ADVANCED MODELS
 Although it is possible, in a few simple cases, to obtain an analytical

expression for cu, it is advisable to perform a numerical “laboratory”
test to check the value of undrained shear strength actually supplied
by the model
 It is important to perform the numerical “laboratory” test under the
same condition as in the analysis
• Plane strain, triaxial, simple shear
• Correct initial stresses
• Compression, extension, simple shear
 Not all cu values are achievable with
a particular model
Mayne et al., 17th ICSMGE, 2009

19
UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF MODEL / DILATANCY

240
MC non dil
220
MC dil
200
HS_1 non dil
180 HS_1 dil
160
140
q [kN/m²]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00%
ε1[%]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - q vs 1

20

240
220
200
 > 0: unlimited strength
180
160
140
q [kN/m²]
120
100
80 Total
60 MC non dil
MC dil
40
HS_1 non dil
20 HS_1 dil
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´

21

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Excess pore pressure [kN/m²]
30
20
10 MC non dil
0
-10 MC dil
-20
HS_1 non dil
-30
-40 HS_1 dil
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140
-150
0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -35% -40%
ε1[%]
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - pw vs 1

22
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
Eurref [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

23
Undrained triaxial UNDRAINED

test (numerical
TRIAXIAL TEST
MC - HS - HSS - SS
simulation - UNDRAINED A)
Preconsolidation to 100 kPa > compression
isotropic compression / extension
p' vs q
125
Advanced models - Method A
100
(HS / SS)
75
2cu
50
q [kN/m2]
25 Mohr Coulomb model

0
-25
-50
-75
-100
0.00 -25.00 -50.00 -75.00 -100.00 -125.00 -150.00
p' [kN/m2]
Triaxial compression: Triaxial extension:

cu/v' = 0.47 (MC) cu/v' = 0.36 (MC)
cu/v' = 0.35 (HS) cu/v' = 0.26 (HS)
24
Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - UNDRAINED A)

Test 1: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > compression / extension
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
Test 2: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > isotropic unloading to 150 kPa > compression / extension
MC - HS / OC
Test 3: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > isotropic
isotropicunloading
compression to 100 kPa > compression / extension
p' vs q
200
150
Hardening Soil model 2cu (NC)
Test 1
100
cu = 0 (OC)
50 Test 2
Test 3
q [kN/m2]
-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]

25
Undrained triaxial test (numerical simulation - UNDRAINED A)

Test 1: Preconsolidation to 200 kPa > compression / extension
INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT FLOW RULE IN HSS MODEL
250
225
200 Hardening Soil model
175
150 2cu (NC)
125
100 cu = 0 (OC)
75
50
Hardening Soil
q [kN/m²]
25
0 Small model
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
-175 Mohr Coulomb model
-200
0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200 -225
p' [kN/m²]

26
INFLUENCE INPUT PARAMETERS - HS / HSS MODELS
E50ref Eurref Eoedref ‘  c‘ 0.7 G0 E50/Eoed

HSS_a 2 000 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 0.0003 15 000 2.00
HSS_f 3 000 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 0.0003 15 000 3.00
HSS_g 3 500 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 0.0003 15 000 3.50
HSS_h 4 000 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 0.0003 15 000 4.00
HSS_i 5 000 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 0.0003 15 000 5.00
HS_a 2 000 10 000 1 000 24 0 0 2.00

27
PARAMETERVARIATION – HSS
160
HSS_a
HSS_f
140
HSS_g
HSS_h
120 HSS_i
Bruchkrit. MC
Total
100
80
q [kN/m²]
60
40
20
0
0.00 -20.00 -40.00 -60.00 -80.00 -100.00 -120.00 -140.00 -160.00
Influence of E50 / Eoed p' [kN/m²]

28
PARAMETERVARIATION K0nc – HS MODEL
90
80 K0nc decreased
HS reference
70
K0nc increased
60
50
q [kN/m²]
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 -20.00 -40.00 -60.00 -80.00 -100.00 -120.00 -140.00
p' [kN/m²]
29
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, but
sometimes lower
Note: undrained shear strength of
 < ~ 0.28 with HS-model difficult to
achieve, possible with HSS
30
PQ
40
HS-small model
30
q [kN/m²]
Triaxial compression: 20
cu/v'  0.19
Parameter Meaning Value
 [kN/m³] Unit weight (unsaturated) 16
r [kN/m³] Unit weight (saturated) 10 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] 0 loading
Secant modulus for primary triaxial 1 000
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100
Eoedref [kPa] Tangent modulus for oedometric loading 1 000
Eurref [kPa] Secant modulus for un- and reloading 15 000 p' [kN/m²]
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) 0.43
Rf [-] Failure ratio 0.90
σTension [kPa] Tensile strength 0

31
COMPARISON UNDRAINED A AND B

Practical example: deep excavation in soft clay

32
cu - Profile:
Geotechnical design parameter table
Mohr Coulomb model (UNDRAINED A)
UNDRAINED A:
Mohr-Coulomb effective (' and c')
UNDRAINED B:
Mohr-Coulomb (cu)
> significant difference in
undrained shear strength

33

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

M (U) M (U) overestimates undrained shear
~62mm Marine Clay strength for normally consolidated soft
F2 ~170mm soils
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

34
SUMMARY - UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
 FE analysis of undrained conditions should be performed in effective

stresses with effective stiffness and strength parameters (Method A)
 Method A must be used:
• if consolidation/long term analysis is required
• to exploit all features of advanced soil models
 Undrained shear strength is a result of the constitutive model
(check what cu model predicts; be careful when soil parameters are part of the contract)
 Dilatancy angle has to be zero

 Methods (B) and C provide alternative ways to analyze undrained
problems but:
• the constitutive model dos not generally represent the true soil behaviour (before
failure)
• potentially useful for stability problems in undrained conditions (specification of
undrained shear strength is straightforward)

35
Equation of continuity (with soil deformation)

qx q y n
div q   
x y t n
n  q x q y  t
     0
t  x y 
 change of n depends on changes of effective stresses (flow

problem depends on the mechanical problem)
 change of pore pressures (effective stresses) is derived from
the flow problem (mechanical problem depends on the flow
problem)
 mechanical and flow problem interact and must be solved
simultaneously > COUPLED PROBLEM!
36
Node
Element
Stress
point
Mesh:
Elements: Interpolation of primary variables
Nodes: Primary variables (displacements, pore pressures)
Stress points: Derived variables (strains, stresses, Darcy velocities)
Same order of interpolation in PLAXIS

37
K v  L  p   f Equilibrium
dv dp
H pL S q
T
Continuity
dt dt
K L    v  0 0   v0    f 
   System of equations
 LT  S   p  0 t H   p 0  t q 
* *

S   t H  S q  q 0   q
* *
H: permeability matrix H   ( N )T k ( N ) dV
V
T
S: compressibility matrix n
S N N dV
V
Kw
K: stiffness matrix T
K   B D B dV
V
L: coupling matrix T
L   B m N dV
V
> Solution: Displacements and (excess) pore pressures

38
Time step
• Automatic time stepping is required
• Critical time step
Consolidation analysis
• Prescribed time
• Maximum excess pore pressure

39
PERMEABILITY
 PLAXIS allows consideration of change of permeability with void ratio
 k  e
log   
 k0  ck
Default value for ck is 1015
 There may be large contrasts of permeability between different materials

in the same problem
• Too much permeability contrast may cause numerical difficulties
• The ratio between the highest and lowest permeability value
should not exceed 105
• To simulate an almost impermeable material (e.g. concrete), a
value lower by a factor 1000 is usually sufficient

40
1D CONSOLIDATION - NUMERICAL SIMULATION

drainage at top and bottom
Isochrones at 25% consolidation:
not symmetric for advanced models

41
1D CONSOLIDATION - NUMERICAL SIMULATION

42
EXAMPLE - EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION

Influence of consolidation on stability
(only possible with UNDRAINED 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

43
"slow": max. excess porewater

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

pressure: 100 kPa

44
"slow": stable
"fast": failure

45
excess pore pressure [kPa]

excess pore pressure [kN/m2]
Chart 1
-50
fast
-40
-30
-20
slow
-10
0
0 4 8 12 16
Time [day]
time [days]

46
SIMPLIFIED REPRESENTATION OF STRESS PATH

t = ½ (1 - 3)
s = ½ (1 + 3)
s = ½ (1 + 3) from Ortigao, 1995

CG11 Undrained Soil Behaviour and Consolidation: Helmut F. Schweiger

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CG11 Undrained Soil Behaviour and Consolidation: Helmut F. Schweiger

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

S C I E N C E P A S S I O N T E C H N O L O G Y

UNDRAINED SOIL BEHAVIOUR

Acknowledgements for some of the slides: A. Gens, UPC, Barcelona

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

 Modelling undrained behaviour

 Influence of constitutive model and parameters

 Drained analysis appropriate when

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A AND B

Skempton 1954: pw  B 3  A 1  3 

 vol, skeleton   vol, pore water

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A AND B

1  23  3pw K w

pw  B 3  A 1  3 

PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A AND B

 for Kw large compared to K´, parameter B ~ 1.0

 small amount of drapped air reduces parameter B significantly

 parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic material behaviour

 parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex elastic-plastic

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

 f  pw pw pw 0 0 0

since the strains are the same in each phase

We need D:  D

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

instead of specifying the components of D, specify D'‚ and Ke

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS

PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained material

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

   c    tan   total stresses

 Soil behaves as if it was cohesive

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS

UNDRAINED A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

UNDRAINED B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

UNDRAINED C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

 single set of parameters in terms of effective stress (undrained, drained,

Available for all models (including user defined models)!

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

 parameters in terms of total stress

Available for Linear elastic, Mohr Coulomb, NGI-ADP models

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

 parameters in terms of total stress and effective stress

Available for Mohr Coulomb, HSM, HSSM, NGI-ADP models

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM MOHR-COULOMB

Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour

Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)

UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM MOHR-COULOMB

The Mohr Coulomb model in terms of effective stresses

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED STRENGTH FROM ADVANCED MODELS

 Although it is possible, in a few simple cases, to obtain an analytical

Mayne et al., 17th ICSMGE, 2009

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF MODEL / DILATANCY

Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test – MC / HS model - q vs 1

Plaxis Course, Bandung, Indonesia, 12 - 14 December 2017

UNDRAINED STRENGTH: INFLUENCE OF MODEL / DILATANCY