You are on page 1of 52

Geotechnics

Marcin Cudny, Lech Baachowski


Department of Geotechnics, Geology and Maritime Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty, Gdask University of Technology

e-mail: mcud@pg.gda.pl, web: www.pg.gda.pl/~mcud/ phone.: 58 347 2492, room: 302/Hydro, tutorial: Friday 11.15-13.00

Literature Literature
Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Editor: Urlich Smotczyk, Ernst & Sohn, Darmstadt 2002. Helwany S.: Applied Soil Mechanics with Abaqus Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2007. Duncan J.M., Wright S.G.: Soil Strength and Slope Stability. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2005. Material Models Manual Plaxis version 8, Balkema, The Netherlands, 2006. Derski W., Izbicki R., Kisiel I., Mrz Z.: Rock and soil mechanics , PWN, Elsevier, 1988. Terzaghi K., Peck R.B., Mesri G.: Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons, USA, 1996. Muir Wood D.: Geotechnical Modelling, Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

On-line resources from our University domain: http://www.bg.pg.gda.pl

Other on-line resources:


Andrzej Niemunis web page: Bodenmechanik II, Bodenmechanik III, Numerik in der Geotechnik, Computergesttzten Geotechnischen Projektstudien, FE-Berechnungen in der Geotechnik. http://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~gn99/ Arnold Verruijt web page: books and geotechnical programs http://geo.verruijt.net Tim Spink web page: Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Software Directory http://www.ggsd.com Tochnog, Plaxis finite element programs, free and commercial respectively http://tochnog.sourceforge.net, http://www.plaxis.nl Andrew Schofield web page: interesting articles and links, Book: Critical State Soil Mechanics http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~ans keywords: Geotechnics, Soil mechanics, Geomechanics, Rock Mechanics -> Geotechnik, Bodenmechanik, Geomechanik, Felsmechanik

Magazines:
Inynieria Morska i Geotechnika (polish) Gotechnique ASCE Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Computers and Geotechnics Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics Canadian Geotechnical Journal Geotechnical Testing Journal Soils and Foundations Geotechnik (german)

Planned Planned scope scope of of lectures lectures


part partof of M. M.Cudny Cudny
1. Shear strength of soils general rules concerning the application of the Coulomb-Mohr shear strength criterion (drained & undrained conditions, dilatancy). Alternative shear strength criteria for soils. Soil slope stability calculations. Stiffness of soils: logarithmic and exponential compression laws. Soil stiffness at small and intermediate strains: stress and strain dependency of the stiffness. Consolidation of saturated soils under general conditions (Biot theory). Secondary consolidation of soils (creep and relaxation). Advanced soil constitutive models in practice (Cam-clay, Hardening Soil).

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Some Some basics, basics, definitions definitions etc. etc.


Stress:

Effective stress (for fully saturated soils):

Principal stress space

Strain:

Axisymmetric conditions (uniaxial, triaxial and oedometer tests)

Triaxial apparatus

Oedometer

True triaxial apparatus

Shearing (plane strain)

(a) direct shear, (b) simple shear, (c) torsional shear

Graphs used to illustrate soil material behaviour :

Why we concentrate on the behaviour of small samples ? Application of soil constitutive models in numerical simulations of real geotechnical problems

Shear Shear strength strength of of soils soils

Numerical simulation of biaxial test with Discrete Element Method (DEM)


*) source: http://ppdem.net/

Shear band formation for vertical soil cut

Numerical simulation of a vertical soil cut with Particle-In-Cell (PIC) method,


*) source: CSIRO Division of Exploration and Mining, Australia

Slope failure characteristic zones

*) source: Leroueil, 39th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique 51(3), 2001

10

Subsequent phases of shear zone mobilization in fine grained (cohesive) soil

*) source: Skempton, 1967

Simple description of Coulomb shear strength criterion

11

Coulomb shear strength criterion in different planes

M=

Coulomb shear strength in principal stress space

*) here stress is compression positive

12

Components of an elasto-plastic constitutive model for soils (generally)

ep &kl & ij = Dijkl


s axi atic 3 t s ro = hyd = 2 1

1
elastic model

Yield surface

& ij =

e e &kl Dijkl

F ( ij ) = 0

Flow rule:

& F = ij &ijp

& G lub or = ij &ijp

2 3

Coulomb-Mohr model the most popular elasto-plastic model implemented in geotechnical software

100

compression
80

1 [kPa]

60

t sta dro hy

ic

ax

is

40

20

extension
0

20

40

60

80

100

23 [kPa]

Coulomb-Mohr
et d ij = Dijkl d kl , et = Dijkl

E0 1 2 0 0 ij kl + ( ik jl + jk il ) 2 (1 + 0 )(1 2 0 )

Hooke

13

Coulomb-Mohr model simple modifications for better performance


Possibilities of improvement: introduction of an alternative shear criterion or yield surface introduction of stress and/or strain dependent Youngs modulus ex. E() lub E() introduction of elastic anisotropy ex. cross-anisotropic Hookes law introduction of hardening and softening

et ijkl

=D

es ijkl

1 2 E ( ij kl + ik jl + jk il ) = (1 + )(1 2 ) 2

*) here stress is compression positive

Dilatancy and its influence on the soil behaviour Dilatancy is the observed tendency of a compacted or loose granular material to dilate (expand in volume) or contract (shrink in volume) respectively as it is sheared. This occurs because the soil particles in a compacted state are interlocking and therefore do not have the freedom to move around one another

14

Dilatancy vs. conractancy

*) source: Muir Wood, 2004

Dilatancy and contractancy, drained triaxial test on dense and loose sand samples
volumetric strain v deviatoric stress q=1-2

at ID=0.3 at ID=0.5

15

Numerical shear box experiment shearing and volume vhanges (bonded particle model of jointed rock sample)
Direction of shearing

n = 0.65 x UCS

Microcracks from shear failure (GREEN) Microcracks from tensile failure (RED)

Rough joint shear stress vs. shear displacement vertical displacement vs. shear displacement
normal displacement (dilatancy / contractancy) maximum dilatancy angle

shear stress (normalized to UCS)

shear displacement

shear displacement

*) source: Itasca International Inc., PFC2D

Possibilities of stress paths obtained with Coulomb-Mohr model for different drainage conditions

cuA cuB

A , c, E, , undrained A , c, E, , drained B u=0, cuB, E, , undrained C u=0, cuB, Eu, u=0.495, total stress analysis

B C

u=0

16

Pore water changes for undrained triaxial compression with Mohr-Coulomb model

q 1 3 1
undrained path

cq

t ot a or d l stres rain s pat h ed pat h

Changes of strength and stiffness observed during deposision history deposition history normal consolidation void ratio e sedimentation

overconsolidation or preconsolidation [kPa]


[kPa]

strength increase [kPa]

*) source: Skempton, 1967

erosion

17

Krey-Tiedemann shear strength criterion (1933)

' ' c'2 c'1 s

cu1
stress increase

cu 2

'
c2'

! Simple criterion where overconsolidation ratio is taken into account parameters: , c,cu effective friction angle, effective cohesion and undrained cohesion s - total friction angle, c consolidation stress (normal to the shearing plane)

c1'

Real undrained behaviour in triaxial compression of overconsolidated and normally consolidated clay sample

clay

clay

*) source: Wehnert PhD, University of Stuttgart, 2006

18

Calculations of pore water pressure Stiffness of soil grains Ks, stiffness of soil skeleton (effective) K1 and stiffness water Kw

deformation of single grains

deformation of soil skeleton

for undrained analysis it is often assumed: Ks= , Kw=

*) source: Bodenmechanik II, A. Niemunis

Assumption of incompressibility of water in numerical calculations is not possible, hence stiffness of water and soil skeleton are taken parallely. stiffness of water:

u = K w v

or tensorially

w &kl & ij = K w ij kl

effective stiffness of soil skeleton


e &kl & ij = Dijkl tot w w = ij ij or ij ij ij = ij (lub )

total stiffness :
tot e &kl & ij = ( Dijkl + K w ij kl )

19

Matrix representation for plane stress conditions


tot A &x tot &y B tot = & z B 0 & xy

B B A B B A 0 0

Kw K + w Kw 2G 0 0 0 0

Kw Kw Kw 0

Kw Kw Kw 0

&x 0 & 0 y & 0 z &xy 0

For Hookes linear elasticity :

A= E

1 1 , B=E , G=E 2 (1 + ) (1 + )(1 2 ) (1 + )(1 2 )

How to estimate Kw ?

a)

K w 2 GPa

b) multiplying of the average of effective stiffness normal components so-called head (ex. 100 times) c)

u 0.5,

G=

E 2 (1 + )

Kw =

2G 1 + u 1 + 3 1 2 u 1 2

20

Settlement of shallow foundation for short time loading, undrained conditions

h 2 w t << t98 k M0

< 0.01

h=D hight of the consolidating layer or simply length of drainage path, Ev stiffness modulus to calculate short time settlement

Skempton parameter B increment of the total tress:

ij = ij '+ u ij
isotropic compression:

0 P 0 = P 1 = 0 P 0 P 0 0

B=

u = f ( Sr ) P

for undrained soil: B0.999

' = P u = P BP 0

21

Skempton parameter A

steel :

soil :

& K p = & 0 q

&v 0 & 3G q

& K p = & Q2 q

&v Q1 & 3G q

dilatancy:

d=

&v &q

Skemptona parameter A

u = A 1 3 = A q
Parameters A and B (undrained behaviour)

1 u = A q + B tr ( ) 3
undrained

drained regardless A value

undrained

stress paths for different values of parameter A

22

Dilatancy angle in Mohr-Coulomb model

0 F=

nst G=co

c
F= - n tan - c (yield function), G= - n tan (plastic potentialfunction)

Influence of dilatancy angle on undrained stress path in Mohr-Coulomb model

23

Influence of stress level on the behaviour during shearing

*) source: Bolton, 1986

Alternative Alternative shear shear strength strength criteria criteria for for soils soils
Drucker-Prager shear strength criterion
standard version:
q Mc 1 cq p

FD P = q Mp cq = 0 q= 3 sij sij , for axisymmetric case : q = 1 3 , 2 1 1 p = kk , p = ( 1 + 2 3 ), 3 3 6 sin 6c cos M= , cq = 3 sin 3 sin


surface (deviatoric) 1

1 Me

1=2=3

Mc=Me

3
Drucker, Prager (1952)

24

Drucker-Prager vs. Mohr-Coulomb, How to choose parameters ?

Drucker-Prager criterion is a q=const contour (Mc=Me) and Mohr-Coulomb criterion is a =const contour (Mc=Me) Ex. choosing M=Mc(=30o) in Drucker-Prager criterion results in very large strength for axisymmetric extension (ex. passive earth pressure) which is equivalent to the activation of =48.6o

Lode angle influence of the intermediate principal stress component


Two of Lode angle in textbooks (often misleaded) Dwiedefinitions popularne definicje k ta Lodego (czsto mylone):
3 , = arccos 2 J 3/ 2 3 2

3 3J

3 3J 3 27 J 1 1 , = arcsin 33 = arcsin 3/ 2 3 2q 3 2J2


*

- 1

=0 =30 b=0.0

= 30 = b= 0 0.5

60 0 = -3 = 1.0 b=

= ( 0o 60o ) , * = ( 30o 30o ) , * = + 30o


gdzie where J 3 = det ( sij ) , J 2 = 1 3 sij sij skl skl , q = 3J 2 = 2 2

oraz and sij = ij + p ij - dewiator naprenia stress deviator 1 p = kk 3 axisym. compression: Sciskanie trjosiowe: = 0o lub * = 30o Rozci ganie trjosiowe: = 60o lub * = 30o axisym. extension:

-3
compression extension

-2
b=

2 3 1 = 1 + 3 tan ( 30o ) 1 3 2

25

Stress invariants p, q,

3p 2/3q

1
Rendulic plane

p 2 3

Improved version of Drucker-Prager criterion (Abaqus):


* FD P = t Mp cq = 0

r= t=

9 sij s jk ski , for 2 = 3 r = ( 1 3 ) 2

3 q 1 1 r 1 + 1 , 2 K K q q comp ext K = 0.778 1 ; t = , t =q K

K=1.0

K=0.9

K=0.8

26

Matsuoka-Nakai criterion (SMP concept Spatialy Mobilised Planes):

SMP =

3I 3 , SMP = I2

I1 I 2 I 3 9 I 32 SMP = I2 SMP

I1 I 2 9 I 3 9I3

I1 = kk = 1 + 2 + 3 , I 2 = I 3 = det ij = 1 2 3

1 ( ii jj ij ij ) = 2 3 + 1 3 + 1 2 , 2

I1 I 2 = const or I3

f =

I1 I 2 const = 0 I3

FM N =

I1 I 2 I I 9 sin 2 cm 9 8 tan 2 cm = 1 2 = 0, (1974) I3 I 3 1 sin 2 cm

Lade-Duncan (empirical criterion):

FLD =

I13 = 0, Lade i Duncan (1975) I3


3

) ( 3 sin cm I1 = kk , I 3 = det ij , = )( 1 + sin cm ) ( 1 sin cm


= 30o cm
1

FLD = 0
FMN = 0

= 20o cm

FDP ( K = 1.0 ) = 0

FDP ( K = 0.9 ) = 0

27

Lade criterion (empirical):

I3 I FL = 1 27 1 = 0, Lade (1977) I3 pa pa , m, - parameters


1
m = 0.5 m = 0.8

!) nonlinear contour in meridian planes

2 = 3

Some differences between presented shear strength criteria for soils and rocks
1
= 20o cm = 30o cm = 20o cm

1 = 30o cm

Mohr-Coulomb contour is shown for cm=30


3 2

3 = 40o cm

= 40o cm

Lade and Duncan (1975)


1 = 20o cm
= 30o cm

Matsuoka and Nakai (1974)


p = 100 kPa

p = 200 kPa

p = 50 kPa

p = 150 kPa

1 m = 0.5 m = 0.8

K = 0.778

= 40o cm

= 28, m = 0.5, pa = 50 kPa

2 = 3

Modfied Drucker-Prager

Lade (1977)

Lade (1977) depends on p

28

Matsuoka-Nakai, Lade-Duncan and Mohr-Coulomb in principal stress space

Matsuoka-Nakai & Mohr-Coulomb

Lade-Duncan & Mohr-Coulomb

Differences between responses of elasto-plastic models built with presented shear strength criteria for biaxial compression (plane strain)

250 200 150 100 50 0

CM DP
-0.01

MN

t [kPa]

v [-]

LD MN CM

-0.02

LD

-0.03

DP

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

-0.04

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

yy [-]

yy [-]

c=30, c=0 kPa, =5, E=10000 kPa, =0.15; initial stress is isotropic p=100 kPa; symbols: t=(1-3)/2, v=1+3

29

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions


Bearing capacity problem, shallow foundation

Homogeneous soil: c=30, c=1 kPa, c=0, Eoed=80000 kPa, =0.2 (E0=72000 kPa), =18 kN/m3

Bearing capacity problem, results

force-displacement curves

shearing

extension

yielding zones

30

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions ...


Excavation problem, slurry wall

Homogeneous soil: c=30, c=1 kPa, c=0, Eoed=80000 kPa, =0.2 (E0=72000 kPa), =18 kN/m3

Excavation problem, results

bottom edge of the wall

top edge of the wall

12 distribution for Matsuoka-Nakai criterion;


values: -5.6% bright to +1.2% dark; displacement is scaled 20 times Horizontal displacement vs. overburden pressure

31

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions ...


Pile bearing capacity problem

*) Eoed=M0

Pile bearing capacity problem, results

32

Soil Soil slope slope stability stability calculations calculations


Slope failure mechanism is highly dependent on geological layering
embankment clays limestone powierzchnia zniszczenia

*) source: Pouget & Livet, 1988

wysoko n.p.m.

Different stages of slope movements

first failure displacement rate

post-failure

occasional reactivation acttive landslides

pre-failure

time

*) source: Leroueil, 39th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique 51(3), 2001

33

Quick-clay landslides

*) source: geopanorama.rncan.gc.ca

*) source: geopanorama.rncan.gc.ca

34

St. Jude/ Montreal May 11, 2010

*) http://www.montrealgazette.com

*) Trondheim, 1999

35

Long term landslide, Kensal Green, 1941


Horizontal displacement of the wall, track level [ins]

failure begin of observation

Landslide has occurred 29 years after retaining wall instalation Former ground profile

probable analysed

} slip line

*) source: Skempton, 1967

General classification of slope stability calculation methods

1. Methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory. 2. Methods where a potential failure mechanism is assumed.

36

Methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory Equilibrium (Navier equations):

ij , j + f i = 0
Boundary conditions:

ij n j = ti ,
Plasticity criterion (or constitutive law):

vi = vi0

f ( ij ) 0,
Strain-displacement compatibility:

&kl & ij = Dijkl 1 vi , j + v j ,i 2

&kl =

In practice, very often complicated boundary conditions are far from those which are assumed in the analytical solutions of fundamental equations.

*) Stability of a road embankment, hight 14.0m, reinforced by geotextiles, soft soil ground piled by jet-grouting columns. At the embankment toe a water reservoir is designed with sheet-pile walls (without anchoring !!!), Poland, Motorway A4, Ruda lska, 2004.

37

*) Stability of walls and vaults of historical structure, Wisoujcie Fortress, 2004.

Methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory ...

In complex and important engineering cases the fundamental equations of continuum theory can be solved by numerical methods ex. By finite differences method or by finite element method.

However, the application of numerical modelling requires good knowledge of their basis as well as it requires thorough understanding of continuum mechanics and geomechanics.

38

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice ...

*) deformation

*) horizontal displacement

39

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice ...

*) Pylon foundation of a cable stayed bridge at the highway ring road of Wrocaw (A8), 2009.

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

40

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

a)

b)

c)

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

41

Methods where the potential failure mechanism is assumed. General assumptions for the methods of slices

1.

Analysed boundary problem of slope stability is two dimensional with arbitrary shape of a slip surface. However very often only cylindrical slip surfaces are assumed. Slip occurs simultaneously in all points of the assumed slip surface. In standard calculations inertial forces are neglected.

2. 3.

Failure mechanism In the initial phase of slope stability calculations by methods of slices it is very important to choose an appropriate failure mechanism. Rotational shape of failure line
circular slip line (homogeneous soils)

non-circular slip line (inhomogeneous soils)

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

42

Translational mechanism

Compound mechanism

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Critical slip line


assumed centre of rotation critical slip line

F
minimum

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

43

Standard procedure for searching the critical slip line

grid of centres of rotaion

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Local and global slope stability (scale of the failure mechanism)

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

44

Influence of the soil type for the shape of critical failure mechanism

sand clay

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Effect of a water filled tension crack at the head of a slide

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

45

Short term and long term slope stability (parameters ,c and u, cu) excavation
time

u construction time

embankment
u

construction time

time + compression

Shear strength mobilisation

r s

r s r s
Average value : slip:

p > sr av > r av sr p

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

46

Method of slices General scheme


centre of rotation

forces acting on a single slice:

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Fellenius method (also called as Swedish or oridinary) assumptions:

47

Fellenius method - example

Fellenius Bishop method (simplified) assumptions:

Bishop

F=

1 W sin

(W + X ub ) tan + cb
tan tan cos 1 + F

48

Janbu method Relates to the Bishop method taking into account lateral forces E. It allows for arbitrary non-rotational slip lines.

W X = N cos + S sin E = N sin S cos

F=

1 (W X ) tan

(W X ub ) tan + cb
cos m
tan sin F

m = cos +

Spencer and Morgenstern-Price methods Spencer Morgenstern-Price

= const
X = tan E

const
X = f ( x) E

49

Non-rotational failure mechanisms Block mechanism

How to take into account the pore water pressure in slope stability calculations ?

1. Active pore water pressure based on seepage line

ua=ust= h w

* Very often used in the practice, the most conservative method.

50

2. Active pore water pressure based on seepage line with Hu reduction

ua = w h H u ,

H u = 0 1

In most cases coefficiant Hu is calculated from seepage line inclination:

H u = cos 2

equipotential line (seepage)

3. Active pore water pressure calculated by ru coefficient method

u a = ru v ,

ru = 0 1

Active pore water pressure is estimated as a fraction of the vertical total stress v component at the bottom level of analysed slice.

51

Slope stability safety factor estimated by FE-analysis

-c reduction method

F-c

Strength parameters (tan, c) are reduced in the incremental process up to the loss of static equilibium in the analysed boundary problem. This numerical method falls to the methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory.

52

You might also like