Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Aspect of Waste

and their Utilization in I nfrastructure Project

Modeling Techniques in Geotechnical
Engineering
V. A. Sawant
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Roorkee


PHYSICAL MODELING
NUMERICAL MODELING
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS- DEVELOPMENT OF
EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS

PHYSICAL MODELING
CENTRIFUGE MODELING
NUMERICAL MODELING
RELIABILITY BASED ANALYSIS
ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Physical Modeling
Studies on scaled models are resorted to in engineering
disciplines in order to understand the behaviour of the
real full-scale structures called prototypes.
A physical model involves a real object subjected to
forces or displacements and physical quantities such as
resulting responses are measured.
From the physical measurements made on the model,
the corresponding quantities are predicted for the
prototype.
Scaled models in GE seriously lack similitude
because stress levels in the model do not match
those in the prototype.
There are two major factors which need to be
considered in modeling of GE structures These
are :
Body force due to gravity which is often the
actuating force and
Soil properties such as strength and stiffness
which are highly stress dependent.
CENTRIFUGE MODELING
When studies are undertaken to understand the
behavior of real structures through scaled models, it is
found impossible to simulate the body forces in the
normal 1 g field.

It has been realized that this deficiency can be
overcome with the use of centrifuge technique in which
models are subjected to predetermined, high
acceleration levels to produce similarity conditions
satisfactorily in most situations.
Centrifuge modeling is now firmly established as a
dependable research tool that can provide solutions to
many of the intractable problems in GE.
Some of the important problems relating to earth dams,
tunnels, offshore foundations, geo-environmental
problems, problems of nuclear waste disposal, seismic
studies of earth structures and foundations can be
tackled using centrifuge modeling.
Two systems are said to behave similarly when
corresponding physical quantities are related by
equations of the type R
m
=R
p

where R
m
and R
p
are same physical quantity pertaining
to the model and the prototype
is the proportionality constant.
Different physical quantities may be related by
different proportionality constants. The linearity of the
relationship is a necessity.
When two systems behave similarly :
knowledge of the behaviour of one will enable us to
determine what the behaviour of the other must be.
Modeling of clay slope
Consider the stability of a
clay slope shown in Figure
having a slope angle i under
undrained conditions.
An estimate of the
maximum stable height may
be based on the slip circle
method of analysis.
Based on Taylor's stability
chart the maximum stable
height of slope H
c
for i =
60 can be estimated.
Suppose if this estimate is to be verified, how
could one proceed to carry out a scaled model
study by reducing the linear dimension by a
factor, say of 50 %.
If experiments are envisaged in 1-g field it
becomes necessary to produce a model material
having a value of c
u
/=0.02 for the value of the
prototype material.
It is indeed almost impossible to produce a
material corresponding to this value of c
u
/.
It is attractive to consider the possibility of increasing the
value of by placing the model slope in a centrifuge
which can increase of soil by a factor n.
In the centrifuge the linear dimensions are modelled by
factor 1/n and the stress is modelled by a factor of unity.
Various scaling relationships based on these two factors.

For example
L
m
= L
p
/n and
m
=
p

Force = stress area ; F
m
= 1 (1/n
2
) F
p
= (1/n
2
)F
p

Energy = force distance ;
E
m
= (l/n
2
) (1/n) E
p
= (l/n
3
) E
p

Table 3 Scaling Laws
Quantity Prototype Model
Length n 1
Area n
2
1
Volume n
3
1
Velocity 1 1
Acceleration 1 n
Mass n
3
1
Force n
2
1
Energy n
3
1
Stress 1 1
Strain 1 1
Mass density 1 1
Energy density 1 1
Time (dynamic) n 1
Time (diffusion) n
2
1
Time (creep) 1 1
Frequency 1 n
ANNs are a data driven artificial intelligence approach
that attempts to mimic, cognition capability of human
brain.
ANNs learn by examples of data inputs and outputs
presented to them so that the subtle functional
relationships among the data are captured, even if the
underlying relationships are unknown or the physical
meaning is difficult to explain.
This is in contrast to most traditional empirical and
statistical methods, which need prior knowledge about
the nature of the relationships among the data.
ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Figure 1Typical Structure and Operations of ANN
Architecture of ANNs consists of a
series of processing elements (PEs), or
nodes, that are usually arranged in
layers:
an input layer,
an output layer, and
one or more hidden layers
The input from each PE in the previous layer x
i
is multiplied by
an adjustable connection weight w
ji
. At each PE, the weighted
input signals are summed and a threshold value
j
is added.
This combined input I
j
is then passed through a nonlinear
transfer function f(I
j
) to produce the output of the PE y
j
. The
output of one PE provides the input to the PEs in the next layer.
The propagation of information in an ANN starts at the input
layer, where the input data are presented. The network adjusts
its weights on the presentation of a training data set and uses a
learning rule to find a set of weights that will produce the
input/output mapping that has the smallest possible error. This
process is called learning or training.
Once the training phase of the model has been successfully
accomplished, the performance of the trained model needs to
be validated using an independent testing set.
Figure 2 Main steps in ANN model development
Liquefaction during earthquakes is one of the very dangerous
ground failure phenomena that can cause a large amount of
damage to most civil engineering structures. Although the
liquefaction mechanism is well known, the prediction of
liquefaction potential is very complex. This fact has attracted many
researchers to investigate the applicability of ANNs for predicting
liquefaction. Hanna et al (2007) reported evaluation of liquefaction
potential of soil deposits using artificial neural networks. The
prediction capabilities of the ANN model was compared to a set of
data that were not used during model training and testing. The
validation data was randomly selected from both Kocaeli and Chi-
Chi earthquakes, and corresponds to approximately 12 percent of
the data set collected. The results are presented in graphical form
in Figure 3. The results produced by the proposed ANN model
compare well with the field data.
Figure 3 Network performance on soil liquefaction potential (Hanna et al 2007)
NUMERICAL MODELING
Mathematical and computational techniques have been developed for
design, analysis, and prediction of the behavior of soil and rock, as well
as structural elements in contact with the soil, when subjected to
various internally or externally applied boundary conditions.
Models are not meant to be an exact representation of reality, but
rather to mimic the essential characteristics of the elements of the
prototype as necessary for design or prediction.
Status in Basic and Applied Engineering Research
Numerical modeling is the subject of many basic and applied research
efforts in civil engineering. Such efforts often involve the use of FDM,
FEM, BEM, and DEM in conjunction with sophisticated nonlinear
elastic, elastoplastic, viscoplastic, crystal plasticity, and
micromechanical constitutive models. Constitutive models have
increased rapidly in sophistication in recent decades.

Subgrade Reaction Approach
Elastic Continuum Approach
Finite Element Analysis
Analysis of Pile (LLP)
In the SAFE approach, variations of loading and
displacements in the direction of revolution are
expressed in the form of Fourier series.





Displacements in the plane forming solid of
revolution are expressed using shape functions, as
employed in 2-D FE formulation.
Semi-analytical FEM

+ =

+ =

+ =
= =
= =
= =
L
n
n
L
n
n
L
n
n
L
n
n
L
n
n
L
n
n
n w n w w
n v n v v
n u n u u
1 0
0 1
1 0
sin cos
cos sin
sin cos
u u
u u
u u
Semi-analytical FEM
Pile & soil media 8 node continuum element

Interface between pile and soil 6 node interface
element



Eight Noded Element
( )
( )( )
( )( )
8 4
1 1
2
1
6 2
1 1
2
1
7 , 5 , 3 , 1
1 ) 1 )( 1 (
4
1
2
2
and i for
N
and i for
N
i for
N
i i
i i
i i i i i
=
q + =
=
q q + =
=
q q + q q + + =


Axi-Symmetric Analysis
The strain components c
r
, c
u
c
z
and
ru
are
related to displacements u and v as follows

{ } | |{ }
e
z
r
rz
z
r
B
w
r z
v
r
v
r
v u
r
r
w
z
u
z
w
v
r
u
r
u
o
u
u
u

c
c
c
c
u
u
u
=

c
c
+
c
c

c
c
+
c
c
c
c
+
c
c
c
c
c
c
+
c
c
=

=
1
1
Stress strain relationship is given as,


{ } | | | |{ } c

c
c
c
t
t
t
o
o
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
D D
z
r
rz
z
r
z
r
rz
z
r
=

=
| |
( )
( )
( )
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

+
=
v
v
v
v v v
v v v
v v v
v v
2 1 5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 1 5 . 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 1 5 . 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
) 1 )( 2 1 (
E
D
Element stiffness matrix, [K]
e
, is given by


Load vector, {F}, for uniformly distributed load,
q
z
, acting on the element can be obtained as,





| | | | | | | |
} }

=
1
1
1
1
2 q t d d r J B D B k
T
e
{ } | |
} }

=
t
u u
u
2
0
1
1
0
sin
cos
d d r N q a F
T
e
Stiffness matrix of and interface element
| | | | | || |
} }
=
V S
f
T
f
ds B D B k
Geometry and Material
Properties
Pile E=0.360510
8
kPa
v= 0.15
Soil E
s
=4267 kPa
Load 1000 kN

Dia (m) 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0
L/D Ratio 10, 15, 20, 25

z
/
D

r/D
Finite Element Mesh
Deflection Curves for different Dia & L/D ratio
Z
/
L

Non-dimensional Displacement
0.4-25
0.6-25
0.8-25
1.0-25
0.4-20
0.4-15
0.4-10
Z
/
L

M/HT
25 20
15 10
Bending Moment along the length of pile
Depth of max. moment 0.33, 0.3, 0.25, 0.2 (L/D 10, 15, 20, 25)
Top-Displacement (mm)
L/D Dia 0.4 Dia 0.6 Dia 0.8 Dia 1.0
10 186.660 123.025 91.435 72.582
15 159.468 105.436 78.557 62.489
20 155.309 102.769 76.618 60.977
25 155.131 102.658 76.538 60.916
Pile Top Displacement (mm)
T
o
p
-
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

L/D
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
Non-dimensional Top-Displacement
L/D Dia 0.4 Dia 0.6 Dia 0.8 Dia 1.0
10 0.50831 0.50253 0.49799 0.49413
15 0.43426 0.43068 0.42785 0.42542
20 0.42293 0.41979 0.41729 0.41513
25 0.42245 0.41933 0.41685 0.41471
3
T H
EI A
=
Non-dimensional Pile Top Displacement
N
o
n
-
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

L/D
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
Max. Moment (kNm)
L/D Dia 0.4 Dia 0.6 Dia 0.8 Dia 1.0
10 566.465 848.613 1129.925 1410.425
15 707.483 1057.121 1404.825 1750.825
20 731.766 1092.167 1450.161 1806.061
25 733.780 1095.050 1453.869 1810.558
Maximum Moment in Pile (kNm)
M
a
x
.

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)

L/D
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
Non-dimensional Max-Moment
L/D Dia 0.4 Dia 0.6 Dia 0.8 Dia 1.0
10 0.22190 0.22162 0.22131 0.22100
15 0.27714 0.27607 0.27516 0.27434
20 0.28665 0.28522 0.28404 0.28300
25 0.28744 0.28598 0.28476 0.28370
T H
M
M
max
=
Non-dimensional Max. Moment in Pile
N
o
n
-
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

M
a
x

M
o
m
e
n
t

L/D
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
Observations
1. Top Displacement (absolute and non-dimensional) is
decreasing with increase in pile diameter and L/D ratio.
However after L/D=20 it approaches a constant value
(0.42 in non-dimensional).
2. Absolute Max. Moment in Pile is increasing with
increase in pile diameter and L/D ratio. However after
L/D=20 it approaches a constant value.
3. Non-dimensional Max. Moment in Pile is decreasing
with increase in pile diameter, but increasing with L/D
ratio (0.22 to 0.28). However after L/D=20 it approaches
a constant value (0.287).
4. Depth of max. moment decreases with L/D ratio from
0.33 (for L/D=10) to 0.2(for L/D=25).


3-D Finite Element Analysis
Pile, pile cap and soil are
descretized using 20 node
isoparametric continuum
elements
Interface between the pile
and soil is modeled using 16
node isoparametric surface
element.
The analysis, further, takes
into consideration the
interaction between the pile
cap and underlying soil,
generally the most neglected
parameter in the analysis of
pile group.
| | | | | || |
| | | | | || | q
, q
q
d d V V B D B K
d d d J B D B K
f
T
f e
T
e

} }
=
} } }
=

1
1
1
1 _
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
Validation

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Def lection(mm)
N
o
d
e
s
F.E.M.
Conventional
Figure 1 Validation of proposed numerical procedure with cantilever
beam

Pile was hollow circular with diameter of 1.6. However, for the sake of convenience, the
hollow circular section of pile is converted into an equivalent solid circular section of 1.6
An equivalent modulus of elasticity of sand
modulus was approximately computed from the relation
E= Jz Terzaghi (1943)
where z is the depth from surface and J is the dimensionless parameter. Lateral load of
magnitude 2.75 lb

Table 1 : Properties of Pile Soil
Pile Soil
Mild Steel Medium Dense sand
E
p
=43520 lb.inch
2
Density =120 lb/cft
v= 0.20 v= 0.25
J = 350
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
-0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
)
Displacement (inch)
Figure 2 Comparioson of Top Displacement of Pile
FEM Expt
Figure 3 Comparison of Bending Moment distribution in Pile
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)
Moment (lb-in)
FEM
Expt
From the Figure 2 and Figure 3, quite a good
agreement is seen in the results obtained by FEM
and experiment.
Variation obtained in displacement between either
result is in the range of 4-10 % and that in moment
in is in the range of 3- 8%.
This indicates close agreement in the results.
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Displacement (m)
First
Second
Third
Spacing 3D
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Moment (kNm)
First
Second
Third
Spacing 3D

Granular Pile (GP)
In this section, a single GP whose modulus of
deformation increases with depth is analyzed.
If (o
z
, t) are vertical and shear stress on any
element, then from the equilibrium of vertical
forces on the element


d z d
d
z
t o 4
=
( ) ( ) Z E Z E o + = 1
0
Assuming the modulus of deformation E(Z) of the GP
to increase linearly with depth as
where o is the rate of increase of the modulus with the
normalized depth Z=z/L
Stress strain relation for the GP

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
d
w
W and
E d
L k
where
W
Z d
W d
Z d
W d
Z
E d
w k
z d
w d
L z d
w d
Z
d
w k
z d
w d
L E
z d
w d
Z E
z d
w d
Z E Z E
s
s
s
z z
= =
= + +
= + +
= +
+ = =
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
4
0 1
0
4
1
4
/ 1
1 .
|
| o o
o
o
o o
o c o
Boundary conditions
At top of GP z=Z=0 2
4
d
P
z
t
o =
At tip z=L, Z=1,
W=0, if GP is resting on rigid stratum
w = o
z
/k
t
, for deformable stratum
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2 2
2
2
2
=
+
A

A
+
A
+
=
+
+ +
=
+
=
W
W
Z d
W d
Z d
W d
Z
W
W
Z d
W d
Z d
W d
Z
d k
where
W
W d k
m
si si

| o o

| o o
t

t
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
)
`

+ +
+
A + + + A +
= A
= A
=
+
A

A
A A
+
A
A + A A
+
+
+ +
Z n
W
W n Z n W n Z n
W
n Z With
W
W
Z
W W
Z
W W W
Z
i
i i
i
i
i i i i i i
o

|
o o o o

| o o
1 2
1
5 . 0 1 5 . 0 1
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1 1
2
1 1
Consolidation
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
2 2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
, , 1 , , 2 , , 1
, 1 , , , 2 , 1 ,
2
, 1 , , 1 , 1 1
, , , ,
1
z
t j i u t j i u t j i u
z
u
r
t j i u t j i u t j i u
r
u
r
t j i u t j i u
r r
u
r
t
t j i u t t j i u
t
u
form Difference Finite
z
u
C
r
u
r r
u
C
t
u
j
vZ vR
A
+ +
=
c
c
A
+ +
=
c
c
A
+
=
c
c
A
A +
=
c
c
c
c
+ |
.
|

\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) { }
( ) ( ) ( ) { }
( ) ( ) ( ) { }
( ) ( )
2 2
, , 1 , , 2 , , 1
, 1 , , 1 , 2
, 1 , , , 2 , 1 , , , , ,
z
C t
and
r
C t
where
t j i u t j i u t j i u
t j i u t j i u r r
t j i u t j i u t j i u t j i u t t j i u
vZ
Z
vR
R
Z
j R
R
A
A
=
A
A
=
+ + +
+ A +
+ + + = A +
| |
|
|
|
0 0 ; 0 ; 0 2 =
c
c
= =
c
c
= = =
r
u
r at
z
u
H z at u d r At
e
Boundary conditions
Reliability
Reliability is the probability of an system performing its
required function adequately for a specified period of
time under stated conditions.
It is the purpose of reliability-based design to produce
an engineered system whose failure would be an event
of very low probability.
Probabilities of failure are the most significant indexes
of reliability.
Being objective, they admit directly to comparisons of
the risk of failure of different systems under varying
operating conditions.
Slope section for the Illustrative example``1
Central factor of safety of the slope using mean values of
the uncertain parameters is 1.243
Table 1 Soil data for Illustrative Example
Soil Parameter
Mean Value COV (%)
Cohesion, c' (kN/m
2
)
18.00 22.22
Friction Angle, |
30.00 10.00
Unit Weight, (kN/m
3
)
19.50 3.00
Pore Pressure Ratio, r
u

0.35 50.00
First Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method
FOSM estimates the uncertainty on the FS as a function of the
variances of the random input variables.
|, cohesion, and pore pressure u.
It uses Taylor series expansion to estimate the local uncertainty of
the FS
If Y is a function of several random variables,
Y=g(X
1
, X
2
, ........, X
n
)
One can obtain the mean and variance of Y, using Taylor
series expansion, as follows
| | ( ) | |

= =
c c
c
+ ~
n
i
n
j
j i
j i
n
X X CV
X X
g
X X g Y E
1 1
2
2 1
,
2
1
,......., , X
| | | | | |
| | ( ) | | | | | |
i
n
i
i
n
i
i
i
n
n
i
n
i j
j i
j i
i
n
i
i
X V
X
g
Y V and X V
X
g
X X g Y E
X X CV
X
g
X
g
X V
X
g
Y V
2
1 1
2
2
2 1
1
1 1
2
1
2
1
,......., , X
, 2


= =

= + = =
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
~
c
c
+ ~
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
~
Rosenblueth's Point Estimate Method (RPEM)
PEM, suggested by Rosenblueth (1975) and modified by Li
(1992) is widely used.
The versatility of the RPEM is that, it can be used even when
the functional relationships are not given as an explicit
equation. This independence from the type of distribution or
correlations among the basic variables is an advantage.
In RPEM, the original probability density function (PDF) of
the random variable X is approximated by assuming that the
entire probability mass of X is concentrated at two points x
-

and x
+
.
Calculations are made at two points and Rosenblueth uses the
following notations
X
-
= - z
-
and X
+
= - z
+


| | ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1 ;
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
|
| |
=
)
`

+ + =
=
+
=
+ ~
+ +
+
+

+
+ +
z z z where
p p and
z z
z
p
x g p x g p Y E
r r r
( ) ( )( )
[

= + = =
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
1
1 1 1
2 1
2
,........, ,
N
i
N
i j
N
ij
j i
N
i
i i N
p p

o o o o o o
Table 2 Results of reliability Analysis by RPEM and FOSM
(c', ') = 0 (c', ') = 0.50 (c', ') = 0.25
RPEM FOSM RPEM FOSM RPEM FOSM
E[FS] 1.242 1.243 1.238 1.243 1.243 1.243
[FS] 0.303 0.291 0.282 0.275 0.315 0.3
() 0.798 0.835 0.843 0.884 0.771 0.811
P
r
FS 1.0 0.2124 0.2018 0.1996 0.1883 0.2203 0.2086