Soil Parameters for Drained

and Undrained Analysis

Applied Theory
Dr Minna Karstunen
based on work by Dr H. Burd, University of Oxford

Introduction
The aim is to discuss the choice of parameters for the
Mohr-Coulomb model.
More advanced soil models may have some advantages
over the Mohr-Coulomb model (but require the
specification of a larger number of parameters)
Typical experimental methods currently used to measure
the soil parameters are briefly discussed.
It is also useful, however, to estimate values of soil
properties based on previous experience, and on
correlations with other soil parameters.

Undrained and Drained Loading

In carrying out any analysis in
geotechnical engineering it is usually
necessary to distinguish between drained
and undrained loading.
The soil may also be partially drained
which means that it lies between these two
extremes.

Undrained and Drained Loading

drained analysis appropriate when
permeability is high
rate of loading is low
short term behavior is not of interest for problem
considered

undrained analysis appropriate when

permeability is low and rate of loading is high
short term behavior has to be assessed

Undrained and Drained Loading

Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998)
T < 0.10 (U < 10%)

undrained analysis

T > 0.40 (U > 70%)

drained analysis

k E oed
T=
t
2
w D

k =
Eoed =
w =
D =
t =
T =
U =

permeability
stiffness in 1-d compression
unit weight of water
drainage length
construction time
dimensionless time factor
degree of consolidation

Drained Analysis
Drained analysis may be carried out by
using a constitutive model based on
effective stresses in which the material
model is specified in terms of drained
parameters.

Modelling Undrained Behavior with

PLAXIS
Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters (MC: c', ', )
effective stiffness parameters (MC: E50', )
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50', '
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):
type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
total stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

Need to be
careful in case
of stiff OC
clays!

Mohr Coulomb Model for Drained

and Undrained Analysis
For drained loading, a total of 5 parameters are
required to specify the Mohr-Coulomb model.
These are; two strength parameters (c' and ' ),
a dilation angle () and two elastic parameters.
For undrained calculations, a separate failure
model based on an undrained shear strength, cu,
is used. Note that cu is not a fundamental
property of the soil; it depends on the stress
level and also the stress history.

Mohr Coulomb Model for Drained

and Undrained Analysis

Drained or
Undrained
(Approach A)

Undrained
(Approach C)

Mohr Coulomb Model for Drained

and Undrained Analysis
To analyse a problem using the Mohr-Coulomb
model, appropriate values of the material
parameters must be selected to provide a good
match with the soil being modelled.
The selection of these parameters is
complicated by the fact that real soil behaviour
often departs considerably from the fundamental
assumptions on which the Mohr-Coulomb model
is based.

The Mohr-Coulomb Model and

Real Soil Behaviour

Shear modulus G/
G/G0 [-]

a) Most real soils do not exhibit linear elastic behaviour

prior to failure
1

Retaining walls
Foundations
Tunnels

Very
small
strains

Conventional soil testing

Small strains

Larger strains
0
-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10

Dynamic methods
Local gauges

-2

10

-1

10

Shear strain [-]

The Mohr-Coulomb Model and

Real Soil Behaviour
b) The stiffness of soil tends to increase with
increasing stress level. In PLAXIS the stiffness can
be specified to increase linearly with depth below
the soil surface.
c) Unloading stiffness differs from stiffness in primary
loading

The Mohr-Coulomb Model and

Real Soil Behaviour

Triaxial compression test on a sample of Leighton Buzzard sand

The Mohr-Coulomb Model and

Real Soil Behaviour
d)

The friction angle

of a sand
depends on its
density and
stress level. The
choice of '
needs careful
consideration of
these factors.

The Mohr-Coulomb Model and

Real Soil Behaviour

Drained Triaxial Test

Undrained Triaxial Test

Pressuremeter Test

G
PL = ho + cu 1 + ln
cu

The undrained shear strength may be calculated from the limiting cavity
pressure PL (for details see Clarke (1995).

Cone Penetrometer Test

For penetration in clays, the
tip resistance qt is given by:

qt = N kt cu + vo
where vo is the total vertical
stress in the soil at the level of
the cone and Nkt is an empirical
factor, typically in the range of 10
to 20. For further details, see
Lunne et al, (1997).

Correlations for Undrained

Shear Strength (cu)

Undrained Shear Strength from

MC Parameters

1 + K0
cu = sin ' c' cot '+
v '
2

Example: Undrained parameters

from MC

1 + K0
cu = sin ' c' cot '+
v '
2

Example: Undrained parameters

from MC

In this example:

cu = cuo + z
where cuo=4.698 kPa and = 2.326 kPa/m.

Example: Undrained parameters

from MC
Note that the correlation is unlikely to give an accurate
shear strength profile for an overconsolidated clay. A
better estimate is obtained with Critical State models.
For an incompressible material, the undrained
Poissons ratio would be 0.5 (Method C). However, this
value cannot be used for finite element calculations,
because it would result in an infinite value of bulk
modulus. A suitable value of undrained Poissons
ration for use in FE analyses is u=0.495. In this case,
the appropriate value of undrained Youngs modulus
would be 5537 kPa.

Correlations for su based on

Cam Clay
A useful correlation that is based on Cam Clay theory
(and confirmed by the results of laboratory testing) is:

cu cu
(OCR )
=
'vi 'vi NC
where vi is the vertical effective stress at the start of
undrained loading and OCR (the overconsolidation
ratio) is equal to p/ vi, where p is the vertical
(effective) preconsolidation stress.
According to data collected by Muir Wood (1990) is
close to 0.8 and (cu/vi)NC lies between 0.1 and 0.35.

Example
At an OC clay site, the
water table is at the ground
surface.
The preconsolidation
stresses correspond to the
application of a vertical
effective stress of 500 kPa
at the ground surface.
Take (cu/vi)NC as 0.2,
as 0.8 and the submerged
unit weight of the soil as 8
kPa/m.

cu from Index Tests

w wP
IL =
wL w P

cu = 2 100

(1 I L )

NOTE: This is
remoulded strength
(intact strength can
be much higher)

cu of London Clay

cu of London Clay

Friction and Dilations Angles

for Sand

Correlations for Friction Angle

Bolton (1986) proposes a relationship

' = 'cv +0.8

where cv is the critical state friction angle
and is the angle of dilation.

Correlations for Friction Angle

A study by Bolton (1986 and 1987) on
published sand test data, suggested that the
maximum dilation rate of a sand depends on
a relative density index IR:

p '
I R = I D 5 ln
1
150

for p ' > 150 kPa

I R = 5I D 1

for p' < 150 kPa

emax e
ID =
emax emin

Correlations for Friction Angle

The following correlations were found by
Bolton to give a good fit to the available
database of test results:

' peak 'cv = 5 I R

for plane strain

' peak 'cv = 3I R

for triaxial test

For quartz sand, the critical state friction angle cv is

approximately 33 degrees.

Correlations for Friction Angle

Determining the relative density of a sand deposit is rather difficult. For

correlations that relate cone resistance to relative density are described in
Lunne et al. 1997.

Estimation of Stiffness

Stiffness of Clay
Option 1 - Use E50. For problems here relatively large
strains are expected (e.g. for foundation bearing capacity
and studies of the deformation of soft soil beneath an
embankment).
Option 2 - Use a small strain Young's modulus. If the
problem involves the calculation of deformations of stiff
clay under working conditions (e.g. the analysis of the
interaction between a tunnel liner and the surrounding
ground)
Option 3 - Use the unloading Young's modulus, Eur. If
the problem is dominated by unloading (as may be the
case, for example, in an excavation problem)

Measurement of Stiffness in the

Triaxial test

Not accurate for strains below 1%

Measurement of Stiffness in the

Triaxial test

Correlations for Stiffness

Jardine et al. (1984) conducted a series of
triaxial tests on a range of soils, using local
gauges to measure strains.

Correlations for Stiffness

Jardine et al. (1984)

Correlations for Stiffness

Plate loading tests

by Duncan &
Buchignani (1976).
Data correspond to
strain values of
about 0.1%

Correlations for Stiffness

Data from Termaat, Vermeer and Vergeer
(1985) may be used to suggest the following
correlation for normally consolidated (Dutch)
clay:

15000cu
E
IP
u
50

Case
Studies

Stiffness profile for

various London clay
site (Matthews et al,
2000, re-plotted by
Simon and Menzies
2000)

Case Studies

Scott et al. (1999)

Stiffness Anisotropy
Recent studies on natural clays (normally
consolidated and overconsolidated)
suggest that their stiffness may be
anisotropic. Typical data for London clay
can be found e.g. in Gasparre et al. (2007)

Stiffness of Sands
Based on data on undrained triaxial testing
of sandfs at different densities by Tokheim
(1976) and Leahy (1984)Loose sand

References:

Atkinson, J.H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design. Gotechnique 50(5), 487-508
Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D. and Stallebrass, S.E. (1990). Effect of recent stress history on the stiffness of overconsolidated soil. Gotechnique 40(4)
531-40.
Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Gotechnique 36(1), 65-78
Bolton, M.D. (1987). Discussion on the strength and dilatancy of sands. Gotechnique 37(2), 219-226.
Burd, H.D. (2007). Soil parameters for drained and undrained analysis. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, 12-14 June, 2007,
Manchester.
Burland, J.B. and Hancock, R.J.R. (1977). Underground car park at the House of Commons: geotechnical aspects. The Structural Engineer, 55(2), 87100
Burland, J.B. and Kalra, J.C. (1986). Queen Elizabeth II conference centre geotechnical aspects. Proc. ICE, Part 1,80.
Clarke, B.G. (1995). Pressuremeters in geotechnical design. Blackie Academic.
Clayton, C.R.I, and Khatrush, S.A. (1986) A new device for measuring local axial strains on triaxial specimens. Gotechnique 36(4) 593-598.
Clayton, C.R.I., Edwards, A. and Webb, J. (1991). Displacements in London clay during construction. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech and Fdn.
Engng, Florence, 2, 791-796.
Clayton, C.R.I., Matthews, M.C. and Simons, N.E. (1995). Site Investigation. Blackwell Science.
Cole, K.W. and Burland, J.B. (1972). Observations of retaining wall movements associated with large excavation. Proc. 5th European Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Madrid, 1,445-453.
Duncan and Buchignani (1976).
Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Coop, M.R. and Jardine, R.J (2007). The stiffness of natural London Clay. Gotechnique 57(1) 33-47
Gordon, M.A. (1997). Applications of field seismic geophysics to the measurement of geotechnical stiffness parameters. PhD Thesis, University of
Surrey, Guildford
Hope, V.S. (1993). Applications of seismic transmission tomography in civil engineering. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford
Jardine, R.J. , Symes, M.J. and Burland, J.B. (1984). The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus. Gotechnique 34(3) 323-340.
Leahy, D. (1984). Deformation of dense sand, triaxial testing and modelling. PhD thesis, NTNU, Trondheim.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic.
Mair, R.J. (1993). Developments in geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep excavations. Unwin memorial Lecture 1992.
Proc. ICE, 3,27-41.
Matthews, M.C., Clayton, C.R.I., and Own, Y. (2000). The use of field geophysical techniques to determine geotechnical stiffness parameters. Proc. ICE
(Geotechnical Engineering),143, 31-42.
Muir Wood, D.M. (1990). Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Scott, P., Talby, R. and den Hartog, N. (1999). Queensbury House, London: a case study of the prediction and monitoring of settlements during the
construction of a deep excavation. Proc. Int. Symp. Beyond 2000 in Computational Geomechanics, 163-176. A.A. Balkema.
Simons, N. and Menzies, B. (2000). A short course in foundation engineering. Thomas Telford. 2nd Ed.
Stevens A. et al. (1977) Barbican Arts Centre. The Structural Engineer, 55(11) 473-485.
St. John, H.D., Potts, D.M., Jardine, R.J. and Higgins, K.G. (1993). Prediction and performance of ground response due to construction of a deep
basement at 60 Victoria Embankment. Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium, Oxford, July 1992, 581-608. Thomas Telford.
Termaat R.J., Vermeer P.A. and Vergeer G.J.H. (1985). Failure by large plastic deformation. Proc. ICSMFE, 4, 2045-2048.
Tokheim, O. (1976). A model for soil behaviour. PhD thesis, NTNU, Trondheim.
Wroth, C.P. (1984). The interpretation of in-situ soil tests. 24th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique, 34(4), 449-89
Wroth, C.P. (1988). Penetration testing - a more rigorous approach to interpretation. Proc. Of International Conf. on Penetration testing, ISOPT-1,
Orlando, 1, 303-311.

Bibliography
Further information on the topics discussed in
this lecture can be found in the following books:
Simons, N., Menzies, B. and Matthews, M.
(2002). A short course in geotechnical site
investigation. Thomas Telford
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2001). Finite
element analysis in geotechnical engineering.
Application. Thomas Telford
Loo, B. (2007). Handbook of Geotechnical
Investigations and Design Tables. Taylor &
Francis.