w
= unit weight of water
D = drainage length
t = construction time
T = dimensionless time factor
U = 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 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: E
50
', )
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
Need to be
careful in case
of stiff OC
clays!
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
total strength parameters c = c
u
, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E
50
', '
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):
type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = c
u
, = 0, = 0
total stiffness parameters E
u
,
u
= 0.495
Mohr Coulomb Model for Drained
and Undrained Analysis
For drained loading, a total of 5 parameters are
required to specify the MohrCoulomb 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, c
u
,
is used. Note that c
u
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)
(Approach A)
(Approach C)
Mohr Coulomb Model for Drained
and Undrained Analysis
To analyse a problem using the MohrCoulomb
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 MohrCoulomb model
is based.
The MohrCoulomb Model and
Real Soil Behaviour
a) Most real soils do not exhibit linear elastic behaviour
prior to failure
G
/
G
[

]
0
1
Retaining walls
Foundations
G
/
G
[

]
0
1
Retaining walls
Foundations
Shear strain []
Dynamic methods
Local gauges
Conventional soil testing
S
h
e
a
r
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
G
/
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
0
Tunnels
Foundations
Larger strains
Very
small
strains Small strains
Shear strain []
Dynamic methods
Local gauges
Conventional soil testing
S
h
e
a
r
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
G
/
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
0
Tunnels
Foundations
Larger strains
Very
small
strains Small strains
The MohrCoulomb 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. the soil surface.
c) Unloading stiffness differs from stiffness in primary
loading
The MohrCoulomb Model and
Real Soil Behaviour
Triaxial compression test on a sample of Leighton Buzzard sand
The MohrCoulomb Model and
Real Soil Behaviour
d) The friction angle
of a sand
depends on its
density and
stress level. The stress level. The
choice of '
needs careful
consideration of
these factors.
The MohrCoulomb Model and
Real Soil Behaviour
Drained Triaxial Test
Undrained Triaxial Test
Pressuremeter Test
(


\

+ + =
u
u ho L
c
G
c P ln 1
The undrained shear strength may be calculated from the limiting cavity
pressure P
L
(for details see Clarke (1995).
\ u
For penetration in clays, the
tip resistance q
t
is given by:
Cone Penetrometer Test
vo u kt t
c N q + =
where
vo
is the total vertical
stress in the soil at the level of
the cone and N
kt
is an empirical
factor, typically in the range of 10
to 20. For further details, see
Lunne et al, (1997).
vo u kt t
Correlations for Undrained
Shear Strength (c
u
) Shear Strength (c
u
)
Undrained Shear Strength from
MC Parameters


\


\

+
+ = '
2
1
' cot ' ' sin
0
v u
K
c c
Example: Undrained parameters
from MC


\


\

+
+ = '
2
1
' cot ' ' sin
0
v u
K
c c
Example: Undrained parameters
from MC
In this example:
where c
uo
=4.698 kPa and = 2.326 kPa/m.
z c c
uo u
+ =
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 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 s
u
based on
Cam Clay
A useful correlation that is based on Cam Clay theory
(and confirmed by the results of laboratory testing) is:
( )
OCR
c c
u u


\

=
' '
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 (c
u
/
vi
)
NC
lies between 0.1 and 0.35.
NC
vi vi

\
' '
Example
At an OC clay site, the
water table is at the ground
surface.
The preconsolidation
stresses correspond to the stresses correspond to the
application of a vertical
effective stress of 500 kPa
at the ground surface.
Take (c
u
/
vi
)NC as 0.2,
as 0.8 and the submerged
unit weight of the soil as 8
kPa/m.
c
u
from Index Tests
P L
P
L
w w
w w
I
=
) 1 (
100 2
L
I
u
c
=
NOTE: This is
remoulded strength
(intact strength can
be much higher)
c
u
of London Clay
c
u
of London Clay
Friction and Dilations Angles
for Sand for Sand
Correlations for Friction Angle
Bolton (1986) proposes a relationship
8 . 0 ' ' + =
cv
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 I
R
: a relative density index I
R
:
kPa p for
p
I I
D R
150 ' 1
150
'
ln 5 >
(
\

=
kPa p for I I
D R
150 ' 1 5 < =
min max
max
e e
e e
I
D
=
Correlations for Friction Angle
The following correlations were found by
Bolton to give a good fit to the available
database of test results:
R cv peak
I 5 ' ' =
R cv peak
I 3 ' ' =
for plane strain
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 E
50
. 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 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, E
ur
. 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 & 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: clay:
P
u
u
I
c
E
15000
50
Case
Studies
Stiffness profile for
various London clay
site (Matthews et al,
2000, replotted 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 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). Nonlinear soil stiffness in routine design. Gotechnique 50(5), 487508
Atkinson, J.H., Richardson, D. and Stallebrass, S.E. (1990). Effect of recent stress history on the stiffness of overconsolidated soil. Gotechnique 40(4)
53140.
Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Gotechnique 36(1), 6578
Bolton, M.D. (1987). Discussion on the strength and dilatancy of sands. Gotechnique 37(2), 219226.
Burd, H.D. (2007). Soil parameters for drained and undrained analysis. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, 1214 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), 87
100
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) 593598.
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, 791796.
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, 1,445453.
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) 3347 Gasparre, A., Nishimura, S., Minh, N.A., Coop, M.R. and Jardine, R.J (2007). The stiffness of natural London Clay. Gotechnique 57(1) 3347
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) 323340.
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, 3,2741.
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, 3142.
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, 163176. 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) 473485.
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, 581608. Thomas Telford.
Termaat R.J., Vermeer P.A. and Vergeer G.J.H. (1985). Failure by large plastic deformation. Proc. ICSMFE, 4, 20452048.
Tokheim, O. (1976). A model for soil behaviour. PhD thesis, NTNU, Trondheim.
Wroth, C.P. (1984). The interpretation of insitu soil tests. 24th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique, 34(4), 44989
Wroth, C.P. (1988). Penetration testing  a more rigorous approach to interpretation. Proc. Of International Conf. on Penetration testing, ISOPT1,
Orlando, 1, 303311.
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 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.