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 = permeability
Eoed = stiffness in 1-d compression
γw = unit weight of water
k E oed D = drainage length
T= 2
t t = construction time
γw D 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
parameters.
Modelling Undrained Behavior with
PLAXIS
Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses): Need to be
type of material behaviour: undrained careful in case
effective strength parameters (MC: c', ϕ', ψ‘) of stiff OC
effective stiffness parameters (MC: E50', ν‘) clays!

Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained
total strength parameters c = cu, ϕ = 0, ψ = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50', ν'

Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, ϕ = 0, ψ = 0
total stiffness parameters Eu, νu = 0.495
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 φ' ),
a dilation angle (ψ) 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
Undrained
(Approach C)
(Approach A)
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
a) Most real soils do not exhibit linear elastic behaviour
prior to failure

1 Retaining walls
G/G0 [-]

Foundations
Shear modulus G/

Tunnels
Very
small
strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges
 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 φ'
needs careful
consideration of
these factors.
The Mohr-Coulomb Model and
Real Soil Behaviour
Drained Triaxial Test
Undrained Triaxial Test
 Pressuremeter Test

  G 
PL = σ 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 + σ vo

where σvo 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 φ '  c' cot φ '+ σ v ' 
  2  
Example: Undrained parameters
from MC

  1 + K0  
cu = sin φ '  c' cot φ '+ σ v ' 
  2  
Example: Undrained parameters
from MC

In this example:

cu = cuo + ρz
where cuo=4.698 kPa and ρ= 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

Poisson’s 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 Poisson’s
ration for use in FE analyses is νu=0.495. In this case,
the appropriate value of undrained Young’s 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 )µ
σ 'vi  σ 'vi  NC

where σ’vi is the vertical effective stress at the start of

undrained loading and OCR (the overconsolidation
ratio) is equal to σ’p/ σ’vi, where σ’p is the vertical
(effective) preconsolidation stress.
According to data collected by Muir Wood (1990) µ is
close to 0.8 and (cu/σ’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/σ’vi)NC as 0.2, µ

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

(1− I L )
cu = 2 × 100

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

φ ' = φ 'cv +0.8ψ

where φ’cv is the critical state friction angle
and ψ 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 for p ' > 150 kPa
  150 
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:

φ ' peak −φ 'cv = 5 I R for plane strain

φ ' peak −φ 'cv = 3I R for triaxial test

For quartz sand, the critical state friction angle φ’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:
u 15000cu
E ≈
50
IP
 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. Géotechnique 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. Géotechnique 40(4)
531-40.
• Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique 36(1), 65-78
• Bolton, M.D. (1987). Discussion on the strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique 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), 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. Géotechnique 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. Géotechnique 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. Géotechnique 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, Géotechnique, 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.