Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering

From Theory, Application and Case Histories

 Numerical Solution

Analytical solution.
(Overkilled if using FEM)
Desai, 1977
Cook, 1995
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
MIT Lecture (Finite element Method in Engineering Calculation)
1. Discretization (Divide) of Element Mesh
2. Approximation Function Development
3. Relate strain-displacement and constitutive
equation.
4. Derivation of Element equation
5. Equation solving by integration process
6. Assembling elements and construct global
equation.
7. Determine Boundary Condition
8. Calculate secondary unknowns
9. Interpretation of Results
Step 1 : Discretization of Element Mesh
 Step 1 : Discretization of Element Mesh

PLAXIS  AUTOMATIC MESH GENERATION

 Step 2 : Approximation Function Development
Function to describe distribution of primary unknown in the area of an element
PRIMARY UNKNOWN : NODAL DISPLACEMENT
Step 2 : Approximation Function Development
Step 3 : Stress-Strain Relationship (Constitutive Law)
Step 4 : Derivation of Element Function
 Step 4 : Derivation of Element Function

Stiffness Matrix

Permeability Matrix
This Matrix is derive to relate the nodal forces to nodal displacement

In terms of Seepage Problem [R] is

the permeability matrix
 Step 5 : Integration Process (Gauss Integration)

(Gauss Integration)
Aj : weight factor
Fj : value of the sampling point
 Step 5 : Integration Process
Plaxis Feature
Sampling Point
 Step 6 : Assembling Elements
Once the Stiffness Matrix is obtained from the Integration Process, Assembling
elements will be perform by SUMMING all of the Stiffness Matrix into Global Matrix
Step 7 : Determine the Boundary Condition

Boundary Condition in GE Problem :

1. Fixities
2. Total Head
3. Consolidation Boundary
4. Absorbent Boundary
5. Nodal Load
6. Beam Hinge
7. Prescribed Displacement (Set)

Plaxis Feature : Boundary Condition

 Step 8 : Calculate Secondary Unknown
Calculate secondary unknown (stresses, strains,
internal forces) by differentiating from the
displacement
Step 9 : Intepretation of Results
Displacement, stress, strain, all of GE problem.
Need Engineering Judgement and experience.
 FEM is a shopisticated, fast, accurate, simple and easy to use
in Geotechnical Engineering.
 Knowledge of user in Behaviour of material from meshing to
determine the boundary condition is CRUCIAL
 FEM simplified the original geometry. The more mesh and
sampling point use, the more accuracy show in the result.
 Engineering Judgement and experience is needed in
advanced analysis
 Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering
 Chandrakant S.Desai & John T. Christian, McGraw-Hill, 1997
 Finite Element Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering
 David M.Potts & Lidija Zdravkovic, Thomas Telford, 1999
 Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis
 Robert D.Cook, John Willey & Sons, 1995
Index Properties  Soil Strength
Olson (1974)  PLASTICITY INCREASE = STRENGTH DECREASE
Soil Classification is very important to estimate soil behaviour
Bell (1993)  SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR EXPANSIVE SOIL (CLAY)
 1. Particle Size Distribution
2. Density
3. Plasticity
4. Moisture and Saturation
5. Texture
6. Stress History

INFLUENCE THE SOIL STRENGTH

1-D Consolidation (Primary Compression)

Jaky (1994)
 Jaky (1994)

For Soft Soil, Jaky 1994 underestimate the Ko-value

For numerical analysis, Ko have to be evaluated accurately.
In terms of Numerical Analysis  INITIAL CONDITION Should Be Set Correctly

INITIAL CONDITION = EXISTING CONDITION

1. Initial Stress (Vertical & Horizontal)  defined by Ko-value
2. Pore Water Pressure (Ko = 1)

If Ko <<<, the MC Circle/Ko-line more closer to Kf-line (Underestimate)

 σ1 = σv =100 kPa σ1 = σv = 175 kPa

σ3 = σh =100 kPa σ3 = σh = 100 kPa

ISOTROPIC KO-CONSOLIDATION

 σ3 = σh = 100 kPa  σ3 = σh = 100 kPa

 σ1 = σv = 100 kPa  Ko = 1 – Sin φ’ = 0.573
 Deviatoric Stress  σ1 = σv = 100 / 0.573 = 175 kPa
 CU Test  Deviatoric Stress
 Hardening Soil Model  CU Test
 Hardening Soil Model
(eXample – Kempfert (2004)
Excavation and Foundation on Soft Soil – pg-31)
 Laboratory Test Result

e (void ratio) vs p’ e (void ratio) vs log p’ v (volume change) vs ln p’

 Cc (Compression Index)
 Cr (Re-Compression Index)
 e (Initial Void Ratio) Input Parameter for Numerical
 λ = Modified Compression Index Analysis in Consolidation Case
 κ = Modified Sweelling Index
 Compressibility Parameters for Numerical Analysis
Parameters Spesific Application
Ko-Value Set The Initial Condition of Stress
Cc (Compression Index) Indetify the Rate of decreasing of void ratio due
to stress increment in NC zone.

Cs (Recompression Index) Indetify the Rate of decreasing of void ratio due

to stress increment in OC zone.

e (Initial Void Ratio) Set the Initial Condition for Numerical Analysis
λ = Modified Compression Index Consolidation Analysis in FEM
κ = Modified Sweelling Index Consolidation Analysis in FEM
 Mitchell (1993)
e = Void Ratio
Ψ = Angle of Friction
C = Soil Composition
σ‘ = Effective Normal Stress
c = Cohesion
H = Stress History
T = Temprature
ε = Strain
έ = Strain Rate
S = Structure
Stress Path
 Shear Strength Properties of Soil :
φ' = Angle of Friction
σ‘ = Effective Normal Stress
c' = Cohesion
Δu = pore water pressure
b’ and ά = Kf – line parameter
Ψ = Dilatancy Angel
 COHESIVE COHESIONLESS
(CLAY AND SILT) (GRAVEL AND SAND)

 Low Permeability  High Permeability

 Undrained behaviour gives  Drained behaviour gives
significant portion. significant portion.
 Excess Pore Water Pressure  Excess Pore Water Pressure
change during loading. unchange during loading
 Cohesion force (Except when Liquefaction)
 NC and OC (Controlled by  Angle of Friction
stress history)  Loose and Dense
(Controlled by Material
Gradation)
NC OC
There are 3 variable aspects that contribute to critical conditions in
geotechnical stability problem for saturated cohesive soil :
1. OverConsolidation Ratio (OCR)  (Edil,1982)
2. Stress-Path
3. Pore Water Condition (Undrained and Drained)
Edil. T.B 1982 ; Bishop & Bjerrum 1960
 Triaxial UU Test Correlation by Empirical Equations

Field Investigation (SPT,CPT,VST, etc)

Undrained Shear Strength Properties :

1. Triaxial UU Test
2. Field Investigaion (SPT,CPT,VST, etc)
3. Correlation by Empirical Equations
Mitchell (1993)
 UNDRAINED DRAINED
 Total Stress Analysis :  Effective Stress Analysis :
 c = Su  c = c’ (OC clay)
 Phi = 0o  c ≈ 0 kPa (NC clay and Sand)
 Effective Stress Analysis :  Phi = phi’
 c = c’  Dilatancy
 Phi = phi’
 Pore Pressure
 D x 
1
Ds x 'Ds y 'Ds z '
E
D y  Ds x ' Ds y 'Ds z '
1
E
Dsy’
D z  Ds x 'Ds y ' Ds z '
1
E
Dsx’
E = Young’s modulus
 = Poisson’s ratio
Dsz’

Bulk modulus Shear modulus Oedometer modulus

E E E (1  )
K G Eoed 
3(1  2 ) 2(1   ) (1  2 )(1   )
Method 1 : The Use of Laboratory Test Results
-Under controlled stress condition
-Need to determine the correct stress level
-Difficult to sample sands in undisturbed condition

Method 2 : The Use of Empirical Relationship

-Based on available data or published data
-May not be proper for different soil types and different geological condition

Method 3 : The Use of Insitu Test Results

-Testing under insitu stress condition (best)
-Continuous over soil profile
-Overcome difficulties in soil sampling (soft soils and sands)
-For SPT and CPT basically based on empirical correlation, for PMT  provide
direct measurement (best)
Et = Tangent Modulus
Esec = Secant Modulus
E50 = Secant Modulus at 50%
maximum stress
Eoed = Oedometer Modulus
(1-D Primary Loading)
Esec is more prominent to use
because it is easier to
determined (Powrie,1997)

E50 = EDesign
 sy - sx sy - sx sy - sx E
Dsy’ 50
E50
E50
Dsx’
y y y

Test 1: Test 2: Test 3:

s’x= 50kPa s’x= 100kPa s’x= 200kPa

E50 s 'x
E50  E ref
50
Eref
50
pref
ref
Loose sands: E50 = 15 MPa
pref = 100kPa sx’
ref
Dense sands: E50 = 50 MPa
 1600

1400

1200
Eu 1000 Ip< 30
cu 800

600
30 < Ip < 50
400

200 Ip > 50

0
1 1,5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
Overconsolidation ratio, OCR
E50 Eur

Eur > E50

Eur = (3 – 5)E50
50%
 UNDRAINED DRAINED

Stiff OC Soil  E50 < Eoed

Soft Soil  E50 > Eoed
Sand  E50 = E0ed
Vermeer & Maier (1998)
 Basic Index Properties IMPORTANT in
 Density, Classification, Atterberg’s Limit, Engineering
Permeability. Judgment and as
 Compressibility Properties INPUT
PARAMETER in
 Ko , Cc , Cs, OCR, Pc , κ* , λ*
Numerical Analysis
 Shear Strength Properties
 Cu, c’ , φ’ , ψ , Δu , Kf-Line Soil Constitutive Model
 Deformation Properties
 E50 , Eu , E’ , v , vur , Eur, Eoed PLAXIS

All Parameters are determined from laboratory and In-Situ Test

 Soils Behaviour : Ideally a perfect Soil
 Acts as a multi-phase material Model would be able
 Non-linier and path-dependent
 Irrecoverable strain (Plastic)
to PREDICT the
 May dilate or compact BEHAVIOUR under
 Indluenced by stress history ALL TYPE of loading
 Anisotropic
 Time-dependent behaviour

In Simplicity, how a Model predict the

Stress Strain relationship for a Soil
Specimen
INCREASE OF COMPLEXITY
INCREASE OF ACCURACY
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
Source : Plaxis Manual 2D 2011
 Mohr-Coloumb Model (Linier Elastic – Perfectly Plastic)
 Hardening Soil Model (Hyperbolic Model– Isotropic Hardening)
 Soft Soil Model (Modified Cam Clay)
 Hardening Soil Small Model (Small Strain)
 First order (crude) approximation
 When deformation is not the main problem
 Modelized Elastic Perfect Plastic Material
(Concrete)
 Preliminary analysis (Loading & Unloading)
 Example cases :
 Slope Stability
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
Coulomb : f  r - s sinφ - c cosφ  0

M - C model
E = constant

Basic Parameters needed :

2
τα s - s y 
s
2
r=  x  + xy s = 12 ( s x + s y )
 2 
c cosφ
s sinφ
r
c s σα
 Stiffness Parameter Must be adjusted to EFFECTIVE PARAMETER

Edesign = E’50 (Drained Condition)

v' = Poisson’s Ratio (Drained)

When soil experiences unloading condition in Mohr Columb Model :

Eur = E’50
 M-C FAILURE CRITERION DILATANCY

 Drained Analysis : ψ
 c = c’ (Effective Paramater)
 Φ’ (Angle of Friction)
dense packing of disks (‘grains’)
 Undrained Analysis
 Total Stress Analysis φ
▪ C = Su (Undrained Strength) τ
σ φi
 Effective Stress Analysis
▪ Method A
▪ C = c’ ; Φ = Φ’ ψ
▪ Method B
interlocking saw blades
▪ C = Su ; Φ = oo

This analysis will be reviewed later in the next session

Young’s Modulus is determined from Empirical correlation
Poisson’s ratio is the effective parameters
Cohesion is the effective parameters
Friction Angle is the Effective Parameters
 Deformation Parameters
PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE
Using E50 = Edesign Obtained from Triaxial
Young’s Modulus (kN/m2) Eur = E50 Test, Field Investigation,
Effective Parameter Empirical Correlation
Using Empirical
Poisson’s Ratio Effective Parameter Correlation or Engineering
Judgment.
Strength Parameters
PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE
Method A : Effective Obtained from Triaxial
Cohesion(kN/m2) Method B : Undrained Test, Field Investigation,
Empirical Correlation
Method A : Effective Obtained from Triaxial
Angle of Friction (O) Method B : oo Test, Field Investigation,
Empirical Correlation
 Basic Feature in Plaxis
 Automatic Mesh Generation
 Input, Calculation, Output & Curve Mode
 Stage Construction Modeling
 Initial Condition Generation
 Safety Analysis
 Structure Modelling in Plaxis
 Undrained Analysis using Plaxis
 Soil Parameters Calibration (Advanced Analysis)
 Input Mode
Problem Model (Meshing) Initial Condition Generation

Calculation Mode
Stage Construction Modeling Safety Calculation Plastic Calculation

Output Mode
Deformation Analysis Inner Forces for Structural

Curve Mode
Stress-Strain Relationship Settlement vs Time Curve
 Plane Strain Axisymmetric
10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 55.000 60.000 65.000 70.000 75.000 80.000

-5.000

-10.000

-15.000

-20.000

-25.000

-30.000

-35.000

-40.000

-45.000

-50.000

-55.000
 Input Menu :
- Cluster Material
- Material Model
- Structural
- Boundary
Condition
- Mesh
Generation
- Load
Load

Structural

Structural

Material
Cluster
Boundary
Condition
 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000
Pore Pressure
25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 55.000 60.000 65.000 70.000 75.000 80.000
Initial Phase
Generation
-5.000

-10.000

-15.000

-20.000

-25.000

-30.000

-35.000

-40.000

-45.000

-50.000

-55.000

-60.000
Active pore pressures
2
Extreme active pore pressure -539.03 kN/m
(pressure = negative)

Initial Stress & Initial pore water pressure

Initial Phase
D-Wall
Galian 1
Ground Anchor 1
GW
Head Galian 2
Ground
Anchor 2
 Galian 3
Non Aktifkan
Cluster Galian 3
Ground
Anchor 3
Galian
Final
10.000

INSTALASI DPT
0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000
Deformed Mesh
10.000

GALIAN 1
0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
m
10.000

GALIAN 2
0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
m
10.000

GALIAN 3
0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
m
10.000

GALIAN FINAL
(KONDISI TERKRITIS)
0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
m
10.000

PREDIKSI POLA KERUNTUHAN

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
m
 32.000 36.000 40.000 44.000 48.000 52.000 56.000 60.000 64.000 68.000 72.000 76.000

-4.000
Peristiwa Basal Heave &
-8.000
Uplift Condition

-12.000

-16.000

-20.000

-24.000

-28.000

-32.000

-36.000

Total displacements
-3
Extreme total displacement 117.93*10 m
10.000

Deformasi Element
0.000

-10.000

-20.000

-30.000

-40.000

-50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
Extreme total displacement 117.93*10 m
(displacements scaled up 50.00 times)
 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000

10.000

Kontur Deformasi
-3
*10 m
0.000
120.000

110.000

-10.000 100.000

90.000

80.000
-20.000
70.000

60.000

-30.000 50.000

40.000

30.000

-40.000
20.000

10.000

-0.000
-50.000

-10.000

-60.000

Total displacements
-3
Extreme total displacement 117.93*10 m
 Plastic Points
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000

10.000

0.000

-10.000

-20.000

-30.000
ZONA PLASTIS

-40.000

-50.000

Plastic Points

Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point Tension cut-off point

10.000
0.000
Shear Strain (Bidang Keruntuhan)
10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000

%
0.000
2.800

2.600

2.400
-10.000
2.200

2.000

1.800
-20.000

1.600

1.400

1.200
-30.000

1.000

0.800

-40.000 0.600

0.400

0.200

-50.000 0.000

-0.200

-60.000

Shear strains
Extreme shear strain 2.77 %
 0.00
Kapasitas DPT
0.00

-5.00 -5.00

-10.00 -10.00

-15.00 -15.00

-20.00 -20.00

-25.00 -25.00

Total displacements Bending moment

-3 3 Shear forces
Extreme total displacement 41.27*10 m Extreme bending moment 1.35*10 kNm/m
Extreme shear force 717.75 kN/m
 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000

10.000

0.000

-10.000

-20.000

-30.000

Grouted Body Lepas

dari Anchor Rod /
-40.000
Ground Anchor Patah

-50.000

Deformed Mesh
-3
Extreme total displacement 298.42*10 m
(displacements scaled up 20.00 times)
 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000

10.000

m
0.000
0.300

0.280

0.260
-10.000
0.240

Grouted 0.220

-20.000
Body harus 0.200

0.180
berada diluar 0.160

bidang 0.140

-30.000
keruntuhan 0.120

BIDANG 0.100

0.080

-40.000 KERUNTUHAN 0.060

0.040

0.020

-50.000 0.000

-0.020

-60.000

Total displacements
-3
Extreme total displacement 298.42*10 m
 Performed using :
 M-C (Mohr-Coloumb Criterion) Behaviour
 Constant Stiffness Modulus
 Load advancement number of steps (Incremental Multiplier (Msf)

Reference :
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and Bakker, H.L. (1991). Non-Liniear finite element
analysis of safety factors. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Comp. Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, Australia, 1117-1122.
SAFETY By
REDUCING STRENGTH
ANALYSIS PARAMETERS

Total Multiplier : ∑ Msf = 1 (at the start calculation)

Incremental Multiplier : Msf = 0,1
 Фinpu ∑ Msf = 1 ; (Ф,c)reduced = (Ф,c)input
t Фr1 ∑ Msf = 1,1 ; (Фr1,cr1)reduced = 0.91 (Ф,c)input
Фr2 ∑ Msf = 1,2 ; (Фr2,cr2)reduced = 0.83 (Ф,c)input
cinput ∑ Msf = 1 + (0,1 x f ) ; (Фrf,crf)failure
cr1 Фrf
cr2
crf
M-C Criterion of Soil below
Structure (Problem)
σ3 (∆d)f σ1

(Фr1,cr1) (Фrf,crf)
(Фr2,cr2)

1 + 0.1 + 0.1 +….. (0.1 x f )

End of CALCULATION
CALCULATION PROGRESS
Start CALCULATION
 Beam, Anchor, adn Geotextile
Soil-Structure Interaction

Reference :
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and Bakker, H.L. (1991). Non-Liniear finite element
analysis of safety factors. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Comp. Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, Australia, 1117-1122.
 (Plate)

Source : Plaxis Manual

Lingkaran Pejal
Square Plane Strain
12 D 25 1m
Splane strain
S

S
D = 0.6 m Splane strain = 0.531 m
A = 0.282 m2 S2 =0.282
Asquare = m2 Aplane strain = 0.531 m2
E = 2.1 x 107 kN/m2 S = 0.531 m I plane strain = 1/12 .(1). (0.713) = 0.012
I = 0.006362 m4 Esquare = EI / I square
E square . Isquare
Esquare = 200.535.228 kN/m2 Eplane strain =  110.628.600
I square = 1/12 . (S) .(S3) I planestrain
I square = 0.00662

BORED PILE PARAMETER

E ps I ps
EI mod el   1.113.302kN / m2 / m
spasi
E ps Aps
EAmod el   47.250.000 kN/m
spasi
0.282  (24  17)
wmodel   1,6 kN/m
1.8
Source : Plaxis
Manual
 Material Tanah – MC Model

INTERFACE
Source : Manual
Plaxis
Schweiger, 2010
Predicted Undrained Behaviour depends on soil model used

Schweiger, 2010
Schweiger, 2010
Schweiger, 2010
Schweiger, 2010
Parameter Tanah Kohesif:
Effective Strength