segments can be used.

Each segment is modelled as a group

of beam elements and these are then joined together by these
small special beam elements; see Figure 6.35(c).
6.10 Some pitfalls with the Mohr–Coulomb model
The Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model is the simplest representation
of soil behaviour and forms part of most geotechnical
software packages. It is also the most widely used constitutive
model in geotechnical engineering practice. This is a linear elastic,
perfectly plastic model, requiring only a few input parameters
that can be obtained from standard laboratory testing,
namely Young’s modulus E and Poisson’s ratio μ – to describe
the elastic part of the model, cohesion c' and angle of shearing
resistance φ' – to describe the plastic (failure) part of the model.
If no other input parameter is required, this implies associated
plasticity for the model and negative (dilative) plastic volumetric
strains. Problems with such a formulation of the model are
two-fold: (i) soil dilation is usually smaller than that implied by
associated plasticity (i.e. angle of dilation ν = φ'); and (ii) once
the soil starts to dilate, it will dilate forever, without reaching a
limit load for volumetrically constrained problems.
6.10.1 Drained loading
An example of the performance of the Mohr–Coulomb model in
drained conditions is given in Figure 6.36, which shows load–
displacement curves for a vertically loaded pile, 1.0 m diameter
and 20 m long, in a drained soil with c' = 0 and φ' = 25o (Potts
and Zdravković, 2001). If the angle of dilation, ν, is equal to φ'
(i.e. associated plasticity), the pile never reaches a limit load, no
matter how far it is pushed into the ground. Even if the model has
Segments of
lining
Modelled with
beam elements
(a) (b) (c)
Modelled with beam and
special beam elements
Special beam elements
Figure 6.35 Modelling tunnel lining
15 000
12 500
10 000
7 500
5 000
2 500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Pile head settlement (m)
φ′ = 25°, ν = 0°
φ′ = 25°, ν = 2/3φ′
φ′ = 25°, ν = φ′
Pile load (kN)
Figure 6.36 Load–displacement curves for vertically loaded pile
Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Computer analysis principles in geotechnical engineering
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering c 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers www.icemanuals.com 55
the fl exibility to input a value of ν smaller than φ', for any value
of ν greater than zero, the model still does not predict a limit
load. The magnitude of ν makes a difference only in the magnitude
of the dilative volumetric plastic strains, which reduce with
a reduction of ν and hence reduce the magnitude of the pile load
for a particular displacement of the pile head. Consequently, a
practical approach in determining a limit load from such analysis
has been to arbitrarily adopt the load value that corresponds
to the displacement equal to 10% of the pile diameter (0.1 m in
this case). This can result in a signifi cant overestimate in the
load capacity of the pile in the case of associated plasticity, as
soil dilation is generally over predicted. The pile can only reach
a limit load if ν = 0. This is a conservative prediction as most
soils dilate to some extent, but it is at least a theoretically correct
value obtained without any arbitrary decisions from the user.
6.10.2 Undrained loading
As noted above, the Mohr–Coulomb model can be used with a
dilation angle ν ranging from 0 to φ’. This parameter controls
the magnitude of the plastic dilation (plastic volume expansion)
and remains constant once the soil is on the yield surface. This
implies that the soil will continue to dilate indefi nitely if shearing
continues. Clearly such behaviour is not realistic as most
soils will eventually reach a critical state condition, after which
they will deform at constant volume if sheared any further.
While such unrealistic behaviour does not have a great infl uence
on boundary value problems which are unrestrained (i.e.
the drained surface footing problem), it can have a major effect
on problems which are constrained, as noted above, for the
drained pile problem, due to the restrictions on volume change
imposed by the boundary conditions. In particular, unexpected
results can be obtained in undrained analysis in which there is
a severe constraint imposed by the zero total volume change
restriction associated with undrained soil behaviour. To illustrate
this, two examples will now be presented.
The fi rst example considers ideal (no end effects) undrained
triaxial compression tests (Δσv > 0, Δσh = 0) on a linear elastic
Mohr–Coulomb plastic soil with parameters E' = 10 000 kPa, μ
= 0.3, c' = 0, φ' = 24o. As there are no end effects, a single fi nite
element is used to model the triaxial test with the appropriate
boundary conditions. The samples were assumed to be initially
isotopically consolidated with p' = 200 kPa and zero pore water
pressure. A series of fi nite element runs were then made, each
with a different angle of dilation, ν, in which the samples were
sheared undrained. Undrained conditions were enforced by setting
the bulk modulus of water to be 1000 times larger than the
effective elastic bulk modulus of the soil skeleton, K’, see Potts
and Zdravkovic (1999). The results are plotted in Figure 6.37:
(a) in the form of deviatoric stress (J) vs mean effective stress
(p'), and (b) in the form of deviatoric stress (J) vs axial strain
(εz). It can be seen that in terms of J vs p', all analyses follow
the same stress path. However, the rate at which the stress
state moves up the Mohr–Coulomb failure line differs for each
analysis. This can be seen in Figure 6.37(b). The analysis with
zero plastic dilation, ν = 0, remains at a constant J and p' when
it reaches the failure line. However, all other analyses move up
the failure line; those with the larger dilation moving up more
rapidly. They continue to move up this failure line indefi nitely
with continued shearing. Consequently, the only analysis that
indicates failure (i.e. a limiting value of J) is the analysis performed
with zero plastic dilation.
The second example considers the undrained loading of a
smooth rigid strip footing. The soil was assumed to have the same
parameters as those used for the triaxial tests above. The initial
stresses in the soil were calculated on the basis of a saturated bulk
unit weight of 20 kN/m3, a ground water table at the soil surface
and a coeffi cient of earth pressure at rest Ko = 1 − sin φ'. The
footing was loaded by applying increments of vertical displacement
and undrained conditions were again enforced by setting
the bulk modulus of the pore water to be 1000K'. The results
450
400
350
300
250
J (kPa)
J (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0246
εz (%)
0 100 200 300 400 8 10
p′ (kPa)
(a) (b)
ν = 0º
ν = 1/3 φ′ = 8º
ν = 2/3 φ′ = 16º
ν = φ′ = 24º
ν = 1/3 φ′ = 8º
ν = 0º
ν = φ′ = 24º
500 600
ν = 2/3 φ′ = 16º
Figure 6.37 Prediction of (a) stress paths and (b) stress–strain curves in undrained triaxial compression using Mohr–Coulomb model with
different
angles of dilation
Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Context
56 www.icemanuals.com ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering c 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers
70
60
50
40
30
Load (kN)
20
10
0
0 5 10
Vertical displacement, δ (mm)
15 20
ν = 0°
ν = φ_ = 24°
25
Figure 6.38 Load–displacement curves for a strip footing, using the
Mohr–Coulomb model with different angles of dilation
of two analyses, one with ν = 0o and the other with ν = φ', are
shown in Figure 6.38. The difference is quite staggering: while
the analysis with ν = 0o reaches a limit load, the analysis with ν
= φ' shows a continuing increase in load with displacement. As
with the triaxial tests, a limit load is only obtained if ν = 0o.
It can be concluded from these two examples that a limit
load will only be obtained if ν = 0o. Consequently, great care
must be exercised when using the Mohr–Coulomb model in
undrained analysis. It could be argued that the model should
not be used with ν > 0 for such analysis. However, reality is not
that simple and often a fi nite element analysis involves both
an undrained and a drained phase (i.e. undrained excavation
followed by drained dissipation). It may be then necessary to
adjust the value of ν between the two phases of the analysis.
Alternatively, a more complex constitutive model which better
represents soil behaviour may have to be employed.
6.11 Summary
This chapter identifi es the main design requirements for a geotechnical
structure, for which calculations have to be performed
in order to confi rm the stability and safety of the design. These
requirements are:
■ local stability;
■ overall stability;
■ structural forces;
■ ground movements.
Several methods of analysis are available for the above geotechnical
calculations and they are classifi ed into three main
groups:
■ closed form solutions;
■ classical analysis (limit equilibrium, stress fi elds and limit
analysis);
■ numerical analysis (beam-spring approach and full numerical
analysis).
In terms of satisfying the main theoretical requirements, it is
important to note that:
■ Closed form solutions are possible to obtain in some cases only
if the soil is assumed to be linear elastic. However, this is a signifi
cant simplifi cation of real soil behaviour and may result in the
wrong predictions of ground movements. Additionally, these solutions
cannot be used to assess stability of geotechnical structures.
■ None of the classical methods of analysis satisfy all of the theoretical
requirements; hence in general they do not produce an exact
solution. An exception is when calculations using both the ‘safe’
and ‘unsafe’ theorems of limit analysis result in the same answer.
However, such cases are rare.
■ The beam-spring approach can analyse only one structural element
with the soil represented by a number of springs. The main
issue in this approach is to assign the appropriate spring stiffness.
■ Full numerical analysis, in terms of fi nite elements or fi nite differences,
is the ultimate analysis method which satisfi es all theoretical
requirements, discretises both the soil and the structure in the
same way and can apply a constitutive behaviour which models
the soil in a realistic manner.
However, it is important to recognise that full numerical analysis
should not be performed blindly, without understanding
the numerical methods (algorithms) and software used in the
analysis. Some of the main causes of error in fi nite element
analysis discussed in this chapter are:
■ element discretisation (i.e. the type and size of fi nite element);
■ choice of the nonlinear solver (i.e. solution of the system of nonlinear
fi nite element equations);
■ modelling of structural elements within the soil continuum;
■ choice of appropriate constitutive models.
The number of potential errors increases as the analysis
becomes more advanced – involving, for example, coupled
problems (i.e. both mechanical behaviour and fl uid fl ow,
where the choice of correct permeability models and hydraulic
boundary conditions becomes important), and soil dynamics
and earthquake engineering problems (where appropriate
constitutive models, boundary conditions and time integration
schemes become important).
If all the above aspects of numerical analysis are applied
properly, then it has an enormous potential to explain the engineering
behaviour of geotechnical structures and produce an
optimal and safe design.
6.12 References
Borin, D. L. (1989). WALLAP – computer program for the stability
analysis of retaining walls. Geosolve.
Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Martin, C. M. (2005). Exact bearing capacity calculations using the
method of characteristics. Proceedings of the 11th International
Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Computer analysis principles in geotechnical engineering
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering c 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers www.icemanuals.com 57
Conference IACMAG. Torino, Italy, vol. 4 (eds Barla, G. and
Barla, M.). Bologna: Patron Editore, pp. 441–450.
Owen, D. R. J. and Hinton, E. (1980). Finite Elements in Plasticity:
Theory and Practice. Swansea: Peneridge Press.
Pappin, J. W., Simpson, B., Felton, P. J. and Raison, C. (1985).
Numerical analysis of fl exible retaining walls. Conference on
Numerical Methods in Engineering Theory and Application.
Swansea, pp. 789–802.
Potts, D. M. and Martins, J. P. (1982). The shaft resistance of axially
loaded piles in clay. Geotechnique, 32(4), 369–386.
Potts, D. M. and Zdravkovic, L. (1999). Finite Element Analysis in
Geotechnical Engineering: Theory. London: Thomas Telford.
Potts, D. M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2001). Finite Element Analysis in
Geotechnical Engineering: Application. London: Thomas Telford.
Prandtl, L. (1920). Uber die Harte Plastischer