This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Computational Geomechanics 5
!
!
Constitutive models
Linear isotropic elasticity
Linear elasticity–perfect plasticity model
yield criteria: von Mises, Tresca, MohrCoulomb, DrukerPrager
associated/nonassociated ﬂow rule
Linear elasticity–hardening plasticity model
Cam clay model
associated/nonassociated ﬂow rule
2
!
Elasticity
Stress is a function of current state of deformation
(strain) only. Elastic materials retain no permanent strain.
Linear Hooke’s law in 1D: σ = Eε
Linear elastic model: σ
ij
= KV
ij
+ 2GD
ij
ε
ij
= P
ij
/3K + S
ij
/2G
3
K
p
ε
v
2G
S
ij
D
ij
Hydrostatic compression Simple shear deformation
ε
ij
=
1
3
ε
v
0 0
0 ε
v
0
0 0 ε
v
p = K ε
v P
ij
= K V
ij
K: bulk modulus
ε
ij
=
0 ε
12
0
ε
12
0 0
0 0 0
σ
12
= Gγ
12
= 2Gε
12
S
ij
= 2GD
ij
G: shear modulus
Normal stresses are uniform
Simple shear deformation does not
cause normal stresses
!
Linear elastic model (in K and G)
4
ε
11
ε
22
ε
33
ε
12
ε
23
ε
13
=
1
3G
+
1
9K
1
9K
−
1
6G
1
9K
−
1
6G
0 0 0
1
9K
−
1
6G
1
3G
+
1
9K
1
9K
−
1
6G
0 0 0
1
9K
−
1
6G
1
9K
−
1
6G
1
3G
+
1
9K
0 0 0
0 0 0
1
2G
0 0
0 0 0 0
1
2G
0
0 0 0 0 0
1
2G
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
σ
12
σ
23
σ
13
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
σ
12
σ
23
σ
13
=
K +
4G
3
K −
2G
3
K −
2G
3
0 0 0
K −
2G
3
K +
4G
3
K −
2G
3
0 0 0
K −
2G
3
K −
2G
3
K +
4G
3
0 0 0
0 0 0 2G 0 0
0 0 0 0 2G 0
0 0 0 0 0 2G
ε
11
ε
22
ε
33
ε
12
ε
23
ε
13
24 ELASTICITY AND PLASTICITY
The elastic properties are deﬁned completely by Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s
ratio, ν. Equation (2.2) is also known as the generalized Hooke’s law. Recall that
Hooke’s law for the onedimensional (uniaxial) stress condition is σ = Eε. This
equation has the same general form as (2.2). It will be shown below that (2.2)
reduces to σ = Eε for the uniaxial stress condition.
Equation (2.2) can be inverted to yield
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε
11
ε
22
ε
33
ε
12
ε
13
ε
23
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
1/E −ν/E −ν/E 0 0 0
−ν/E 1/E −ν/E 0 0 0
−ν/E −ν/E 1/E 0 0 0
0 0 0 1/2G 0 0
0 0 0 0 1/2G 0
0 0 0 0 0 1/2G
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
τ
12
τ
13
τ
23
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(2.3)
In this equation, the shear modulus, G, can be expressed in terms of E and ν as
G = E/2(1 +ν).
2.3.2 Uniaxial Stress Condition
The stress condition resulting from an axial stress σ
11
(tension) applied to a steel
rebar can be thought of as a uniaxial stress condition (Figure 2.2). In a uniaxial stress
condition we have σ
22
= σ
33
= τ
12
= τ
13
= τ
23
= 0, and σ
11
= 0. Substituting into
(2.3), we get
σ
2
2
=
σ
3
3
=
τ
1
2
=
τ
1
3
=
τ
2
3
=
0
x
y
z
σ
11
FIGURE 2.2 Uniaxial stress condition.
Uniaxial stress
σ
ij
=
σ
11
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
ε
11
=
3K +G
9KG
σ
11
ε
22
= ε
33
=
2G−3K
18KG
σ
11
σ
11
= Eε
11
E: Young’s Modulus
E =
9KG
3K +G
ε
22
= νε
11
ν: Poisson’s ratio
ν =
3K −2G
6K + 2G
!
Linear elastic model (in E and ν)
Model parameters are expressed in terms of Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio
5
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
σ
12
σ
23
σ
13
=
E
(1 + v)(1 −2v)
1 −ν ν ν 0 0 0
ν 1 −ν ν 0 0 0
ν ν 1 −ν 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 −2ν 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 −2ν 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 −2ν
ε
11
ε
22
ε
33
ε
12
ε
23
ε
13
ε
11
ε
22
ε
33
ε
12
ε
23
ε
13
=
1
E
1 −ν −ν 0 0 0
−ν 1 −ν 0 0 0
−ν −ν 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 + ν 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 + ν 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 + ν
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
σ
12
σ
23
σ
13
K =
E
2(1 −2ν)
G =
E
2(1 + ν)
!
Other special conditions
Uniaxial strain, e.g., Oedometer
Plain strain: strains occur only in a plane, e.g. dam, retaining wall
Plain stress: inplane loading with thin plate
6
26 ELASTICITY AND PLASTICITY
x
y
z
x
y
ε
33
= ε
13
= ε
23
= 0
ε
33 =
ε
13 =
ε
23 =
0
FIGURE 2.3 Plane strain condition.
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ
11
σ
22
σ
33
τ
12
τ
13
τ
23
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
E
(1 +ν)(1 −2ν)
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
1 −ν ν ν 0 0 0
ν 1 −ν ν 0 0 0
ν ν 1 −ν 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 −2ν 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 −2ν 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 −2ν
×
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε
11
ε
22
0
ε
12
0
0
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
or
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ
11
σ
22
τ
12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
E
(1 +ν)(1 −2ν)
¸
¸
¸
1 −ν ν 0
ν 1 −ν 0
0 0 1 −2ν
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε
11
ε
22
ε
12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(2.6)
Inverting (2.6), we get
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε
11
ε
22
ε
12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
1 +ν
E
¸
¸
¸
1 −ν ν 0
ν 1 −ν 0
0 0 1
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ
11
σ
22
τ
12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(2.7)
ELASTICITY 27
σ33 = τ13 = τ23 = 0
x
y
z
FIGURE 2.4 Plane stress condition.
2.3.4 Plane Stress Condition
In the plane stress condition the stresses in the zdirection are assumed negligible
(i.e., σ33 = τ13 = τ23 = 0; see Figure 2.4). Substituting these stresses into (2.3),
we have
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε11
ε22
ε33
ε12
ε13
ε23
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
1/E −ν/E −ν/E 0 0 0
−ν/E 1/E −ν/E 0 0 0
−ν/E −ν/E 1/E 0 0 0
0 0 0 1/2G 0 0
0 0 0 0 1/2G 0
0 0 0 0 0 1/2G
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ11
σ22
0
τ12
0
0
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(2.8)
Therefore,
¸
¸
¸
¸
ε11
ε22
ε12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
=
1
E
¸
¸
¸
1 −ν 0
−ν 1 0
0 0 1 +ν
¸
¸
¸
¸
σ11
σ22
τ12
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(2.9)
ε
ij
=
ε
11
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
σ
11
= (K +
4G
3
)ε
11
=
E(1 −ν)
(1 + ν)(1 −2ν)
ε
11
σ
22
= σ
33
= (
3K −2G
3K + 4G
)σ
11
=
ν
(1 −ν)
σ
11
σ
22
equals σ
33
to
prevent lateral strains
ε
11
ε
22
0
ε
12
0
0
σ
11
σ
22
0
σ
12
0
0
σ
33
= (K −
2G
3
)(ε
11
+ ε
22
)
cause outofplane normal stress
ε
33
= (
1
K
−
1
6G
)(σ
11
+ σ
22
)
cause outofplane normal strain
!
Summary of linear elastic model
Pure shear stress causes shear strain only, no
volumetric change
Volumetric change caused by only hydrostatic loading
Simple shear strain causes only shear stress
These do not reﬂect the real behaviour of
geomaterials; higher order elastic models may be need.
Use with caution! approximately for very small strain
7
ε
12
=
1
2G
σ
12
!
Yield criterion
Limit of elastic deformations expressed by stress states
Isotropic materials in terms of invariants:
Principal stress space: threedimensional stress space
with principal stress directions as coordinate axes
8
f(σ
ij
) = f(σ
1
, σ
2
, σ
3
, n
1
, n
2
, n
3
)
f(σ
1
, σ
2
, σ
3
) = f(J
1
, J
2
, J
3
)
1.2. Motivation. OneDimensional Frictional Models 13
K K
␣
Y
O
Y
–
ޅ
Elastic domain
in stress space
Figure 1.6. Elastic range and elastic domain in stress space. Note that α ≥ 0.
Observe once more that relationship
˙
f > 0 cannot hold. From(1.2.26) and(1.2.27)
it follows that γ can be nonzero only if
f
˙
f 0 ⇒ γ
sign(σ)E˙ ε
E + K
. (1.2.32)
Then the rate form of the elastic relationship (1.2.22) along with (1.2.32) yields
˙ σ
E˙ ε if γ 0,
EK
E + K
˙ ε if γ > 0.
(1.2.33)
The quantity EK/(E +K) is called the elastoplastic tangent modulus. See Figure
1.7a for an illustration. The interpretation of the plastic modulus is given in Figure
1.7b. For convenience and subsequent reference, we summarize the constitutive
model developed above in BOX 1.2.
1.2.3 Alternative Form of the Loading/Unloading
Conditions
The Kuhn–Tucker unilateral constraints provide the most convenient formulation
of the loading/unloading conditions for classical plasticity. To motivate our sub
sequent algorithmic implementation, we describe a stepbystep procedure within
the straindriven format of algorithmic plasticity.
(a.) Suppose that we are given an admissible point (σ, α) ∈ E in the elastic
domain and prescribed strain rate ˙ ε.
30
“Yielding” in a uniaxial case
!
!
tension compression
"
!
"
"
Permissible region for stress
"# $ %#&$'&$( )*+,*.(/ )($0.& $0* /&*(1 &0 1*2#*1 3/ $ 0(* )5&#. 5# .6* 0.+*00
(&#* 5+ .75 )5&#.0 +*)+*0*#. /&*(1 &# .*#0&5# $#1 58)+*00&5#
Impossible
region
Impossible
region
"
!
# ! # "
"
*($0.& +*4&5#
! 9 "
!
5+ ! 9 "
"
)($0.& )5&#.0
! # "
!
5+ ! $ "
"
&8)500&3(* +*4&5# ,5+ 0.+*00
For a hardening material the yield points will move away from the origin
“Yielding” in a multiaxial case
:5#0&1*+ $ ;< 0.+*00 0.$.* &# 76&6 7* 0.$.* .6$. /&*(1 5%+0 76*# .6*
)+&#&)$( 0.+*00 +*$6*0 $ *+.$&# =$(%* " &# .*#0&5# $#1 .6*+* &0 #5 /&*(1 &#
58)+*00&5#
! "
!
!
!
"
For an isotropic material yield has to depend on principal stresses or
stress invariants – why?
Elastic region
Yield line or
yield surface
Impossible stress region
>6&0 /&*(1 +&.*+&5# *+*#.(/
&8)(&*0
!
!
! "
!
"
! "
>6* /&*(1 0%+,$* &0 +*)+*0*#.*1
3/ .6* *?%$.&5#
% 9 !
!
"" 9 !
!
!
# !
"
# !
#
31
“Yielding” in a multiaxial case
!
!
!
"
!
#
Extending the concept to 3D principal stress space we have an yield surface
(represented by three yield planes)
This simple yield condition is called the Rankine yield criterion
• Commonly also known as the
maximum principal stress criterion
• Typically used for brittle material
such as rock or concrete
• In compression the material
remains elastic
• The criterion is pressure dependent
• It has a triangular deviatoric section
Hydrostatic axis and deviatoric plane
!
!
!
"
!
#
!
!
! !
"
!!
#
" #$%&'(%'
)*+,('$,# ./(%*
012$&'(',# (3,&
!
!
" !
"
" !
#
f = σ

σ
Y
in 1D
σ: major principal stress
f = σ

σ
Y
in 2D f = σ

σ
Y
in 3D
!
von Mises yield criterion
Yielding initiates when J
2D
reaches a certain value
(derived from distortional energy arguments)
Deﬁne σ
Y
the yield stress at uniaxial compression/
tension
Yield surface shape does not depend on pressure
9
f = J
2D
−k
2
k = σ
Y
/
√
3
33
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!
!
!
"
!
#
!
!
!
"
!
#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!
!
, !
"
, !
#
3D principal stress space
representation
Deviatoric plane
representation
! '$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %1 '0. &5$6(*. )& 74(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94.
! :0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.
*$)'.$)%1 )& 7$.&&5$. )1#.7.1#.1'
! =' 0(& ( *)$*54($ #.2)('%$)* &.*')%1
! :0. '$(*. %6 '0. *"4)1#.$ )1 ( >? &'$.&& 74(1. )& (1 .44)7&.
! :0. *$)'.$)%1 )& (4&% $.6.$$.# '% (& "
"
'0.%$" %6 74(&')*)'"
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!
!
!
"
!
#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!
!
, !
"
, !
#
3D principal stress space
representation
#@!A ,
!
B"
!!"
"
"$ , C
!
D
>
E@!
!
"!
"
A
"
F @!
"
"!
#
A
"
F @!
#
"!
!
A
"
G "$ , C
%$
!
!
!
"
33
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!
!
!
"
!
#
!
!
!
"
!
#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!
!
, !
"
, !
#
3D principal stress space
representation
Deviatoric plane
representation
! '$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %1 '0. &5$6(*. )& 74(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94.
! :0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.
*$)'.$)%1 )& 7$.&&5$. )1#.7.1#.1'
! =' 0(& ( *)$*54($ #.2)('%$)* &.*')%1
! :0. '$(*. %6 '0. *"4)1#.$ )1 ( >? &'$.&& 74(1. )& (1 .44)7&.
! :0. *$)'.$)%1 )& (4&% $.6.$$.# '% (& "
"
'0.%$" %6 74(&')*)'"
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!
!
!
"
!
#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!
!
, !
"
, !
#
3D principal stress space
representation
#@!A ,
!
B"
!!"
"
"$ , C
!
D
>
E@!
!
"!
"
A
"
F @!
"
"!
#
A
"
F @!
#
"!
!
A
"
G "$ , C
%$
!
!
!
"
R =
2J
2D
=
√
2σ
Y
/
√
3
THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 159
Graphical representation
Since any isotropic scalar function of a symmetric tensor can be described as a function of
the principal values of its argument, it follows that any isosurface (i.e. any subset of the
function domain with ﬁxed function value) of such functions can be graphically represented
as a surface in the space of principal values of the argument. This allows, in particular, the
yield surface (refer to expression (6.48), page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be
represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a threedimensional surface in the
space of principal stresses.
σ
3
− p
σ
1
σ
2
Tresca
von Mises
√3
Figure 6.8. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.
(a) (b)
V
2
S
Ŧ
p
la
n
e
0
V
3
V
1
h
y
d
ro
s
ta
tic
a
x
is
von Mises
Tresca
V
1
V
2
V
3
Figure 6.9. (a) The πplane in principal stress space and, (b) the πplane representation of the Tresca
and von Mises yield surfaces.
!
33
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!!
!" !#
!!
!"
!#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!! , !" , !#
3D principal stress space
representation
Deviatoric plane
representation
! '$.&& &'('.& /)'0)1 '0. 2%1 3)&.& *"4)1#.$ ($. .4(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %1 '0. &5$6(*. )& 74(&')*
! '$.&& &'('. %5'&)#. '0. *"4)1#.$ )& )87%&&)94.
! :0. &0(7. *4.($4" &0%/& '0(' '0.$. )& 1% .;.*' %6 8.(1 &'$.&& )<.< '0.
*$)'.$)%1 )& 7$.&&5$. )1#.7.1#.1'
! =' 0(& ( *)$*54($ #.2)('%$)* &.*')%1
! :0. '$(*. %6 '0. *"4)1#.$ )1 ( >? &'$.&& 74(1. )& (1 .44)7&.
! :0. *$)'.$)%1 )& (4&% $.6.$$.# '% (& "" '0.%$" %6 74(&')*)'"
Yield criteria for metals – von Mises
!!
!"
!#
!"#$%&'(')* (+)&
!! , !" , !#
3D principal stress space
representation
#@!A ,
!
B"
!!"
"
"$ , C
!
D
>
E@!! "!"A
"
F @!" "!#A
"
F @!# "!!A
"
G "$ , C
%$
!!
!"
Pure shear state of stress: yield stress is 1/√3 times that
in uniaxial state
Plain stress: yield surface is ellipse in σ
1
–σ
2
space
Used for total stress analysis of fully saturated clay
under undrained condition
If changes in total pressure are compensated by the changes in
pore pressure, the effective pressure remains unchanged. The
deviatoric stress change thus occurs without effective
pressure change. The clay behaviour does not depend on total
pressure change as a von Mises material
Application of von Mises model
10
σ
2
1
−σ
2
σ
2
+σ
2
2
= σ
2
Y
s = σ
12
= σ
Y
/
√
3
!
Tresca yield criterion
Yielding begins when the extreme shear stress reaches
a certain value; deﬁne σ
Y
the yield stress at uniaxial
stress state
Invariant form: Lode angle
11
f = σ
1
−σ
3
−σ
Y
if σ
1
> σ
2
> σ
3
THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 159
Graphical representation
Since any isotropic scalar function of a symmetric tensor can be described as a function of
the principal values of its argument, it follows that any isosurface (i.e. any subset of the
function domain with ﬁxed function value) of such functions can be graphically represented
as a surface in the space of principal values of the argument. This allows, in particular, the
yield surface (refer to expression (6.48), page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be
represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a threedimensional surface in the
space of principal stresses.
σ
3
− p
σ
1
σ
2
Tresca
von Mises
√3
Figure 6.8. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.
(a) (b)
V
2
S
Ŧ
p
la
n
e
0
V
3
V
1
h
y
d
ro
s
ta
tic
a
x
is
von Mises
Tresca
V
1
V
2
V
3
Figure 6.9. (a) The πplane in principal stress space and, (b) the πplane representation of the Tresca
and von Mises yield surfaces.
Same uniaxial yield stress
pure shear stress ratio 2/√3
164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
von Mises
Tresca
V
1
V
2
V
3
p
u
r
e
s
h
e
a
r
T30
o
Figure 6.11. Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coinciding in pure shear.
a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure, appropriate description
of plastic yielding requires the introduction of pressuresensitivity. A classical example of
a pressuresensitive law is given by the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion described in the
following.
The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is based on the assumption that the phenomenon of
macroscopic plastic yielding is, essentially, the result of frictional sliding between material
particles. Generalising Coulomb’s friction law, this criterion states that plastic yielding begins
when, on a plane in the body, the shearing stress, τ, and the normal stress, σ
n
, reach the
critical combination
τ = c −σ
n
tan φ, (6.113)
where c is the cohesion and φ is the angle of internal friction or frictional angle. In the above,
the normal stress, σ
n
, was assumed tensile positive.
The yield locus of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the set of all stress states such that there
exists a plane in which (6.113) holds. The Mohr–Coulomb yield locus can be easily visualised
in the Mohr plane representation shown in Figure 6.12. It is the set of all stresses whose largest
Mohr circle, i.e. the circle associated with the maximum and minimum principal stresses
(σ
max
and σ
min
, respectively), is tangent to the critical line deﬁned by τ = c −σ
n
tanφ.
The elastic domain for the Mohr–Coulomb law is the set of stresses whose all three Mohr
circles are below the critical line. From Figure 6.12, the yield condition (6.113) is found to
be equivalent to the following form in terms of principal stresses
σ
max
−σ
min
2
cos φ = c −
σ
max
+σ
min
2
+
σ
max
−σ
min
2
sin φ
tan φ, (6.114)
which, rearranged, gives
(σ
max
−σ
min
) + (σ
max
+σ
min
) sin φ = 2 c cos φ. (6.115)
In view of (6.115), a yield function expressed in terms of the principal stresses can be
immediately deﬁned for the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as
Φ(σ, c) = (σ
max
−σ
min
) + (σ
max
+σ
min
) sin φ −2 c cos φ. (6.116)
Same pure shear yield stress
uniaxial stress ratio 2/√3
f = 2
J
2D
cos θ −σ
Y
θ =
1
3
sin
−
3
√
3
2
J
3D
J
3/2
2D
−
π
6
≤ θ ≤
π
6
!
Application of Tresca model
Pure shear state of stress:
Plain stress: yield surface are lines in σ
1
–σ
2
space
Used for total stress analysis of fully saturated clay
under undrained condition
12
s = σ
12
= σ
Y
/2
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 128.112.204.195
On: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:56:39
insufﬁcient soil strength, and (ii) leaning instability due to
insufﬁcient soil stiffness. Bearing capacity failure is the
more common type of foundation instability and the one
covered in most textbooks and codes of practice. It is
usually investigated using the formulae given in equation
(4). Leaning instability is not so common and is only
relevant to tall structures. It occurs at a critical inclination
when the overturning moment generated by a small increase
in inclination is equal to, or greater than, the resisting
moment provided by the foundations and generated by the
same small rotation. In all but very simple cases, it is
difﬁcult, probably impossible, to analyse without using nu
merical analysis.
These two alternative failure mechanisms are best demon
strated by a simple example. Fig. 20 shows a simple tower
resting on a uniform deposit of undrained clay. The dimen
sions of the tower are similar to those of the Pisa Tower. To
trigger a rotational failure some initial defect (imperfection)
must be present. In this example the tower was given an
initial tilt of 0·58 (that is, the initial geometry of the tower
had a tilt). The selfweight of the tower was then increased
gradually in a planestrain, large displacement ﬁnite element
analysis, until failure occurred.
The clay was modelled as a linearelastic Tresca material.
Three analyses were performed, each with a different value
of shear stiffness, G, of the soil. All other parameters were
the same. In particular, the undrained strength, s
u
, was
80 kPa in all analyses. Therefore, according to conventional
methods, the bearing capacity of the tower was the same in
all three analyses. Consequently, if instability was governed
by bearing capacity failure, all three analyses should fail at
the same weight of the tower. However, as can be seen from
Fig. 21, this was not the case. This ﬁgure shows the increase
in rotation of the tower, above the initial 0·58 imperfection,
plotted against the weight of the tower, for analyses with
G/s
u
values of 10, 100 and 1000. Real soils are likely to
have properties that are between the two extreme values.
The results show that failure occurs very abruptly, with little
warning, and that the weight of the tower at failure is
dependent on the shear stiffness of the soil. The weight at
failure for the analysis with the softer soil, G/s
u
¼ 10, is
about half of that for the analysis with the stiffest soil,
G/s
u
¼ 1000.
It is of interest to examine the analyses with the two
extreme values of G/s
u
in more detail. In particular it is
instructive to consider what is happening in the soil at
failure. Fig. 22 shows vectors of incremental displacement
for the soft soil (G/s
u
¼ 10) from the last increment of the
analysis. They show that movements are located in a zone
below the foundation, and indicate a rotational type of
failure. At ﬁrst sight this looks like a plastictype collapse
mechanism. However, examination of the zone in which the
soil has gone plastic (also shown in Fig. 22) indicates that it
is very small and not consistent with a plastic failure
mechanism. Consequently, this ﬁgure indicates a mechanism
of failure consistent with a leaning instability.
Considering the results from the analysis performed with
the stiffer soil (G/s
u
¼ 1000), vectors of incremental displa
cement just before collapse are shown in Fig. 23. The
mechanism of failure indicated by these vectors is very
different from the one shown in Fig. 22 for the softer soil.
Instead of the soil rotating as a block with the foundation,
the vectors indicate a more traditional bearing capacity type
mechanism, with the soil being pushed outwards on both
sides. The plastic zone, also indicated in Fig. 23, is very
large, and therefore the results clearly indicate a plastic
bearing capacity type mechanism of failure. The mechanism
is not symmetrical because the tower is leaning to one side.
In view of the temporary stabilisation scheme, which
involved adding lead weights to the north side of the Pisa
Tower and which will be discussed in more detail subse
quently, it is of interest to examine the response of the
Initial tilt
of tower ϭ 0
.
5°
6
0
m
20 m
Undrained clay
(Elastoplastic)
Tresca model Ϫ s
u
ϭ 80 kPa
Fig. 20. Geometry for investigation of leaning instability of a
tower
4
3
2
1
0
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
d
e
g
G/s
u
ϭ 10
G/s
u
ϭ 100
G/s
u
ϭ 1000
0 50 100 150
Weight of tower: MN
Fig. 21. Tower rotation with increase in weight
Plastic
zone
G/s
u
ϭ 10
Fig. 22. Vectors of incremental displacements and plastic zone
at failure (low soil stiffness)
546 POTTS
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 128.112.204.195
On: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:56:39
insufﬁcient soil strength, and (ii) leaning instability due to
insufﬁcient soil stiffness. Bearing capacity failure is the
more common type of foundation instability and the one
covered in most textbooks and codes of practice. It is
usually investigated using the formulae given in equation
(4). Leaning instability is not so common and is only
relevant to tall structures. It occurs at a critical inclination
when the overturning moment generated by a small increase
in inclination is equal to, or greater than, the resisting
moment provided by the foundations and generated by the
same small rotation. In all but very simple cases, it is
difﬁcult, probably impossible, to analyse without using nu
merical analysis.
These two alternative failure mechanisms are best demon
strated by a simple example. Fig. 20 shows a simple tower
resting on a uniform deposit of undrained clay. The dimen
sions of the tower are similar to those of the Pisa Tower. To
trigger a rotational failure some initial defect (imperfection)
must be present. In this example the tower was given an
initial tilt of 0·58 (that is, the initial geometry of the tower
had a tilt). The selfweight of the tower was then increased
gradually in a planestrain, large displacement ﬁnite element
analysis, until failure occurred.
The clay was modelled as a linearelastic Tresca material.
Three analyses were performed, each with a different value
of shear stiffness, G, of the soil. All other parameters were
the same. In particular, the undrained strength, s
u
, was
80 kPa in all analyses. Therefore, according to conventional
methods, the bearing capacity of the tower was the same in
all three analyses. Consequently, if instability was governed
by bearing capacity failure, all three analyses should fail at
the same weight of the tower. However, as can be seen from
Fig. 21, this was not the case. This ﬁgure shows the increase
in rotation of the tower, above the initial 0·58 imperfection,
plotted against the weight of the tower, for analyses with
G/s
u
values of 10, 100 and 1000. Real soils are likely to
have properties that are between the two extreme values.
The results show that failure occurs very abruptly, with little
warning, and that the weight of the tower at failure is
dependent on the shear stiffness of the soil. The weight at
failure for the analysis with the softer soil, G/s
u
¼ 10, is
about half of that for the analysis with the stiffest soil,
G/s
u
¼ 1000.
It is of interest to examine the analyses with the two
extreme values of G/s
u
in more detail. In particular it is
instructive to consider what is happening in the soil at
failure. Fig. 22 shows vectors of incremental displacement
for the soft soil (G/s
u
¼ 10) from the last increment of the
analysis. They show that movements are located in a zone
below the foundation, and indicate a rotational type of
failure. At ﬁrst sight this looks like a plastictype collapse
mechanism. However, examination of the zone in which the
soil has gone plastic (also shown in Fig. 22) indicates that it
is very small and not consistent with a plastic failure
mechanism. Consequently, this ﬁgure indicates a mechanism
of failure consistent with a leaning instability.
Considering the results from the analysis performed with
the stiffer soil (G/s
u
¼ 1000), vectors of incremental displa
cement just before collapse are shown in Fig. 23. The
mechanism of failure indicated by these vectors is very
different from the one shown in Fig. 22 for the softer soil.
Instead of the soil rotating as a block with the foundation,
the vectors indicate a more traditional bearing capacity type
mechanism, with the soil being pushed outwards on both
sides. The plastic zone, also indicated in Fig. 23, is very
large, and therefore the results clearly indicate a plastic
bearing capacity type mechanism of failure. The mechanism
is not symmetrical because the tower is leaning to one side.
In view of the temporary stabilisation scheme, which
involved adding lead weights to the north side of the Pisa
Tower and which will be discussed in more detail subse
quently, it is of interest to examine the response of the
Initial tilt
of tower ϭ 0
.
5°
6
0
m
20 m
Undrained clay
(Elastoplastic)
Tresca model Ϫ s
u
ϭ 80 kPa
Fig. 20. Geometry for investigation of leaning instability of a
tower
4
3
2
1
0
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
d
e
g
G/s
u
ϭ 10
G/s
u
ϭ 100
G/s
u
ϭ 1000
0 50 100 150
Weight of tower: MN
Fig. 21. Tower rotation with increase in weight
Plastic
zone
G/s
u
ϭ 10
Fig. 22. Vectors of incremental displacements and plastic zone
at failure (low soil stiffness)
546 POTTS
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.