Hird, C. C., Pyrah, I. C., & Russell,D. (1990).G&technique40, No.

4, 633-640

TECHNICAL NOTE

Finite element analysis of the collapse of reinforced

embankments on soft ground

C. C. HIRD. I. C. PYRAH and D. RUSSELL

KEYWORDS: analysis; bearing capacity; finite ele- PLASTICITY SOLUTIONS

ments; footings/foundations; plasticity; reinforced soil.
INTRODUCTION
The realistic prediction of displacements caused
by the construction of a reinforced embankment
on a soft foundation requires the use of modern
numerical analysis techniques, such as the finite
element method. The technique has the capacity
to model the behaviour of the embankment,
reinforcement and foundation soil both during
construction and during the subsequent life of the
structure, providing the relevant material proper-
ties and their variation in space and time can be
established. However, before the method can be
used with confidence, either directly in design or
in the validation of simplified design methods, it
must be shown to be capable of modelling known
behaviour correctly. While the main purpose of
finite element analysis is usually to examine
stresses, strains and displacements under working
conditions, little confidence can be placed in the
method if it fails to predict collapse adequately.
The stability of an embankment reinforced at
its base has been discussed by Hird & Jewel1
(1990). Three classes of failure can be identified:
internal instability of the embankment, instability
of the foundation soil and overall instability
involving both the embankment and the founda-
tion. Rigorous plasticity solutions exist for the
second of these and have been selected for com-
parison with finite element results. For the
analysis of foundation stability, the loads applied
to the subsoil by the reinforced embankment
be considered similar to those applied by a
footing and the problem treated as one of bearing
capacity. The load is applied at the ground
surface and, although this does not allow the
effect of embankment stiffness to be modelled, it
does allow the finite element analysis to be
checked against the plasticity solutions (Davis &
Booker, 1973; Mandel & Salencon, 1972).
Discussion on this Technical Note closes 5 April 1991;
for further details see p. ii.
* Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Uni-
versity of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield Sl 3JD.
The problem analysed involves the collapse of
a rigid strip footing resting on idealized soil. Two
idealized shear strength profiles are considered:
uniform strength over a limited depth with a hard
layer beneath (Fig. l(a)) and strength increasing
linearly and indefinitely with depth (Fig. l(b)).
For each strength profile, both smooth and rough
footings are considered, making a total of four
cases in all. For the smooth footing no horizontal
shear stress is allowed at the base of the footing,
while for the rough footing a shear stress, up to a
maximum value of SueI can be generated at its
base to resist relative horizontal movement
between the soil and the footing. The bearing
capacity factors for the above conditions are
shown in Fig. 2 and the influence of the shear
stress in increasing the bearing capacity at all but
the lowest geometric ratios (defined in the figure)
is clear.
In addition to the bearing capacity factors,
plasticity theory gives the distributions of vertical
stress on the underside of the rigid footing
(Fig. 3). These are ideal distributions of loading
which make the best possible use of the founda-
tion strength and provide a means of checking
the finite element analysis. Jewel1 (1988) has
shown how they may also be used directly to
design a reinforced embankment.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
The finite element program CRISPLY (Gunn &
Britto, 1984; Britto & Gunn, 1987) has been used
can
to carry out plane strain analyses to determine
the ideal distribution of loading on soft ground
referred to above. The double precision version of
the program was used and all analyses were
carried out on the Sheffield University IBM 3083
computer.
Element types and constitutive models
Eight element types and five constitutive
models are available in CRISPLY. The six-noded
linear strain triangle was used to model the soil,
as this element is capable of correctly modelling
collapse behaviour under undrained conditions

633
Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 634 HIRD, PYRAH AND RUSSELL

Shear strength S, Shear strength S,

&IO S”0

Fig. 1. Idealized profiles of shear strength with depth

0 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
XID
(a)
Rough footmg Smooth footing
30 -
I I I I I I
I--LLLi i i i I
m/7/ , I “-
I
E 20 -

lo-

t3-

6 -5.14

4-

2-
OL
0
’ ’
2
’
4
’ ’ ’
6
’ ’
a
’ ’
10
WS,,
01 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ (b)
Geometric ratlo BID
Fig. 3. Ideal load distribution on an ideal&d soil profile:
(a)
(a) uniform strength/limited depth (after Mandel &
Salengon, 1972, with adaptations); (b) increasing strength
with depth (after Davis & Booker, 1973)

for a plane strain problem (Sloan & Randolph,

1982). An elastic-perfectly plastic material with a
Tresca yield criterion was assumed; this is the
same yield criterion as adopted in the plasticity
4-
solutions.
The original version of CRISPS~ has been
2- extended by incorporating an additional element
to model the slip which may occur between the
0’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
0 2 4 6 6 IO soil and the footing or along other boundaries.
Geometric ratio oB/S,, The interface element is a six-noded quadrilateral
0) of the type developed by Goodman et al. (1968)
Fig. 2. Bearing capacity of a rigid footing on an idealized and has the constitutive relationships shown in
soil profile: (a) uniform strength/limited depth (after Fig. 4. This element models interface behaviour
Msndel & Salenqon, 1972, with adaptations); (b) increes- efficiently (Wilson, 1977) and has previously been
ing strength with depth (after Davis & Booker, 1973) used to represent the interface between the soil

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ANALYSIS OF COLLAPSE OF REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS 635

and the reinforcement in the analysis of rein-

forced embankments (Hird & Kwok, 1990). In the
work being described the maximum shear resist-
ance of this element was equal to the shear
strength of the soil.

Meshes for equivalent loading problems

In all cases advantage was taken of symmetry
and only half the loaded width was modelled.
Relatwe shear disrelacement
For soil of uniform strength and limited depth
D, the mesh for the smooth loading case is shown
in Fig. 5(a). The width of the loading B was rela-
tively large (B = 2OD). Sufficient distance was
allowed beyond the edge of the loading that the
conditions at the left-hand boundary of the mesh
had no significant effect on the solution. It was
assumed that the soil rested on a perfectly rough
and rigid surface; a row of interface elements was
included along this boundary. In the rough
loading case the same mesh was used except that
a row of interface elements was also included
along the loaded surface, which was restrained
horizontally.
R&We normal displacement
For soil of increasing strength with depth, the
Fig. 4. Constitutive behaviour of interface element mesh for the smooth loading case is shown in Fig.

\ Interface elements on boundary

(a)

ii
c 0.756 (1 Em) Loaded area 0.56 (12m) _I

(b)
Fig. 5. Finite element meshes: (a) uniform strength/limited depth; (b) strength increasing with
depth

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 636 HIRD, PYRAH AND RUSSELL

5(b). As the soil is of unlimited depth, the mesh adjacent soil (e.g. either 2.5 kPa or 30 kPa at the
had to be sufficiently extensive to ensure that foundation surface). To limit relative displace-
none of the boundaries affected the solution sig- ments prior to slip and normal to the interface,
nificantly. The extent of the failure zone was ini- the stiffness parameters (Fig. 4) were set to high
tially estimated from charts produced by Houlsby values, k, = 6 x IO3 kPa/m and k, = 5 x lo5
& Jewel1 (1988). As before, in the case of rough kPa/m.
loading a row of interface elements was included
along the loaded surface, where no horizontal
movement was allowed. RESULTS
Displacement controlled analyses
Because the plasticity solutions assume a rigid
Material properties footing, the finite element analyses were initially
In working with an elastic-perfectly plastic carried out by applying increments of uniform
material to obtain comparisons with the plasticity vertical displacement along the loaded surface.
solutions, it is important to restrict the elastic Failure was deemed to occur when a further
strains as much as possible. A high value of shear increase in the displacement caused no significant
modulus (G = 6OCOkPa) was therefore used. increase in the vertical stress at any location on
Approximately undrained conditions were model- the displaced boundary (e.g. see Fig. 7). Failure
led by specifying a large bulk modulus, while rea- was reached in approximately 100 increments.
lizing that, if this parameter is too large, The vertical stress distribution on the ground
numerical problems may occur (Griffiths 1985). A surface at failure was compared with the plasticity
bulk modulus K = 5 x lo5 kPa (equivalent to a solution for each of the four cases.
total stress Poisson’s ratio Y = 0.4925) was found For soil of uniform strength and limited depth,
to be satisfactory. the distributions of total vertical stress for both
The soil yielded according to the Tresca cri- smooth and rough footings are shown in non-
terion when the yield strength equalled either a dimensional form in Fig. 8(a) together with the
constant value, 5, = 30 kPa (limited depth case) distributions predicted by plasticity theory. The
or a value at the foundation surface, S,, = 2.5 corresponding stress distributions for the case of
kPa, which increased at a rate of p = 2 kPa/m strength increasing with depth are shown in
with depth. For the case of strength increasing Fig. 8(b).
with depth the strength prohle could not be mod-
elled exactly, but it was possible to divide the
mesh into several horizontal layers and to specify Load controlled analyses
a different strength for each layer. The resulting In addition to the displacement controlled
stepped distribution (Fig. 6) was found to provide analyses, load controlled analyses were later
sufficiently accurate results. carried out in which the ideal plasticity load dis-
When interface elements were used their shear tributions were applied in increments at the
strength was set equal to the strength of the ground surface. The load was applied in 100

Shear strength S, : kPa

10 20 30 x = 1OD
1

~
- - ldealn?d

Fmlte element
approxlmatlon m
60°/T------j
\ 9 400 - x = 50
E D
m
0E e 200 x=0

5 10 15 20 25
Settlement : mm
2-: ,2_-
6
10
8 ~ ~-+TIL ~ ~ 3
9s OO
,/:-I ” ~
Fig. 7. Load-settlement curves from displacement con-
Fig. 6. Finite element approximation for strength in- trolled analysis (uniform strength/limited depth, rough
creasing with depth loading

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ANALYSIS OF COLLAPSE OF REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS 631

,iO 2 4
xii3

la)
6 6 10

0 FE, rough

I I I I
0
0 2 4 6 a 10
QXIS,,

0)
Fig. 8. Comparison of finite element and plasticity solutions: (a) uniform
strength/limited depth; (h) strength increasing with depth

equal increments, i.e. 1% of the failure load pre- are shown in Fig 10(a) and (b) for soil of uniform
dicted by the plasticity solution was applied in strength and limited depth and soil of increasing
each increment. The surface settlement profiles strength with depth respectively.
from these analyses were compared with the pre-
viously assumed uniform settlement profile. Only
the rough cases were examined. FURTHER ANALYSIS USING
As the applied load approached the plasticity MODIFIED CAM CLAY
load, the incremental displacements increased Finite element solutions using an elastic-
rapidly. For example, Fig. 9 shows the develop- perfectly plastic constitutive model for the soil
ment of vertical displacement at three points can be compared directly with the theoretical
along the loaded surface in one of the analyses. plasticity solutions. However, this model is not
An attempt was made to increase the load by a necessarily satisfactory for representing soft clays
further 5%, applied in 50 increments, but the and in further studies of reinforced embankments
analyses failed due to numerical problems. The on soft ground modified Cam clay (Roscoe &
settlement profiles under the full plasticity load Burland, 1968) will be used to model the subsoil.

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 638 HIRD, PYRAH AND RUSSELL
Settlement: mm
Fig. 9. Load-settlement curves from load controlled analysis (uniform
strength/limited depth, rough loading)
For this reason a comparison has also been made
between the load distributions from plasticity
theory and from finite element analysis using the
modified Camclay model. The analysis was con-
ducted for a rough footing resting on a soil with
strength increasing linearly with depth. The initial
stresses and modified Camclay parameters were
chosen to model such a soil profile (Fig. 1 I). With
standard notation, the parameters adopted were
i = 0.25, K = O-07, I = 3.0, M = 1.0 and
v’ = 0.3. A displacement controlled analysis was
carried out using the same mesh as before.
Failure (as defined above) was reached in about
600 increments, when the displacement was
0.06 m and the results are shown in Fig. 12.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
For a rigid footing being pushed into the soil,
the predictions of the vertical stress distribution
at collapse, both for the uniform strength/limited
depth case (Fig. 8(a)) and for strength increasing
with depth (Fig. 8(b)), are in close agreement with
the plasticity solutions and give confidence in the
ability of the finite element program to predict
collapse accurately. This was confirmed when the
ideal load distribution was applied incrementally
to the ground surface, since failure occurred as
the theoretical limit was reached (e.g. Fig. 9).
The settlement profiles shown in Fig. 10 differ
significantly from the uniform settlement beneath
a rigid footing, but the shape of the settlement
profile appears to have little influence on the col-
lapse load distribution. This is a useful finding
since it means that the plasticity solutions can be
Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
used in the manner of Jewel1 (1988) to design
embankments with any degree of flexibility. In
Fig. 10(a) larger settlements near the edge and the
centre of the loaded area may be a function of the
numerical procedures used in the presence of high
stress gradients or singularities.
The prediction made using the modified Cam
clay mode1 (Fig. 12) is also in close agreement
with the relevant plasticity solution. Therefore, if
this widely applied model is selected in order to
improve the modelling of the pre-failure behav-
iour, the prediction of collapse need not be
adversely affected.
In all cases the extent of the plastic zones at
failure was in accordance with expectation (e.g.
Houlsby & Jewell, 1988) and vindicated the deci-
sions made in relation to mesh geometry.
However, when analyses were repeated without
including the interface elements at rough bound-
aries, the collapse loads were invariably over-
predicted. The role of the interface elements in
permitting superior results to be obtained will be
discussed in a future publication.
CONCLUSIONS
The finite element program CRISPLY has been
used successfully to predict collapse load distribu-
tions beneath smooth and rough footings. For
both a soil of uniform strength and limited depth
and a soil of increasing strength with unlimited
depth, the results agree with theoretical plasticity
solutions. The suitability of the modified Cam
clay soil mode1 for the latter case has been con-
firmed.
 ANALYSIS OF COLLAPSE OF REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS 639

I
01 I I I I
-10

:
L
5 10

E
%
[I)
I
2oc
(4

(b)
Fig. 10. Settlement profile beneath ideal load distribution for rough loading: (a)
uniform strength/limited depth; (b) strength increasing with depth

Stress.kPa Overconsolldatlon rat,a Calculated shear strength: kPa

O0 40 80 120 160 0 1 2 3 4 0 10 20 30 40

Effecf~ve verttcal

2- \ - -~~:water
pWS*“riZ
\

4- \

E \
5 6-
D \
0

a- \

IO- \

I \ :I:
iz-

Fig. 11. Stress and strength profiles for modified Cam clay analysis

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 640 HIRD, PYRAH AND RUSSELL

Mech. Fndns Div. Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs 94,637-659.

Grifflths, D. V. (1985). The effect of pore fluid compress-
ibility on failure loads in elasto-plastic soil. Int. J.
Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomechanics 9,253-259.
GUNN, M. & BRITTO,A. (1984). CRISP. Users’ and Pro-
grammers’ Guide, Engineering Department, Cam-
bridge University.
Hird, C. C., & Jewell, R. A. (1990). Theory of reinforced
embankments. Reinforced Embankments: Theory and
Practice in the British Isles, pp. 115-139. London:
- Plastlclty solution Thomas Telford.
0 FE, rough
Hird, C. C. & Kwok, C. M. (1990). Finite element
studies of interface behaviour in reinforced embank-
i ments on soft ground. Computers and Geotechnics 8,
OO 2 4 6 8
p/s,, 111-131.
Houlsby, G. T. & Jewell, R. A. (1988). Analysis of unre-
Fig. 12. Comparison of finite element and plasticity solu-
inforced and reinforced embankments on soft clays
tions with strength increasing with depth (modified Cam
by plasticity theory. Proc. 6th Int. Conf: on Numer.
clay) Meth. Geomechanics, Innsbruck, 2, 1443-1448.
Jewell, R. A. (1988). The mechanics of reinforced
embankments on soft soils. Geotextiles and Geo-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
membranes I, 237-273.
The authors are grateful for the helpful dis- Mandel, J. & SalenCon, J. (1972). Force portante d’un
cussions held with Dr R. A. Jewel1 during the sol sur assise rigide (ttude thkoretique). Giotechnique
course of the work, which was funded by the 22,79-93.
Science and Engineering Research Council. Roscoe, K. H. & Burland, J. B. (1968). On the gener-
alized stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. Engineer-
ing Plasticity (eds J. Heyman and F. A. Leckie), pp.
REFERENCES 535-609. Cambridge University Press.
Britto, A. & Gunn, M. (1987). Critical StateSoil Mecha- Sloan, S. W. & Randolph, M. F. (1982). Numerical pre-
nics via Finite Elements. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. diction of collapse loads using finite element
Davis, E. H., SC Booker, J. R. (1973). Effect of increasing methods. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomechanics
strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. 6, 47-76.
G&technique 23,551-563. Wilson, E. L. (1977). Finite element for foundations,
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L. & Brekke, T. L. (1968). A joints and fluids. Finite Elements in Geomechanics
model for the mechanics of jointed rock. J. Soil (ed. G. Gudehus), pp. 319-350. New York: Wiley.

Downloaded by [ TUFTS UNIVERSITY] on [18/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.