Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering – Schweiger (ed.

)
© 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 0-415-40822-9

Numerical determination of soil deformations around a penetrating

object in 2D and 3D models

S. Farhangi, D.J. Richards & C.R.I. Clayton

School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK

ABSTRACT: Various numerical methods have been employed to determine soil deformations around pene-
trating objects. However, due to extensive computational resource requirements for 3D analysis, soil deformations
are usually estimated from 2D analysis. The adequacy of estimating soil deformations around a 3D penetrating
object with a 2D plane-strain analysis has been evaluated in this paper using FLAC3D and FLAC programs. The
modelling strategy and the use of interface elements in these programs for simulating penetration were outlined.
The comparison of strain paths determined from 3D and 2D analyses illustrates the existence of an out of plane
deformation component and shows that soil deformations around a 3D geometry with a finite width cannot be esti-
mated solely by a plane-strain analysis. In addition, it is observed that new modelling techniques such as the
explicit finite difference formulation can be used to analyze three-dimensional penetration problems.

1 INTRODUCTION stress or strain history to be applied to the specimen,

Many geotechnical topics are associated with pene-
tration, including foundation elements (e.g. push-in
piles, caissons), in-situ devices (e.g. cones, dilatome-
ters), and samplers. An understanding of the influ-
ence of the penetration process on the stress-strain
behaviour of soil is essential for a rational design of
foundation elements, interpretation of in-situ tests
and assessment of sampler disturbances. A range
of techniques have been developed to examine the
stress changes that occur within the soil as penetration
takes place.
Various experimental and analytical techniques
have been adopted to evaluate the influence of the pen-
etration process on soil behaviour. Experimental tech-
niques used to evaluate the stress-strain behaviour of
soil during penetration includes visual inspection of
soil displacements during penetration processes
(Butterfield et al. 1970, White et al. 2003); triaxial
(Siddique 1990) and chamber tests (Houlsby &
Hitchman 1988, Fahey et al. 1989). A range of analyti-
cal techniques have also been proposed to provide an
insight into the complex soil behaviour during penetra-
tion, including bearing capacity (Skempton 1951),
cavity expansion (Vesic 1972), strain path (Baligh
1984) and shallow strain path methods (Sagaseta
et al. 1997). The requirement for an exposed surface
elevation makes the visual inspection methods more
appropriate for examining two-dimensional penetra-
tion problems. The triaxial test also requires a known
which is often unknown in many penetration problems.
The results of pressure chamber tests may be compli-
cated by boundary effects. Analytical techniques also
suffer from a range of limitations, such as the require-
ment for a pre-defined failure mechanism in the bearing
capacity method, neglecting the dependency of defor-
mations on the direction of penetration in the cavity
expansion method and ignoring the influence of inter-
face adhesions in the strain path and shallow strain path
methods (Farhangi 2006).
Numerical techniques have been the subject of
research in mechanical engineering and methods have
been developed to simulate penetration/indention prob-
lems (Anderheggen & Renau-Munoz 2000). In soil
mechanics, a wide range of numerical techniques (i.e.
finite element and finite difference methods) have
been employed to analyze soil penetration problems
over the last two decades (Griffiths 1982, Teh 1987,
Kiousis et al. 1988, Budhu & Wu 1992, Van den Berg
1994, Abu-Farsakh et al. 1998, Hu & Randolph 1998,
Liyanapathirana et al. 2000, Yu et al. 2000, Susila &
Hryciw 2003). However, the majority of these analyses
were limited to two-dimensional geometries and most
of these methods were not capable of simulating the
flow of soil around a penetrating object (i.e. large defor-
mations). In addition, due to modelling constrains, the
interface between the soil and penetrating object has
been modelled as either rough or smooth and the influ-
ence of interface adhesion has not been assessed on the
behaviour of the soil.

707
 A (a) FLAC L

M Target face N

Interface side B
S ks T

kn
Interface side A

Interface node (P)

(b) FLAC3D
Target face (area=A)
4w
2w S slider
A′
Ss shear strength Ss ks T
2B w S
T tensile strength D
(a) Elevation (b) Cross-section (A-A′) D dilation
kn
Figure 1. Schematic view of the chisel. kn normal stiffness
ks shear stiffness Interface node (P)
In this paper, the penetration of an idealized geo-
metry, termed the chisel (Figure 1), into a mass of soil Figure 2. Interface parameter in (a) FLAC and (b) FLAC3D.
has been analyzed in both two and three dimensional
models. The modelling strategy implemented to ana-
are checked in turn for contact on the “target face”,
lyze the penetration of a chisel in FLAC and FLAC3D
which is defined as half the distance of the interface
is outlined. The strain paths for a soil element close to
node (P) from the nearest left-side (M) and right-side
the centreline of the chisel in the three-dimensional
(N) nodes on the opposite side. At any time step, the
model have been compared with those for a corre-
incremental relative displacement in the shear and
sponding element in the two-dimensional model. The
normal directions are used to determine the shear and
results of this evaluation are also presented.
normal forces acting on across the contact length (L).
FLAC3D uses one-sided interface elements shown
schematically in Figure 2(b). An interface node (P) is
2 CONTACT LOGIC IN FLAC
checked for interpenetration with any other face (i.e.
target face) that comes into contact during each itera-
FLAC and FLAC3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
tion cycle. In a process similar to FLAC, the shear
Continua) are two and three dimensional explicit
force acting across the contact area (A) is determined
finite difference programs used in this study to ana-
from the relative incremental displacement in the
lyze soil penetration (Itasca 2004). Although, the con-
direction of shear. The normal force however, is cal-
stitutive formulation adopted in FLAC at each step is
culated from the absolute normal penetration distance
small-strain, large-strain calculations are performed
of an interface node into the target face.
by updating the mesh geometry and consequently the
Potyondy (1961) proposed to express the interface
stress tensors as displacements occur. FLAC is also
resistance with the Coulomb failure envelope. FLAC
time-marching code (i.e. one step is equal to one iter-
codes use the same criterion to limit the shear force
ation in the calculation cycle) enabling the steady-
on the interface element by specifying an effective
state penetration process to be readily simulated.
cohesion and friction angle. FLAC’s interface logic
A contact logic (Frank et al. 1982) is used to model
was used to simulate sliding and separation of two
the interface between two objects by specifying nor-
objects in these penetration analyses.
mal and shear (kn, ks) springs between opposite sides
of the interface plane. FLAC and FLAC3D however,
employ slightly different techniques to calculate the 3 2D PENETRATION MODEL
interface forces.
The interface elements used in FLAC are double- FLAC was used to simulate the undrained penetration
sided as shown schematically in Figure 2(a). Nodes of the chisel geometry in 2D models (i.e. plane-strain
on either sides of the interface (e.g. interface node P) analysis). The penetration of the chisel was simulated

708
by assigning a constant vertical velocity to the chisel. (a) 2D MODEL A
Models with prescribed velocities were stepped
through the analyses until the intended length of pen- Surface load
etration (L) was achieved by the chisel (i.e. the initial w
and final positions of the chisel tip were z ⫽ ⫹L/2
and z ⫽ ⫺L/2 respectively). As the chisel penetrated,

Penetration length (L)

z

Roller boundaries
the soil elements were deformed and displaced around H
initial
the sliding chisel.
The mesh representing the soil had two features.
O
First, the mesh columns were aligned with imaginary x
flow streamlines which would form around the chisel final
if placed in a fluid flow field, in order to use complete H
quadrilateral elements (rather than truncating elem-
ents adjacent to the boundaries) through out the entire
model. This alignment also reduced the occurrence
of modelling problems during large deformations Roller boundaries
(Itasca 2002b). Secondly, the density of elements was (b) 3D MODEL
increased in all directions towards the initial position Surface load A
of the chisel tip. This was due to the requirement for
a finer mesh adjacent to the tip, where significant B
A
distortions due to penetration were envisaged. Other
parameters defined for the penetration models were:
w H
1 The chisel geometry had a half-thickness of

Roller boundaries
w ⫽ 4.2 mm;
Roller boundaries

2 Elastic and Tresca constitutive models were reused L

to represent the chisel and soil respectively; z
3 The initial in-situ soil stress was isotropic and initial H
equal to the vertical stress applied across the upper x
y
boundary (i.e. initial equilibrium); final
O
4 Double-sided interfaces were defined between the
plane of symmetry (x ⫽ 0) and soil, the plane of
symmetry and chisel, and the soil and chisel;
5 Boundary fixities were defined as rollers on the
bottom (z ⫽ ⫺H) and far-right (x ⫽ A) bound-
aries, as illustrated in Figure 3(a). Roller
boundaries
Alternating boundary conditions for soil on a line of
symmetry (x ⫽ 0) was represented by an auxiliary Figure 3. Boundary conditions in (a) 2D and (b) 3D pene-
sub-grid (termed the mirror) as illustrated in Figure tration models.
4(a). During the penetration process, the grid points
on the left boundary of the soil were constrained in
the horizontal direction while they were below the tip L-shaped
of the advancing chisel. As the chisel tip passed these mirror
grid points, they were allowed to move along the
chisel boundary in both the horizontal and vertical I-shaped soil
directions. mirror

4 3D PENETRATION MODEL soil

Three-dimensional penetration models were developed

using the FLAC3D program. In common with the 2D
models, penetration was simulated by assigning a (a) 2D MODEL (b) 3D MODEL
constant vertical velocity to the chisel. The consti-
tutive models and initial in-situ/applied stresses for Figure 4. Mirror auxiliary sub-grids in (a) 2D and (b) 3D
the 3D models were identical to those specified for penetration models.

709
 Attach Outer
coarse mesh
faces
z
y x
Inner fine
mesh
Figure 5. Location of attach faces between fine and coarse
meshes.
the 2D models. Other parameters defined in the 3D
models were:
1 The chisel had a width of B ⫽ 12 w (w ⫽ 4.2 mm);
2 One-sided interfaces were defined on the planes of
symmetry (x ⫽ 0 and y ⫽ 0), and on the chisel;
3 Boundary fixities were defined as rollers on the
bottom (z ⫽ ⫺H) and far-lateral boundaries (x ⫽ A
and y ⫽ A), as illustrated in Figure 3(b).
Boundary conditions for the soil grid points on the
symmetry planes (x ⫽ 0 and y ⫽ 0) were controlled
by an L-shaped mirror, as illustrated in Figure 4(b).
The mirror sub-grid did not allow the soil grid points
to move inside the planes of symmetry, however, as
penetration occurred (i.e. the chisel moved down-
wards) the soil grid points were allowed to move in all
other directions.
Meshing was a more elaborate process in the 3D
penetration models, as primitive grid shapes (e.g.
bricks, wedges or tetrahedrons) from the FLAC3D
mesh library were deformed and attached together to
generate the model geometry. The mesh columns
were aligned along streamline as discussed for the
2D models. The mesh density in the soil was also
increased gradually towards the location of the chisel
tip. For a more effective use of the available comput-
ing power, an inner finer sub-grid was attached to an
outer coarse sub-grid (Itasca 2002a). The location of
attached faces between the fine and coarse meshes
are shown in Figure 5. In addition, a fine mesh was
also used at the surface of the soil, as this area experi-
enced high distortions during the penetration.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In common with all numerical analyses, it is neces-
sary to assess carefully the influence of the various
710
80
40
z/w
0
-40
-80 -+-3D MODEL
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00
εyy
Figure 6. Strain path for ␧yy around the chisel in 3D models.
modelling parameters on the calculated results. Details
such as the penetration rate, position of the bound-
aries, grid density and penetration length may all
affect the stability of the model, and were examined
in detail (Richards et al. 2005).
The soil behaviour during penetration was assessed
by evaluating the computed strain paths. The strain
path is a graphical means for highlighting changes
in soil strain levels during the penetration process.
A strain path shows the cumulative strain increments
(␧ ⫽ ⌺␧inc) plotted for a particular soil element
against its normalized relative vertical position,
z/w (relative to the position of the penetrating chisel
tip). Strain paths were presented for an element
located at P0(x0 ⫽ 10 w, y0 ⫽ 2 w, z0 ⫽ 0) in all
outputs. Although P0 should have been chosen on
the chisel plane of symmetry (y ⫽ 0), in order to
evade the artefacts of the interface, P0 was offset
2 w from the centreline (y0 ⫽ 2 w). The strain paths
for longitudinal ␧yy), lateral (␧xx), vertical (␧zz)
and shear (␧xz) strains have been evaluated in 2D and
3D models and are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
The strain path for the longitudinal (␧yy) strains
was determined in the 3D model. The strain path for
the ␧yy strains was extensive (d␧xx ⬍ 0) with mini-
mum strain values occurring at z/w ⫽ 10, as shown in
Figure 6. The longitudinal strain declined slightly
from this point until the z/w ⫽ 40 level, where it then
became relatively constant.
The strain path for the lateral (␧xx) strains had a
similar pattern in both the 2D and 3D penetration
models, as shown in Figure 7(a). The ␧xx strain path
consisted of three sections: extension (d␧xx ⬍ 0),
compression (d␧xx ⬎ 0) and re-extension with the
peak compression and extension strain values occur-
ring at 10 w above and below the tip level.
 than the strain value at the corresponding level below
(a)
80 the tip. In the 3D analyses however, vertical strains
above the tip were approximately equal to strain val-
x0/w=10 ues at the corresponding level below the tip.
40
Figure 7(c) shows that the strain paths for shear
(␧xz) strains determined in both the 2D and 3D penetra-
0 tion analyses. The peak shear strains were attained as
z/w

the soil elements passed the tip level. The shear strains
reduced slightly from the tip level until z/w ⫽ 20,
-40 before then increasing.
As soils are non-linear (Atkinson 2000), the his-
- -2D MODEL tory of changes they undergo affects their current
-80 -+-3D MODEL stress-strain behaviour. The estimation of soil behav-
-0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 iour in a three-dimensional penetration problem, with
εxx a two-dimensional model could hence lead to signifi-
cant errors in the behaviour predicted for soils around
a penetrating object.
(b)
80
6 CONCLUSIONS
x0/w=10
40
The discrepancies between the strain paths determined
from the 2D and 3D analyses indicated that the defor-
0 mations generated around the chisel during penetration
z/w

could only be successfully evaluated by performing a

-40 three-dimensional analysis. In contrast to the lateral
(␧xx) and shear (␧xz) strains that had a similar pattern in
- -2D MODEL the 2D and 3D analyses, there was a difference between
-80 -+-3D MODEL the vertical (␧zz) strains determined from the 2D and 3D
models. It was shown that, the strain reversal and
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 return of soil elements to their initial vertical position
εzz
could not be predicted by the 2D plane-strain analyses.
As the stress-strain relationships for soils are generally
(c) inelastic-nonlinear, differences in the strain-history of
80
the soil could lead to unrealistic estimation of stresses.
These analyses also showed that the advanced
x0/w=10
40 modelling techniques such as the explicit finite dif-
ference formulation adopted in FLAC can be used to
model three-dimensional penetration problems.
0
z/w

-40 REFERENCES

Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Voyiadjis, G.Z. and Tumay, M.T. 1998.

- -2D MODEL
-80 Numerical analysis of the miniature piezocone penetra-
-+-3D MODEL
tion tests (PCPT) in cohesive soils. International Journal
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 for Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics,
εxz 22(10): 791–818.
Anderheggen, E. and Renau-Munoz, J.F. 2000. A parallel
explicit solver for simulating impact and penetration of a
Figure 7. Comparison of strain path for (a) ␧xx, (b) ␧zz, and three-dimensional body into a solid substrate. Advances
(c) ␧xz around the chisel. in Engineering Software, 31(12): 901–911.
Atkinson, J.H. 2000. Non-linear soil stiffness in routine
design. Geotechnique, 50(5): 487–508.
The strain path for vertical (␧zz) strains determined Baligh, M.M. 1984. The strain path method. Dept. of Civil
in the 2D analyses were markedly different from Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
those obtained from the 3D models, as shown in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Research Report R84–01.
Figure 7(b). In the 2D analyses, the absolute value of Budhu, M. and Wu, C.S. 1992. Numerical analysis of sam-
vertical strain at any level above the tip was higher pling disturbances in clay soils. International Journal for

711
 Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
16(7): 467–492.
Butterfield, R., Harkness, R.M. and Andrawes, K.Z. 1970. A
stereo-photogrammetric method for measuring displace-
ment fields. Geotechnique, 20(3): 308–314.
Fahey, M., Been, K., Horsfield, D. and Jefferies, M.G. 1989.
Discussion: Calibration chamber tests of a cone pen-
etrometer in sand. Geotechnique, 39(4): 729–731.
Farhangi, S. 2006. A numerical study of spade cell penetra-
tion. PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering and the
Environment, University of Southampton, UK,
Southampton.
Frank, R., Guenot, A. and Humbert, P. 1982. Numerical analy-
sis of contacts in geomechanics. Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics; Proc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
Balkema, Rotterdam: 37–45.
Griffiths, D.V. 1982. Elasto-Plastic Analyses of Deep
Foundations in Cohesive Soil. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 6:
211–218.
Houlsby, G. T. and Hitchman, R. 1988. Calibration chamber
tests of a cone penetrometer in sand. Geotechnique,
38(1): 39–44.
Hu, Y. and Randolph, M.F. 1998. A practical numerical
approach for large deformation problems in soil.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 22(5): 327–350.
Itasca. 2002a. FLAC 3D ver. 2.1, Fast Lagrangian Analysis
of Continua in 3 Dimensions User’s guide. Minnesota:
Itasca Consulting Group Inc.
Itasca. 2002b. FLAC ver. 4.0, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
Continua User’s guide. Minnesota: Itasca Consulting
Group Inc.
Itasca. 2004. Itasca: Software. Available from: http:/
/www.itascacg.com/index.html, [Accessed May 2005].
Kiousis, P.D., Voyiadjis, G.Z. and Tumay, M.T. 1988. A large
strain theory and its application in the analysis of the
cone penetration mechanism. Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 12(1): 45–60.
Liyanapathirana, D.S., Deeks, A.J. and Randolph, M.F.
2000. Numerical modelling of large deformations
712
associated with driving of open-ended piles. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geome-
chanics, 24(14): 1079–1101.
Potyondy, J.G. 1961. Skin friction between various soils and
construction material. Geotechnique, 11: 339–353.
Richards, D.J., Clayton, C.R.I. and Farhangi, S. 2005. Two-
dimensional analysis of soil behaviour around a penetrat-
ing object. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (submitted
12/12/2005).
Sagaseta, C., Whittle, A.J. and Santagata, M. 1997.
Deformation analysis of shallow penetration in clay.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 21(10): 687–719.
Siddique, A. 1990. A numerical and experimental study of
sampling disturbance. PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. The Bearing Capacity of Clays.
Building Research Congress, Division 1: 180–189.
Susila, E. and Hryciw, R. D. 2003. Large displacement FEM
modelling of the cone penetration test (CPT) in normally
consolidated sand. International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 27(7):
585–602.
Teh, C.I. 1987. An analytical study of cone penetration test.
PhD thesis, Hertford College, University of Oxford,
Oxford.
Van den Berg, P. 1994. Analysis of soil penetration. PhD the-
sis, Strategic Research Department of Geotechnics, Delft
University of Technology, Delft.
Vesic, A.S. 1972. Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Mass. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations,
98(3): 265–290.
White, D.J., Take, W.A. and Bolton, M.D. 2003. Soil defor-
mation measurement using particle image velocimetry
(PIV) and photogrammetry. Geotechnique, 53(7):
619–631.
Yu, H.S., Herrmann, L.R. and Boulanger, R.W. 2000. Analy-
sis of steady cone penetration in clay. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
126(7): 594–605.