Introduction to soil modelling

and numerical methods

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd. Jamaludin Md. Noor / Dr. SONG KI IL
mohdjamaludinmdnoor@yahoo.com
Geotechnical, Highway & Survey Eng. Division
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi MARA
Shah Alam, MALAYSIA
Behavior of soils and models
Type Characteristics Model

-Barton(1976)
Rock Joint
-Hoek-Brown (2002)

Mohr-Coulomb
Sand Friction Angle (Only need friction angle
& cohesion)

- Cohesion -Cam-Clay
Clay - Consolidation -Mohr-Coulomb
Soil Modelling for slope stability
Shear strength model Slope stability
Father of Mohr-Coulomb envelope
soil mechanics (Terzaghi, 1936) Do not consider shear strength
Only considers shear increase when partially
      u w  tan  ' strength at saturation. saturated.
Thought that model gives Ignore the effect of suction
the minimum strength. above ground water table.
Over-estimate shear strength Its application cannot model
’ at high effective stress. shallow landslides therefore
FOS produced is not realistic.
(-uw)
Karl von Terzaghi
  c'   ua  tan  ' ua  uw  tan  b Indefinite linear increase in Incorporate the effect of
Master of shear strength relative to suction above ground water
unsaturated soils suction and net stress. table but do not exhibit steep
 Suction
Later realised the non-linear drop in shear strength as
behaviour of shear strength suction and effective stress
but the proposed three approach zero.
analytical forms cannot Therefore slope stability
produce a good match with analysis could not give the
’
the experimental data. best result.
c’
(-ua)
Extended Mohr-Coulomb envelope
D.G. Fredlund (Fredlund et al., 1978)

500 Replicate the true shear Can model the real shallow
UiTM lecturer strength behaviour relative mode of landslide therefore
400
to suction and net stress. produce a realistic FOS .
Shear strength k( Pa)

Zone4
300
Demonstrates the significant Prove theoretically that
200 attribute i.e. steep drop in shallow landslide occurs
Zone 2
shear strength as suction within the wet infiltrated
100
and effective stress upper zone.
0500 approach zero.
80 400
60
40 200
300
Net Produce safer design.
Suction (kPa) stress (kPa)
20 100

Mohd.Jamaludin CURVED-SURFACE ENVELOPE SOIL

0 0

bin Md.Noor SHEAR STRENGTH MODEL(2006)

Soil Modelling for settlement behavior
Shear strength model Settlement behaviour
Father of Mohr-Coulomb envelope
soil mechanics (Terzaghi, 1936) Introduced consolidation
Only considers shear theory by the e-log p’ curve .
      u w  tan  ' strength at saturation. Can only model settlement due
Thought that model gives to effective stress increase.
the minimum strength. Cannot model settlement due
Over-estimate shear strength to wetting.
’ at high effective stress.

(-uw)
Karl von Terzaghi
  c'   ua  tan  ' ua  uw  tan  b Indefinite linear increase in
Master of shear strength relative to Introduce volume change
unsaturated soils suction and net stress.
 Suction
Later realised the non-linear
model in e – p’ – suction
space.
behaviour of shear strength Cannot model volume
but the proposed three change behaviour due to
analytical forms cannot alternate wetting and drying.
produce a good match with
’
the experimental data.
c’
(-ua)
Extended Mohr-Coulomb envelope
D.G. Fredlund (Fredlund et al., 1978)

500 Replicate the true shear Apply the curved-surface

UiTM lecturer strength behaviour relative envelope in soil volume
400
to suction and net stress. change framework called
Shear strength kPa)

Zone4
(

300
Exhibit steep drop in shear Rotational Multiple Yield
200 strength as suction and Surface Framework.
Zone 2
effective stress approach Able to model loading and
100
zero. wetting collapse including
400
0500 massive settlement near
80
60
200
300
Net
saturation.
40
Suction (kPa) stress (kPa)
20 100

Mohd.Jamaludin CURVED-SURFACE ENVELOPE SOIL

0 0

bin Md.Noor SHEAR STRENGTH MODEL 2006

Modelling for soil settlement
EFFECTIVE STRESS CONCEPT
Of Terzaghi (1936)
Father of Model cannot
soil mechanics explain wetting
(Terzaghi, 1943) collapse
e behaviour.

’ =  - uw

Karl von
log ’
Terzaghi “… all the measurable effects of a
change in stress, such as
Cc H  p0  p  compression, distortion, and a change
S log 
in shearing resistance, are exclusively
1  e0  p0  due to changes in effective stress.”
(Terzaghi 1936).
 EFFECTIVE STRESS CONCEPT

Free diagram
u

z  v   sat z F1 F2 F3

u   wz E v  A  u  A  F i

A
v u
 F i

A
Modelling for soil settlement
CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE STRESS
Cannot model Settlement in CLAY
wetting collapse si  or   
qB
E
1   2  I p (Steinbrenner, 1934)

Cc H  p  p 
S log 0  (Terzaghi, 1943)
1  e0  p0 
o 1qB
si  or   
Eu
1  2  (Janbu et al., 1956)
Loading
Role of mobilised
shear strength is
not incorporated
Settlement in SAND
De Beer and Martens (1951)
H  o'   qc
s  ln C  1 .5
C  o'  o'
Settlement due to effective
stress increase i.e. derived (Schertmann et al., 1978)
from load increase Iz
si  C1C2 qn  z
E
Modelling for soil settlement

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Loading collapse ?
• Soil settlement induced by additional loading
• Settlement under effective stress increase
Occurrence of wetting collapse proved by
laboratory data
Pore
water 0.8

pressure
0.75

Pore air pressure

Void Ratio, e
0.7

0.65

Inundation
0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Net Pressure (kPa)
Wetting at 200kPa Wetting at 400kPa

Greater wetting collapse for

low stress level than at high
Inundation stress level
settlement ANOTHER
High air-entry SOIL COMPLEX SETTLEMENT
ceramic disk BEHAVIOUR
 Reduction of suction
2. What is wetting collapse ? force during inundation

• Soil settlement induced by inundation

• Settlement under effective stress decrease
COMPLEX SOIL
SETTLEMENT
BEHAVIOUR

Water table
GWT rising !!!!

Unsaturated and stable Inundated and settled

DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

LOCALISE
WETTING
Water pipe leaks
 WETTING COLLAPSE
Triggered by
inundation

GWT

RECENTLY DEVELOPED HOUSING

ESTATE SUFFERS DIFFERENTIAL
SETTLEMENT FROM FIRST FLOOD
 UNDULATION OF ROAD EMBANKMENTS
CAUSED BY WETTING COLLAPSE

SMOOTH RIDES

BUMPY RIDES
Uneven
settlement LPT – Lebuhraya Pantai Timur
Builders, consultants and homeowners are
familiar with the problem of settlement:

Wall cracks, beam splits, broken floor tiles,

building tilts, racking door frames, apron split
from building and utility pipe broken disrupting
water supply.
Resulted from differential settlement

cost overruns
Various Constitutive Models
Lecture #1. Introduction of the Geotechnical
Analysis with Numerical Method

Material Model Behavior

Linear Elastic Most Simple: Free yield elastic & isotropic hard rock
von Mises Elasto-Plastic: Potential function follows non-associated flow
Tresca rule: Ductile material such as steel

Mohr-Coulomb
Elasto-Plastic, Softening: General soil and rock
Modified Mohr-Coulomb
Drucker-Prager Elasto-Plastic: Brittle material such as concrete
Transversely Isotropic Anisotropic Elastic: Free yield jointed rock
Duncan-Chang Hyperbolic, Nonlinear Elastic: Nonlinear soil behavior
Hoek-Brown Elasto-Plastic: Macro behavior of rock mass
Jointed Rock Anisotropic Elasto-Anisotropic Plastic: Jointed rock mass
Cam-Clay, Modified Cam-Clay Elasto-Plastic: Weak clay material model with critical state
Strain Softening Strain Softening: Softening reduction of strength after peak
2D/3D Interface Elasto-Plastic, Frictional & Cohesive: Soil-Structure interface
Hardening Soil Elasto-Plastic. Hardening
London Clay Jardine Model
User-defined Material User-coded Subroutine (Fortran)
Various Geotechnical Applications

Typical applications of numerical method on geotechnical problems

• Excavations (Tunnel, Cavern, Open-cut)

• Foundation (Raft, Pile)
• Slope (Dam, Embankment)
• Earthquake simulation (Seismic analysis, Liquefaction)
• Groundwater (Saturation and unsaturation, Seepage force)
• Consolidation (Drained and undrained condition)
• Thermal transfer (Heating and cooling)
• Geo-environmental system (Flow of pollutant)
• Excavations (Tunnel, Cavern, Open-cut)

Excavation Tunnel
• Foundation (Raft, Pile)

(Popescu et al., 2005)

(Fenton and Griffiths, 2002)

Shallow foundation Group pile foundation (Dry dock)

• Slope (Dam, Embankment)

Slope Embankment
Slope stability analysis of x 10
-8

8
embankment: Muar 6

4
4m 2
-8
x 10
15

10

4.5m 5

-7
x 10
10

5m 4

2
-6
x 10
10

5.5m 4

2
• Seismic analysis (Earthquake simulation, Liquefaction)

2.0

Vertical disp. (mm)

1.5
1.0
0.5
Linear analysis
0.0
Non-linear analysis
-0.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Blasting at tunnel excavation Earthquake simulation

Time (sec)
on tunnel
face
• Groundwater (Saturation and unsaturation, Seepage force)

Seepage analysis Hydraulic-Mechanical coupled

analysis
• Consolidation (Drained and undrained condition)

Consolidation of embankment
 • Thermal transfer (Heating and cooling)
Distance [m] Distance [m]
Distance [m]
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 50 100 150 200 0
0
0

50

50 50
100

150

Depth [m]
Depth [m]
Depth [m]

200 100 100

250

Temperature [oC]
Temperature [oC]
150 150 0
300 0 5
5 10
10 15
350 15 20
20
25
Initial Condition 25
30
200
1 Year later 200
5 Years later 30
400
• Geo-environmental system (Flow of pollutant)
Classification of numerical method

General classification of geotechnical analysis

• Closed form solution: State of stress, Elastic foundation

• Conventional method: Bearing capacity, Earth Pressure, Slope stability

Limit equilibrium method
Limit theorem – Upper bound, Lower bound
Stress field method

• Numerical method
Subgrade reaction Continuum model - Finite element method
model
Finite difference method
Discontinuum model
Boundary element method
Hybrid model
Classification of numerical method

Discrete Methods
Advantage Disadvantage

·Explicit DEM : UDEC, 3DEC, PFC, DMC ·DDA: relatively larger time
DEM ·Implicit DEM : DDA(Discontinuous deformation steps, closed-form integrations
analysis) for the stiffness matrices of
·Assemblage of rigid or deformable blocks / elements
particles
·Theoretical foundation of DEM is the
formulation and solution of equations of motion
of rigid and deformable bodies using implicit and
explicit formulations
·Contact patterns between components of the
systems are continuously changing with the
deformation process for the former, but are fixed
for the latter
·Consider block deformation and fracturing and
fragmentation of the rock
·Special discrete model that considers fluid flow ·Lack of knowledge of the
DFN and transport processes in fractured rock geometry of the rock fractures
masses through a system of connected fractures. limit more general application of
·Useful for the study of flow in fractured media DEM, DFN.
in which an equivalent continuum model is ·The adequacy of the DEM and
difficult to establish. DFN are highly dependent on
·FRACMAN / MAFIC, NAPSAC the interpretation of the in situ
·The stochastic simulation of fracture systems is fracture systems geometry.
the geometric basis of the DFN approach. ·The detailed geometry of
·Fractal concept has been applied to DFN to fracture systems in rock masses
consider scale dependence of the fracture cannot be known and can only
systems geometry, and for up-scaling the be roughly estimated.
permeability properties.
Classification of numerical method

The four basic methods, two levels, and hence eight different
approaches to rock mechanics modeling
Classification of numerical method

Continuum Methods

Advantage Disadvantage
JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC (Version 5.00)

1.000

·Discretization of the governing partial differential ·Inflexibility in dealing with fractures

LEGEND

2-Sep-08 17:10
FDM equations by replacing the partial derivatives with ·Inability to incorporate explicit
step 19489
-1.000E+01 <x< 1.300E+02
30m differences defined at neighboring grid points.
0.800
representation of fractures.
-1.000E+01 <y< 1.100E+02 ·Formation and solution of the equations are ·Complex boundary conditions and
Grid plot localized : efficient for memory and storage handling material heterogeneity: unsuitable for
·Straightforward simulation of complex constitutive
0.600
0 2E 1 modeling practical mechanics
100m 30m material behavior, such as plasticity and damage. problems
·FLAC is the most well-known computer code for ·FVM approach is easy to handle
20m
0.400

stress analysis for rock engineering problems using material heterogeneity, mesh
the FVM/FDM. generation, and treatment of
40m ·Used to study the mechanism of fracturing
0.200 boundary conditions with
processes: shear band formation of rock and soil unstructured grids of arbitrary
samples shapes.
·FVM covers the all aspects of rock mechanics:
0.000

0.000 0.200 0.400

120m
0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
slope stability, underground openings, coupled
(*10^2)
hydro-mechanical, THM processes, rock mass
characterization, tectonic process, glacial dynamics.
Classification of numerical method

Infiltration modelling
Using Finite difference method
Classification of numerical method
·Flexibility for the treatment of material
FEM heterogeneity, non-linear deformability, complex
boundary conditions, in situ stresses and gravity
·Generalized FEM: the meshes can be independent
of the problem geometry.
·Manifold method uses the truncated discontinuous
shape functions to simulate the fractures and treats
the continuum bodies, fractured bodies and
assemblage of discrete blocks in a unified form.
·Extended to Large deformations and crack
propagation problem in rock mechanics
·Seeks a weak solution at the global level through a
BEM numerical solution of an integral equation derived
using Betti’s reciprocal theorem and Somigliana’s
identity.
·Applicability for stress analysis problems
·General stress and deformation analysis for
underground excavations, soil-structure
interactions, groundwater flow and fracturing
processes
·DDM(displacement discontinuity method) is the
best approach for fracture growth simulations and
applied to rock fracture problems for 2D, 3D
·Reduction of the model dimension
·Simpler mesh generation than FEM, FDM
·Solutions inside the domain are continuous
·Suitable for fracturing inhomogeneous and linearly
elastic bodies.
·The treatment of fractures and
fracture growth remains the most
important limiting factor in the
application of the FEM for rock
mechanics problem
·Block rotations, complete
detachment, large-scale fracture
opening cannot be treated.
·Handicapped by the requirement
of small element size, continuous
re-meshing with fracture growth,
conformable fracture path and
element edges
·BEM is more efficient than FEM
when it comes to the fracture
problems
·Not efficient in dealing with
material heterogeneity: BEM
cannot have as many sub-domain
as elements in FEM.
·Not efficient in simulating non-
linear material behavior: plasticity
and damage evolution process.
Classification of numerical method
Hybrid continuum / discrete methods
Advantage
·Used for flow and stress/deformation
Hybrid problems of fractured rocks
Model ·BEM/FEM, DEM/FEM, DEM/BEM
·BEM is most commonly used for simulating
far-field rocks as an equivalent elastic
continuum
·FEM and DEM is used for non-linear or
fractured near-fields where explicit
representations of fractures and non-linear
mechanical behavior, such as plasticity
·Effective representation of the far-field to
the near-field rock mass
·Non 1:1 mapping
Neural Ground ·Geometrical and physical constraints of the
networks Size problem, which dominate the governing
equations and constitutive laws when the 1:1
Depth
Stresse mapping techniques are used, are not such a
K0 problem
s
Steel rib Disp. ·Different kinds of neural networks can be
Shotcret Strain applied to a problem
e ·The programs can incorporate decisions
based on empirical methods and experiences.
Rockbolt
·Significant potential
Disadvantage
·Special attention needs to be
paid to the continuity or
compatibility conditions at the
interfaces between regions of
different models, when
different material assumptions
are involved
·Rigid – deformable and block-
region interfaces
·The procedure may be
regarded as simply
supercomplicated curve fitting
·The model cannot reliably
estimate outside its range of
training parameters
·Critical mechanisms might be
omitted in the model training
·There is a lack of any
theoretical basis for verification
and validation of the techniques
and their outcomes
Classification of numerical method

Requesting Design Conditions

Stability
Displa- Type of Problem
Found- Heav- Reaction NS
Global cement
ation ing
Closed form Elastic
N N N Y Y Y
solution

Limit equilibrium
Y Y* Y Y N N
method

Stress field method Y Y* Y Y N N Stabilitly

Limit Lower B. Y Y* Y* Y** N N

theroe
m Upper B. Y Y* Y* Y** N N
Elastic, Progressive
Beam-spring Y N Y Y Y N failure

Numerical analysis Y Y Y Y Y Y Progressive failure

NS: Neighboring structure, Y: Possible, Y*: Conditional possible , Y**: Approximation, N: impossible
Classification of numerical method

Applicability of various geotechnical analysis methods

Anisotropy Heterogeneous Stress Layered soil
dependent structure
strength
Closed form solution Occasionally P. with Gradual Impossible P. Simple
possible condition case
Limit equilibrium method Possible Possible P. Limited
Approximation
Stress field method P. with Gradual P. with Gradual P. with Gradual P. Simple
condition condition condition case
Limit theorem Lower Possible Possible P. with Gradual P. Simple
B. condition case
Upper Possible Possible Impossible P. Simple
B. case
Beam-spring Impossible Impossible Partially P. Impossible
Numerical analysis Possible Possible Possible Limited

Therefore, numerical analysis is the flexible and effective geotechnical analysis method.
Classification of numerical method

Characteristics of Numerical Method

Advantages of Numerical Method

Intuitive simulation of design conditions

• 3 Dimensional geometric shape
• Nonlinearity of geotechnical materials
• Simulation of complex geological profile
• Simulation of construction stage: Tunnel (Excavation, shotcrete,
rockbolt)

Conventional analysis method

• Empirical equations
• Theoretically derived Closed-form solution
Classification of numerical method

Intuitive simulation of design conditions

Task-Oriented User Interface

Terrain Geometry Maker

Tunnel Modeling Wizard

Digital
Digital Map
Map

TGM

DXF Data

Specialized Module for Real Terrain Geometry

Classification of numerical method

Characteristics of Numerical Method

Disadvantages and problems involved with numerical analysis

• Cost problems
• Time problems
• Complexity problems
• Limitation and restriction of input parameters
• Stability of analysis (Verification of result)
• Limitation of approximation (Simplification problem)
Classification of numerical method

Disadvantages and problems involved with numerical analysis

Effect of errors involved with numerical analysis

• A: Geometrical shape
• B: Construction sequences
Total Error (%) =
• C: Constitutive model
A+B+C+D+E+
• D: Theoretical background F + etc…
• E: Designer skill
• F: Uncertainty of input parameter
• ETC…
To understand and minimize is the main task for skillful geotechnical
analyzer.
Philosophy of numerical modeling

Why we should use numerical analysis?

Engineering design Numerical analysis Economic efficiency

Better than Blind acceptance ?

nothing ?

Function as a engineering tool

: Numerical analysis is a competent tool better than other analysis
method.
Philosophy of numerical modeling

Design analysis: Examination of stability and sustainability of structure.

Stability: Structure should Sustainability: Structure

have safety against to the should not be malfunction
failure during life time. induced by the displacements.

Stability problem: Plasticity Displacement problem:

Elasticity

Geotechnical analysis: Design analysis related to the ground and geostructures.

Geotechnical analysis consists with displacement and stability analysis.

 Lecture #1. Introduction of the Geotechnical
1.3 Philosophy of numerical modeling Analysis with Numerical Method
Lecture #1. Introduction of the Geotechnical
Analysis with Numerical Method
Geotechnical analysis and Design analysis

Site investigation Problem definition Design condition, Design load, Standard

Hypothesis Section, Dimension

N Geological Profile
Idealize, Simplify
Y
Counter plan Geometrical Shape

N Stability analysis Constitutive Model

Geotechnical Parameter
N Displacement analysis

Design Analysis
Construction method
Final Remarks

Issues of special difficulty and importance

• Systematic evaluation of geological and engineering uncertainties

• Understanding and mathematical representation of large rock fractures
• Quantification of fracture shape, size, connectivity and effect of fracture
intersections for DFN, DEM models
• Representation of rock mass properties and behavior as an equivalent
continuum and existence of the REV
• Representation of interface behavior
• Scale effects, homogenization and up-scaling methods
• Numerical representation of engineering processes, such as excavation
sequence, grouting and reinforcement
• Time effects
• Large-scale computational capacities
• Quantitative representation of the physics of fractured rocks remains
generally questionable
Final Remarks

• Geotechnical engineer: In present, numerical analysis is not properly educated.

Structural engineers deal with geotechnical problems.
Understand the geotechnical behaviors and mechanisms.

• Numerical software: Pre- and post-processing focused development.

Advanced constitutive and material models are now requesting
Creep relaxation, General coupling, Plastic softening,
Brittle failure, Liquefaction

• Geotechnical parameter: Garbage in, Garbage out.

Communication between analyzer and site investigator
Understanding of parameter and material model

• Numerical modelling: Heterogeneous, anisotropy, complexity, boundary

Reasonable simplification by field experience
Execution -> Verification -> Feedback -> Acceptable Modeling