Geotechnics

Marcin Cudny, Lech Baachowski

Department of Geotechnics, Geology and Maritime Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty,
Gdask University of Technology

e-mail: mcud@pg.gda.pl,
web: www.pg.gda.pl/~mcud/
phone.: 58 347 2492,
room: 302/Hydro,
tutorial: Friday 11.15-13.00

Literature
Literature

Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Editor: Urlich Smotczyk, Ernst

& Sohn, Darmstadt 2002.

Helwany S.: Applied Soil Mechanics with Abaqus Applications. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2007.

Duncan J.M., Wright S.G.: Soil Strength and Slope Stability. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2005.

Material Models Manual Plaxis version 8, Balkema, The

Netherlands, 2006.

Derski W., Izbicki R., Kisiel I., Mrz Z.: Rock and soil mechanics ,
PWN, Elsevier, 1988.

Terzaghi K., Peck R.B., Mesri G.: Soil Mechanics in Engineering

Practice, John Wiley & Sons, USA, 1996.

Muir Wood D.: Geotechnical Modelling, Spon Press, Taylor &

Francis Group, 2004.

On-line resources from our University domain:

http://www.bg.pg.gda.pl

Other on-line resources:

Andrzej Niemunis web page: Bodenmechanik II, Bodenmechanik III,
Numerik in der Geotechnik, Computergesttzten Geotechnischen
Projektstudien, FE-Berechnungen in der Geotechnik.
http://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~gn99/
Arnold Verruijt web page: books and geotechnical programs
http://geo.verruijt.net
Tim Spink web page: Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Software
Directory
http://www.ggsd.com
Tochnog, Plaxis finite element programs, free and commercial respectively
http://tochnog.sourceforge.net, http://www.plaxis.nl
Andrew Schofield web page: interesting articles and links,
Book: Critical State Soil Mechanics
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~ans
keywords:
Geotechnics, Soil mechanics, Geomechanics, Rock Mechanics ->
Geotechnik, Bodenmechanik, Geomechanik, Felsmechanik

Magazines:

Inynieria Morska i Geotechnika (polish)

Gotechnique

ASCE Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering

Computers and Geotechnics

Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics

Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Geotechnical Testing Journal

Soils and Foundations

Geotechnik (german)

Planned
Planned scope
scope of
of lectures
lectures
part
partof
of M.
M.Cudny
Cudny

1.

Shear strength of soils general rules concerning the application of the

Coulomb-Mohr shear strength criterion (drained & undrained conditions,
dilatancy).

2.

Alternative shear strength criteria for soils.

3.

Soil slope stability calculations.

4.

Stiffness of soils: logarithmic and exponential compression laws.

5.

Soil stiffness at small and intermediate strains: stress and strain dependency
of the stiffness.

6.

Consolidation of saturated soils under general conditions (Biot theory).

7.

Secondary consolidation of soils (creep and relaxation).

8.

Advanced soil constitutive models in practice (Cam-clay, Hardening Soil).

Some
Some basics,
basics, definitions
definitions etc.
etc.
Stress:

Effective stress (for fully saturated soils):

Principal stress space

Strain:

Axisymmetric conditions (uniaxial, triaxial and oedometer tests)

Triaxial apparatus

Oedometer

True triaxial apparatus

Shearing (plane strain)

(a) direct shear, (b) simple shear, (c) torsional shear

Graphs used to illustrate soil material behaviour :

Why we concentrate on the behaviour of small samples ?

Application of soil constitutive models in numerical simulations
of real geotechnical problems

Shear
Shear strength
strength of
of soils
soils

Numerical simulation of biaxial test with Discrete Element Method (DEM)

*) source: http://ppdem.net/

Shear band formation for vertical soil cut

Numerical simulation of a vertical soil cut with Particle-In-Cell (PIC) method,

*) source: CSIRO Division of Exploration and Mining, Australia

Slope failure characteristic zones

*) source: Leroueil, 39th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique 51(3), 2001

10

Subsequent phases of shear zone

mobilization in fine grained
(cohesive) soil

*) source: Skempton, 1967

Simple description of Coulomb shear strength criterion

11

Coulomb shear strength criterion in different planes

M=

Coulomb shear strength in principal stress space

*) here stress is
compression positive

12

ep
& ij = Dijkl
&kl

Components of an elasto-plastic constitutive

model for soils (generally)

s
axi
atic 3
t
s
ro
=
hyd = 2
1

elastic
model

& ij =

Flow
rule:

F
= &
ij
&ijp

Yield surface

e
&kle
Dijkl

F ( ij ) = 0

2 3

G
lub
or = &
ij
&ijp

Coulomb-Mohr model the most popular elasto-plastic model

implemented in geotechnical software

100

compression

1 [kPa]

80

t
sta
dro
hy

60

ic

ax

is

40

20

extension
0

20

40

60

80

100

23 [kPa]

Coulomb-Mohr
et
d ij = Dijkl
d kl ,

et
=
Dijkl

E0
1 2 0

+
( ik jl + jk il )
2
(1 + 0 )(1 2 0 ) 0 ij kl

Hooke

13

Coulomb-Mohr model simple modifications for better performance

Possibilities of improvement:
introduction of an alternative shear
criterion or yield surface
introduction of stress and/or strain
dependent Youngs modulus
ex. E() lub E()
introduction of elastic anisotropy
ex. cross-anisotropic Hookes law
introduction of hardening and
softening

et
ijkl

=D

es
ijkl

1 2
E

(
ij kl +
ik jl + jk il )
=

(1 + )(1 2 )
2

*) here stress is
compression positive

Dilatancy and its influence on the soil behaviour

Dilatancy is the observed tendency of a compacted or loose granular
material to dilate (expand in volume) or contract (shrink in volume)
respectively as it is sheared. This occurs because the soil particles in a
compacted state are interlocking and therefore do not have the freedom to
move around one another

14

Dilatancy vs. conractancy

*) source: Muir Wood, 2004

Dilatancy and contractancy,

drained triaxial test on dense and loose sand samples
volumetric strain v
deviatoric stress q=1-2

at ID=0.3
at ID=0.5

15

Numerical shear box experiment shearing and volume vhanges

(bonded particle model of jointed rock sample)
Microcracks from shear failure (GREEN)
Microcracks from tensile failure (RED)

n = 0.65 x UCS

Direction of shearing

Rough joint
vertical displacement vs.
shear displacement
maximum
dilatancy
angle

shear stress
(normalized to UCS)

normal displacement
(dilatancy / contractancy)

shear stress vs. shear displacement

shear displacement

shear displacement

*) source: Itasca International Inc., PFC2D

Possibilities of stress paths obtained with Coulomb-Mohr model

for different drainage conditions

cuA

A , c, E, , undrained
A , c, E, , drained
B u=0, cuB, E, , undrained
C u=0, cuB, Eu, u=0.495,
total stress analysis

cuB

B C

u=0

16

Pore water changes for undrained triaxial compression

with Mohr-Coulomb model

q
1

3
t ot a
or d l stres
rain s pat
h
ed
pat
h

cq

undrained path

1
u

Changes of strength and stiffness observed during deposision history

deposition history

erosion

sedimentation

void ratio e

normal consolidation

[kPa]

overconsolidation
or preconsolidation
[kPa]
strength
increase
[kPa]
*) source: Skempton, 1967

17

Krey-Tiedemann shear strength criterion (1933)

'
'
c'2

c'1

cu2

cu1
stress
increase

s
c1'

'
c2'

! Simple criterion where overconsolidation ratio is taken into account

parameters: , c,cu effective friction angle, effective cohesion and undrained cohesion
s - total friction angle,
c consolidation stress (normal to the shearing plane)

Real undrained behaviour in triaxial compression of

overconsolidated and normally consolidated clay sample

clay

clay

*) source: Wehnert PhD, University of Stuttgart, 2006

18

Calculations of pore water pressure

Stiffness of soil grains Ks, stiffness of soil skeleton (effective) K1
and stiffness water Kw

deformation of single grains

deformation of soil skeleton

for undrained analysis it is often assumed: Ks= , Kw=

*) source: Bodenmechanik II, A. Niemunis

Assumption of incompressibility of water in numerical calculations is not

possible, hence stiffness of water and soil skeleton are taken parallely.
stiffness of water:

u = K w v

or tensorially

& ijw = K w ij kl &kl

effective stiffness of soil skeleton

e
& ij = Dijkl
&kl

or ij = ij ijw )
ij = ijtot ijw (lub

total stiffness :
e
& ijtot = ( Dijkl
+ K w ij kl ) &kl

19

Matrix representation for plane stress conditions

& xtot A
tot
& y B
tot =
& z B
& 0
xy

B B
A B
B A
0

Kw
K
+ w
Kw

2G 0
0
0
0

Kw
Kw
Kw

Kw
Kw
Kw

0 &x

0 & y

0 &z

0 &xy

For Hookes linear elasticity :

A= E

1
, B=E
, G=E
2 (1 + )
(1 + )(1 2 )
(1 + )(1 2 )

How to estimate Kw ?

a)

K w 2 GPa

b) multiplying of the average of effective stiffness normal components

so-called head (ex. 100 times)
c)

u 0.5,

Kw =

G=

E
2 (1 + )

2G 1 + u
1 +

3 1 2 u 1 2

20

Settlement of shallow foundation for short time loading,

undrained conditions

h 2 w
t << t98
k M0

< 0.01

h=D hight of the consolidating layer or simply length of drainage path,

Ev stiffness modulus to calculate short time settlement

Skempton parameter B
increment of the total tress:

ij = ij '+ u ij
isotropic compression:

0
P 0

= P 1 = 0 P 0
0
0 P

B=

u
= f ( Sr )
P

for undrained soil: B0.999

' = P u = P BP 0

21

Skempton parameter A

steel :

p& K
=
q& 0

soil :

0 &v

3G &q

dilatancy:

p& K
=
q& Q2

d=

Q1 &v

3G &q

&v
&q

Skemptona parameter A

u = A 1 3 = A q
Parameters A and B (undrained behaviour)

u = A q + B tr ( )
3

undrained

drained
regardless A value

undrained

stress paths for different values of parameter A

22

Dilatancy angle in Mohr-Coulomb model

0
F=

nst
G=co

c
F= - n tan - c (yield function),
G= - n tan
(plastic potentialfunction)

Influence of dilatancy angle on undrained stress path

in Mohr-Coulomb model

23

Influence of stress level

on the behaviour during
shearing

*) source: Bolton, 1986

Alternative
Alternative shear
shear strength
strength criteria
criteria for
for soils
soils
Drucker-Prager shear strength criterion
standard version:

q
Mc

FD P = q Mp cq = 0

3
sij sij , for axisymmetric case : q = 1 3 ,
2
1
1
p = kk , p = ( 1 + 2 3 ),
3
3
6 sin
6c cos
M=
, cq =
3 sin
3 sin

q=

surface (deviatoric)

1=2=3

cq

1
Me

Mc=Me

Drucker, Prager (1952)

24

Drucker-Prager vs. Mohr-Coulomb, How to choose parameters ?

Drucker-Prager criterion is a q=const contour (Mc=Me)

and Mohr-Coulomb criterion is a =const contour (Mc=Me)
Ex. choosing M=Mc(=30o) in Drucker-Prager criterion results in very large
strength for axisymmetric extension (ex. passive earth pressure)
which is equivalent to the activation of =48.6o

Lode angle influence of the intermediate principal stress component

Two
of Lodekta
angle
in textbooks
(often misleaded)
Dwiedefinitions
popularne definicje
Lodego
(czsto mylone):
1

3 3J

= arccos 3/ 23 ,
3
2J2

=0

=30
b=0.0

3 3J
27 J 1
1
= arcsin 33 = arcsin 3/ 23 ,
3
2q 3
2J2
*

-1

=
3
= 0
b= 0
0.5

60
0
=
-3
= 1.0
b=

= ( 0o 60o ) , * = ( 30o 30o ) , * = + 30o

gdzie
where
J 3 = det ( sij ) , J 2 =

1
3
sij sij
skl skl , q = 3J 2 =
2
2

oraz
and
sij = ij + p ij - dewiator
naprenia
stress deviator
1
p = kk
3
axisym.
compression:
Sciskanie
trjosiowe: = 0o lub * = 30o

-3
compression
extension

-2
b=

2 3 1
= 1 + 3 tan ( 30o )
1 3 2

Rozciganie
trjosiowe: = 60o lub * = 30o
axisym. extension:

25

Stress invariants p, q,

3p
2/3q

1
Rendulic plane

p
2
3

Improved version of Drucker-Prager criterion (Abaqus):

FD* P = t Mp cq = 0
r=

9
sij s jk ski , for 2 = 3 r = ( 1 3 )
2

3
q 1
1 r
1 + 1 ,
2 K K q

q comp
ext
K = 0.778 1 ; t = , t
=q
K

t=

K=1.0

K=0.9

K=0.8

26

Matsuoka-Nakai criterion (SMP concept Spatialy Mobilised Planes):

SMP =

I1 I 2 I 3 9 I 32

SMP =
I2
SMP

3I 3
, SMP =
I2

I1 = kk = 1 + 2 + 3 , I 2 =
I 3 = det ij = 1 2 3

I1 I 2
= const or
I3

FM N =

f =

I1 I 2 9 I 3
9I3

1
( ii jj ij ij ) = 2 3 + 1 3 + 1 2 ,
2

I1 I 2
const = 0
I3

I1 I 2
I I 9 sin 2 cm
9 8 tan 2 cm = 1 2
= 0, (1974)
I3
I 3 1 sin 2 cm

Lade-Duncan (empirical criterion):

FLD =

I13
= 0, Lade i Duncan (1975)
I3

( 3 sin cm )
I1 = kk , I 3 = det ij , =
( 1 sin cm )( 1 + sin cm )
3

= 30o
cm

FLD = 0

= 20o
cm

FMN = 0

FDP ( K = 1.0 ) = 0

FDP ( K = 0.9 ) = 0

27

Lade criterion (empirical):

m

I3
I
FL = 1 27 1 = 0, Lade (1977)
I3
pa
pa , m, - parameters
1
m = 0.5

m = 0.8

!) nonlinear contour
in meridian planes

2 = 3

Some differences between presented shear strength criteria for soils and rocks
1

1
= 30o
cm

= 20o
cm

= 30o
cm

= 20o
cm

Mohr-Coulomb contour
is shown for cm=30
3

2
= 40o
cm

= 40o
cm

Matsuoka and Nakai (1974)

Lade and Duncan (1975)

1
= 20o
cm

p = 100 kPa

= 30o
cm

K = 0.778

= 40o
cm

Modfied Drucker-Prager

p = 50 kPa

p = 200 kPa

p = 150 kPa

1
m = 0.5

= 28, m = 0.5, pa = 50 kPa

Lade (1977)

m = 0.8

2 = 3

Lade (1977) depends on p

28

Matsuoka-Nakai, Lade-Duncan and Mohr-Coulomb in principal stress space

Matsuoka-Nakai & Mohr-Coulomb

Lade-Duncan & Mohr-Coulomb

Differences between responses of elasto-plastic models built with presented

shear strength criteria for biaxial compression (plane strain)

250

CM
DP
-0.01

MN

150

LD

100

MN
CM

v [-]

t [kPa]

200

-0.03

50
0

LD

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

yy [-]

0.08

0.10

-0.04

DP

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

yy [-]

c=30, c=0 kPa, =5, E=10000 kPa, =0.15; initial stress is isotropic p=100 kPa;
symbols: t=(1-3)/2, v=1+3

29

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions

Bearing capacity problem, shallow foundation

Homogeneous soil:
c=30, c=1 kPa, c=0, Eoed=80000 kPa, =0.2 (E0=72000 kPa), =18 kN/m3

Bearing capacity problem, results

force-displacement curves

shearing

extension

yielding zones

30

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions ...

Excavation problem, slurry wall

Homogeneous soil:
c=30, c=1 kPa, c=0, Eoed=80000 kPa, =0.2 (E0=72000 kPa), =18 kN/m3

Excavation problem, results

bottom edge of the wall

top edge of the wall

12 distribution for Matsuoka-Nakai criterion;

values: -5.6% bright to +1.2% dark;
displacement is scaled 20 times

Horizontal displacement vs. overburden pressure

31

Differences for geotechnical boundary conditions ...

Pile bearing capacity problem

*) Eoed=M0

Pile bearing capacity problem, results

32

Soil
Soil slope
slope stability
stability calculations
calculations
Slope failure mechanism is highly dependent on geological layering

wysoko n.p.m.

embankment
clays
limestone
powierzchnia
zniszczenia

*) source: Pouget & Livet, 1988

Different stages of slope movements

pre-failure

post-failure

displacement rate

first
failure

occasional
reactivation
acttive landslides

time

*) source: Leroueil, 39th Rankine Lecture, Gotechnique 51(3), 2001

33

Quick-clay landslides

*) source: geopanorama.rncan.gc.ca

*) source: geopanorama.rncan.gc.ca

34

St. Jude/ Montreal

May 11, 2010

*) http://www.montrealgazette.com

*) Trondheim, 1999

35

Horizontal displacement
of the wall, track level
[ins]

Long term landslide, Kensal Green, 1941

failure
begin of observation

Landslide has occurred 29 years after retaining wall instalation

Former ground profile

probable
analysed

} slip line

*) source: Skempton, 1967

General classification of slope stability calculation methods

1. Methods based on the fundamental equations of

continuum theory.
2. Methods where a potential failure mechanism is assumed.

36

Methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory

Equilibrium (Navier equations):

ij , j + f i = 0
Boundary conditions:

ij n j = ti ,

vi = vi0

Plasticity criterion (or constitutive law):

f ( ij ) 0,

& ij = Dijkl &kl

Strain-displacement compatibility:

&kl =

1
vi , j + v j ,i
2

In practice, very often complicated boundary conditions are far from those
which are assumed in the analytical solutions of fundamental equations.

*) Stability of a road embankment, hight 14.0m, reinforced by geotextiles, soft soil ground piled by
jet-grouting columns. At the embankment toe a water reservoir is designed with sheet-pile walls
(without anchoring !!!), Poland, Motorway A4, Ruda lska, 2004.

37

*) Stability of walls and vaults of historical structure, Wisoujcie Fortress, 2004.

Methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory ...

In complex and important engineering cases the fundamental equations of

continuum theory can be solved by numerical methods ex. By finite
differences method or by finite element method.

However, the application of numerical modelling requires good knowledge

of their basis as well as it requires thorough understanding of continuum
mechanics and geomechanics.

38

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice ...

*) deformation

*) horizontal displacement

39

Examples of Finite Element Method (FEM) applications in geotechnical practice ...

*) Pylon foundation of a cable stayed bridge at the highway ring road of Wrocaw (A8), 2009.

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

40

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

b)

a)

c)

*) pylon, Wrocaw (A8) ...

41

Methods where the potential failure mechanism is assumed.

General assumptions for the methods of slices

1.

Analysed boundary problem of slope stability is two dimensional with

arbitrary shape of a slip surface. However very often only cylindrical
slip surfaces are assumed.

2.

Slip occurs simultaneously in all points of the assumed slip surface.

3.

In standard calculations inertial forces are neglected.

Failure mechanism
In the initial phase of slope stability calculations by methods of slices it is very
important to choose an appropriate failure mechanism.
Rotational shape of failure line
circular slip line
(homogeneous soils)

non-circular slip line

(inhomogeneous soils)

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

42

Translational mechanism

Compound mechanism

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Critical slip line

assumed centre
of rotation

critical slip line

F
minimum

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

43

Standard procedure for searching the critical slip line

grid of centres
of rotaion

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Local and global slope stability (scale of the failure mechanism)

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

44

Influence of the soil type for the shape of critical failure mechanism

sand
clay

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Effect of a water filled tension crack at the head of a slide

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

45

Short term and long term slope stability (parameters ,c and u, cu)
excavation

time

u
construction time

construction time

embankment
u

time
+ compression

Shear strength mobilisation

r
s

r
s

r
s

Average value :

p > srav > r

slip:

av
sr p

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

46

Method of slices
General scheme
centre of rotation

forces acting
on a single slice:

source: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/

Fellenius method (also called as Swedish or oridinary)

assumptions:

47

Fellenius method
- example

Fellenius

Bishop

Bishop method (simplified)

assumptions:

F=

1
W sin

(W + X ub ) tan + cb
tan tan
cos 1 +

48

Janbu method
Relates to the Bishop method taking into account lateral forces E.
It allows for arbitrary non-rotational slip lines.

W X = N cos + S sin
E = N sin S cos

F=

1
(W X ) tan

(W X ub ) tan + cb
cos m

m = cos +

tan sin
F

Spencer and Morgenstern-Price methods

= const
X
= tan
E

Spencer

Morgenstern-Price

const
X
= f ( x)
E

49

Non-rotational failure mechanisms

Block mechanism

How to take into account the pore water pressure in slope stability calculations ?

1. Active pore water pressure based on seepage line

ua=ust= h w

* Very often used in the practice, the most conservative method.

50

2. Active pore water pressure based on seepage line with Hu reduction

ua = w h H u ,

H u = 0 1

In most cases coefficiant Hu is calculated from seepage line inclination:

H u = cos 2

equipotential line (seepage)

3. Active pore water pressure calculated by ru coefficient method

u a = ru v ,

ru = 0 1

Active pore water pressure is estimated as a fraction of the vertical total

stress v component at the bottom level of analysed slice.

51

Slope stability safety factor estimated by FE-analysis

-c reduction method

F-c

Strength parameters (tan, c) are reduced in the incremental process up to the loss of
static equilibium in the analysed boundary problem. This numerical method falls to the
methods based on the fundamental equations of continuum theory.

52