Intro to Soil Mechanics:

José E. Andrade, Caltech

the what, why & how
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 The What?

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 What is Soil
Mechanics?
erdbaumechanik

The application of the laws of

mechanics (physics) to soils as
engineering materials

Karl von Terzaghi is credited as

the father of erdbaumechanik

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 sands & gravels clays & silts
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 The Why?

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Sandcastles what holds them up?

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Palacio de Bellas Artes
uniform settlement
Mexico, DF
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 The leaning tower of
Pisa
differential settlement

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 !

Teton dam dam failure

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Niigata earthquake liquefaction

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Katrina
levee failure
New Orleans
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 MER: Big Opportunity xTerramechanics

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 MER: Big Opportunity xTerramechanics

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 The How?

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Topics in classic Soil Mechanics

• Index & gradation

• Soil classification

• Compaction

• Permeability, seepage, and effective stresses

• Consolidation and rate of consolidation

• Strength of soils: sands and clays

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Index & gradation

Definition: soil mass is a collection of particles and

voids in between (voids can be filled w/ fluids or air)

solid particle

fluid (water) Each phase

has volume
and mass

gas (air)
Mechanical behavior governed by phase interaction
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 solid
water+air=voids
Index & gradation

Key volumetric ratios Key mass ratio

Vv void ratio Mw water content
e= [0.4,1] sand w= <1 for most soils
Vs Ms
[0.3,1.5] clays >5 for marine, organic

Vv porosity
Key link mass & volume
η=
Vt [0,1] ρ = M/V
moist, solid, water, dry, etc.
Vw saturation
S=
Vv [0,1] ratios used in practice to
characterize soils & properties
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Gradation & classification

Grain size is main classification feature

sands & clays &

gravels silts

• can see grains • cannot see grains

• mechanics~texture • mechanics~water
• d>0.05 mm • d<0.05 mm
Soils are currently classified using USCS (Casagrande)
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Fabric in coarsely-grained soils

“loose packing”, high e Vv

relative e=
“dense packing”, low e Vs
emax greatest possible, loosest packing
emin lowest possible, densest packing

ID = emax −e
emax −emin relative density
strongly affects engineering
behavior of soils
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Typical problem(s)xb
in Soil Mechanics

• Compact sand fill

• Calculate consolidation of clay

• Calculate rate of consolidation

• Determine strength of sand

SAND FILL
• Calculate F.S. on sand (failure?)

• Need: stresses & matl behavior PISA CLAY

ROCK (UNDERFORMABLE, IMPERMEABLE)

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Modeling tools

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Theoretical
framework

• continuum mechanics

• constitutive theory
!s
"
• computational inelasticity "# x

X
!f
• nonlinear finite elements
f
x2 "#

x1

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Theoretical
framework

• continuum mechanics

• constitutive theory
balance of mass

• computational inelasticity ṗ
φ +∇·v = −∇ · q
Kf
• nonlinear finite elements ∇·σ+γ = 0

balance of momentum

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Theoretical
framework

• continuum mechanics

• constitutive theory q = k · ∇h darcy

! ep
σ̇ = c : "˙ hooke
• computational inelasticity
k permeability tensor

• nonlinear finite elements controls fluid flow

cep mechanical stiffness
controls deformation

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Theoretical
framework

• continuum mechanics

• constitutive theory !$
Fn+1
!n+1
tr

!n+1
• computational inelasticity Fn
!n

• nonlinear finite elements

!" !#

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Theoretical
framework

• continuum mechanics

• constitutive theory

• computational inelasticity

• nonlinear finite elements

Displacement node
Pressure node

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Finite Element Method (FEM)

• Designed to approximately solve PDE’s

• PDE’s model physical phenomena

• Three types of PDE’s:

) & )

• Parabolic: fluid flow

'(1 '(1

'(0 '(0

'(/ '(/

'(. '(.

%!"!#$
'(- '(-

'(, '(,

'(+ '(+

'(* '(*

'() '()

'& '
' '() '(* '(+ '(, '(- '(. '(/ '(0 '(1 )
!!"!#$

• Hyperbolic: wave eqn

• Elliptic: elastostatics

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 FEM recipe

Strong from

Weak form
Galerkin form
Matrix form

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Multi-D deformation with FEM

∇ · σ + f = 0 in Ω equilibrium
u = g on Γg e.g., clamp
σ · n = h on Γh e.g., confinement
Γg

Constitutive relation:
Ω
given u get σ
Γh e.g., elasticity, plasticity

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Modeling Ingredients

1. Set geometry
2.Discretize domaiin
H4.417
3. Set matl parameters
4. Set B.C.’s
5. Solve

B
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Modeling Ingredients

1. Set geometry
2. Discretize domain
3. Set matl parameters
4. Set B.C.’s
5. Solve

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Modeling Ingredients

1. Set geometry
2. Discretize domain
3. Set matl parameters
4. Set B.C.’s
5. Solve

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Modeling Ingredients !a

1. Set geometry
!r
2. Discretize domain
3. Set matl parameters
4. Set B.C.’s
5. Solve

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Modeling Ingredients !a

1. Set geometry
2. Discretize domain !r
3. Set matl parameters
4. Set B.C.’s
5. Solve

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 FEM Program

TIME STEP LOOP

ITERATION LOOP

ASSEMBLE FORCE VECTOR

AND STIFFNESS MATRIX

ELEMENT LOOP: N=1, NUMEL

GAUSS INTEGRATION LOOP: L=1, NINT

constitutive
model
CALL MATERIAL SUBROUTINE

CONTINUE

CONTINUE

CONTINUE

T = T + !T

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Material behavior: shear strength

• Void ratio or relative density

• Particle shape & size Engineers have developed

• Grain size distribution
models to account for most
of these variables
• Particle surface roughness

• Water Elasto-plasticity
framework of choice
• Intermediate principal stress

• Overconsolidation or pre-stress

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 A word on current characterization methods

Direct Shear Triaxial

Pros: cheap, simple, fast, Pros: control drainage & stress

good for sands path, principal dir. cnst.,
Cons: drained, forced failure, more homogeneous
non-homogeneous Cons: complex
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Material models for
sands should capture

• Nonlinearity and irrecoverable

deformations v
• Pressure dependence
A

• Difference tensile and p

compressive strength !v

C
• Relative density dependence
B

• Nonassociative plastic flow

log -p’
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Material models for
sands should capture

• Nonlinearity and irrecoverable

deformations

• Pressure dependence
!’vc
200
191 kPa
241

q (kPa)
310
• Difference tensile and 380

compressive strength 100

• Relative density dependence

0 100 200 300

• Nonassociative plastic flow -p’ (kPa)

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Material models for
sands should capture

• Nonlinearity and irrecoverable

deformations
!’$ Von Mises
• Pressure dependence Mohr Coulomb

• Difference tensile and

compressive strength

• Relative density dependence

• Nonassociative plastic flow !’" !’#

Loose sand Dense sand

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Material models for
sands should capture

• Nonlinearity and irrecoverable

r" (kPa)
1000
deformations
800

• Pressure dependence

"!#$!
600
!a

a
400
• Difference tensile and 200 !r
compressive strength
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 %a (%)
• Relative density dependence 4

2
• Nonassociative plastic flow Dense Sand
1 Loose Sand
%v (%)

-1

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Material models for
sands should capture

• Nonlinearity and irrecoverable

deformations
Yield Function
Plastic Potential
• Pressure dependence q
Flow vector

• Difference tensile and

compressive strength

• Relative density dependence

• Nonassociative plastic flow -p’

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Elasto-plasticity in one slide

Hooke’s law σ̇ = c : �˙ ep

Additive decomposition of strain �˙ = �˙ + �˙

e p

Convex elastic region F (σ, α) = 0

Non-associative flow �˙ = λ̇g, g := ∂G/∂σ
p

K-T optimality λ̇F = 0 λ̇H = −∂F/∂α · α̇

Elastoplastic constitutive tangent
1 e
c ep
=c − c :g⊗f :c ,
e e
χ=H −g :c :f
e
χ
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 Examples

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 Example of elasto-plastic model
!3

"=1
q
"=7/9

N=0 N=0.5
$ #i
p'
M
!1 !2

v
CSL CSL
(a) (b)

F = F (σ , πi ) �
v1
Figure 3: Three
~ invariant yield surface on (a) deviatoric plane at different values of � and (b)
#i " at different values of N .
meridian plane
vc
v2 with 
# G = G(σ , π̄i ) �

 M [1 + ln (πi /p� )] if N = 0
η=

�
M/N 1 − (1 − N ) (p /πi )
 ln-p’ � H = H(p , πi , ψ)
N/(1−N )
�
if N > 0.
� (2.4)

-!i -p’
The function ζ controls the cross-sectional shape of the yield function on a deviatoric plane
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 model validation:
Figure 2.4:drained txccompression
Triaxial and ps calibrations, (a) and (c), and plane strain compression
predictions, (b) and (d), versus experimental data for loose and dense Brasted Sand
specimens.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 undrained txc loose sands

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 true triaxial b=constant

Thursday, June 23, 2011

 H − H̄L

Plane-strain liquefaction numerical simulation

Thursday, June 23, 2011
 H − H̄L

Plane-strain liquefaction numerical simulation

Thursday, June 23, 2011
 250
200
150
100
50
(a) Pore Pressure (in kPa)
.0025
.0020
.0015
.0010
.0005
Field scale prediction
.0000
(b) Deviatoric Strain ELASTIC Levee failure
600000
(recall Katrina)
400000

200000

0
H − HL
Thursday, June 23, 2011
 References

Thursday, June 23, 2011