Modelling challenges in environmental geomechanics M.

Pastor
P.Mira, J.A.Fernndez Merodo, M.Martn Stickle, P.Dutto, T.Blanc, B.Haddad, S.Bentez, S.Sancho, V.Cullar, V.Drempetic
manuel.pastor@upm.es ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos Madrid

New horizons in energy production and environmental geomechanics

Problems
Transport of pollutants Nuclear waste disposal CO2 sequestration Thermo-hydro-mech. Coupling Fracture Offshore .

Natural and man induced hazards

Engineers Structures Seismic, wave, wind,... Environment

Some human induced hazards...

Tailing dams
Gypsum Tailings Stavva,...

Mining dumps
Aberfan Cougar Hill

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com , Kew National archives,

...and some natural hazards...

Rock Avalanches Mudflows Lahars Flowslides Waves induced by landslides

Avalanches: Valtellina (July 1987)

28 th July 1987 40106 m3 1550 - 2350 m

Mudflows: Yunnan 2004

Debris Flows

Prof.Sucheng Zhang (Chengdus Institute for Natural Hazards in Mountain Areas, CAS)

Flow slides

(Aberfan, 1966)

Flow slides (unsaturated soils)

Las Colinas (Sta Tecla)

Key Aspects
How to asses safety?
Stress reduction, ...and Failure load Failure mechanism

Causes of failure
Total stress (earthquakes, human, waves,...) Pore pressures (rain...) Strength ( degradation, weathering, chemical attack) Geommetry (erosion, reshaping...)

Consequences of failure

Toolboxes
Mathematical models Constitutive / Rheological models Numerical models

Quality assessment: benchmarking

Objectives of talk
Describe fast catastrophic landslides & diffuse failure
- Initiation: Mathematical models Constitutive models Numerical models - Propagation: Mathematical models Rheological models Numerical models Present:
1 A common modelling framework 2 Closing the gap between rheo and eco 3 Towards a numerical model for all seasons

- Is it possible to develop a general model describing both? - Difficulties Mathematical Rheo & Constitutive Numerical

Contents
Introduction
(1) Fast catstrophic landslides: avalanches, flow slides, debris flows, lahars (2) Triggering mechanisms: Some basic ideas from Soil Mechanics Modelling of liquefaction

Mathematical Models
M1 Mixture Theory M2 Biot Zienkiewicz M3 Propagation consolidation M4 Depth Integrated

Constitutive Models Rheological Models Depth Integrated Rheological Models Numerical Models Benchmarks and applications

I . Introduction

Tools for triggering

Simplified methods Finite elements + constitutive eqn.

Tools for propagation

SPH, MPM ..
Constituive Rheological

Depth integrated models

Simplified methods of analysis (slide )

Simplified methods of analysis (slide ) Assumptions

Failure is of localized type Stress at failure surface

But
What if failure is of diffuse type? Stress inside failure surface

So?

But
Data from Lizcano, Herrera & Santamarina (2007)

Finite elements + classical plasticity (Mohr Coulomb)

II. Mathematical Modelling

Mixture Theory

Constitutive

Rheological

Biot-Zienkiewicz

PropagationConsolidation

Mechanical + seepage
Failure Crit.

Depth Int. Rheol.

Depth Integrated

Limit analysis

M1 Mixture

M1 General Model: Unknowns Soil grains Pore fluid (water + air)

n, na , nw volume fractions

s , pw , pa
vs , vw , va

Equations

ds , dw , da

Balance of mass (water, air, mixture) Balance of momentum Constitutive or rheological Relations velocities rate of deformations

M1 General Model Good for Debris Flows with large relative displacements between phases Inconvenients: Very expensive! Track interfaces between all phases Compromise solution: Just one single-phase (mixture) Still: Track interfaces between all phases (Eulerian: FEM + Level Set) (Lagrangian: SPH)

Evolution of the interfase, pressure and velocity vectors

M2 Biot

M2 Biot-Zienkiewicz equations

v w = v s + vw / s
vw / s w = (Darcy) n

Velocities of pore fluids relative to solid skeleton (small) Skeleton (lagrangian) Pore fluids (eulerian relative to skeleton) Unknowns (Saturated) Equations :
B1 Balance of momentum (mixture) B2 Balance of mass (fluid) B3 Balance of momentum (fluid) B4 Constitutive (solid and fluid) B5 Kinematics

vs , w

, pw

Biot-Zienkiewicz: u-pw model B1

dvs = b + div ( ' pI ) dt

1 pw = div v + d v 0 + div ( k w grad pw ) * Q t

B2+B3 B4 B5

d ' = D '.d
1 ui u j + ij = 2 x j xi

d v 0 extra dilatancy

Unknowns:

vs

, pw

Liquefaction of a dyke: Experimental Lay out

Liquefaction of a dyke: FE mesh

Liquefaction of a dyke: results

M3 Prop + cons

M3 Propagation and consolidation

Propagation

consolidation
dpw d pw1 = + cv + Em dV 01 dt dt x3 x3

Dv0 m = div + mb Dt div v0 = 0

Rheological & kinem

cv consolidation coeff. Em Oedometric modulus

d dt

Unknowns: v0 ,( , d ) and pw

M4 depth integrated

M4 Depth Integrated Models Unknowns: v0 , ( , d ) and pw Problems: Interfaces (or free surface)
h h v1 = v1dx3
h pw = pw dx3

Unknowns:
x3
h

Z
x1

Advantages: No interfaces Less unknowns (1 dim less)

M4 Depth Integrated Models : (ii) Pseudo 3D Consolidation

dpw d pw1 = + cv + Em dV 01 dt dt x3 x3

Use a FD explicit scheme Notes:

Depth changes:
Mesh changes too Total stress and Pwp change

Dam break problem: Saturated soil

tan = 1.0 Cv = 2.104 m 2 s 1

t=0s 10 m

Dam break problem: Saturated soil

tan = 1.0 Cv = 2.104 m 2 s 1

t = 0.5 s

Dam break problem: Saturated soil

tan = 1.0 Cv = 2.104 m 2 s 1

t = 1.0 s t = 1.0 s

Dam break problem: Saturated soil

tan = 1.0 Cv = 2.104 m 2 s 1

t = 1.5 s

Cross sections of Aberfan Tip 7 before and after the flowslide

Cross sections of Aberfan Tip 7 before and after the flowslide

t=0s

t=6s

t = 10 s

t = 15 s

t = 20 s

t = 30 s

3a. Constitutive

Contents
Introduction Mathematical Models Constitutive Models
Basic Generalized Plasticity Model Debonding State parameter Unsaturated

Rheological Models Numerical Models Benchmarks and applications

Types of Failure Slides: Localized

Diffuse
Liquefied Zone

Softening (dense sand, drained) q q q/p

p Softening (OC clay, undrained)

q/p

Liquefaction (very loose sand, undrained) q 1 q q/p 1

Generalized Plasticity
Basic GP Model Extension I. Collapsible soils (J.A.Fdez Merodo) Extension II. State Parameter (D.Manzanal) Extension III. Unsaturated (R.Tamagnini, JA Fernndez Merodo) (D.Manzanal)

Generalized Plasticity
Introduce a direction n such that
d = CL : d d = CU : d
n : d > 0 n : d = 0 n : d < 0

for n : d > 0 for n : d > 0

Loading Neutral loading Unloading

Continuity between L-U

1 CL = C + ngL n HL
e

1 CU = C + ngU n HU
e

CU Tests (Castro 69)

Deviatoric stress q (KPa)

p' = 392 KPa 800 Test a b c d Dr 29 % 44 % 47% 66% (d) 400 (b) 200 (a) (c)

600.

200

400

600.

Mean effective confining pressure p' (KPa)

Flow slides (unsaturated soils)

Las Colinas (Sta Tecla)

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

Geommetry

u-pw model

Finite element model: Coupled formulation (pore fluid is air)

Boundary conditions : 1, 2 free stress boundaries, pa=0 3, 4 : a) Base motion+absorbing boundary b) Base motion + infinite stratum condition
1 2 4 3

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

t= 0.s t= 6.s

u-pw model

t= 2.s

t= 8.s

t= 4.s

t= 11.4s

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

t= 0.s t= 6.s

u-pw model

t= 2.s

t= 8.s

t= 4.s

t= 11.4s

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

t= 0.s t= 6.s

u-pw model

t= 2.s

t= 8.s

t= 4.s

t= 11.4s

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

u-pw model

Pt (Pa)

Excess pore pressure (Pa)

Time (s)

F.E. modelling of Las Colinas landslide

u-pw model

Mean effective stress (Pa)

Ux (m)

Time (s)

4. Rheological

Contents
Introduction
Fast catstrophic landslides: avalanches, flow slides, debris flows, lahars

Mathematical Models Constitutive Models Rheological Models

R1 What is rheology? Some simple laws R2 From solid to fluidized soil R3 Fluidized soil: volumetric component R4 Cohesive frictional VP model: deviatoric component R5 Depth Integrated Rheological Models

Numerical Models Benchmarks and applications

R1 What is rheology?
In a fluid, shear stress depends on rate of shear strain z

(newtonian)

v = z
x

R1 What is rheology? Laboratory tests: rheometers Simple shear flows

v = ( v, 0, 0 )

v = v(z)

x3

x2 x1

Rheological laws
= f s, z
v = Y + x 3
m

v depends only on x3

Bagnolds rheometer

R3 Behaviour of fluidized soil

Pressure
0-A Constant voids ratio: Pressure increases with strain rate

B
0-B Constant pressure: Voids ratio increases with strain rate

Rate of shear strain

R3 Behaviour of fluidized soil: volumetric component

Voids ratio drained path Rate of deformation increases

Undrained path

Ln p

R3 Behaviour of fluidized soil: volumetric component

First ingredient: dynamic CSLs

e
eref , dyn eCSL ,dyn
(e, p )

eCSL , dyn = eCSL + 1 ( I 2 d )

2nd ingredient: dilatancy law at dynamic CSLs

dv 0 = 2
CSLdyn
CSL
ln p '

eCSL , dyn e eCSL

eref

eCSL
pref

D1 Introduction. The infinite slide

v( z)?

h v

h v
v( z)

D1 Introduction. The infinite slide

z

gh sin

= g ( h z ) sin

v = g ( h z ) sin = f s, z
Integrate

v D2 Some simple examples: Bingham fluid = y + z

g ( h z ) sin
z
S

z
Plug

hP
P

hP
Shear zone

B = gh sin
g sin hP = Y

hS

B
g sin Y

hS x

y
hP =

hS = h hP

Infinite landslide: Perzyna, Von Mises Model

y Plug x E Poiss Dens Yield gamma delta Slope 8.e7 Pa 0.3 2000 Kg/m3 0.285 e5 Pa 0.1 1. 1:4

Shear zone

Velocity Profile

Infinite landslide: Perzyna

y

Velocity Profile

Infinite landslide: Perzyna Von Mises

Von Mises Perzyna
250000 200000 Stress 150000 100000 50000 0 0 5 Y 10 15 Sxx Syy Tauxy

Note: Sigma x = Sigma y within shear zone!

Infinite landslide: Perzyna, Cam Clay Model

y

x E 1.5 e7 Pa Poiss 0.3 Dens 1500 Kg/m3 Mg 1.1 Lambda 0.51 k 0.09 Pc0 0.285 e5 Pa gamma 0.1 delta 1. Slope 1:4 Shear zone

Velocity Profile

Infinite landslide: Perzyna Von Mises

Cam Clay Perzyna
160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 5 Y 10 15

Stress

Sxx Syy Tauxy

Note: Sigma x = Sigma y within shear zone!

4. Numerical

Contents
Introduction
(1) Fast catastrophic landslides: avalanches, flow slides, debris flows, lahars (2) Triggering mechanisms: Some basic ideas from Soil Mechanics Modelling of liquefaction

Mathematical Models Rheological Models Depth Integrated Rheological Models Numerical Models
M1 Stress-velocity models: Taylor-Galerkin, Runge Kutta M2 Stress-velocity-pore pressure: Fractional step M3 Taylor SPH M4 Depth Integrated SPH

Benchmarks and applications

4a Classical u-pw

Biot-Zienkiewicz equations: u-pw model

d2 u M 2 + BT . d Qp w f u = 0 dt dp w T du Q + H.p w +C. fp = 0 dt dt

& n Fn +1 = = 0 M&& u n + BT n +1 tQp w u u & n Fn +1 = = 0 u n + (tH + C)p 1tQT && w p p

What can go wrong? (I)

v(t)

v(t)

to

Numerical damping Numerical dispersion v at x = L/4

What can go wrong? (II)

4b sigma v TG

Numerical Model (I) Taylor Galerkin

Classical approach 1st Order equations

u 2 u =c 2 2 t x
2 2

v = t x v =E t x
0 + t v 1/ E 0 = 0 x v 0

F + =0 t x

Linear triangles (2D) or tetrahedra (3D) Equal order of interpolation Faster codes Extremely good performance in bending Robusts in plasticity Require stabilization when material is incompressible (Babuska-Brezzi conditions)

4c FS sigma v TG

Stabilization with fractional step

v = grad p + b t div v = 0

v* v n =b t v n +1 v* = grad p n +1 t div v n +1 = 0
div v =
*

v n +1 v* 1 n +1 div div grad p = ( ) t

2 p n +1

FS1 FS2 FS3

v* v n =b t t 2 n +1 * div v = p

v n +1 v* = grad p n +1 t

4d FS sigma v T SPH

Numerical Model (III) SPH

Basic identity

( x ) = ( x ') ( x ' x ) dx '

Diracs Delta

x = 0 ( x) = 0 x > 0

( x ) dx = 1

Diracs Delta is a singular distribution

[ ] = ( 0 )

SPH discretization of Integral Approximations (Functions)

< ( x ) > = ( x ') W ( x ' x, h ) dx '

Introduce Nodes (Particles)

I
J

kh

Numerical Integration
N

< ( x ) > = ( x ') W ( x ' x, h ) dx '

I = ( xI ) h = ( x J ) W ( x J xI , h ) J
J =1

kh

J
Nh

Summation extended to nodes within kh

I = ( x J ) W ( x J xI , h ) J
J =1

5.1 SPH Initiation

Benchmarks and applications

Failure of a shallow foundation (strip)

Benchmarks and applications

Failure of a shallow foundation (strip)

Benchmarks and applications

Failure of a shallow foundation (strip)

5.2 SPH Propagation

Lahars: Popocatepl

Popocatepl volcano: propagation of a lahar

Flow slides: Campania

DEBRIS FLOWS: CAMPANIA (ITALY)

CIVITELLA ROVETO PESCHE VENAFRO

Ospedaletto

Civitella

OSPEDALETTO DALPINO NAPOLI PIZZO DALVANO Venafro

Pesche

Ospedaletto
t= 32s t= 32s t= 64s t= 64s

t= 128 s t= 128 s t= 232 s

t= 232 s

Frictional Fluid. Friction Angle: 29

Tuostolo

Tuostolo
Topo mesh: 208.800 elements 105.083 nodes

Tailings dams

Example : Mudslows. Gypsum Tailings Dam (Texas)

Gypsum Tailings Impoundment East Texas, 1966

Bingham fluid

11 m

110 m

300 m

Bingham

t=0s

t = 90 s

t = 30 s

t = 120 s

t = 60 s

Vertical scale *10

t=0s

t = 90 s

t = 30 s t = 120 s

t = 60 s

WIRs Aknes case

Waves generated by landslides In collaboration with Prof. Rainer Poisel

Aknes Sc01: data

Methodology
Run PFC3D up to the instant of entering the water Transform the 3D output of DEM into depth integrated magnitudes (height and velocities) Run the SPH solid avalanche water code

Run PFC3D up to the instant of entering the water

Aknes Sc01 Tsunami formation and propagation

Aknes Sc01 Tsunami formation and propagation

t=0s

t=6s

t = 16 s

t = 20 s

t = 30 s

t = 42 s

Aknes Sc01 Tsunami formation and propagation

Aknes Sc01 : Situation of control points C2 C1 L1 R1 C0

L-1 C-1 C-2

R-1

Aknes scenario 1: water elevation at centerline control points C-1 C0 C1 C-2 C2

END Thanks for yor attention

Closure: what is next?

Fracking Grain crushing Wave impact Chemical attack Geomechanics on other environments

Fracking

Hydraulic crack domain

Int J Fract (2012) 178:245258 S. Secchi B. A. Schrefler

Zienkiewicz et al. Computational Geomechanics 2013 (Wiley)

Grain crushing

Douadji and Hicher (2010)

Landslides in Mars (C.Qantin thesis)

Grain crushing

Debris Flow: Tsing Shan

The 2000 Tsing Shan Debris Flow Hong Kong 14th April 2000

- The debris flow occurred : - after a cumulative rainfall of 160 mm - with a travel angle of about 24 - on a vegetated slope of 40 formed by colluvial boulders - There was erosion : the initial volume was about 150 m3 and the final volume was about 1 600 m3

The 2000 Tsing Shan Debris Flow, Hong Kong

Overall view of the debris flow

Model Predictions
25 v2 b = p ' tan + CF 2 4 h
tan = 0.18

CF = 0.00133 Pa.s 2

Erosion (Hungrs law) : - Initial volume : 150 m3 - erosion coefficient : 0.0082 - Final volume : 1 550 m3

Depth evolution
t=5 t = 10

t = 15

t = 22

t = 36

t = 81

Model Predictions versus real event

M4 Depth Integrated Models : (ii) Consolidation

Dpw1 pw1 = cv Em dV 01 Dt x3 x3
N _ Fourier

pw1 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , t ) dV 01 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , t )

pw1 = pw1 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , t )
(2k 1) N k ( x3 ) = cos ( x3 z ) 2h

k =1

pk ( x1 , x2 , t ).N k ( x3 )
( x3 z ) N1 ( x3 ) = cos 2 h

( x3 z ) pw1 p1 ( x1 , x2 , t ) cos h 2 ( x3 z ) dV 01 D1 ( x1 , x2 , t ) cos h 2

x3

N1 ( x3 )

M4 Depth Integrated Models : (ii) Consolidation

Dpw1 pw1 = cv Em dV 01 x3 x3 Dt

pw1 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , t ) dV 01 ( x1 , x2 , x3 , t )
( x3 z ) dV 01 D1 ( x1 , x2 , t ) cos 2 h

( x3 z ) pw1 P 1 ( x1 , x2 , t ) cos h 2

Integrating along depth:

2 dP 1 = 2 cv P 1 + Em D1 4h dt

dP P P P 1 = 1 + v1 1 + v2 1 t x1 x2 dt

D1 depends on rheology

Toyoura sand
CU Dr = 63,7%
4000 3500
1200

CU Dr = 18,5%
Toyoura Sand (Dr = 18.5%) ensayo prediccin

Tensin Desviadora, q

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0

ensayo prediccin

Tensin Desviadora, q

Toyoura Sand (Dr = 63,7%)

1000

800

600

400

200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Tensin Efectiva Principal, p

4000 3500
1200

Tensin Efectiva Principal, p

Toyoura Sand (Dr = 18.5%)

Tensin Desviadora, q

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

Tensin Desviadora, q

1000

800

600

400

Toyoura Sand (Dr = 63,7%)

200

0 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

Deformacin Axial

Deformacin Axial

Debonding
Reduction of yield surface size q Lagioia & Nova, 1995

GPM for bonded geomaterials Fernndez-Merodo et al., CMAME 2004

Validation
Lagioia & Nova, 1995

CD test at cell pressure 1300 kPa

Isotropic compression test

Oedometric test

Unstable soil behaviour induced by saturation

400 350 Tensin desviadora, q [kPa] 300 250

A1
200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Tensin principal efectiva, p" [kPa]
s s s s s =0 = 100kPa = 300kPa = 600kPa =1200kPa

A0

Pressure

Rate of shear strain

R3 Behaviour of fluidized soil

Shear stress

: linear concentration

Rate of shear strain

Perzyna Visco Plasticity

' = De : d dvp
d vp = m ( F )

F F0 (F) = F0
F

F0

Perzyna Visco Plasticity

= ' pwI
D = + . . Dt

1 vi v j d = grad sym v dij = + 2 x j xi

1 vi v j ij = 2 x j xi

' = De : d dvp

d vp = m ( F )
(F) =
F F0 F 0
N

Discretization: 2 steps Taylor Galerkin (Donea, Morgan, Zienkiewicz, Peraire..)

F + =s t x

n +1

F = s t x
n+ 1 2

= + t t
n

t
n

n+

1 2

F =s x

n+

1 2

Step 1

n+

1 2

t t F n = + = + s x 2 t 2
n

1 n+ 2

n+

1 2

s
1 2

n+

1 2

Step 2

n +1

F = + t s x
n

n+

Example: 1D Bar
v(t)

v(t)

to

1D Elastic bar
( Newmark 0.5 0.0 )

1D Elastic bar
( Taylor galerkin )

1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 -200,000 0 Stress (N/m2)

1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 -200,000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Stress (N/m2)

0.002

0.004

0.006 0.008 time (s)

0.01

0.012

time (s)

Stress at left end (Newmark vs Taylor Galerkin)

Example: 2D Localization

R1

R2

R3

Numerical Model (II) Fractional step

1st order equations: coupled problems
v = div + b t & vp = D e grad s v D e t

v = div ' grad pw + b t & vp = D e grad s v D e t 1 dpw = div ( k grad pw ) div v * Q dt

Incompressible, impermeable limit

1 dpw = div ( k grad pw ) div v * Q dt

div v = 0

Application: localization in a Cam Clay viscoplastic specimen

(a)

(b)

Why SPH?
Alternative methods Finite differences Finite elements Finite Volumes Meshless: SPH (Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics) Grid based Problems with bodies of varying geommetry (Fluids with free surface, avalanches) VOF Level Set Grid Based

Integral approximation of functions

< ( x ) > ( x ') W ( x ' x, h ) dx '

Kernel properties
lim W ( x ' x, h) = ( x )
h 0

W ( x ' x, h ) dx ' = 1

W ( x ' x, h) = 0 if

x ' x kh

Monotonous decreasing function of x

Benchmarks and applications

Strain localization in saturated soil

Benchmarks and applications

Strain localization in saturated soil

Benchmarks and applications

Vertical cut under gravity (Von Mises)

E = 8 107 Pa = 0.3

= 2000 kg / m3 = 2 s -1 N = 1 0 = 125000 Pa H = 8 106 Pa