CIVL841-Analytical and numerical methods in Geomechanics

Name: Ioannis Vazaios-St.Number: 10123567

Assignments 3 and 4

Question 1: Footing bearing capacity for a cohesive, frictionless soil

In order to examine the accuracy of the numerical solution for the bearing capacity of a footing
using FEA code Phase2 from Rocscience, the model illustrated in figure 1 was used. The main
geometrical features of the model and its boundary conditions are illustrated in this particular
figure as well.


Figure 1 FEA model of a footing on a cohesive, frictionless soil
In the figure above it can be observed that the mesh has been refined in the area around the
footing in order to increase the accuracy of the result. Although 3-node triangular elements are
not suitable for the numerical analysis of purely cohesive soils, with refinement of the mesh
around the area of interest additional degrees of freedom will be added in order to overcome
problems regarding the desired response of the analysis. However, a very refined mesh can result
is various problems due to the low stiffness of the very small elements and thus refinement of the
mesh must be done with caution. Additional geometrical features of the model include the width
of the footing which is B=5.0m and its height is H=1.0m. The properties of the materials assigned
to the different components of the model are listed in table 1.

Properties Soil Concrete
Youngs Modulus E (MPa) 30 30,000
Poissons ratio v 0.25 0.2
Cohesion (kPa) 10 Not applicable
Friction angle (
0
) 0 Not applicable
Dilation angle (
0
) 0 Not applicable
Table 1 Material Properties
The soil is assumed to have an elasto-plastic behaviour obeying the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion for a purely cohesive material, while the footing which is made of concrete is assumed
50m
100m
to have an elastic response. The footing can be considered to be rigid as E
concrete
/E
soil
=1,000 which
indicates that the relative stiffness between the footing and the soil is expected to be relatively
high. In the analysis conducted an initial, geostatic stress field was not applied; hence the only
stresses developing in the soil are the result of the loading of the footing.
Continuing with the analysis, it was divided in 31 stages in order to examine thoroughly the
response of the stresses applied on the ground due to the loading sequence applied on the footing.
However, in order to prevent numerical instabilities and possible convergence problems by
exceeding the bearing capacity of the soil, the loading sequence applied was in the form of
prescribed displacements applied on the footing rather than in the form of a distributed load. The
final magnitude of the prescribed displacements was 0.75m starting from 0 and was increased at
each stage by 5%.
At each single step the pressure applied on the ground surface was examined along the entire
width of the footing. The distribution of the pressure under the footing at the final stage of the
analysis is illustrated in figure 2.


Figure 2 Stress distribution below the footing
From the figure above it can be observed that the stress is approximately maintained constant at
the central points of the footing but at the edges of it there are rather significant stress
concentrations. These stress concentrations are the result of the cohesive nature of the soil in this
case. The rigid footing is moving downwards due to the prescribed displacements, therefore the
displacement is uniform. The points close to the centre of the footing are moving downwards due
the displacement of it. However, the points of the ground close to the edges of the footing do not
have the same response in order to follow the displacement of it, thus stress concentrations occur
in order to make these points follow the same displacement of the rest of the ground surface
below the footing. Continuing the assessment of the data, these stress concentrations will not be
taken into account and the average stress developing below the footing will be estimated for each
stage as illustrated in table 2. Additionally, from the average stress acting below the footing, the
total force is calculated by multiplying the stress with the width of it.

v/v
total

Deflection v per step
(m)
p(MPa) F(MN/m)
0 0 0 0
0.05 0.025 0.007027 0.035137
0.1 0.05 0.014644 0.073221
0.15 0.075 0.022553 0.112767
0.2 0.1 0.029957 0.149783
0.25 0.125 0.033911 0.169557
0.3 0.15 0.036201 0.181005
0.35 0.175 0.038012 0.19006
0.4 0.2 0.039498 0.197488
0.45 0.225 0.040815 0.204077
0.5 0.25 0.041979 0.209893
0.55 0.275 0.043058 0.215288
0.6 0.3 0.044016 0.220079
0.65 0.325 0.044877 0.224386
0.7 0.35 0.045693 0.228467
0.75 0.375 0.046436 0.232178
0.8 0.4 0.047107 0.235533
0.85 0.425 0.047718 0.23859
0.9 0.45 0.048259 0.241293
0.95 0.475 0.048724 0.243619
1 0.5 0.049115 0.245577
1.05 0.525 0.049466 0.24733
1.1 0.55 0.049757 0.248786
1.15 0.575 0.049999 0.249995
1.2 0.6 0.050194 0.250971
1.25 0.625 0.050373 0.251866
1.3 0.65 0.050561 0.252806
1.35 0.675 0.050727 0.253633
1.4 0.7 0.050899 0.254497
1.45 0.725 0.051063 0.255313
1.5 0.75 0.051213 0.256064
Table 2 Average stress and force for each deflection step
From the table above the following figure is produced.


Figure 3 Numerical versus Analytical solution of the bearing capacity of the footing
In figure 3 the closed solution derived by Prandtl for the bearing capacity of a footing is
compared to the staged, numerical solution. Prandtls expression is the following:

B c P * ) 2 ( * t + = in which, c, is the cohesion of the soil and, B, is the width of the footing

For this specific case the bearing capacity of the footing is q
u
=10*5.14=51.4kPa, thus the force
respectively is P=257kN/m=0.257MN/m. From figure 3 it can be inferred that the numerical
solution converges to the analytical one at the limit state of the footing.

Question 2: UCS test for a cohesive, frictionless soil specimen

In the following example the simulation of an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test will be
discussed. The numerical simulation of this particular example was conducted using FEA
software Phase2 from Rocscience. The configuration of the model is illustrated in figure 4. The
model consists of the soil specimen, which has the same properties as the soil in the previous
question and they are listed in table 1, and the steel plates of the UCS test apparatus, which are
made of steel with Youngs modulus E=210GPa and Poissons ratio v=0.3. The steel plates are
2cm thick while the diameter of the specimen is 5cm and its height 10cm. The steel plates are
assumed to have an elastic response during the analysis, while the soil specimen is assumed to
have an elasto-plastic response obeying the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. Again, as in the previous
question, the loading sequence is applied indirectly via prescribed displacements assigned to the
upper plate while the lower plate maintains its initial position. The loading sequence is divided
into 64 stages in order to obtain the full response of the specimen during loading until it reaches
its yield stress, unloading and reloading again until it reaches its yield stress. Analytically the
yield stress of a frictionless, cohesive material is obtained by the following expression:

kPa c UCS 20 10 * 2 * 2 = = =

In order to make the specimen reach its peak strength the final, compressive displacement value
assigned is u7.5e-05m. Again, this displacement value was staged starting from 0 and increased
by 5% at each step. The results of the analysis are illustrated in figure 5.

Figure 4 FEA model for a UCS test

Figure 5 Axial stress versus axial strain for one loading cycle
From figure 5 it can be observed that the response of the specimen is elastic until it reaches
approximately its analytically defined peak strength of 20 kPa. Then its behaviour is perfectly
plastic. The specimen is then unloaded by reducing the prescribed displacement to zero and then
it is reloaded again it reaches its peak strength. In the post peak region the material behaves as
perfectly plastic and the stress applied on the specimen is equal to the peak strength of the soil.
Additionally, it can be observed that the linear branches during loading, unloading and reloading
are approximately parallel, indicating that the elasticity modulus remains constant through the
whole analysis and it is not affected by the loading condition. Finally, it has to be noted that the
2D simulation of the UCS test should be better performed by applying an axisymmetric analysis
rather than a plane strain analysis, as the simulation of this kind of problems involves three
dimensional phenomena.
Question 3: Derive the expressions of Mohr-Coulomb criterion in (s,t) and
(p,q) space

In the first part of this section the expressions of Mohr-Coulomb criterion will be derived for the
(s,t) space in which:
-
2
3 1
o o +
= s
-
2
3 1
o o
= t
In figure 6 the above mentioned are illustrated.


Figure 6 Schematic of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
The expression of the Mohr circle can also be written in the following form:

0
2 2
= I + B + A + + t o t o

Therefore, the centre of the Mohr circle can be written in the following form as well:

( )
3 1
2 1
, 0
0 ,
2
2
,
2
o o
o o
+ = A = B

|
.
|

\
| +
|
.
|

\
|

S
B A
S

And the radius of the circle respectively:

3 1 3 1
2
3
2
1 3 1
3 1
2 2
4 2
2
2
4
o o o o o o o o
o o
= I I + + =

=
I +
=
t
B A
t





Therefore, the Mohr circle can be written in the form below by substituting the quantities above
and because the circle of failure is tangential to failure locus the following system of equations
can be produced:

( )
( ) ( ) 0 tan
tan
0
3 1 3 1
2 2 3 1 3 1
2 2
= + + + +
)
`

+ =
= + + +
o o o o o | o o
| o t
o o o o o t o
c
c


Thus from this equation the following 2
nd
order polynomial is derived:

( ) ( ) 0 tan 2 tan 1
3 1 3 1
2 2
= + + + o o o o | o | o c (x
2
+x+=0)

But this polynomial although is a polynomial of 2
nd
order it has only one solution as the failure
locus and the Mohr circle have only one, unique point in common as the failure locus is the
tangent of the Mohr circle. Therefore:

|
o o
|
|
|
o o |
o
|
o
2
3 1
2 2
3 1
tan 1
1
2 tan 1
tan
) tan 1 ( 2
) ( tan 2
2 +
+
+
+
=
+
+
= =
c c
solution


And by substituting the solution to the expression of the failure locus the following expression is
obtained:

( )
( )
|
| o o
|
|
|
|
o o |
| o t
2
3 1
2
2
2
3 1
tan 1
tan
2 tan 1
tan
tan
tan 1 2
tan 2
tan
+
+
+
+
=
=
(

+
+
+ = + =
c
c
c
c c
solution solution


Additionally, from figure 6 it can be observed that:

| |
o o
t cos cos
2
3 1
t
solution
=

=

Thus, the following expression can be derived:

|
| o o
|
|
|
2
3 1
2
2
tan 1
tan
2 tan 1
tan
cos
+
+
+
+
=
c
c t but
|
|
|
cos
sin
tan = and
2
3 1
o o +
= s

So
| | sin cos s c t + =

But the expression above can also be written in the following form:

A s B t tan + = in which
( ) | |
|
sin tan sin tan
cos
1
= A =
=
A
c B


In the second part of this section the expressions of Mohr-Coulomb criterion will be derived for
the (p,q) space in which:
-
3
3 2 1
o o o + +
= p
-
3 1
o o = q
Assuming that
2
=
3
(compression)

the expressions above can be written in the following form:
( )
3
2 3
2 2 3 2 3
2 3
1 1 1 1
1 3
3 1
q p
q p q p
q
p
+
= + = =
)
`

=
=
o o o o
o o
o o

Thus
3
3
3
3 2 3
1 3
q p q q p
q

=
+
= = o o

Therefore,
3
6
3
3 2 3
3 1
q p q p q p +
=
+ +
= +o o

From the derivation of the expressions for the Moh-Coulomb criterion in the (s,t) space the
following equation was used:
|
|
|
|
| |
| | |
o o
|
o o
sin 3
cos 6
sin 3
sin 6
sin
3
6
cos 2
sin
6
6
cos
2
sin
2
cos
2
3 1 3 1

=
+
+ =

+
+ =
+
+ =

c
p q
q p
c q
q p
c
q
c

Therefore, the slope of the Mohr-Coulomb failure locus in (p,q) space for compression is:
|
|
sin 3
sin 6

= M
c

Assuming that
2
=
1
(extension)

the expressions above can be written in the following form:
3
6
3
2 3
3
3
3
2 3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3 2
3 2
3 1
3
1 1 1 1
1 3
3 1
q p q p q p
q p q q p
q
q p
q p
q p q p
q
p

+
+
= +

=
+
=
+
=
+
= + = + =
)
`

=
=
o o
o
o o o o
o o
o o

Thus,
p
c
q
q p c q
q p
c q
q p
c
q
c
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
| | |
o o
|
o o
sin 3
sin 6
sin 3
cos 6
sin sin 6 cos 6 3 sin
3
6
cos 2
sin
6
6
cos
2
sin
2
cos
2
3 1 3 1
+
+
+
=
+ =

+ =

+ =
+
+ =

Therefore, the slope of the Mohr-Coulomb failure locus in (p,q) space for extension is:
|
|
sin 3
sin 6
+
= M
e


Question 4: Deriving the plastic matrix for two loading cases for a purely
cohesive material (=0
0
, c0)






Table 3 Calculus for the plastic matrix for a purely cohesive soil
Properties
E(kPa) 30000
v 0.25
c(kPa) 10
(0) 0
(0) 0

Stress Field Case1 Case2
xx(kPa) 0 20
yy(kPa) 20 20
xy(kPa) 0 10
(0) 90 0
k1 1 1
k2 1 1

Case1 Case2
R1C1 0.25 0.00
R1C2 -0.25 0.00
R1C3 0.00 0.00
R1C4 0.00 0.00
R2C1 -0.25 0.00
R2C2 0.25 0.00
R2C3 0.00 0.00
R2C4 0.00 0.00
R3C1 0.00 0.00
R3C2 0.00 0.00
R3C3 0.00 0.25
R3C4 0.00 0.00
R4C1 0.00 0.00
R4C2 0.00 0.00
R4C3 0.00 0.00
R4C4 0.00 0.00



Plastic
matrix
Case1 Case2
B 48000

C1 0.5 0
C2 -0.5 0
C3 0 0.5
C4 0 0
R1 0.5 0
R2 -0.5 0
R3 0 0.5
R4 0 0
Table 4 Elastic Constitutive matrix
De 1 2 3 4
1 36000 12000 0 12000
2 12000 36000 0 12000
3 0 0 12000 0
4 12000 12000 0 36000

Table 5 Plastic Constitutive matrix for unconfined compression
Case1 Dp 1 2 3 4
1 12000 -12000 0 0
2 -12000 12000 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0

Table 6 Plastic constitutive matrix for the shear loading case
Case2 Dp 1 2 3 4
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 12000 0
4 0 0 0 0

Table 7 Total constitutive matrix for unconfined compression
Total matrix Case1 1 2 3 4
1 24000 24000 0 12000
2 24000 24000 0 12000
3 0 0 12000 0
4 12000 12000 0 36000

Table 8 Total constitutive matrix for the shear loading case
Total matrix Case2 1 2 3 4
1 36000 12000 0 12000
2 12000 36000 0 12000
3 0 0 0 0
4 12000 12000 0 36000


References
Griffiths D.V., Willson S.M., 1986, An explicit form of the plastic matrix for Mohr-
Coulomb material. Communications is Applied Numerical Methods. Vol. 2, pp.
523-529.
Smith I.M., Griffiths D.V., 2004, Programming the Finite Element Method, Willey,
4
th
ed., West Sussex, England.
Moore, I.D., 2013, CIVL 841: Analytical and Numerical methods in Geomechanics,
course material, Department of Civil Engineering, Queens University, Kingston
ON, Canada.