Lecture 3

Drained and Undrained Analysis

and
Consolidation Considerations
Harry Tan Siew Ann
Centre for Soft Ground Engineering
National University of Singapore

Some of the used material was originally created by:

Prof. Helmut Schweiger, Technical University of Graz, Austria

Contents
Definition drained / undrained
Drained / undrained soil behaviour
Typical results from drained and undrained triaxial tests
Skemptons parameters A and B
Modelling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
In terms of effective stresses with drained strength parameters
In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength parameters
In terms of total stresses
Influence of constitutive model and parameters
Influence of dilatancy
Undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
Undrained behaviour with Hardening Soil Model
Excavation Example
Summary

1
Drained / undrained

Drained analysis appropriate when

Permeability is high
Rate of loading is low
Short term behaviour is not of interest for problem
considered

Undrained analysis appropriate when

Permeability is low and rate of loading is high
Short term behaviour has to be assessed

Drained / undrained

Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

T < 0.10 (U < 10%) use undrained conditions
T > 0.40 (U > 70%) use drained conditions

k = Permeability
k E oed
T= t Eoed = Oedometer modulus
w D2 w = Unit weight of water
D = Drainage length
t = Construction time
T = Dimensionless time factor
U = Degree of consolidation

2
 Undrained behaviour

Implications of undrained soil behaviour:

Excess pore pressures are generated

No volume change
In fact small volumetric strains develop because a
finite (but high) bulk modulus of water is introduced
in the finite element formulation
Predicted undrained shear strength depends on soil
model used
Assumption of dilatancy angle has serious effects on
results

Undrained behaviour
Results from undrained triaxial tests using the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Model

3
 Triaxial test (NC) drained / undrained
Typical results from drained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(from Atkinson & Bransby, 1978)

Triaxial test (OC) drained / undrained

Typical results from drained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils

4
 Undrained triaxial test NC / OC
Typical results from undrained triaxial tests on (a) normally consolidated and (b) overconsolidated clay
(from Ortigao, 1995)

Skemptons parameters A and B

Skempton 1954: pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]
- Fully saturated soil
- No inflow / outflow of pore water
- Bulk modulus of soil grains is considered to be very high
- Isotropic linear elastic material behaviour (Hookes law)

vol , skeleton = vol , pore water

p' E
vol , skeleton = K' =
K' 3(1 2 )
n p w
vol , pore water =
Kw

5
Skemptons parameters A and B
Assuming triaxial compression: 1 ; 2 = 3

1 + 2 3 3 pw K w
p w =
3K ' n

1 1
leading to pw =
nK ' 3 + 3 ( 1 3 )
1+
Kw

pw = B [ 3 + A( 1 3 )]

1 1
with B= A=
nK ' 3
1+
Kw

Skemptons parameters A and B

Notes on parameters A and B:

For Kw large compared to K, parameter B ~ 1.0

(corresponds to pw = p > p = 0)
Small amount of drapped air reduces parameter B
significantly (see next figure)
Parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic
material behaviour
Parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex
elastic-plastic constitutive models but is a result of the
model behaviour for the stress path followed

6
Skemptons parameters A and B

Dependence of pore pressure parameter B on degree of saturation

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained material
type is chosen using the following approximation:

Kw Eu 2 G (1 + u )
K total = K ' + = =
n 3(1 2 u ) 3(1 2 u )

E' (1 + u )
K total = assuming u = 0.495
3(1 2 u ) (1 + ')

Notes:
This procedure gives reasonable B-values only for < 0.35 !
Real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for n = 0.5)
In Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely for undrained materials

7
Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS
Example 1:

E = 3 000 kPa, = 0.3, u = 0.495

K = 2 500 kPa, Ktotal = 115 000 kPa Kw/n = 112 500 kPa
1
with B= = 0.978 > reasonable value for saturated soil
nK '
1+
Kw

Example 2:

E = 3 000 kPa, = 0.45, u = 0.495

K = 10 000 kPa, Ktotal = 103 103 kPa Kw/n = 93 103 kPa

B = 0.903 > poor value for saturated soil

Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS

Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters c, ,
effective stiffness parameters E50,

Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained
undrained strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50,

Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

8
 Undrained behaviour with PLAXIS
Notes on different methods:

Method A:
Recommended
Soil behaviour is always governed by effective stresses
Increase of shear strength during consolidation included
Essential for exploiting features of advanced models such as the
Hardening Soil model, the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
Method B:
Only when no information on effective strength parameters is avilable
Cannot be used with the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
Method C:
NOT recommended
No information on excess pore pressure distribution (total stress analysis)

Undrained strength from Mohr circle

Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour
(Mohr Coulomb in elastic range)
pw = p > p = 0

centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point

cu =
2
(
1 'o
)
x + 'yo sin ' + c' cos '

Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)

9
 Influence of constitutive model
Parameter sets for Hardening Soil model
ref ref ref ref nc
Model Number E50 E ur Eoed 5 c ur p m K0 Rf
2 2 2 2 2
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m - kN/m - - -

HS_1 30 000 90 000 30 000 35 0 / 10 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

HS_2 50 000 150 000 50 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

HS_3 15 000 45 000 15 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

HS_4 30 000 90 000 40 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

HS_5 30 000 90 000 15 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

HS_6 50 000 150 000 30 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

Parameters for MC Model

2
E = 30 000 kN/m
= 0.2
= 35
5 = 0 and 10 see also Schweiger (2002)

Comparison MC-HS (influence )

Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs 1
300

275

250

225

200

175
q [kN/m ]
2

150

125

100

75
MC non dil
50 MC dil
HS_1 non dil
25 HS_1 dil

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

1 [%]

10
 Comparison MC-HS (influence )
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs p
300

275 MC non dil

MC dil
250 HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
225 total stress path
200

175
q [kN/m ]
2

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00
2
p' [kN/m ]

Comparison MC-HS (influence )

Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - pw vs 1
100

90 MC non dil
MC dil
80
HS_1 non dil
excess pore pressure [kN/m ]
2

70 HS_1 dil

60

50

40

30

20

10

-10

-20
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

1 [%]

11
 Comparison MC-HS (influence )
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - A vs 1
1.0
0.9 MC non dil
0.8 MC dil
HS_1 non dil
0.7 HS_1 dil
0.6
0.5
parameter A

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

1 [%]

Parameter variation Hardening Soil

Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs p
150

HS_1
HS_2
125 HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
100 HS_6
total stress path
q [kN/m ]
2

75

50

25

0
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00
2
p' [kN/m ]

12
 Parameter variation Hardening Soil
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs 1
150

125

100
q [kN/m ]
2

75

50 HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
25 HS_4
HS_5
HS_6

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

1 [%]

Parameter variation Hardening Soil

Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - pw vs 1
80

70
excess pore pressure [kN/m ]
2

60

50

40

30
HS_1
HS_2
20
HS_3
HS_4
10 HS_5
HS_6
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

1 [%]

13
 Parameter variation Hardening Soil
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - A vs 1
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
parameter A

0.4

0.3
HS_1
HS_2
0.2 HS_3
HS_4
0.1 HS_5
HS_6

0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

1 [%]

Summary
Undrained analysis should be performed in effective
stresses and with effective stiffness and strength parameters

Undrained shear strength is result of the constitutive model

Care must be taken with choice of value for dilatancy angle

Note that for NC-soils in general:

Factor of safety against failure is lower for short term
(undrained) conditions for loading problems (e.g. embankment)
Factor of safety against failure is lower for long term (drained)
conditions for unloading problems (e.g. excavations)

14
 Real Excavation Case in Stiff Residual
Soils-What is likely Field Conditions?

cv *t
T= 2
H

Cv=66 m2/day
H = 15 m
Cv=125 m2/day

Cv=53 m2/day

What is West Coast Station Situation ???

Consolidation Considerations in Excavation

Parameters for West Coast Station

Cv= 50 m2/day
H=15 m
t = 100 days
T=50*100/(15*15) = 22.2 >>> 0.4
Situation on Passive Side is likely to be DRAINED
Condition

15
Excess PP at Formation Level for k=1e-7 and 1e-8 m/s

Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s

Displacements at Formation Level

16
 Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s
BMs at Formation Level

Wall Deflection at B (15/83.85 1.65m above FL)

Ux at B
Ux at B [m]
0.2
DRN

UND

0.15
k=1e-7

k=1e-8

0.1 k=1e-9

0.05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [day]

17
 Heave at C(0/78.7 3.5m below FL)
Uy at C
Heave at C [m]
0.035
DRN

0.03
UND

0.025
k=1e-7

0.02
k=1e-8

0.015 k=1e-9

0.01

5e-3

-5e-3
0 30 60 90 120
Time [day]

Sengkang Cantilever CBP Wall

Type 3 Wall - 1000mm CBP

115

I4-4/02/03 I4-8/04/03

110

105
Elevatio n RL (m )

100
Undrained

Drained

Consolidate 100 days

95

90
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Wall Deflection (m)

18
References
Atkinson, J.H., Bransby, P.L. (1978)
The Mechanics of Soils, An Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw Hill
Ortigao, J.A.R. (1995)
Soil Mechanics in the Light of Critical State Theories An Introduction. Balkema
Schweiger, H.F. (2002)
Some remarks on pore pressure parameters A and B in undrained analyses with the Hardening Soil
Model. Plaxis Bulletin No.12
Skempton, A.W. (1954)
The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143-147
Vermeer, P.A., Meier, C.-P. (1998)
Proceedings Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt, 177-191

19