Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua: 4.1 Bearing Capacity of A Superficial Foundation 72

Getting started with ZSOIL.
PC
CHAPTER 4. SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA
Contents
4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation 72
4.1.1 Data preparation 72
4.1.2 Results 78
4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking 82
4.1.4 Validation 83
4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut 84
4.2.1 C- reduction and other algorithms for safety evaluation 84
4.2.3 Results 88
4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation 89
4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis 92
4.2.6 Validation 93
4.3 Initial state 94
4.3.1 Algorithm 94
4.3.3 Results 99
4.4 References 103
Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 71

Getting started with ZSOIL.PC
We analyze in this chapter three problems which are typical of geotechnical works:
bearing capacity of foundations, slope stability, and initial state definition.
4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation
The bearing capacity of a superficial foundation is a classical problem of geotechnics. We

will see how to solve it with ZSOIL and compare results with formula proposed in
literature.
Consider a rigid circular footing of diameter 1 m, subjected to a load which increases
linearly from “0” until failure is reached.
4.1.1 Data preparation
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of a driver algorithm and associated
load function (which defines the evolution of load in time), geometric and material data;
we will assume here that the foundation-soil interface is rough (no relative motion
possible). Only data necessary for problem specification will be introduced, convergence
and algorithmic data are left to their default values.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex_4_1_FootingAxisym.inp
We have an Axisymmetric, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced option,

no preprocessed preliminary analysis (see Fig. 4.1, driver selection). Time
dependent/Driven load driver is activated for an analysis running from time 0 to 30
with steps of 1 [day]. In fact the unit is unimportant here, this driver will increment time
(fictitious time here: time steps are simply load steps, no units involved).
Remark:
- The preprocessing procedure is explained in the following pages. You can either
follow this procedure, or just open the preexisting ZSOIL data file.

Fig. 4.1 Driver selection for (time-dependent) driven load analysis
Control and algorithmic parameters are left to their default values and do not need to be
specified by the user.
Fig. 4.2 Default control and algorithmic selections

ASSEMBLY/Preprocessing
Geometry, boundary conditions, loads, and materials are defined here.
Enter the geometrical preprocessor by selecting menu option
Assembly/Preprocessing.
First, switch off the grid (press the G key) and the axes (press the A key).
Next, define the contour of the mesh, including the position of the building and the
bottom boundary. For this, move to Macro Model/Point/Create/Point option, and
create the following points, using the Apply button:
Foundation:
- (0; 0) (1; 0) (1; 0.4) (0; 0.4)
Domain boundary:
- (15; 0) (15; -15) (0; -15)
Additional points:
- (7; 0) (0; -6) (7; -6)
Note: leave third coordinate z = 0
Press CTRL-F to optimize zoom with the newly created points.
Now move to Macro Model/Objects/Line/By 2 Points and define the contour of the
mesh, as shown in Fig. 4.3 (uncheck the Continue checkbox if necessary. When this
option is switched on in the dialog box, you don’t have to click twice on each node to
indicate the end of a line and the start of a new one). Then click on the Close button.
Fig. 4.3 Footing preprocessing: macro model

Select option Macro Model/Subdomain/Create/Continuum inside contour, and

click successively inside of the 3 subdomains.
Click on Update/Parameters and assign Initial material number 2 to the subdomain
which defines the footing.
Remark:
- you can use the tool located on the right hand side of the screen, in order to
zoom. To come back to a general view, press CTRL-F.
Now, select the Mesh/Create virtual mesh method and click inside the subdomain
defining the footing. Structured mesh type is selected by default, as this subdomain has
four control points. Set Edge 1-2 split to 4 and Edge 1-4 split to 4. Then click on Create
virtual mesh.
Then, click inside of the subdomain under the footing, select unstructured mesh type,
and set approximate element size to 0.35 m. Click on Create virtual mesh.
Finally, click inside of the remaining subdomain, select unstructured mesh type, and set
approximate element size to 1.0 m. Click on Create virtual mesh, and Close.
Select Mesh/Virtual -> Real mesh method and click successively inside of the 3
subdomains. Then, press CTRL-M in order to hide the macro model, and to leave only
the FE model (nodes and elements, see Fig. 4.4)
Then, move to FE model/Boundary Conditions/Solid BC/On box in order to create

default box displacement boundary conditions.
The geometry of the load, location and initial amplitude, is defined with the
preprocessor. As the foundation is rigid, it does not matter whether a uniformly
distributed or an isolated nodal load is introduced. So move to FE model/Loads/Nodal
Loads/On Node method, click on the upper-left node of the footing, and define FY = -1,
and load function = 1.
Remark:
- in case of trouble, you may always cancel the last (five) action(s) with Windows
Menu Command Edit/Undo.
You may now exit the graphical preprocessor and save your work (File/Exit menu, and
answer Yes). Back in the principal Z_SOIL screen, select File/Save menu.

Fig. 4.4 Footing model, finite element mesh
ASSEMBLY/Load-time function
When the load geometry is defined load-time function number 1 was associated with it.
The time-evolution of the load in time is handled by a load function Assembly/Load
function (Fig.4.5), which multiplies the value entered in the geometric definition of the
load such that :
F(x,t) = P(x)* f(t)
A unit load P = [0, -1] was applied in direction (–Y) which will increase from 0 (actually
1) to 30, as time (fictitious) increases, unless divergence occurs and an ultimate load is
found.

Fig. 4.5 Load-time function, superficial foundation
ASSEMBLY/Material
We will assume that the foundation itself is elastic, weightless and fairly rigid
Data needed are:
Elastic modulus E = 30’000’000 kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2
For soil we consider a weightless Mohr-Coulomb material, characterized by:
Elastic modulus E = 30’000 kN/m2
Cohesion C = 15 kN/m2
Friction angle φ = 25 o
Dilatancy angle ψ = 0 o (incompressible plastic flow)
Remark:
- values of ψ < φ - 25o can lead to numerical problems.
ANALYSIS/Run analysis
Once data are ready the analysis can start, ANALYSIS /Run Analysis, the *.inp file will
be completed and optimized into a *.dat file, nodes will be renumbered to optimize the
solution procedure and a data check will be performed before the run starts.

4.1.2 Results
We observe that failure to converge occurs at time step 20, Fig. 4.6. The last
converged solution was obtained at the previous step and this corresponds to the
load carrying capacity. Displacement vectors at diverged step only give an indication
about the mechanism.
Fig.4.6 Displacement vectors and time log, under Graph option/displacement

vectors, and Time/Select time
The corresponding ultimate load can be calculated by first reading load-time function
value reached at the last converged step and second multiplying it by the load defined in
the geometrical screen, hence:
LTF (step 19) = 1’900

Ultimate Load = Load(x) * LTF(tdivergence-1)= -1 * 1’900 = -1’900 kN

Load function
Load function
number
19
Fig. 4.7 Definition of ultimate load
The mechanism of failure can be observed using Graph option/Maps. Comparison of a

converged step with a diverged one clearly indicates a localization phenomenon.
Fig. 4.8 Displacement amplitudes before and at failure
Alternatively, displacements vectors (see above Fig. 4.6) also give an indication about
the failure mechanism.

The log file, (see Results/View Logfile in the main ZSOIL menu) gives information
about the convergence procedure.
Fig. 4.9 Logfile
In the LOG file at time step 1, iteration 1 we read 1.000E+02, this is the initial Euler-
norm of the right hand side (RHS), a measure of the applied load increment. In the same
column in the following lines we see the evolution of this norm of the RHS during
iterations. The 2nd column represents the same values, but normed by 1.000E+02, the
initial RHS norm. At the last iteration we must satisfy the convergence criteria and
indeed we have, at step 1 and iteration 2, 3.687E-12< 1.000E-02, which is the tolerance
of out-of balance on the right-hand-side. At step 2 it takes 3 iterations to satisfy the
convergence condition and, at failure, it is not satisfied after 16 iterations.
The other columns give indications about convergence in the energy norm, incremental
and total.

Finally, the displacement time-history indicates an unstable vertical displacement. For

that, go to Results/Postprocessing/Graph Option/Nodal time-history, pick any
node below the footing, and under Settings/Graph. Contents, select Displacement-Y
for vertical axis (see Fig. 4.10), observe that the vertical displacement increments in
each step tend to increase when getting closer to the ultimate load.
Fig. 4.10 Vertical displacement time-history under the footing

4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking
It is important to realize that most soil mechanics problems are subject to severe locking
under incompressible or dilatant plastic flow (i.e. ψ≥0), meaning always, at least if an
inappropriate finite element formulation is used. This locking phenomenon is similar to
the one discussed earlier for incompressible elasticity. It is illustrated below (Fig. 4.11).
Observe that the numerical solution significantly overshoots analytical solutions unless
appropriate provisions are taken.
BBAR elements, EAS elements and stabilized mixed formulations associated with low
order elements, 4 node QUADS in this case, have been proven to provide appropriate
solutions to these locking phenomena and all three approaches are available in ZSOIL.
The user can rely on automatic internal choices, unless he wants to experiment. A user
interface gives access to modification of default selections under Control/Finite
Elements (only when the advanced version is activated).
Fig. 4.11 Illustration of ultimate load overshoot due to locking phenomena, comparison
with formula from literature, case of a superficial footing

4.1.4 Validation
It is important to compare ultimate loads predicted with ZSOIL with results obtained by
different approaches; this is done in Fig. 4.12, where results obtained with ZSOIL using
a smooth Mohr-Coulomb (by specialization of Menetrey-Willam) material are compared
with formula proposed in literature. Observe that ZSOIL results obtained with the
smooth Mohr-Coulomb show an excellent match with the analytical formula proposed by
[Salençon & Matar, 1982]. Observe also the huge difference between results obtained
with Drucker-Prager criterion adjusted to external edges and Drucker-Prager adjusted to
internal edges of the Mohr Coulomb criterion; this indicates that great care must be
taken to select the proper size adjustment when a Drucker-Prager criterion is used as a
substitute to Mohr-Coulomb.
Fig. 4.12 Bearing capacity of circular footing, comparison of ZSOIL smooth Mohr-
Coulomb model with published results

4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut
Slope stability is another typical problem of geotechnical engineering. The case of the
stability analysis of a vertical cut is considered here, but the methodology applies to any
slope stability problem.
4.2.1 C- reduction and other algorithms for safety evaluation
The algorithm is pictured in Fig. 4.13. Starting from the definition of the safety factor
and the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion (here stress y) we easily establish that the safety
factor of a given slope can be assessed by simply dividing cohesion and (tangent of)
friction angle by a factor which increases progressively from 1 to a value corresponding
to onset of global instability. The strict equivalence of this approach with the more
traditional kinematic approach will however be true only when SF is reasonably close to
1.
Assume
STABILITY ALGORITHM
 y
ds
SF  s
  ds
s
s with
 y  C   n tan 
then
 y  C   n tan d s
  d s 
s
s
SF
  (C / SF )   n (tan  / SF )d s
s
Algorithm: -set C’= C/SF

tan ’=(tan )/SF
-increase SF till instability occurs
Fig. 4.13 C- reduction algorithm
Remark:
- Of course C- reduction applies only to criteria which have C and  as
parameters.

Alternative formulations are possible for more general criteria. With stress written
as  ij  ( kk / 3) ij  sij , SF can be defined as the maximum value of the stress level κ
which can be applied uniformly over the domain to:
 ij  ( kk / 3)ij   sij
before instability is reached. Selection of the proper safety factor definition is done under
Control/Analysis & drivers (Fig. 4.14):
Fig. 4.14 Selection of the safety factor definition
Safety evaluation using different safety factor definitions and different yield criteria are
discussed in details in ZSOIL manuals, they are beyond the scope of this book.
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of a driver, geometric and material
data. Control data are left to default values.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex_4_2_cut.inp
We have a Plane Strain, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced option,

no preprocessed preliminary analysis (see Fig. 4.15, driver selection).
Stability/tan(phi),c driver starts at 1, ends at 2, with a step of 0.05. This driver will
increment the safety factor SF, from 1 to 2 with steps of 0.05, in a C- reduction
algorithm, until failure is reached.

Fig. 4.15 Analysis and drivers for slope stability
Remarks:
- A safety driver is often activated within a sequence of drivers, in order to define
an instantaneous safety value; time remains constant during safety analysis.
- C and  are modified during a safety analysis. If safety analysis is followed by
another safety analysis (with refined stepping e.g.) the second analysis will start
with the C-  values reached; for any other driver, C and  are reinitialized to
their initial value.

As for the footing case, geometry and boundary conditions are first defined in the
Assembly/Preprocessing menu. Then, materials are defined in the
Assembly/Materials screen.
For soil we consider a Mohr-Coulomb material, characterized by:
Weight: γ=16 kN/m3 (see Fig. 4.16)

Elastic modulus E = 30’000 kN/m2
Cohesion C = 16 kN/m2
Friction angle φ = 30°
Dilatancy angle ψ = 0° (incompressible plastic flow)
Remark:
- values of ψ < φ - 25o can lead to numerical problems
Weight norm
Directional multiplier
Fig. 4.16 Unit weight input
Select Analysis/Run Analysis in order to run the stability analysis.

4.2.3 Results
Numerical divergence occurs at a value of safety factor of 1.55. The last converged
computation corresponds to SF=1.50. This can be compared with values obtained from
formula proposed in the literature, [Terzaghi, 1951, citation of Fellenius]:
H crit 3.85  c 
SF   tg 2 (45  )  1.66
H  H 2
To visualize the instability use Results/Postprocessing, then Graph

option/Displacement vectors (see Fig. 4.17), use Time/Select reference time step
= 1.50 and Time/Select current time step = 1.55 to focalize on the instability, and
use Settings/Scale to change scale of vectors. Notice that except for qualitative
purposes, like visualization of failure mechanism, the diverged step results (at SF =
1.55) should not be used. They correspond to a nonconverged solution which is not in
equilibrium.
Fig. 4.17 Displacement vectors
Alternatively, absolute displacement color maps (option Graph option/Maps) also

clearly identify the instability (see Fig. 4.18).

Fig. 4.18 Displacements amplitudes map
4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation
In a second step, the obtained safety factor can be refined, by starting a second stability
driver, see Fig. 4.20, starting at the last converged step of the previous analysis (SF =
1.50) and a refined increment (SF = 0.01).
Remarks:
- Do not forget to click Modify/OK to register the change.
- Use Analysis/Restart Analysis in order to restart stability analysis where it
stopped, see Fig 4.19.
Fig. 4.19 Restart analysis
The finally obtained safety factor is 1.53, which corresponds to the last converged step
after step refinement and restart.

Fig. 4.20 Refined stability analysis driver
Fig. 4.21 Displacement vectors corresponding to instability (current step SF = 1.54

(diverged), reference step SF = 1.53)
If material is to be considered as “no tension” we need to modify material properties as

shown in Fig. 4.22. Under Assembly/Materials/Nonlinear activate the advanced
option and set tensile cut off to “0”.

Fig. 4.22 “No tension” material data
The corresponding safety factor obtained is 1.15 (last converged step), which could be
refined again (see Fig. 4.23). The corresponding analytical solution is given by,
[Terzaghi, 1951]:
H crit 2.67  c 
SF   tg 2 (45  )  1.15
H  H 2
Fig. 4.23 Failure mechanism (“no tension”) and diverged step identification

4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis
The initial state often corresponds to a safety factor already close to 1. Proceeding
directly with a safety analysis may then lead to premature failure and it may be
preferable to start with an initial state analysis. This is done next.
ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of two drivers (see Fig 4.24), no other
changes are needed. Geometric and material data are the same as before. Control data
are left to default values.
Open the Ex_4_2_cut.inp and save it as Ex_4_2_cut_IS.inp
Open the Analysis & Drivers screen and “1.” point on the stability driver, “2.” insert a
new driver, “3.” modify the first driver to initial state, “4.” Click on modify.
2 4
Fig. 4.24 Stability analysis preceded by an initial state analysis
Remark:
- The safety factor obtained in this case is the same as obtained earlier. The only
difference lies in the progressive application of gravity which helps avoiding early
instabilities.

4.2.6 Validation
The static approach to safety factor evaluation adopted in ZSOIL differs fundamentally
from the usual kinematic approaches; comparison of results is therefore essential. This is
done below for the vertical cut problem and a slope at 45° with various friction angles .
C is the cohesion,  the deadweight and h the height of the slope.
- Comparison with the method of slices, which introduces some simplifications on

the original problem, is shown in Fig. 4.25a.
- Comparison with a variety of different approaches is shown in Fig. 4.25b.
- Notice that rather crude meshes are used here and that Drucker-Prager criterion
with plane-strain adjustment is used.
Fig. 4.25a Vertical cut and natural slope stability analyses. Comparison of ZSOIL model
with the method of slices
Fig. 4.25b Vertical cut and natural slope stability analyses. Comparison of ZSOIL model
with classical methods

4.3 Initial state
4.3.1 Algorithm
Initial state evaluation is very important in soil mechanics because the initial stress state
often lies very close to the plastic yield limit, which is obvious if you think of a natural
slope inclined at angle β, close to the material friction angle φ. The procedure to
simulate the initial state is such that the correct stress-state corresponding gravity loads
superposed with all other loads which are non-zero at time zero are associated with a
zero deformation state corresponding to the observed topography. This can be achieved
by ignoring deformations during the initial state evaluation or by superposition of gravity
and associated loads with the initial stress state corresponding to gravity stresses and
associated loads. The second approach is adopted in ZSOIL.
Fig.4.26 Illustration of the initial state procedure

This initial state procedure is illustrated in figure 4.26 with gravity applied to a box-
shaped medium with free surface; it can also be followed through in ZSOIL with the set
of input files BOXDi.inp.
The first case, BOXD1.inp corresponds to gravity applied to a box shaped medium with
free surface; the upper surface will settle and a confinement stress is developed.
The second case, BOXD2.inp corresponds to a vertical initial stress state which, if
equal to the gravity induced stress, generates a surface movement and a confinement
stress equal and opposite in sign to the previous one.
A confinement stress can then be applied, corresponding to any desirable K 0 state,
BOXD3.inp.
Superposing gravity, initial stress induced by gravity and a K 0 state produces the desired
initial state, BOXD4.inp. The whole procedure is automated in ZSOIL, as illustrated by
BOXD5.inp.
Application of the procedure to a real case is illustrated below.
Remark:
- The same procedure can be shown to apply to nonlinear analysis and to 2-phase
media.

The case of a constructed site with two preexisting buildings is considered. The initial
state includes here the gravity loads of the ground and of the buildings. An increasing
load is then applied to the right building in order to simulate the construction of
additional stories and finally a stability analysis is performed to evaluate the final safety
factor.
Fig 4.27 Site with two existing constructions, box type boundary conditions and load on
right building

ZSOIL data for this problem require specification of 3 drivers, geometric and material
data and a load function. Control data are left to default values.
ZSOIL DATA: Ex_4_3_env.inp
The Initial State driver has 3 parameters (Fig 4.28). Initial load factor (0.5), final load
factor (1), increment (0.1). This means that application of gravity (and loads which are
associated with a load function which is nonzero at time t=0) starts with a reduction
factor of 0.5, which is then increased by steps of 0.1 till 1. This way of proceeding should
avoid instantaneous plastification of the whole domain.
The Time dependent/driven load driver will then increase the load (from 0 to 30
kN/m2 in 3 steps) on the right building to simulate an increase in building height, watch
that the load time function is “0”, at time t=0 (Fig. 4.29), which ensures that the load is
inactive at that time.
The Stability driver is used finally to define the safety factor of the site after elevation of
the right building.
Fig. 4.28 Drivers: Initial state, Time Dependent/Driven load, followed by Stability

Fig.4.29 Load definition
As for the footing and the vertical cut case, geometry, loads (via FE
Model/Loads/Surface Loads/2 Nodes(variable) option in the preprocessing phase)
and boundary conditions are first defined in the Assembly/Preprocessing menu.
Then, materials are defined in the Assembly/Materials screen. For soil we have 2
weighting Mohr-Coulomb materials (numbers 2 & 3), for the buildings 1 weighting Elastic
material (number 1).
Select Analysis/Run Analysis in order to run the analysis.

4.3.3 Results
4.3.3.1 Initial state analysis

As already mentioned, the initial state solution cancels deformations which happened
before t = 0, but not stresses, therefore showing an undeformed (not in the reality but in
the analysis), but stressed state. Enter the graphical postprocessor choosing
Results/Postprocessing option. Under Graph Option/Maps and Settings/Graph
contents/Nodal quantities/Displacement/ABS verify that an uniform undeformed
state is obtained at time t = 0 (see Fig. 4.30); while under Settings/Graph
contents/Continuum/Stress level we observe that the stress state almost reaches
plastic yield (stress level = 1) in the immediate vicinity of the upper building (see Fig.
4.31).
Fig. 4.30 Displacement norm at initial state at time (t = 0)

Fig. 4.31 Stress level at initial state at time (t = 0)

4.3.3.2 Time dependent/Driven load analysis

During increasing load deformations build up, mainly under the right building (Fig. 4.32),
Options/Maps & Settings/Graph contents/Nodal quantities/displacement/ABS,
at time t = 3 (you may use +/- keys to navigate through time steps).
Fig. 4.32 Absolute displacement field at t = 3

4.3.3.3 Safety analysis

Numerical divergence occurs at a value of safety factor of 3.6. The last converged
computation corresponds to SF = 3.4. The observed mechanism is a slope instability with
tilting of the upper building (see Fig. 4.33).
Fig. 4.33 Safety analysis. Observed mechanism (displacement increment vectors

between t = 3.4 and t = 3.6)

4.4 References
[Salençon & Matar, 1982] Capacité portante des semelles filantes, Revue française de
géotechnique, n° 9, 1982.
[Terzaghi, 1951] Mécanique théorique des sols, Dunod, Paris, 1951.

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua: 4.1 Bearing Capacity of A Superficial Foundation 72

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua: 4.1 Bearing Capacity of A Superficial Foundation 72

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Getting started with ZSOIL.

CHAPTER 4. SINGLE PHASE SOLID CONTINUA

4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation 72

4.1.1 Data preparation 72

4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking 82

4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut 84

4.2.1 C- reduction and other algorithms for safety evaluation 84

4.2.2 Data preparation 85

4.2.4 Refined Safety Factor Evaluation 89

4.2.5 Stability analysis preceded by initial state analysis 92

4.3 Initial state 94

4.3.2 Data preparation 96

4.4 References 103

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 71

4.1 Bearing capacity of a superficial foundation

The bearing capacity of a superficial foundation is a classical problem of geotechnics. We

4.1.1 Data preparation

ZSOIL DATA: Ex_4_1_FootingAxisym.inp

We have an Axisymmetric, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced option,

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 72

Fig. 4.1 Driver selection for (time-dependent) driven load analysis

Fig. 4.2 Default control and algorithmic selections

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 73

Fig. 4.3 Footing preprocessing: macro model

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 74

Select option Macro Model/Subdomain/Create/Continuum inside contour, and

Then, move to FE model/Boundary Conditions/Solid BC/On box in order to create

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 75

Fig. 4.4 Footing model, finite element mesh

F(x,t) = P(x)* f(t)

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 76

Fig. 4.5 Load-time function, superficial foundation

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 77

Fig.4.6 Displacement vectors and time log, under Graph option/displacement

LTF (step 19) = 1’900

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 78

Fig. 4.7 Definition of ultimate load

The mechanism of failure can be observed using Graph option/Maps. Comparison of a

Fig. 4.8 Displacement amplitudes before and at failure

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 79

Fig. 4.9 Logfile

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 80

Finally, the displacement time-history indicates an unstable vertical displacement. For

Fig. 4.10 Vertical displacement time-history under the footing

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 81

4.1.3 Incompressibility, dilatancy and locking

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 82

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 83

4.2 Slope stability: vertical cut

4.2.1 C- reduction and other algorithms for safety evaluation

Algorithm: -set C’= C/SF

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 84

which can be applied uniformly over the domain to:

Fig. 4.14 Selection of the safety factor definition

4.2.2 Data preparation

ZSOIL DATA: Ex_4_2_cut.inp

We have a Plane Strain, Deformation (i.e. 1-phase) problem, no advanced option,

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 85

Fig. 4.15 Analysis and drivers for slope stability

Chapter 4. Single Phase Solid Continua Page 86

For soil we consider a Mohr-Coulomb material, characterized by:

Weight: γ=16 kN/m3 (see Fig. 4.16)