Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Session 3
Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
Time Session Topic
09:00 10:30 1 Overview
10:30 11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 12:30 2 Design (Part 1)
12:30 - 01:30 Lunch
01:30 03:00 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model &
Design (Part 2)
03:00 03:30 Coffee Break
Thingsyoushouldknowaboutthe
MohrCoulombSoilModel
Plastic
Elastic ast c
Elastic
plastic
MohrCoulombModel 2
WongKaiSin 1
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
CanMohrCoulombModelsimulateRealSoilBehaviour?
Plastic
UUTeston
Clay
cu >0
>0 Elastic El i
Elastic
u =0 plastic
Plastic
CDTeston
Clayor
Sand
c' 0 Elastic
'>0
RealSoil MohrCoulombSoil
MohrCoulombModel 3
CanaElasticModelsimulateRealSoil Behaviour?
ElasticModel
Shearstressproduces
Shear stress produces Normalstressproduces
Normal stress produces
shearstrain: volumetricstrain:
v
no v
MohrCoulombModel 4
WongKaiSin 2
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Plastic
Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic
RealSoilBehaviour ElasticModel(=0.5)
no v no v
nov(undrained) nov(undrained)
Stressindependent Stressindependent
MohrCoulombModel 5
Plastic
Elastic
l i Elastic
plastic
Yes!Ifweusecu andEu.
Canweusec' 'andE'?
MohrCoulombModel 6
WongKaiSin 3
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
CUTest
100
ESP TSP
porp(kPa)
MohrCoulombModel 7
CUTest
ConsolidatedUndrained =100kPa
TriaxialCompressionTest
2cu cu measured
ESP TSP ESP TSP
porp porp 1
c' 'overpredictedcu !!!
MohrCoulombModel 8
WongKaiSin 4
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Istheporepressureresponsecorrect?
LetslookatCUtestonanormallyconsolidatedclay.
RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
Uf Uf
porp porp
Thepredictedporepressureismuchsmallerthanthemeasured!
MohrCoulombModel 9
MethodA
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcand
Itoverestimatestheundrainedshearstrengthandunderestimatesthe
excessporepressure ofanormallyconsolidatedclay.
RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
2cu
Uf Uf
2cu
porp porp
MohrCoulombModel 10
WongKaiSin 5
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Overestimationofcu ataReclaimedSite
Cu based on
phi=22 & p'o
25
Method
30 A
35
40
45
50
MohrCoulombModel 11
NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodA
100
95
90
ReducedLevel(m)
ReducedLevel(m)
85
80
75
70
65 Level10
325 mm
325mm
60
55
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Formation=118mm
Final=145mm WallDeflection(mm)
MohrCoulombModel 12
WongKaiSin 6
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
(13)f
1
'
3
cu u=0
Thissitehasa
constantcu. A B C
'
ForNCClay,itunderestimates cu atlowstressand
overestimates itathighstress.
MohrCoulombModel 13
MethodB
EffectivestressMohrCoulombMethodusingcu andu=0
Itforcesthesoiltofailataspecifiedundrainedshearstrength.
RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf
q q
2cu 2cu Kf
porp porp
MohrCoulombModel 14
WongKaiSin 7
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
NicollHighway ResultsofUndrainedAnalysisusingMethodB
MohrCoulombModel 15
CanMethodA beusedforOverconsolidatedClay?
CU
(13)f C
1
'
B
3
u=0
A cu UU
Thissitehasa c'
constantcu. A B C
'
ForagivenlayerofOCClay,itunderestimates cu atlow
stressandoverestimates itathighstress.
MohrCoulombModel 16
WongKaiSin 8
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
UsingMethodAforUndrainedAnalysisinOCClay
RealSoil ElasticSoil
Kf Kf
q q
2cu 2 u
2c
Uf Uf
ESP TSP
ESP TSP
porp porp
1.MakesurethemeasuredstresspathissimilartothatofElasticSoil.
2.Dividethestratumintosublayerswithdifferentcandforeachlayer.
3.Computecu fromcandforeachlayer.Makesurethevaluesarereasonable.
MohrCoulombModel 17
UsingMohrCoulombmodelforUndrainedAnalysis
MohrCoulombModel 18
WongKaiSin 9
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
CanMCmodelsimulateundrainedbehaviour ofclay?
Elasticplastic Plastic
Elastic
Inelastic
1. Itproducesthecorrectstrengthwithcu specified.
2. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
3. Itmaynotgeneratereliableporepressureresponse.
MohrCoulombModel 19
CanMCmodelgenerate
accuratedeflectionprofilesat
ConstantE
everystageofexcavation?
2 5
3 10
Depth (m )
4 1 2 3 4
15
20
25
30
MohrCoulombModel 20
WongKaiSin 10
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Atearlystageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb, LinearE larger
Hyperbolic, NonlinearE smaller
Et
MohrCoulombModel 21
Atfinalstageofexcavation,
MohrCoulomb,LinearE smaller
Hyperbolic,NonlinearE larger
Linear
Et
Nonlinear
MohrCoulombModel 22
WongKaiSin 11
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
MohrCoulomb
Eu/cu ~100to500
ConstantE
AdvancedSoilModel
Conclusion
M C model may not
MCmodelmaynot
producegoodmatchat
everystageofexcavation.
MohrCoulombModel
23
HowreliablearetheresultsgeneratedbytheMCmodel?
Fill
Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay
0 50 100 150
0
V,MAX=33mm
H,MAX =28mm
35
Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?
MohrCoulombModel 24
WongKaiSin 12
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
ResultsusingHyperoblicModel
Fill
Soft Marine Clay
SoftMarineClay
0 50 100 150
V,MAX=72mm
0
H,MAX =59mm
= 59 mm
35
Isthemodeofdeformationreasonable?
MohrCoulombModel 25
Linear Fill
vs SoftMarineClay
NonLinear
35 35
MohrCoulombModel 26
WongKaiSin 13
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
Checkplasticpointsandrelativeshearstress!
Fill
SoftMarineClay
Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults.
MohrCoulombModel 27
LinearvsNonLinearModel
E1
ConstantE
Youmustunderstandtheshortcomingsofthesoilmodelused!
MohrCoulombModel 28
WongKaiSin 14
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
UsingMethodBatReclaimedSite
MethodBisaneffective
Fill
stress method.
stressmethod.
Ko =1 sin'
Soft
Marine Ifclayisstillconsolidating,
Clay
thecomputedrelativeshear
stresswillbe>1,i.e.theclay
SandySilt
y is in failure state prior to
isinfailurestatepriorto
excavation.
MohrCoulombModel 29
UsingeffectiveKo atasitestillundergoingconsolidation
Plastic
points
MohrCoulombModel 30
WongKaiSin 15
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
80
75 Marine
Current Clay
70
effective
65
stress
60
55 SandySilt
50
0 100 200 300 400 500
Current Effective Stress (kPa)
MohrCoulombModel 31
Needtosetthecorrectinitialstresses!
Fill
Soft
Marine
Clay
SandySilt
Checkplasticpointsaftergeneratingtheinitialstresses!
MohrCoulombModel 32
WongKaiSin 16
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
MohrCoulombModel 33
MohrCoulombModel 34
WongKaiSin 17
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
StressDependentBehaviour ofSoilunderDrainedCondition
MohrCoulombModel 35
StressPathsinanElasticMedium
Ko
D
C
B 1 3
E
1 3
F
1 3
A E QuestionableZone
E Questionable Zone
F DangerZone
3
MohrCoulombModel 36
WongKaiSin 18
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
TypicalStressPathsinExcavation
A
B
B
A
MohrCoulombModel 37
StressPathinZoneFunder DrainedCondition
rubber
soil
1(%)
v(%)
MohrCoulombModel 38
WongKaiSin 19
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
StressPathinZoneEunderDrainedCondition
1=300
3=300
MohrCoulombModel 39
Adrainedanalysiscanproduceincorrectresultsunder
certainstresspath.
Whichoneiscorrect?
B
A B
Measured Computed
Lessonlearned:
Correctanalysismaynotproducecorrectresults!
MohrCoulombModel 40
WongKaiSin 20
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
SomeproblemsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsRatio
Wall Deflection (mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
c=5kPa 0
=35o
5
E=8000kPa
H=9m 10
=0.4
Pois. Ratio = 0.4
=0.2
Pois. Ratio = 0.2
D e p th (m )
=0.2 =0.4
15
Lessonlearned:
Drainedanalysiscanproducemanysurprises.
MohrCoulombModel 41
CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?
1. Itgivescorrectstrength f =c+tan
2. Modulusisnotstressdependent.
3. Itcannotsimulatenonlinearandinelasticbehaviour.
4. Itmayproducewrongresponseincertainstresspath.
5. ResultsmaybesensitivetoPoissonsratio.
MohrCoulombModel 42
WongKaiSin 21
November2009 MohrCoulombModel
CanMCmodelsimulatedrainedbehaviour ofsoil?
Plastic
6. Itmaynotproducecorrect
porepressureresponse.
7. Whenusingc'' in
consolidationanalysis,it
Elastic
maygeneratethewrong
undrainedstrengthat
endofconstruction.
8 There
8. Thereisnodilationuntil
is no dilation until
v afterthesoilreachesfailure.
MohrCoulombModel 43
MohrCoulombModel 44
WongKaiSin 22
November 2009 Excavation Design
Design &
Analysis
Instrumentation Construction
Monitoring Control
Initial Design
g Final Design
(Working Drawings) (As-Built)
Excavation
Start Finish
Excavation Design 1
Excavation Design 3
Excavation Design 4
Wall Deflection (m m )
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
5
Computed
10
Depth (m)
15
Measured
20
25
30
Excavation Design 5
5 5
10 Computed 10
Design
Depth (m)
Depth (m )
15 15
Measured
20 20
Back-Analyzed
25 25
30 30
Excavation Design 6
1. Site investigation
2. Pre
Pre-construction
construction survey
3. Evaluation of soil conditions
4. Selection of TERS configuration
5. Assessment of system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
7 Assessment of computed output
7.
Excavation Design 7
1. Site investigation
Design Step 1: Site Investigation
2. Pre-construction
survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Plan View 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
computed output
Sectional View
2. Pre-Construction Survey
1. Site investigation
To check pre-existing conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
of surrounding structures 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Things you can see .. 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Cracks 5. Assessment of
system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
Patches under new paint 7. Assessment of
computed output
Settlement of aprons & driveway
Constructions in the vicinity
Excavation Design 10
Seasonal fluctuations
Invest in
Instrumentation
Settlement marks
Paper
P prisms
i
Water standpipes
Inclinometers
Excavation Design 11
1. Site investigation
3. Evaluation of Soil Conditions 2. Pre-construction
survey
Things to check .. 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
Fill thickness and variations 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Soft
Marine
Clay
Stiff
Silty
Clay
Dense Silt
Sand
Excavation Design 12
Fill
Old Alluvium
Worst soil
condition
ABH-32
ABH-30 Instrumented
section
M3010
AC 3
AC-3
ABH-84
ABH-31
RL (m)
102.
Fill
9
E upper 98.2
96.4
UM
C
85.6
F2 upper
83.4
LMC
JGP1
68.3
JGP2
E lower
63.2
F2 lower
61.
OA N = 35 6
57.
OA N = 5
72 53.
Excavation Design 8 15
ABH-84 M3010
RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E
UMC UMC
85.4
F2 upper F2 upper
LMC
LMC
JGP1
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69 4
69.4
JGP2 OA N = 20
JGP3 66.8
F2 lower
OA N = 30
64.7
63.7 OA N = 70
OA N = 20
61.2 60.0
OA N = 30
59.2 OA N = 100
OA N = 70
55.0
Excavation Design 16
C
Cross-Over at
Newton MRT Station
B
A B C
Excavation Design 17
B
A
A B C
Excavation Design 18
Excavation Design 19
Design Step 4: 1.
2.
Site investigation
Pre-construction
Selection of TERS survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
We need to know 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
Site constraints 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Dimensions 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Adjacent buildings computed output
Excavation Design 20
Excavation Design 22
1. Site investigation
Design Step 5: 2. Pre-construction
survey
Basic Stability Checks 3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
4. Selection of TERS
Before conducting FEA, check configuration
5
5. Assessment of
system stability
Basal Heave Stability 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
Uplift or Blowout Stability computed output
Excavation Design 23
Uplift Stability
B
Fill
E
UMC
F2
LMC Hw
W=dB
R=cud R d
E / F2
Sand U = w Hw B
Lp La
Pa
Pp
1. Site investigation
Design Step 6: 2. Pre-construction
Preparation for FEA survey
3. Evaluation of soil
conditions
1. Selection of software 4. Selection of TERS
configuration
2 Selection of soil models
2. 5
5. Assessment of
system stability
3. Selection of type of analysis 6. Preparation for FEA
7. Assessment of
4. Evaluation of soil parameters computed output
5. Generation of FE mesh
6. Preparation of data input Plaxis?
Mohr-Coulomb?
Undrained?
Total stress?
Excavation Design 27
1. Site investigation
Design Step 7: 2. Pre-construction
survey
Assessment of 3. Evaluation of soil
Computed Output conditions
4. Selection of TERS
configuration
5
5. Assessment of
Tons of data can be generated system stability
6. Preparation for FEA
with a few clicks.
7. Assessment of
computed output
But what are the relevant ones?
Excavation Design 28
Relevant Results
Wall deflections
Ground settlement
Pore pressure
Strut forces
Wall moment and shear
Plastic points
Displacement vector plots
Excavation Design 29
Expected Unexpected
Excavation Design 32
Residual
stress
Lesson learned:
Plastic point and relative shear plots provide insight to
the extend of soil yield and overall stability of the system.
Excavation Design 33
computed
measured
Excavation Design 34
Excavation Design 35
Ground Settlement at
End of Excavation
50
nd Settlement (mm)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-50
-100
Groun
-150
-200
Distance (m)
Excavation Design 36
50.0
0.0
5/24/02 9/1/02 12/10/02 3/20/03 6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04
-50.0
Settlement (mm)
-100.0
-150.0
-200.0
-250.0
-300.0
Excavation Design 37
RL (m)
Fill Fill
E E
Computed
MC MC
85.4
F2 F2 Measured
MC
MC
JGP
LMC 72.1
F2 F2
69 4
69.4
JGP OA (20)
F2 66.8
OA (30)
64.7
63.7 OA (70)
OA (20)
61.2 60.0
OA (30)
59.2 OA (100)
OA (70)
55.
Excavation Design 38
S1
De
Excavation Design 39
3 1
2
4
3
5
4
5
Excavation Design 40
Excavation Design 41
FOS=1.30
False alarm?
Excavation Design 42
Excavation Design 43
Excavation Design 44
E3 E
E 4
2
E
1
Constant E
Wall Deflection (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2 5
3 10
Depth (m )
4 1 2 3 4
15
20
25
30
Excavation Design 45
Sand
Old
Alluvium
R Bending Momen
nt (kNm/m) R
ef ef
er
en er Deflection
n (mm)
c en
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
e
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Su Su ce
rc ca ca
ha se rc se
rg ha
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
e rg
20 e
20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 20
0m 0C 1.
0m 0C
ov u u
ov
er er
ex ex
ca ca
v. v.
JG JG
P P
E( ( 1. E( (1
JG 0m JG .0
) m
P) P) )
= =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
Pr
el el
oa oa
d d
50 50
B 0 % B %
or .7 or 0.
7E
ed EI ed
pi D ID
le -W pi
le -W
al al
no l
Design H,max = 200 mm
no l
el el
oa oa
d d
48
47
Excavation Design
24
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
R Shear Forc
ce (kN/m)
ef
Re er
fe S trut loa d (kN/m ) en
r
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
en Su ce
Su rc ca
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
ce se
rc ha
ca rg
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha
rg se e
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov u er
er ex
ex ca
c v.
J G av . JG
P P
E(
(1 E( (1
JG JG .0
.0 m
P) m P) )
= ) =
10 10
0M 0M
Pr Pa Pa
el Pr
oa el
oa
Bo d d
re 50 50
d
0.
7E % B 0. %
pi or 7E
ID
od tm
el od
el
N o l ed le
d
d oa
d
50
49
Excavation Design
25
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
nc
en e
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Su ce Su ca
rc r ch se
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha ca ar
rg se ge
e 20
20 kP
kP a
a E=
1. E= 1. 20
0m 20 0m 0C
0C ov u
ov
er u er
ex
ex ca
ca v .
JG v. JG
P P
E( (1
(1 E(
J .0
JG . m
0m GP )
P)
) ) =
= 10
10 0M
0M Pa
Pr Pr
el Pa e lo
oa ad
d 50
%
Bo 50
re 0. % 0.
Design S2 = 780 kN/m
No d No
pr pr
el el
oa
oa
d d
52
51
Excavation Design
26
Wong Kai Sin
November 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Su e Su e
rc ca rc ca
Excavation Design
Excavation Design
ha se ha se
rg rg
e e
20 20
kP kP
a a
E= E=
1. 20 1. 20
0m 0C 0m 0C
ov u ov u
er er
e xc e xc
av av
JG . JG .
P P
E( (1 E( (1
JG .0 JG .0
m m
P)
= ) P) )
10 =
0 10
M 0 M
Pr Pa Pr Pa
el
o ad
el
o ad
50
B % B
50
0. %
or 7E or 0.
ed ID ed 7E
pi -W ID
le pi
le -W
no al
t l no al
l
m tm
od
ll e el
N d N le
o o d
pr pr
el
oa el
d oa
d
54
53
Excavation Design
27
November 2009 Excavation Design
Excavation Design 55
3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Bending moment (kN.m/m) Shear force (kN/m)
Bending Moment (kNm/m) Shear Force (kN/m)
Excavation Design 56
Excavation Design 57
RL (m)
Fill Fill
Use best estimated
E E parameters to compute:
UMC UMC
Wall deflection profiles
F2 upper F2 upper
85.4 Deflection vs Excav. depth
LMC
Strut forces
LMC
Wall bending moments
LMC 72.1
F2 F2 lower
69.4
OA N = 20 Wall shear forces
F2 66.8
OA N = 30
63.7
lower 64 7
64.7 Ground settlement
OA N = 20 OA N = 70
61.2 60.0
59.2
OA N = 30 OA N = 100 Pore pressures
OA N = 70
55.0
sand
Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany
Excavation Design 59
Benchmarking
Exercise in
Germany
Measurement
Excavation Design 60
100
98
Elevation Level (RL in m)
96
94
92
90
E
88
86
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Maximum Wall Deflection (mm)
Particpant # 7 Particpant # 10 Particpant # 1 Particpant # 5
Particpant # 3 Particpant # 9 Particpant # 8 Particpant # 11
Particpant # 12 Particpant # 6 Particpant # 13 Particpant # 4
Excavation Design
Particpant # 14 Particpant # 12 Measured 61
As-Built Design
Excavation Design 62
Over-
Excavation
(Clough & ORouke, 1990)
Excavation Design 63
Excessive Surcharge
q = 20 kPa
Excavation Design 64
Excavation Design 65
Excavation Design 66