HS Model PDF
HS Model PDF
HS Model PDF
53–63 (2004)
Abstract
Today’s technology makes it possible to easily compute slope stability using computer software but
the accuracy of the results is questionable. In this paper we compare how the application of three
different models influences the results in case of different types of soil using the results of laboratory
tests from several parts of Hungary. From the analysis of a cutting, soft-soil model deformations are
much smaller than that of the other two models. The results of the calculation of an embankment are
similar. The safety parameters are approximately the same for each model.
1. Introduction
Having heard of the presentation of Numerical analysis of deep excavations [2] drew
our attention to the subject discussed in this paper. After thoroughly analysing the
paper itself we found that their results do not match our findings, thus we decided
to do further investigations [3]. This paper presents our results that are based on
recent geotechnical soil models.
The fracture of soil is mainly caused by shearing and the formation of yield
surfaces. Fractures can develop by loading and unloading. These two alternatives
are shown in the following figures (Fig. 1).
In these states the elastic and plastic deformations can also be formed. It
means that we have to use models that are valid for both the elastic and plastic
zones. In order to be able to select the proper model we have used the results of
several laboratory tests. Most of the examined soils were soft or hard clay.
We have done calculations using three different models: Mohr-Coulomb
model, soft soil model, and the hardening soil model [1] (further details can be
found in [4], [5], with the latter one discussing the PLAXIS program). In all three
models we need to define the elastic and plastic yield conditions. The yield condi-
tion is the same for all the three models: that is the MC yield condition shown in
the Fig. 2.
54 G. VARGA and Z. CZAP
2. Mohr-Coulomb Model
• E, the Young’s modulus (or E oed , the oedometer modulus, or G, the shear
modulus)
• υ, the Poisson’s ratio,
• c, the cohesion,
• φ, the friction angle, and
SOIL MODELS 55
3. Hardening-Soil Model
This model is fairly more accurate than the Mohr-Coulomb model for simulating
the behaviour of different types of soil, both soft soils and stiff soils. In order to
describe soil stiffness it makes use of the unloading and reloading stiffness as well
as the oedometer loading stiffness. The hardening soil model is characterized by the
stress-dependency of stiffness moduli. Based on the compression test the following
formula can be used:
ref σ m
E oed = E oed ,
pref
where:
E oed the oedometer modulus
ref
E oed the reference oedometer modulus,
ref
p the reference pressure.
The pref , reference pressure is typically 100 kPa. Another characteristic of
this model, which is based on the triaxial test, is a hyperbolic dependency between
56 G. VARGA and Z. CZAP
4. Soft-Soil Model
The most important features of this model include stress-dependent stiffness, the
differentiation between primary loading and unloading-reloading, the memory of
pre-consolidation stress, and the usage of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion.
The equation for primary loading is:
∗ p
ε − εref = −λ · ln ,
pref
where
λ∗ the modified compression index.
The equation for unloading-reloading is:
∗ p
εve − εve0 = −κ ln ,
p0
where
SOIL MODELS 57
E ur p
= ∗,
3 (1 − 2νur ) κ
where
E ur the elastic unloading-reloading modulus,
νur the Poisson’s ratio for unloading-reloading.
κ ∗ is defined by the Mohr-Coulomb law and the pre-consolidation stress.
5. Examination
From the several data processed we have chosen the results from an examination
at Tatabánya (firm clay, the unit weight is 21 kN/m3 ). From the triaxial test the
cohesion is c = 68 kPa, and the friction angle is φ = 18◦ . In the Fig. 4 you
can see stress-strain formula in case of the soft-soil model in a semi-logarithmic
scale. This semi-logarithmic scale makes the results linear. The input parameters
of this model are obtained from compression tests. It is also suited for loading and
unloading-reloading examinations. The usual ratio between λ∗ and κ ∗ is three.
The following figure shows the stress-strain model in case of the hardening
soil model (Fig. 5) The Mohr-Coulomb yield condition is also applied here. Both
stress and strain are depicted in a logarithmic scale. As we can see the Young’s
modulus is increasing in proportion with the power of stress. The value of the
58 G. VARGA and Z. CZAP
Young’s modulus comes from triaxial tests and the oedometric stiffness comes
from compression tests. The sigma-epsilon dependency of the triaxial test, in this
case, is hyperbolic. The unloading-reloading modulus (E ur ) varies as a function of
σ3 similarly to the E 50 modulus.
Fig. 6 shows the stiffness-total stress dependency in case of triaxial tests. We
can see that the greater the initial value of σ3 the greater the Young’s modulus is.
To test the results we used the PLAXIS 7.2 finite element code where we
examined stability of cuttings and embankments. The finite element net is made up
of 15-node (4th order) triangular elements (Fig. 7).
In the following figure you can see the finite element model of a cutting and
the deformation in all three models (Fig. 8). Differences are present for both the
SOIL MODELS 59
shape and the volume of deformation. In case of the Mohr-Coulomb model the
displacement is approximately parallel, in case of the hardening soil model it is
leaning away from the wall while it is leaning towards the wall in case of the soft-
soil model. The shape of the soil wall under examination is important because
during construction it needs to be supported and we need to know the distribution
of forces.
The volume of deformations in the figure has been magnified for view ability.
60 G. VARGA and Z. CZAP
In case of the soft-soil model deformations are much smaller than that of the other
two models.
In case of cuttings we have compared the volume of displacements. The
horizontal displacement is shown as a function of depth (Fig. 9). The displacements
in case of the soft soil model are smaller by an order.
and embankments. We can conclude that the safety parameters are approximately
the same for each model but in case of embankments it is twice as in case of cuttings.
62 G. VARGA and Z. CZAP
Cutting Embankment
Mohr-Coulomb 1.741 3.959
Hardening-Soil Model 1.719 3.884
Soft-Soil model 1.731 3.909
6. Summary
The difference in the safety parameter can be explained by the fact that cutting is an
expansion while embankment is a compression for soil. Although the soil mechan-
ics parameters are the same, expansion is a small deformation while compression
is a significant deformation (Fig. 13). Thus in cases of the same load embankments
have greater safety parameters than cuttings.
References
[1] B RINKGREVE , R. B. – V ERMEER , J., PLAXIS-Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses.
Version 7. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, 1998.
[2] F REISEDER , M. G. – S CHWEIGER , H. F., Numerical Analysis of Deep Excavations, Proceed-
ings of Application of Numerical Methods to Geotechnical Problems, Udine, 1998. pp. 283–292.
[3] B IRÓ , V. – C ZAP, Z., Sheet Pile Wall Measurement with up-to-date Numerical Methods, GÉP,
50 (5) (1999), pp. 24–26.
[4] C ZAP, Z., Modern Constitutive Models in Geotechnics, microCAD’99, Miskolc, 1999.
[5] C ZAP, Z., Geotechnikai szoftverek összehasonlítása, Geotechnika 2002 Conference, Ráckeve,
2002.