COMPUTATIONAL GEOTECHNICS COURSE

UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR
(and modelling)

Antonio Gens

Technical University of Catalunya, Barcelona

many of the slides were originally created by:
Helmut Schweiger (Technical University of Graz, Austria)
Ronald Brinkgreve (Plaxis bv / Delft University of Technology)
Cino Viggiani (Laboratoire 3S, Grenoble, France)
 outline

 drained / undrained (conditions and analysis)

 drained / undrained soil behaviour
• typical results from drained and undrained triaxial tests
• strength parameters in effective stresses and total stresses
• what is the critical case: drained or undrained?
 modelling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
• general procedure
• three methods
• Method A: effective stresses
• Method C: total stresses
• Method B (hybrid method)
 undrained shear strength
• undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
• undrained behaviour with advanced models
• influence of dilatancy
 summary
 drained / undrained (conditions and analysis)

in undrained conditions, no water movement takes place and,

therefore, excess pore pressures are built up
u  0,   '

in drained conditions, no excess pore pressures are built up

u = 0,  = '

• drained analysis appropriate when

– permeability is high
– rate of loading is low
– short term behavior is not of interest for problem considered

• undrained analysis appropriate when

– permeability is low and rate of loading is high
– short term behavior has to be assessed
triaxial test (NC soils) – drained / undrained

drained undrained
triaxial test (OC soils) – drained / undrained

drained undrained
 stress paths in undrained triaxial test – NC / OC

1   3
t
2
 1   3
s' 
2
 1   3
s
2
 Strength parameters
 Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of effective stress


  c    tan  


c 

in terms of effective stresses

1   3      3 c   c 
 1 
   sin   ; t   s 
   sin  
2  2 tan   tan 
Strength parameters
 Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of effective stress
tan’ = sin’

t
 1   3 
2 a’ = c’cos’

s'
  '1   '3  , s   1   3 
2 2

 1   3   1   3 c   c 
   sin   ; 
t  s   sin   ; t  s sin    c cos  
2  2 tan     tan   
 Strength parameters
 Mohr-Coulomb parameters in terms of total stresses
 Only undrained conditions!

   c    tan   total stresses

Cu
  cu
  1   3  1   3 
 2   2 
 F  F
 , 

-Cu
Effective stresses

 Soil behaves as if it was cohesive

 cu (  su ) : undrained shear strength
 cu only changes if drainage occurs (no change if undrained conditions prevail)
What is the critical case: drained or undrained?
t

OC

NC
ESP
Loading

Unloading
s, s’

note that for 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)
however …
What is the critical case: drained or undrained?
t

OC

NC Loading
ESP
Unloading
s, s’

•For very soft NC soil, factor of safety against failure may

be lower for short term (undrained) conditions for
unloading problems (e.g. excavations)
•For very stif OC soil, factor of safety against failure may
be lower for short term (undrained) conditions for
loading problems (e.g. embankment)
FE modeling of undrained behavior
• what Plaxis does when specifying
type of material behaviour: undrained
• both changes in ' and u are considered
• constitutive equations are formulated in terms of 

 '  D' 
• we need to compute D
  D
 FE modeling of undrained behavior

principle of effective stress     '  f

with  f  pw pw pw 0 0 0
T

since the strains are the same in each phase,

 '  D' 
13 03 Kf
 f  D f  D f  Ke Ke 
03 03 n
pore fluid stiffness, related to the
bulk modulus of pore fluid (water) Kf

 We need D   D
 '  f    D   D '   D f   ( D ' D f )

D  D' D f
 FE modeling of undrained behavior
 Example: linear elastic model + plane strain

D  D' D f K
E
G
E
3(1  2 ) 2(1   )
 4 2 2  G G'
 K ' G K ' G K ' G 0 
  xx  
3 3 3
   xx 
e

     K ' 2 G  
K ' G 0    eyy 
4 2
K ' G
 yy   3 3 3  e Δσ  D Δε
  zz      zz 
   K ' 2 G K ' G 0    e 
2 4
  xy  K ' G
 3 3 3   xy 
 0 G 
 0 0

 4 2 2 
 K  G K G K  G 0
  xx  
3 3 3
   xx 
e

   K  2 G  
K  G 0    eyy 
4 2
 yy  K G
  e
  zz  
3 3 3
   zz  Δσ  D Δε
  K  2 G K  G 0    e 
2 4
  xy  K G
 3 3 3   xy 
 0 G 
 0 0
 FE modeling of undrained behavior
 Example: linear elastic model + plane strain

D  D' D f
 4 2 2 
 K ' G K ' G K ' G 0 
3 3 3  Ke 0
  Ke Ke
 K ' 2 G K ' G
4
K ' G 0 
2 K Ke Ke 0 
D 3 3 3   e
   Ke Ke Ke 0
 K ' 2 G 2
K ' G
4
K ' G 0   
 3 3 3  0 0 0 0
 0 G 
 0 0

 4 2 2 
 K ' G  Ke K ' G  K e K ' G  K e 0
3 3 3
 
 K ' 2 G  K 4
K ' G  K e
2
K ' G  K e 0
D 3
e
3 3 
 
 K ' 2 G  K e 2
K ' G  K e
4
K ' G  K e 0
 3 3 3 
 G 
 0 0 0
 FE modeling of undrained behavior
 Example: linear elastic model + plane strain
D  D' D f
 4 2 2 
 K ' G  Ke K ' G  K e K ' G  K e 0
3 3 3
 
 K ' 2 G  K 4
K ' G  K e
2
K ' G  K e 0
D  D ' De   3
e
3 3 
 
 K ' 2 G  K e 2
K ' G  K e
4
K ' G  K e 0
 3 3 3 
 G 
 0 0 0

 4 2 2 
 K  G K G K  G 0
3 3 3 4 4
 
K  2 G 4
K G K  G 0
2 K ' G  K e  K  G
D  3 3 3  3 3
 
K  2 G 2
K G
4
K  G 0
 3 3 3 
 0
 0 0 G 
K  K ' K e
FE modeling of undrained behavior

all the above (which is valid for any soil (or model) for which the
principle of effective stress applies) can be easily combined with
the FEM

• instead of specifying the components of D, specify D'‚ and Ke

D  D' D f then same as in the drained case
• when calculating stresses,
 f  K e  v
   '  f
 '  D' 

a value must be set for Ke

the pore-fluid is assigned a bulk modulus that is substantially

larger than that of the soil skeleton (which ensures that during
undrained loading the volumetric strains are very small)
FE modeling of undrained behavior

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 results only for ' < 0.35 !
• in Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely for undrained materials
• real value of Kw/n ~ 1•106 kPa (for n = 0.5)
modeling undrained behavior with PLAXIS

method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters (MC: c', ', ‘)
effective stiffness parameters (MC: E50', ‘)

method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

type of material behaviour: undrained
total 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
total stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method A)
• analysis in terms of effective stress
• type of material behaviour: undrained
• u changes (excess pore water pressures generated)
• constitutive equations are formulated in terms of ’
 '  D ' 
In the case of Mohr Coulomb model:
effective strength parameters c’, ’, 
effective stiffness parameters E50', '

• the total stiffness matrix is computed as: D  D' D f

FE modeling of undrained behavior (method A)
t

uf
u
TSP
cu ESP

s, s’

– single set of parameters in terms of effective stress (undrained,

drained, consolidation analysis consistent)
– realistic prediction of pore pressures (if model is appropriate)
– the undrained analysis can be followed by a consolidation
analysis (correct pore pressures, correct drained parameters)
– Cu is a consequence of the model, not an input parameter!!
modeling undrained behavior 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
total 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
total stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method C)
• analysis in terms of total stress
• type of material behaviour: drained (in spite of modelling an
undrained case)
• u does not change
• constitutive equations are formulated in terms of 
total strength parameters c = cu,  = 0,  = 0
total stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495

  D 
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method C)
t

TSP=ESP
cu
s, s’

– parameters in terms of total stress

– no prediction of pore pressures (only total stresses
are obtained)
– the undrained analysis can not be followed by a
consolidation analysis
– Cu is an input parameter!!
modeling undrained behavior 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
total 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
total stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method B)
• analysis in terms of effective stress
• type of material behaviour: undrained
• u changes
• constitutive equations are formulated in terms of ’ (but
strength in total stresses!)

total strength parameters c = cu,  = 0,  = 0

effective stiffness parameters E50', '
 '  D ' 
  D 
D  D' D f
Resulting undrained stiffness parameters
3 E
Eu  ;  u  0.495
2 1  
FE modeling of undrained behavior (method B)
t

ESP TSP
cu
s, s’

– parameters in terms of total stress and effective stress

– prediction of pore pressures (generally unrealistic)
– the undrained analysis should not be followed by a
consolidation analysis (pore pressures unrealistic)
– Cu is an input parameter!!
Undrained shear strength from the Mohr Coulomb model

Plane strain: effective stress path rises vertically

tan’ = sin’

t
 1   3  Effective Stress
2
Path, ESP B’
a’ = c’cos’

cu
A’

s'
  '1   '3  , s   1   3 
2 2

1
cu  c 'cos  ' so 'sin  '  c 'cos  '  vo   ho  sin  '
2
cu c 'cos  ' 1
  1  K 0  sin  '
 'v 0  'v 0 2
Undrained shear strength from the Mohr Coulomb model

• The Mohr Coulomb model in terms of effective stresses

OVERESTIMATES the undrained shear strength of soft clays!

cuMC

cu real
s, s’
Undrained shear strength from advanced models

 Although it is possible, in a few simple cases, to obtain an analytical

expression for cu, it is advisable to perform a numerical “laboratory”
test to check the value of undrained shear strength actually supplied
by the model
 It is important to perform the numerical “laboratory” test under the
same condition as in the analysis
 Plane strain, triaxial, simple shear
 Correct initial stresses
 Compression, extension, simple shear
 Not all cu values are achievable with a particular model
 Soft soil model

Parameters
c '  0.1 kPa  '  23º K 0NC  1  sin  '  0.609  ur  0.15  *  0.11  *  0.0275

140.00
140.00

120.00
120.00

100.00 100.00
1-3 (kPa)

80.00

1-3 (kPa)
80.00

60.00 60.00

40.00
40.00

20.00
20.00

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
p' (kPa)
p' (kPa)

Triaxial (compression) Triaxial (extension)

cu/v’=0.279 cu/v’=0.214
 Soft soil model

Parameters
c '  0.1 kPa  '  23º K 0NC  1  sin  '  0.609  ur  0.15  *  0.11  *  0.0275

140.00

120.00

100.00
1-3 (kPa)

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
p' (kPa)

Plane strain (compression) Plane strain (extension)

cu/v’=0.279 cu/v’=0.277
 influence of dilatancy on undrained shear strength

if we set   0 then, negative volumetric plastic deformations

occur at failure:

 v   ve   vp (elastic-plastic behavior)

 v  0 (undrained conditions)

 vp  0   ve  0  p '  K '  ve  0
At failure: q  M p '  q  0
t  s sin    t  0

result: unlimited increase of q (or t), i.e. infinite strength!!

Therefore, in undrained analysis, dilatancy, , must be set to zero!

 influence of constitutive model and dilatancy

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 [%]
 influence of constitutive model and dilatancy

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 ]
 summary
• FEM analysis of undrained conditions can be performed in effective
stresses and with effective stiffness and strength parameters
(Method A)
• Method A must be used:
– if consolidation/long term analysis are required
– advanced soil models are adopted
• undrained shear strength is a result of the constitutive model
• care must be taken with the choice of the value for dilatancy angle
• Methods B and C provide alternative ways to analyze undrained
problems but:
– the constituive model dos not generally represent the true soil
behaviour (before failure)
– potentially useful for stability problems in undrained conditions
(specification of undrained shear strength is straightforward)
Nicoll Highway Collapse, Singapore

24/3/04
Nicoll Highway Collapse, Singapore
Nicoll Highway Collapse

15:33, 20 April 2004

Nicoll Highway Collapse
Nicoll Highway Collapse

• Undrained stabilty problem. Method A and Mohr Coulomb

constituive model used for design analysis

cu A

cu real cu B
s, s’
 Nicoll Highway Collapse
0.21'v0 Section M3
Piezocone Data 100
100 NKT = 14
Profile: ABH-32
Best Estimate Line Test Cu (Mohr-Coulomb)
AC-3
95 Cu (Geotechnical Design Parameter Table)
Upper Marine Clay

AC-2
3007
3008

90
90
Reduced Level, RL (m)

85

Elevation, RL (m)
F2
Method A
80
80
Lower Marine Clay

Original
Used in
75
Method B
Design
FE Analyses
70
70

65

F2
OA 60
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Undrained Shear Strength, s u (kPa) Shear strength (kPa)

Overestimation of shear strength: 43%-62.1%

Nicoll Highway Collapse

Method A Method B

Underestimation of wall displacements (about a factor of 2)

Nicoll Highway Collapse

Method A Method B

Underestimation of bending moment (about a factor of 2)

Nicoll Highway Collapse

Method A
(no collapse)

Method B
(collapse)

Predictions (backanalysis)