Gouw FindingSutableModel

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law
Soft Soils 2014

Bandung, 21 Oct 2013
Soft Soils 2014 conference - Bandung, Oct 21-22, 2014
Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?
GTL
An Investigation on the
Suitable
CONSTITUTIVE LAW
for modelling
JAKARTA RED CLAY
prepared by:
GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng, ChFC (AIT)

Senior Geotechnical Consultant
gtloffice@gmail.com
http://indogeotek.com
https://gouw200.wordpress.com
Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong
GTL
Outline
1. Background
2. Actual Test Data
CIU Triaxial Test Data

Oedometer Test Data
3. Derivation of Model Parameters

Mohr Coulomb Model Parameters
Hardening Soil Model Parameters
Soft Soil Model Parameters
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Simulation with Plaxis Software

The Results
Discussions
Concluding Remark
References
GTL
Soft Soil Conference 2014
Background
GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

www.indogeotek.com
prepared by:
GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng (AIT)
Email: gouw2007@gmail.com
CL-1
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Background
Geologically, Jakarta reddish and greyish, very often cemented,
clay was formed from the sedimentation of volcanic materials.
Despite of using carefully derived soil parameters, experiences in
the execution of deep excavation, be it open cut slope or protected
excavation by either contiguous bored pile or diaphragm walls,
often show that the performance of the geotechnical structures
were better than predicted by the available design geotechnical
software.
It was suspected that the discrepancies may due to the fact that
many engineers still use the elastic-perfectly plastic MohrCoulomb model in their analysis. However, when more advance
soil model, either Cam Clay or Hyperbolic model, is applied, the
prediction is still inferior compared to the actual performance.
GTL
It is really a challenge to find out which constitutive model suit

the behaviour of Jakarta reddish and greyish clay.
Background
With that in mind the author tried:

Mohr-Coulomb,
Hardening (hyperbolic) and
Soft soil models
available in Plaxis software to:
simulate isotropically consolidated undrained triaxial test and
compared it with the actual test data
GTL
Actual
Test Data

www.indogeotek.com
prepared by:
CL-2
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Actual CIU Triaxial Test Data
Sample 3
Sample 2
Sample 1
undisturbed
reddish
clay from
2.0 - 2.5m
depth
GTL
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
GTL

www.indogeotek.com
CL-3
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
GTL
Oedometer Test Data
GTL
Derivation of
Model
Parameters

www.indogeotek.com
prepared by:
CL-4
Soft Soils 2014

Stiffness Parameters
GTL
Stiffness Parameters
GTL
E50ref = 12,105 kPa
E' 50 =
2(1 + ' )
E 50
3
=0.3, then:
E50ref 10,500
kPa
Strength Parameters
GTL

www.indogeotek.com
CL-5
Soft Soils 2014

GTL

Derived Mohr Coulomb model parameters:
c = 15 kPa, = 37o
dilation angle, = 0o
E50ref = 10500 kPa
drained Poisson ratio is taken as 0.3
Originated from hyperbolic model developed by

Duncan and Chang (1970, 1980),
GTL
GTL
= a + b
q=
a + b

www.indogeotek.com
= 0.0101 + 0.0071
q=
0.0101 + 0.0071
CL-6
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Hyperbolic Approximation
of Test Data
GTL
q=
q=
qult =
Ei =
a + b
0.0101 + 0.0071
1
1
=
= 140.8kPa
b 0.0071
1
1
=
* 100 = 9901kPa
a 0.0101
GTL

2(1 + ' )
E 50
3
2(1 + 0.3)
E' 50 =
5822 = 5046kPa
3
E' 50 =
Ei (2 R f )
2
9901 ( 2 0 . 82 )
=
= 5822 kPa
2
E 50 =
E 50
Hyperbolic Approximation
of Test Data

www.indogeotek.com
Rf =
qf
qult
116
= 0.82
140.8
CL-7
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Table 1 Derived Parameters from Hyperbolic Model
Undrained
Drained
3o'
qult
qf
Rf
Ei
E50
v'
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
50
100
200
140.8
238.1
344.8
116.0
201.7
334.4
0.82
0.85
0.97
9,901
30,303
66,667
5,822
17,468
34,345
0.3
0.3
0.3
5,046
15,139
29,766
E'50
GTL
E50ref = 15,170 kPa

E50ref = 2/3 (1+0.3) x 15170 13,150 kPa
GTL

Oedometer Modulus:
Eoed = / e = (800-200) / (0.111-0.063) = 12,500 kPa

Eoed_unload = Ds / De =(800-100)/(0.111-0.1) = 63,640 kPa
R=
Loading
Eoed _ unload
Eoed
63460
5
12500
R = Cc/Cr = 0.1806/0.0334 = 5.4
Unloading

www.indogeotek.com
Eur = R x E50ref
Eur = 5.25 x 13150
Eur 69,000 kPa
CL-8
Soft Soils 2014

GTL

Derived Hardening Soil model parameters:
c = 15 kPa, = 37o
drained Poisson ratio, = 0.3
E50ref 13,000 kPa
Eoed = 12,500 kPa
Eur
= 69,000 kPa
Oedometer Test for Derivation of * and *
GTL
Soft SoilModel Parameters
*
*
* = 0.0462
* = 0.0068
GTL
Soft Soil Model Parameters

Derived Soft Soil model parameters:
c = 15 kPa, = 37o
drained Poisson ratio, = 0.3
* = 0.0462
* = 0.0068

www.indogeotek.com
CL-9
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Simulation with
PLAXIS
Software
prepared by:
Axisymetric Model
GTL
Simulation with Plaxis 2D
GTL
The Results

www.indogeotek.com
prepared by:
CL-10
- Stress Strain Curve
GTL
The Result
Soft Soils 2014

- Excess Pore Pressure
GTL
The Result
- Stress Path
GTL
The Result

www.indogeotek.com
CL-11
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Discussions
prepared by:
GTL
Discussions
Hardening soil model
more realistic shape of the stress strain
curve.
The soft soil model
give a stiffer stress strain response compared
to the hardening soil model.
The stress strain curves of Mohr Coulomb (MC) model appear to be
linear from the start of the loading until plastic failure occurred; this
is in line with the assumption of the MC model.
Despite of different confining pressures, MC model always give the
same straight line response until it reaches failure level.
Both hardening soil and soft soil models under predict the
ultimate strength.
MC model can approximate the failure load better, but the strain
prediction is far from reality.
None of the three models can predict the stress strain curve of the
actual data correctly.
GTL
Discussions
Hardening soil and soft soil models over predict the magnitude of
the excess pore pressure.
MC can predict the ultimate magnitude of the excess pore water
pressure better, but for a strain level below the ultimate strain, the
excess pore water pressure is also over predicted.
As in the stress strain curve, despite of different confining pressures,
MC model always give the same straight line response until it
reaches ultimate excess pore water pressures.
The shape of the pore water pressure response is better approached
by hardening soil, but, as previously said, it still over predicts the
magnitude. The response of the soft soil model is the worse in this
case.

www.indogeotek.com
CL-12
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Discussions
Hardening soil and soft soil models over predict the magnitude of
the excess pore pressure.
MC can predict the ultimate magnitude of the excess pore water
pressure better, but for a strain level below the ultimate strain, the
excess pore water pressure is also over predicted.
As in the stress strain curve, despite of different confining pressures,
MC model always give the same straight line response until it
reaches ultimate excess pore water pressures.
The shape of the pore water pressure response is better approached
by hardening soil, but, as previously said, it still over predicts the
magnitude. The response of the soft soil model is the worse in this
case.
GTL
Discussions
Sstress path of the MC model is always vertically upward, which is
not correct.
The hardening soil and the soft soil model give the stress path similar
to normally consolidated clay.
However, none of the models can mimic the stress path of the actual
Jakarta reddish clay.
It is also tried to simulate the triaxial test by giving a preconsolidation
pressure (indicated as POP in Plaxis) and also tried to give overconsolidation ratio of varying degrees. It still appears that none of the
models can predict the stress strain and the stress path correctly.
GTL
Concluding Remark

www.indogeotek.com
prepared by:
CL-13
Soft Soils 2014

GTL
Concluding Remark
The simulation of the triaxial test for Jakarta reddish clay by MC,
hardening soil, and soft soil models give the results that none of the
model can predict the stress strain, the pore pressure, and the stress
path correctly.
Hypothesis on the causes of the discrepancies on the soil models response

compared to the actual data is:
Improper sample preparation.

Soils of the volcanic origin may really have different behavior compared
to sedimentary soil.
Considering the simulation was only done on three similar samples, it is
too early to draw firm conclusions, further tests, simulation and analysis
need to be done.
GTL
References
prepared by:
References :
GTL
(1)
1. Atkinson, J., 1993, An Introduction to The Mechanics of Soils and

Foundation, Mc Graw Hill Book Co, London
2. Brinkgreeve, R.B.J., Broere W, Waterman, D, 2011, Plaxis 2D version 2011
manual, Delf, the Netherlands.
3. Desai, C.S. and Siriwardane, H.J., 1984, Constitutive Laws for Engineering
Materials with Emphasis on Geologic Materials, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
4. Duncan, J.M, and Chang, C.Y., 1970, Non Linear Analysis of Stress and
Strain in Soils, Jour. Soil Mech. And Foundations Division, Proc. ASCE.
5. Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., and Wong, K.S., 1980, Strength, Stress-Strain and
Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and
Movements in Soil Masses, Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, College of
Engineering, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley,
California.

www.indogeotek.com
CL-14

Gouw FindingSutableModel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gouw FindingSutableModel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Soft Soils 2014 conference - Bandung, Oct 21-22, 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng, ChFC (AIT)

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

CIU Triaxial Test Data

3. Derivation of Model Parameters

Simulation with Plaxis Software

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Soft Soil Conference 2014

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

It is really a challenge to find out which constitutive model suit

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

With that in mind the author tried:

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Soft Soil Conference 2014

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Actual CIU Triaxial Test Data

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Actual CIU Triaxial Test Data

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Actual CIU Triaxial Test Data

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Actual CIU Triaxial Test Data

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Oedometer Test Data

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Soft Soil Conference 2014

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Mohr Coulomb Model Parameters

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Mohr Coulomb Model Parameters

E50ref = 12,105 kPa

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Mohr Coulomb Model Parameters

GOUW Tjie-Liong, Ir. M.Eng. ChFC

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong

An Investigation on the Suitable Constitutive Law

Soft Soils 2014

Constitutive Model for Jaakarta Red Clay ?

Mohr Coulomb Model Parameters

Geotechnical Course by GOUW Tjie-Liong