Some Experiences in the

Development and Application of

Soil Models
Andrew J. Whittle
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NSF Workshop on Nonlinear Modeling of Geotechnical Problems:

From Theory to Practice; Johns Hopkins University, November 2005
 Background & Experience
z Model Development & Application
‹ Incremental elasto-plasticity
‹ MIT-E3 (Whittle, 1987)
Î Overconsolidated Clays & Cyclic Loading
Î FE Analyses (ABAQUS Code) since 1990
Î Piles, Penetrometers, Excavations, Embankments
Î Major applications: CA/T & MBTA, Boston; GoM piles & suction caissons
‹ MIT-S1 (Pestana, 1994)
Î Unified Model of Sands-Silts-Clays
Î Reponse over Large Stress and Density Range
Î FE Analyses since 1998
Î Applications:Excavations, tunnels (MIT), Spud cans (UWA), Embankments (IC)

z Current Research on Constitutive Models

Î Multi-scale modeling - micro-structure -> macroscopic behavior
Î Time dependent behavior

z Professional Activities
Î Plaxis courses on Computational Geotechnics (since 1998)
Î International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics (since
2002)
MIT-E3 Parameters: 1-D Compression Tests
1.15

1.10

CRS Data: BBC

1.05 (Ghantous, 1982)
ei = 1.168
Void Ratio, e

____
1.00 MIT-E3
e0 1.14
σ' 0 (kPa) 100 ∆p
0.95
K0NC 0.48

0.90 λ 0.184
κ0 0.001
C 22
0.85 n 1.6
h 0.2
0.80
0.1 1.0 10.0
Vertical Effective Stress, σ' v (ksc)

Model formualtion integrates conce

 MIT-E3 Parameters
Undrained Triaxial Shear Tests

3 K0-consolidated undrained shear tests (automated stress path triaxial equipment)

Small strain nonlinearity (local strains measurements, bender elements etc.)
Model calibrated in standard method (database of more than 20 clays)
 Further Laboratory Validation
Undrained Strength Anisotropy

Conventional: Direct Simple Shear(DSS)

Research: Directional Shear Cell (DSC); Torsional Shear Hollow Cylinder (TSHC)
Calibration of MIT-S1: Toyoura Sand
(Pestana, 1994; Pestana et al., 2002)
Toyoura Sand - CSL & LCC Behavior
(Pestana & Whittle, 1993; Pestana et al., 2002)
 Parameter Selection: Berlin Sand
(Nikolinakou, Whittle & Savvidis, 2003)
0.70
Measured Triaxial Data ; End of Shearing
Proximity to Critical State: Close Far
p = 2, m = 0.5, Drained Dilating
0.65
φ' mr = 16° Contracting
Undrained ∆us < 0

0.60 ∆us > 0

Void Ratio, e

p = 2.7, m = 0.4,
0.55 φ' mr = 14°

0.50
p = 3, m = 0.3,
φ' mr = 12°
0.45
p = 3, m = 0.6, p = 2.7, m = 0.42,
φ' mr = 8° φ' mr = 12.5°

0.40
100 1000 10000
Mean Effective Stress, σ' (kPa)
Critical state of sand - very difficult to measure
Compomises needed in parameter selection
Pile Foundations for Offshore TLP Platform

Set-Up

• Strain Path Method: Simulates penetration mechanics

• MIT-E3: Soil behavior and properties through all stages
Comparison with IC Instrumented Pile
(Whittle & Sutabutr, 1999)
Design Charts for TLP Piles: Gulf of Mexico
(Whitle, Sutabutr & Germaine, 1999)
Non-Linear Consolidation: Penetrometers
(Whittle et al., 2001)

Installation modeled by Strain Path Method

 Numerical Experiments - Deep Excavation
(Hashash, 1992; Hashash & Whittle, 1992)

Distance from Undrained Shear

Diaphragm Wall, x (m) Strength, s u (kPa)
-20 0 20 40 0 50 100 150 200
0
Support Boston Blue Clay
H Spacing 10
OCR = 1.0
h=2.5m Elastic K0NC =0.53
20

Depth, z (m)
Diaphragm Wall
dB 3
Rigid Bracing
30 γ t = 18.0 kN/m
L = 10 - 60m
0.9m Thick 40
dB = 30 - 100m
50
suPSA
L
C
60 s
suPSPuDSS
 Effect of Soil Model: Wall Deflections
(Hashash & Whittle, 1994, 1996)

0 0
MCC MIT-E3
hu= 2.5 Elastic 2.5
10 10
5
Depth
20 z (m) 20

30 30

40 40
5 10 15 20 22.5 22.5 20 15 10 = H (m
0 50 100 150 200 200 150 100 50 0
Lateral Wall Deflection, δw (mm)
 Effect of Soil Model: Settlements
(Hashash & Whittle, 1994, 1996)

Distance from Diaphragm Wall (m)

160 120 80 40 060 Distance from Diaphragm Wall (m)

Surface Displacement (mm)

0 40 80 120 160
MCC 40 40
Elastic 20 20
10
0 0
-20 -20
Settlement
-40 -40 w0 (mm)
-60
10
-60
Settlement -80
w0 (mm) -80 22.5 = H (m)
22.5
-100 MIT-E3
CA/T Project Boston (“Big Dig”)
 View of MBTA Transitway Excavation -
Courthouse Station, South Boston (2001)
 MBTA Transitway
(lab data - Ladd et al., 1998; analyses - Jen, 1998)

• Very low margin of safety on basal stability

Class A Predictions: MBTA Transitway

Vertical Settlement, δ (cm)

0
Slurry wall
-1 settlement

v
-2
MBTA Transitway: Platform Section
-3 Measured Data: Settlement Rods
(End of Excavation; November 2001)
-4 North Side
South Side
-5 Class A Predictions
(Jen, 1998)
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance behind Slurry Wall, x (m)
0 0
Misc. Fill
1

2 Cohesive
Fill
3
10 Silty
4 Sand 10

5
Depth (m)

final grade

Depth (m)
20 20
Boston
Blue
Clay

30 MBTA Transitway
Platform Section MBTA Transitway: 30
Platform Section
Class A Predictions:
No Pre-load Inclinometer Data
(End of Excavation)
As Built: with Preload
[50% Design] North Side
South Side
40 Class A Predictions
40
Till (Jen, 1998)
0 5 10 15 20 25 10 8 6 4 2 0
Distance from Centerline (m) Wall Deflection, δ (cm)
w
 Analysis of VZB Project, Berlin

MIT-S1 Model (Pestana, 1994)

Lehrter Bahnhof site
clays-sands-silts
Underwater excavation - 1 row of tiebacks
Predictions for drained triaxial shear tests
Base slab anchored with tension piles
Model Evaluation - VZB Project
(Nikolinakou et al., 2004)
Collapse of Nicoll Highway,Singapore, 2004
(Committee of Inquiry Report, May 2005)
 FE Analysis of Nicoll Highway

Design of support system - based exclusively on FE analyses

Constititutive model: Linearly Elastic-Perfectly Plastic (M-C)
Mohr Coulomb Model & Undrained Soil Behavior
‘Method A’ (c’, φ’ - input parameters)- Used in Design

tanα’ = sinφ’

(σ1 − σ 3 ) Effective Stress

2 Path, ESP B’ su
a’ = c’cosφ’

A’

(σ' 1 +σ' 3 ) , (σ 1 + σ 3 )
2 2

su c' cos φ' 1

Outcome: = + {1 + K0 }sin φ'
σ' v0 σ' v0 2
Doesn’t fit empirical knowledge (SHANSEP) or measured data
Undrained Shear Strength Profile in Marine Clay
0.21σ'v0 Section M3
Piezocone Data
100 NKT = 14
Profile: ABH-32
Best Estimate Line Test
AC-3

Upper Marine Clay

AC-2
3007
3008

90

Reduced Level, RL (m)

F2

80
Lower Marine Clay

Original
Design Used in
FE Analyses
70

F2
OA
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Undrained Shear Strength, s u (kPa)
Consequence:
Wall deflections underestimated (factor of 2)
Diaphragm wall bending capacity underestimated (factor of 2)
Under-design of bracing system
 Mobilization of Jet Grout Pile Layers
(Whittle, 2005)

Design & modeling of soil improvement techniques - big challenge

 Stacked Drift Tunnel- Río Piedras, PR
(Bernal & Whittle, 2003)

Very large cavern - in weathered Old Alluvium (Residual Soil; spatial variability)
Modeling of complex construction (massive FE models) (Hsieh, 2004)
Simulation of grouting activities (Kim, 2005)
Complex material behavior (Zhang, 2003; Nikolinakou, on-going)
 Conceptual Model of Microstructure
(Zhang et al., 2004a, b; 2003)

50-100µm
Inter-aggregate
pore Macroscopic observation:
Aggregates Dramatic change in
Cementation permeability →
Aggregation and
cementation within inter-aggregate pores get
Occasionally a and between clay sealed off
silt/sand grain platelets

Intra-aggregate pore
5-10µm Thin
coating of
goethite

Clay
flakes

Tapped water
of probably
different
chemistry than
pore water
 1-D Compression & Consolidation

ƒ Initial stiff, elastic response

ƒ Break down of soil structure
ƒ Very large swelling following
breakdown of micro-structure

ƒ Very large reduction in coefficient

of consolidation
ƒ Large reduction of the overall
hydraulic conductivity
ƒ Hydraulic conductivity further
decreases during unloading
 Some Conclusions
z Role of Advanced Soil Models
‹ Targeted high level applications
‹ Validation of Predictive Capabilities & Limitations
Î Laboratory tests
Î [Physical models]
Î Field Applications [Well instrumented]
‹ Development of design methods
‹ High level skills needed for use [R&D environment]
z Research Challenge Continues
‹ Complexity of natural materials
‹ Modeling of construction activities & ground improvement methods
‹ Spatial variability - stochastic FE methods
‹ More complex problems (liquefaction, localization etc.)
z Practice
‹ FE convenience & power
‹ Need for competence in basic principles of soil mechanics
‹ High quality soil property data needed for model calibration
‹ SOP - Mohr Coulomb (… Hardening Soil)
“what can be done with fewer assumptions
is done in vain with more”

William of Occam (1285-1349)

Modeling of Undrained Shear Behavior:
K0-Normally Consolidated BBC
Triaxial Direct Simple Shear
 Directional Shear Cell (DSC) Tests
BBC, OCR = 1.0 - Seah, 1990
[Whittle et al., 1994]

1) Initial 2) Undrained
Consolidation Shear
σ'yc y δinc
y δσ1'

x x
σ'xc
δσ3'
=K0nc σ'yc
MIT-E3 Predictions - DSC Tests
MCC Predictions DSC Tests
Comparison of Models: Secant Shear
Stiffness - DSC Tests
 MIT-E3: Conceptual Framework for Clays

VC
Typical Behavior: A-B-C

L
Components of Model:
Void Ratio, e

B A
1. NC Clay (VCL)
Anisotropic yield due to K0-history
Plastic strains dominate
2. Perfect Hysteresis (A-B-A)
log σ’
Small strain non-linearity
Path independence
Void Ratio, e

B A 3. Bounding Surface Plasticity

∆p Plastic strains during reload (∆p)
C
Relate to behavior of NC clay

log σ’
TLP Pile History
MIT Test Site at SAUGUS, MA

Basic Soil Properties and Stresses

 Undrained Shear Behavior of Singapore Marine Clay
(Data from Kiso-Jiban, Post-Failure Site Investigation)
0.4
φ' = 32.4° 27.0° = φ'

0.3
Shear Stress, (σ'v - σ'h)/2σ'vc

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1 Singapore Marine Clay

K0 -Consolidated Triaxial Shear Tests
Unit Depth (m) Synbol
-0.2 Upper (P8) 12.1
Upper (P9) 10.4
Lower (P24) 25.4
33.8° = φ' Lower (P26) 29.8
-0.3
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective Stress, (σ'v + σ'h)/2σ'vc
Mobilization of Anisotropic Shear Strength,
BBC
EFFECT OF METHOD A vs. METHOD B
 5-10µm
Scaling of Deformation Properties
Microstructure:
Need elastic properties of composing minerals
Large range of reported values
Upscaling to platelets (5-10µm):
Homogenization methods
Matrix: iron oxides
50-100µm Inclusions: clay minerals and interstitial water
Upscaling to aggregates (50-100µm):
Matrix: iron oxides
Inclusions: clay platelets and intra-aggregate water

Macrostructure: cemented aggregates

Elastic properties of granular cemented materials
 Double Layer Swelling Mechanism:
Thermodynamic Approach
Dormieux et al. (2001) Model:
Microscopic scale: ion concentration,
chemical potential
Macroscopic scale:
Uniform equivalent solution
Link to macroscopic:
inter-tactoid distance ↔ porosity

Thermodynamic couples:
σ : ε& + g e m& e + g w m& w − dΨ ≥ 0
dt

Interstitial water in
Free water in isolated porosity with
different chemical
Stress - strain
connected
porosity composition

Mass - chemical potential

 1-D Model:Dual Porosity System
(Nikolinakou, 2003)
σm
ε
Compressibility of skeleton, Ks
(φ1−φ01) +(φ2−φ02)
Coupling of solid matrix
and porous system, K0
Inter/intra aggregate φ01
porosity: Bulk water p1 εp Breakdown of
cementation
Coupling between porosities, H
Coupling, M, initiated
φ2−φ02
after destructuring
Intra-platelet porosity: φ02 Chemical link established after
structural water p2 destruction of cementation