Keywords
Pore water pressure
Hardening soil model
Mohr coulomb model
How to Cite
Abstract
Quite often soil at the site is saturated with water. Any addition of the load onto such soil with low permeability results in generation of excess pore water pressure. Real life problems such as construction of footing, construction of embankment on saturated clayey soil and deep excavation falls under this category. The numerical modelling of such problems must be capable of simulating generation of excess pore water pressure accurately. Mohr Coulomb model is the most widely used constitutive model in the numerical analysis of soil problems. However, being elastic-perfectly plastic, application of this model in simulation of short term undrained simulations needs to be investigated. In the present study, efficacy of the Mohr Coulomb model and Hardening Soil model present in the PLAXIS have been investigated for coupled analysis. It is found that Mohr Coulomb model overestimates the undrained shear strength of the soil significantly and fails to produce the realistic stress path. Hardening soil model captured the realistic pore pressure response whereas the Mohr Coulomb model underestimated the pore pressure and resulted in unrealistic pore pressure evolution. It is recommended that advanced constitutive models such as Hardening Soil model should be employed in short term undrained numerical analysis.
References
Bowels JE. Foundation analysis and design. New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions; 2001.
Lambe TW, Whitman RV. Soil mechanics SI version. New Delhi: Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.; 2008.
Hansen JB, Gibson RE. Undrained shear strengths of anisotropically consolidated clay. Geotechnique. 1949; 1: 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1949.1.3.189
D’Ignazio M, Phoon KK, Tan SA, Länsivaara TT. Correlations for undrained shear strength of Finnish soft clays. Can Geotech J. 2016; 53: 1628-45. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0037
Ladd CC. Stability evaluation during staged construction. J Geotech Eng. 1991; 117: 540-615. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:4(540)
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1996.
Augarde CE, Lee SJ, Loukidis D. Numerical modelling of large deformation problems in geotechnical engineering: a state-of-the-art review. Soils Found. 2021; 61: 1718-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2021.08.007
Barbosa RE, Ghaboussi J. Discrete finite element method for multiple deformable bodies. Finite Elem Anal Des. 1990; 7: 145-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-874X(90)90006-Z
Zhang W, Cassidy MJ, Tian Y. Practical large-deformation finite-element method for 3D geotechnical problems involving free surface deformations. Int J Geomech. 2020; 20: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0001648
Borja RI, Tamagnini C, Alarcón E. Elastoplastic consolidation at finite strain part 2: finite element implementation and numerical examples. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 1998; 159: 103-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(98)80105-9
Carter JP, Booker JR, Small JC. Finite elasto‐plastic consolidation. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 1979; 3: 107-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610030202
Lade PV. Overview of constitutive models for soils. In: Soil constitutive models: evaluation, selection, and calibration. Geo-Frontiers Congress 2005. Reston: ASCE; 2005. p. 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1061/40786(165)1
Mohd Najmu Saquib WK, Showkat R. Soil constitutive models and their application in geotechnical engineering: a review. Int J Eng Res Technol. 2018; 7: 137-45. Available from: www.ijert.org
Prevost JH, Popescu R, Obispo SL. Constitutive relations for soil materials. Electron J Geotech Eng. 1996.
Hejazi Y, Dias D, Kastner R. Impact of constitutive models on the numerical analysis of underground constructions. Acta Geotech. 2008; 3: 251-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-008-0056-1
Onyelowe KC, Ebid AM, Ramani Sujatha E, Fazel-Mojtahedi F, Golaghaei-Darzi A, Kontoni DPN, et al. Extensive overview of soil constitutive relations and applications for geotechnical engineering problems. Heliyon. 2023; 9: e14465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14465
Griffiths DV. Failure criteria interpretation based on Mohr-Coulomb friction. J Geotech Eng. 1990; 116: 986-99. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:1(189)
Ti KS, Huat BB, Noorzaei J, Jaafar S, Sew GC. A review of basic soil constitutive models for geotechnical application. Electron J Geotech Eng. 2009; 14: 1-18. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228565882
Robert DJ. A modified Mohr-Coulomb model to simulate the behavior of pipelines in unsaturated soils. Comput Geotech. 2017; 91: 146-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.07.004
Kahlström M. Plaxis 2D comparison of Mohr-Coulomb and soft soil material models. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology; 2013. Available from: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-49929
Lee J, Jin H, An J, Baek Y, Yoon H. A study on the suitability of the Mohr-Coulomb model for numerical analysis of ground excavation. J Eng Geol. 2020; 30: 1-15.
Teshager DK, Chwała M, Puła W. Probabilistic analysis of foundation settlement considering spatial variability in soil parameters: a comparison of hardening soil model and Mohr-Coulomb. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards. 2025; 2025: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2025.2515586
Shi J, Yu Z, Jiang W, Zhan Z, Xia P. Sensitivity analysis and parameter selection of the modified Mohr–Coulomb model in foundation pit excavation in granite residual soil areas. Discov Appl Sci. 2024; 6: 653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-024-06392-1
Yin Z, Hicher P, Jin Y. Elastoplastic modeling of soils: from Mohr-Coulomb to SIMSAND. In: Practical constitutive modelling of saturated soils. Singapore: Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6307-2_5
Puzrin AM. Constitutive modelling in geomechanics: introduction. Berlin: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27395-7
Atkinson JH. Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design. Geotechnique. 2000; 50: 487-508. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.5.487
Mašín D. Modelling of soil behaviour with hypoplasticity. Cham: Springer; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03976-9
Puzrin AM, Bažant ZP, Bischof P. Non-linear model of small-strain behaviour of soils. Geotechnique. 1998; 48: 217-33. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.2.217
Prashant A, Bhattacharya D, Gundlapalli S. Stress-state dependency of small-strain shear modulus in silty sand and sandy silt of Ganga. Geotechnique. 2019; 69: 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.P.100
Clayton CRI. Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Geotechnique. 2011; 61: 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2011.61.1.5
Cha M, Santamarina JC, Kim HS, Cho GC. Small-strain stiffness, shear-wave velocity, and soil compressibility. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2014; 140(10): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001157
Salgado R, Bandini P, Karim A. Shear strength and stiffness of silty sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2000; 126: 451-62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5(451)
Mooney MA, Rinehart RV. In situ soil response to vibratory loading and its relationship to roller-measured soil stiffness. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2009; 135: 1022-31. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000046
Gu X, Yang J, Huang M. DEM simulations of the small strain stiffness of granular soils: effect of stress ratio. Granul Matter. 2013; 15: 287-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-013-0407-y
Surarak C, Likitlersuang S, Wanatowski D, Balasubramaniam A, Oh E, Guan H. Stiffness and strength parameters for hardening soil model of soft and stiff Bangkok clays. Soils Found. 2012; 52: 682-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.07.009
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Dhanaji S. Chavan