1

Lecture 3
Drained and Undrained Analysis
and
Consolidation Considerations
Harry Tan Siew Ann
Centre for Soft Ground Engineering
National University of Singapore
Some of the used material was originally created by:
Prof. Helmut Schweiger, Technical University of Graz, Austria
Contents
Definition drained / undrained
Drained / undrained soil behaviour
Typical results from drained and undrained triaxial tests
Skemptons parameters A and B
Modelling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
In terms of effective stresses with drained strength parameters
In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength parameters
In terms of total stresses
Influence of constitutive model and parameters
Influence of dilatancy
Undrained behaviour with Mohr-Coulomb Model
Undrained behaviour with Hardening Soil Model
Excavation Example
Summary
2
Drained / undrained
Drained analysis appropriate when
Permeability is high
Rate of loading is low
Short term behaviour is not of interest for problem
considered
Undrained analysis appropriate when
Permeability is low and rate of loading is high
Short term behaviour has to be assessed
Drained / undrained
Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:
T <0.10 (U <10%) use undrained conditions
T >0.40 (U >70%) use drained conditions
t
D
E k
T
2
w
oed
=
k = Permeability
E
oed
= Oedometer modulus

w
= Unit weight of water
D = Drainage length
t = Construction time
T = Dimensionless time factor
U = Degree of consolidation
3
Undrainedbehaviour
Implications of undrained soil behaviour:
Excess pore pressures are generated
No volume change
In fact small volumetric strains develop because a
finite (but high) bulk modulus of water is introduced
in the finite element formulation
Predicted undrained shear strength depends on soil
model used
Assumption of dilatancy angle has serious effects on
results
Undrainedbehaviour
Results from undrained triaxial tests using the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil Model
4
Triaxial test (NC) drained / undrained
Typical results fromdrained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on normally consolidated soils
(fromAtkinson & Bransby, 1978)
Triaxial test (OC) drained / undrained
Typical results fromdrained (left) and undrained (right) triaxial tests on overconsolidated soils
5
Undrainedtriaxial test NC / OC
Typical results fromundrained triaxial tests on (a) normally consolidated and (b) overconsolidated clay
(fromOrtigao, 1995)
water pore , vol skeleton , vol
=
' K
' p
skeleton , vol

=
( ) 2 1 3
E
' K

=
Skempton 1954: ( ) [ ]
3 1 3
w A B p + =
- Fully saturated soil
- No inflow / outflow of pore water
- Bulk modulus of soil grains is considered to be very high
- Isotropic linear elastic material behaviour (Hookes law)
w
w
water pore , vol
K
p n
=
Skemptonsparameters A and B
6
3 2 1
; =
n
K
' K 3
p 3 2
p
w
w
3 1
w

+
=
( )

+
+
=
3 1 3
w
w
3
1
K
' nK
1
1
p
Assuming triaxial compression:
( ) [ ]
3 1 3
w A B p + =
w
K
' nK
1
1
B
+
=
3
1
A =
leading to
with
Skemptonsparameters A and B
Skemptonsparameters A and B
Notes on parameters A and B:
For K
w
large compared to K, parameter B ~1.0
(corresponds to p
w
=p >p=0)
Small amount of drapped air reduces parameter B
significantly (see next figure)
Parameter A depends on stress path, even for elastic
material behaviour
Parameter A cannot be determined a priori for complex
elastic-plastic constitutive models but is a result of the
model behaviour for the stress path followed
7
Skemptonsparameters A and B
Dependence of pore pressure parameter B on degree of saturation
Undrainedbehaviour with PLAXIS
( )
( )
( )
u
u
u
u w
total
2 1 3
1 G 2
2 1 3
E
n
K
' K K

+
=

= + =
PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained material
type is chosen using the following approximation:
( )
( )( ) ' 1 2 1 3
1 ' E
K
u
u
total
+
+
= assuming
u
=0.495
Notes:
This procedure gives reasonable B-values only for <0.35 !
Real value of K
w
/n ~1.10
6
kPa (for n =0.5)
In Version 8 B-value can be entered explicitely for undrained materials
8
Undrainedbehaviour with PLAXIS
Example 1:
E=3 000 kPa, =0.3,
u
=0.495
K=2 500 kPa, K
total
=115 000 kPa K
w
/n =112 500 kPa
w
K
nK
B
'
1
1
+
= with = 0.978 > reasonable value for saturated soil
Example 2:
E=3 000 kPa, =0.45,
u
=0.495
K=10 000 kPa, K
total
=103 103 kPa K
w
/n =93 103 kPa
B = 0.903 > poor value for saturated soil
Undrainedbehaviour with PLAXIS
Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters c, ,
effective stiffness parameters E
50
,
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
undrained strength parameters c =c
u
, =0, =0
effective stiffness parameters E
50
,
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):
type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c =c
u
, =0, =0
undrained stiffness parameters E
u
,
u
=0.495
9
Undrainedbehaviour with PLAXIS
Notes on different methods:
Method A:
Recommended
Soil behaviour is always governed by effective stresses
Increase of shear strength during consolidation included
Essential for exploiting features of advanced models such as the
Hardening Soil model, the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
Method B:
Only when no information on effective strength parameters is avilable
Cannot be used with the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep model
Method C:
NOT recommended
No information on excess pore pressure distribution (total stress analysis)
Undrainedstrength from Mohr circle
Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour
(Mohr Coulomb in elastic range)
p
w
=p > p=0
centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point
Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)
( ) ' cos ' c ' sin
2
1
c
o '
y
o '
x u
+ + =
10
Influence of constitutive model
Parameter sets for Hardeni ng Soi l model
Model Number E
50
ref
E
ur
ref
E
oed
ref
c
ur
p
ref
m K
0
nc
R
f

kN/m
2
kN/m
2
kN/m
2
kN/m
2
- kN/m
2
- - -
HS_1 30 000 90 000 30 000 35 0 / 10 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_2 50 000 150 000 50 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_3 15 000 45 000 15 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_4 30 000 90 000 40 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_5 30 000 90 000 15 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9
HS_6 50 000 150 000 30 000 35 0 0.0 0.2 100 0.75 0.426 0.9

Parameters for MC Model
E =30 000 kN/m
2

=0.2
=35
=0 and 10
see also Schweiger (2002)
Comparison MC-HS (influence )

1
[%]
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
q

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs
1
11
Comparison MC-HS (influence )
p' [kN/m
2
]
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00
q

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
total stress path
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - q vs p
Comparison MC-HS (influence )

1
[%]
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
e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - p
w
vs
1
12
Comparison MC-HS (influence )

1
[%]
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
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

A
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
MC non dil
MC dil
HS_1 non dil
HS_1 dil
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test MC / HS model - A vs
1
Parameter variation Hardening Soil
p' [kN/m
2
]
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00
q

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
total stress path
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs p
13
Parameter variation Hardening Soil

1
[%]
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
q

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - q vs
1
Parameter variation Hardening Soil

1
[%]
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
k
N
/
m
2
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - p
w
vs
1
14
Parameter variation Hardening Soil

1
[%]
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

A
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
HS_1
HS_2
HS_3
HS_4
HS_5
HS_6
Simulation of undrained triaxial compression test HS model - A vs
1
Summary
Undrained analysis should be performed in effective
stresses and with effective stiffness and strength parameters
Undrained shear strength is result of the constitutive model
Care must be taken with choice of value for dilatancy angle
Note that for NC-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)
15
Real Excavation Case in Stiff Residual
Soils-What is likely Field Conditions?
H =15 m
Cv=66 m
2
/day
Cv=125 m
2
/day
Cv=53 m
2
/day
2
*
H
t c
T
v
=
What is West Coast Station Situation ???
Consolidation Considerations in Excavation
Parameters for West Coast Station
Cv=50 m2/day
H=15 m
t =100 days
T=50*100/(15*15) =22.2 >>>0.4
Situation on Passive Side is likely to be DRAINED
Condition
16
Excess PP at Formation Level for k=1e-7 and 1e-8 m/s
Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s
Displacements at Formation Level
17
Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s
BMs at Formation Level
Wall Deflection at B (15/83.85 1.65m above FL)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time[day]
Ux at B [m]
Ux at B
DRN
UND
k=1e-7
k=1e-8
k=1e-9
18
Heave at C(0/78.7 3.5m below FL)
0 30 60 90 120
-5e-3
0
5e-3
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Time[day]
Heave at C [m]
Uy at C
DRN
UND
k=1e-7
k=1e-8
k=1e-9
Sengkang Cantilever CBP Wall
Type 3 Wall - 1000mm CBP
90
95
100
105
110
115
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Wall Def lect ion (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

R
L


(
m
)
Undrained
Drained
Consolidate 100 days
I4-4/02/03 I4-8/04/03
19
References
Atkinson, J.H., Bransby, P.L. (1978)
The Mechanics of Soils, An Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw Hill
Ortigao, J .A.R. (1995)
Soil Mechanics in the Light of Critical State Theories An Introduction. Balkema
Schweiger, H.F. (2002)
Some remarks on pore pressure parameters A and B in undrainedanalyses with the Hardening Soil
Model. Plaxis Bulletin No.12
Skempton, A.W. (1954)
The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B. Geotechnique, 4, 143-147
Vermeer, P.A., Meier, C.-P. (1998)
Proceedings Int. Conf. on Soil-Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering, Darmstadt, 177-191