Small and Large-strain

1D/2D/3D Consolidation
Murray Fredlund, PhD, PEng
SoilVision Systems Ltd.
Nov. 4rth, 2009
Tailings and Mine Waste Conference
Banff, Canada

Overview

Introduction
Benchmarking / Verification
Why 2D and 3D analysis?
Layered tailings pit analysis
Conclusions

History
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
EDUCATION IN 1949
Scope of field limited mainly to:
Soil Classification
Capillarity and seepage
Stress analysis by elasticity
Consolidation and settlement analysis
Shear strength
Slope stability
Lateral pressures
Bearing capacity
Shallow and deep foundations

Emphasis largely on saturated clays and sands

History
Tower of Pisa
Consolidation problems
have been with us for a
while

Terzaghi Consolidation
Terzaghi proposed 1D small-strain
formulation a long time ago (1923, 1936)
Problem is central to geotechnical
engineering practice
Why has progress been so slow?
Coupling mechanism is inherently
mathematically very unstable

Core Problem
Need to solve
Stress / deformation (Large-strain)
Fluid flow (continuity)
1. Apply load

5. Load transferred to
effective stress
4. PWP dissipates

2. Deformations

3. PWP increase

Coupling
If true coupling is not properly handled
between the fluid and
stress/deformation equations then the
results vary
Uncoupled solutions do not produce the
same result as coupled solutions
The difference between coupled and
uncoupled in consolidation analysis is
significant

Terzaghi Consolidation
Formulation research has been slow at best
and is mathematically complex
SoilVision research has been in the area of
1D, 2D, 3D small and large strain
Researcher

Type

Saturation

Terzaghi

Small-strain

Saturated

Biot; Mendel

Small-strain

Saturated

Fredlund & Dakshanamurthy

Small-strain

Unsaturated

Gibson; Schiffman; Townsend

Large-strain

1D

2D

3D

Formulations/Benchmarks
Significant work on small-strain coupled formulations
has been previously published by Biot (saturated),
Mendel (saturated), Fredlund (unsaturated) and
many others
Work on large-strain coupled consolidation has been
published by Schiffman, Gibson, Townsend, and
others
Townsend published a series of 4 1D benchmarks
and compared about 8 academic codes for each
benchmark
The Townsend benchmarks have been examined by
SVS for the purposes of code comparison

Comparisons

Uncoupled solutions will not include lateral

effects of deformation
Mendel-Cryer effect

Comparisons

Mandel-Cryer effect can be duplicated

Varies based on Poissons Ratio
No r m a l ize d -Wa
Po r et e r Pr e s s u r e

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Normalized Time
PR=0.49

PR=0.35

PR=0.05

1.0

Formulations
Formulations needed:
1D, 2D, 2D Axisymmetric, 3D
Elastic, Nonlinear elastic
Ksat, k as a function
Formulations are completed and working well
Elastic

Fixed
mesh

Non-linear elastic

Moving
Fixed
Moving
mesh mesh HM mesh HM

Fixed
mesh

Moving
Fixed
Moving
mesh mesh HM mesh HM

1D

2D

2D Axisymmetric

3D

* HM - hydrological and mechanical coupling

Formulations/Benchmarks
Moving mesh / Lagrangian analysis
Difficult to find literature
Complex to benchmark results

No mesh updating
Deformation=0.5

Formulations - Uncoupled
Lagrangian
Pure Lagrangian
deformation = 0.40
Lagrangian-Eularian
deformation = 0.33
Non-lagrangian
deformation =0.5
Non-lagrangian OVER
ESTIMATES
deformations

Formulations/Benchmarks
Townsend scenario A: Time=1 year
Benchmark is reasonable

Formulations/Benchmarks
Townsend Scenario A: Time=1 year

Formulations/Benchmarks
Townsend Scenario A
Poissons ratio (0.3)
Ambiguity in boundary conditions

Solution - Runtimes
Expected run-times for numerical models are
important
The risk is that run-times will become too long
to complete projects in a reasonable time
Extended support for multi-processors has
been added
This has implications on speed
Non-linear compression example (uncoupled - moving mesh)
v6.01
Runtime
(minutes) P4- Runtime (minutes) Runtime (minutes)
Quad 2.4GHz - P4-Quad 2.4GHz - 2 P4-Quad 2.4GHz - 4 Time
Dimension
Nodes
1 Core(s)
Core(s)
Core(s)
(minutes)/node
1D
201
0.62
1.09
1.22
0.0031
2D
1335
4.72
4.43
3.72
0.0028
2D Axisymmetric
1758
8.45
8.52
8.45
0.0048
3D
274
8.87
7.47
4.62
0.0168

Example Application Pit

Sequenced tailings may be placed in
the pit as successive layers

Pit Filling
An example model in 2D

Differences
Non-lagrangian solutions will OVERESTIMATE DEFORMATIONS
Easily demonstrated by SVS research

Non-coupled solutions will most likely

UNDER-ESTIMATE PORE-WATER
PRESSURES
If coupling is not properly performed it can
also lead to errors in solutions

Benefits
Benefits to the approach include:
Formulation is theoretically correct and
defensible for reviewers
Truly coupled solution can demonstrate the
Mendel-Cryer effect
2D and 3D solutions are stable and
demonstrate reasonable run-times
Layered solutions work well
Reasonable for application to tailings projects

Thank you!